Like the gender lore tags, so that characters who are canonically girly males can be tagged "male_(lore)" in images where there's nothing to suggest masculinity, should we have tags like "adult_(lore)" and "teenager_(lore)" for when a character's canon age is greater than what they appear? Might help reduce instances of artists who are skeeved out by having their art associated with the "cub" tag, repeatedly changing the tags on their images that LOOK like cubs...

IT'S A 10000 YEAR VAMPIRE WITH THE BODY OF A SIX YEAR OLD THAT MEANS I'M NOT INTO CHILDREN

faucet said:
IT'S A 10000 YEAR VAMPIRE WITH THE BODY OF A SIX YEAR OLD THAT MEANS I'M NOT INTO CHILDREN

Hmmm, yes. That contributed much to the discussion. Thank you for the input. :P

faucet said:
IT'S A 10000 YEAR VAMPIRE WITH THE BODY OF A SIX YEAR OLD THAT MEANS I'M NOT INTO CHILDREN

Might be a poorly worded OP but I'm assuming this is more for when characters look young due to the artstyle itself, not for when a technically-older character looks like a child within the existing standards of the artstyle.
But I'm not sure it would stop those kind of artist complaints considering characters that appear under-18 would still get the young tag anyway.

jacob said:
"teenager_(lore)" for when a character's canon age is greater than what they appear
associated with the "cub" tag

Why teenager? Any under-18-equivalent anthro/feral is still supposed to have cub anyway, it's just barely enforced as long as they've got young.

magnuseffect said:
I'm assuming this is more for when characters look young due to the artstyle itself, not for when a technically-older character looks like a child within the existing standards of the artstyle.

Yeah, that. What he said.

magnuseffect said:
Why teenager? Any under-18-equivalent anthro/feral is still supposed to have cub anyway

Tell that to Millcore...

violet_rose said:
non-apparent_age_(lore), meaning that a character's apparent biological age is misleading.

I actually like this suggestion. Simple. Elegant. Says exactly what it means. And, fits the site's usual standard of using as few tags as possible for the same concept. Plus, it also works in reverse: It could be applied to characters whose canon ages are much younger than the characters appear. Like Cell from DBZ, for example.

jacob said:
It could be applied to characters whose canon ages are much younger than the characters appear. Like Cell from DBZ, for example.

That's getting too mixed-up again. Cell is functionally-adult in an adult-appearing body, the amount of time he has existed for is irrelevant to his equivalent age. He's not a child's psyche within an adult body.

magnuseffect said:
That's getting too mixed-up again. Cell is functionally-adult in an adult-appearing body, the amount of time he has existed for is irrelevant to his equivalent age. He's not a child's psyche within an adult body.

Cell was just an example. There are plenty of characters out there that have adult-looking bodies that, due to chronological age, have the mental and emotional development of a child. And characters that LOOK adult, according to the standards we're used to, but by in-universe lore, actually still have a lot of physical developing left to do.

I have considered this as it would be most useful for images where the age is rather ambiguous, or misleading. You can't always discern age from a headshot portrait. This would allow ages to be more accurately defined for these cases, and for cases such as ferals or custom species where it is difficult to judge age.

It becomes more tricky to judge when the age is clearly apparent, because a character can be drawn at a different age than what the canon states. How would you judge whether one artist was trying to age a character differently than some other artist? I think that perhaps for these cases the lore tags would be less useful.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/23515?page=2#forum_post_292930
My oppinion.

jacob said:

Tell that to Millcore...

I see I'm not the only person who's come up against them on this subject.

thevileone said:
It becomes more tricky to judge when the age is clearly apparent, because a character can be drawn at a different age than what the canon states. How would you judge whether one artist was trying to age a character differently than some other artist? I think that perhaps for these cases the lore tags would be less useful.

That's typically not how lore tags work. At least, not by my understanding, based on how they've been used on pictures I've been involved with. My understanding-and staff, please correct me if I'm wrong-is that lore tags are based on what the character owner, the one whose intellectual property the character is, intended for the character to be. Like, the artist "funkybun." About eighty to ninety percent of the characters that appear in their art, all look like cubs (or at least teenagers) by TWYS standards. They have stated that they have never intentionally drawn a cub character in a sexual drawing, because they're not comfortable being associated with that sort of art. Yet, a slightly-smaller majority of their art, is all lewd stuff, so needless to say, there are plenty pictures of theirs on this site that are pornographic, and-by site tagging standards-underage characters. Seems to me like having a "non-apparent_age_(lore)" tag would let us satisfy both the TWYS rule, and the artist's wishes to make it clear they don't intentionally draw porn involving minors.

Nah, I could still see people getting upset and removing general tags. I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like this happen more often.

jacob said:
please correct me if I'm wrong-is that lore tags are based on what the character owner, the one whose intellectual property the character is, intended for the character to be.

Correction: It's what the artist intended for the character to be in that specific work.

magnuseffect said:
Correction: It's what the artist intended for the character to be in that specific work.

That takes precedence if what the artist intended is different from what the character owner intended, yes. But if the artist was just "drawing the character, in general," then you defer to the character owner's intent over anything else, in terms of lore tags.

jacob said:
That takes precedence if what the artist intended is different from what the character owner intended, yes. But if the artist was just "drawing the character, in general," then you defer to the character owner's intent over anything else, in terms of lore tags.

I believe the only cases where that would even apply are for ambiguous_gender posts and possibly the trans tags? It might be how crossgender and aged_up work but those aren't currently lore tags, which might be for this reason.
I think this is a pitfall of using lore as the term when it's not actually based in following long-standing canon.