What is the tagging policy regarding characters where the artist says a canon underaged character is "aged-up" but made no serious attempt that the character in question has advanced to an age of majority, as in they're the same height and build but the artist claims they are 18+ regardless? Does the artist's claim take precedence or do we still fall back on "Tag what you see?"

It depends a lot on the characters themselves (e.g. a lot of Sonic characters are 'canonically' underaged, but most of them don't look the part). Anyone in particular you had in mind?

If a character looks underage, they should be tagged as such.
The artist's opinion on the subject does not really matter.

strikerman said:
It depends a lot on the characters themselves (e.g. a lot of Sonic characters are 'canonically' underaged, but most of them don't look the part). Anyone in particular you had in mind?

Frisk, specifically. Also, Sonic is a bad example because canonically the only character who is legally an adult is Rouge at 18 years old, (my information is very old on this point so things might have changed.) There's no real point of reference.

bitwolfy said:
If a character looks underage, they should be tagged as such.
The artist's opinion on the subject does not really matter.

Heh, yeah. I remember when FA changed for young art and suddenly people's characters were 18 (I swear!) even when many did not look like it. :D

camkitty said:
Heh, yeah. I remember when FA changed for young art and suddenly people's characters were 18 (I swear!) even when many did not look like it. :D

Or the classic "Yeah, she looks like she's 12, but she's actually a 900 year old dragon".

camkitty said:
Heh, yeah. I remember when FA changed for young art and suddenly people's characters were 18 (I swear!) even when many did not look like it. :D

That causes my eyes to roll every time I see it. If they want to do cub art, they should at least have the dignity to own it. They're not fooling anybody but themselves with that.