Category talk:Lolicon

Missingloli example

I was looking around and found some interesting things. For example: Wikipedia:File_talk:Lolicon_example.jpg you can see the talk for an image was deleted in Sept07! You can also see where it used to be at Wikipedia:File:Lolicon_example.jpg that there is a page linking to it, that being Wikipedia:Talk:Lolicon/Archive_6#I_might_have_found_an_artist specifically from April 2006. Furthermore, the image is talked about as late as 2008.

My memory is slightly refreshed because I remember this conversation back when I could edit, I do believe it was a photograph of a girl in a swimsuit with a popsicle? I think Kasuga's contribution is totally great and all but I don't see why we couldn't have both. I don't agree with statements such as 'no lolicon would find that attractive', we should not propose to be mind readers. That would be cognitively distorted. I sort of had to lol at Zscout's comment of "those wishing to ask Kasuga for a drawing, he won't do it" though =) Wikipe-tan-kun ftw.

This very change is noted in the same archive. I just don't see why it was necessary to delete it though, was it also deleted from the Wikimedia archives? Ty (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lolicon example.jpg has not been deleted because it shows e.g. inappropriate content but rather because there was no clear evidence that the author agreed that the image was released under a free licence. Maybe the author agreed to it, but just a small note on the image's description page which says "the author is fine with the upload under <licence>" is not enough. An OTRS ticket is usually needed to have the proof that the author is fine with the upload to Wikimedia Commons. Because of the unproven licence status it got tagged as file with missing permissing and got deleted on 2009-05-23. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ah I see, that makes sense. Verifying authorship is certainly pretty tricky, like in the very least you'd have to link to a place where they can prove they possessed the image prior to it being uploaded (like on a DeviantArt or something) and even then, you always wonder if someone might present proof at a later date that they created it prior. That new google image matching technology could be a huge asset in things like this, though not an absolute solution as we can't check offline data. Ty (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong supercategories

This category belongs to the category Pedophilia in Japan as in Wikipedia: en:Category:Lolicon. Why this category does not belong to the categories "Erotic art of Japan" and "Erotic images of children": scientifically, these images are not erotic to the vast majority of healthy people. Perhaps they are meant to be erotic by the creator. There is currently no category "erotically meant drawings from Japan". --Tepofut (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tepofut: 1) The page can have multiple categories. Unlike Pedophilia in Japan that was created on the day this comment was posted, eg. Erotic art of Japan existed for about 11 years. Pedophilia in Japan is also not really filled with any content other than this category. 2) Commons is not censored and is (usually) not sorted by what is considered erotic by "healthy people". All categories are somewhat generalised topics that are themselves collected in categories that again generalise their topic. 3) Commons is for collecting free media files and not to state any kind of personal opinion. Furthermore general categorisation is a bad way to state any kind of personal view. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)