[X] My Assistant

** Anything related to the grouping or namespacing of tags should be posted in the Tag grouping and namespacing-thread. **

This thread is for any general tag discussions. It's the perfect place to ask questions on how tags operate, or if you need help with anything tag related.
If have an idea for a completely new tag, or just want to suggest changes to an established tag , make a dedicated thread for it.
For netorare related questions or discussions, use the dedicated thread.

Before posting make sure you check out the wiki pages, in particular the tagging page.

This post has been edited by PrincessKaguya: Mar 21 2021, 23:37

How do I do, such that, by looking at the gallery and viewing all images and analysing all fetishes' presence I know if that fetish passes presence or not in order to receive the fetish tag?

There are no intermediate situations; 2 images counts for nothing unless the gallery is 8 images or less (and even then they should be sequential at 7-8).

I not did undrestand why only sequential at last 2 images.
I'm learning to tag OK but presence too hard to undrestand.

Would it be possible to get an auto-complete feature for tagging characters? A lot of names are a mouthful. Maybe it'd only kick in after typing in "c:" or something.

How do I do, such that, by looking at the gallery and viewing all images and analysing all fetishes' presence I know if that fetish passes presence or not in order to receive the fetish tag?

Same way everyone else does. And when in doubt don't tag.

too hard to undrestand.

Then don't tag.

Would it be possible to get an auto-complete feature for tagging characters?

Copy and paste dawg.

Would it be possible to get an auto-complete feature for tagging characters?

Yes, that's called a shortcut. Only namespacers can create them but anyone can tag them once it's done. Here is an example for female:oil (created as foil, like most genderspaced tags) and character:chun-li (likely results from slaved miscs instead, but still feasible).

On a sidenote, possibly repeating myself, might want to clean up some absurd slavings. Some examples.
character:eclair spawned by artist:eclaire (the artist should obviously have its own tag)
male:bdsm spawned by female:domination (female:domination should be in female:femdom instead to avoid female on female issues)
misc:incest spawned by tags that might not even be supposed to fjord galleries, considering at least half of the galleries containing them in the title and being tagged as such because of title and not content aren't incest (or not incest by the wiki standards, at least).

Same way everyone else does. And when in doubt don't tag.

In that case, why do you complain we don't tag when we ask for stuff if we follow that procedure?

Would it be possible to get an auto-complete feature for tagging characters? A lot of names are a mouthful. Maybe it'd only kick in after typing in "c:" or something.

That would be a neat function to have for all tags. Would certainly help people avoid misspelling, I'll ask T.

Separating the various Neptunia characters from their HDD aliases. Let me know if I miss anything.

Trying to bring attention to first person perspective again. I lost count.

Gender: The gender of the readers character determines whether the tag is placed in the male or female namespace.

Readers character? Was this meant to be reader's, or reader, or even reading? We readers don't have "character genders". Not even a set gender, but that's a private issue.

Something like "suggested gender in first person perspective" would reduce confusion and potential abuse and miscing it would only leave misspellings. That's taken care of with a shortcut, if that's still a thing.

EDIT: Shortened the wall of text.

This post has been edited by Luna_Flina: Feb 9 2015, 17:28

Grateful for any suggestions, please write them out in full (the hole line you wish you replace).

What the definition is trying to convey that you as the read is seeing the story through the eyes of a particular character (that's the hole point of the tag), ergo tag placement depends on the gender that the reader is seeing the story "through".

Trying to bring attention to first person perspective again. I lost count.Readers character? Was this meant to be reader's, or reader, or even reading? We readers don't have "character genders". Not even a set gender, but that's a private issue.

Something like "suggested gender in first person perspective" would reduce confusion and potential abuse and miscing it would only leave misspellings. That's taken care of with a shortcut, if that's still a thing.

EDIT: Shortened the wall of text.

Grateful for any suggestions, please write them out in full (the hole line you wish you replace).

What the definition is trying to convey that you as the read is seeing the story through the eyes of a particular character (that's the hole point of the tag), ergo tag placement depends on the gender that the reader is seeing the story "through".

Perhaps it is too simplistic but would 'First person gender' work? This would rely on it being blatant what the gender is though. *edit* I was thinking that if it is clear then you would simply then have Male: First person or Female: First person

This post has been edited by Mrsuperhappy: Feb 10 2015, 06:35

The new definition for FPP is clear. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Luna_Flina: Feb 14 2015, 04:19

It has come to my attention that people have finally figured out that the "poor grammar" tag is poorly defined.

I support this tag in general, but still have a few concerns.

1. What is the boundary between grammar and style? For example, would misuse of "different than" and "different from" be considered poor grammar? What about missing end-of-sentence punctuation, something that is commonly seen in the original Japanese? Or question marks for rhetorical questions, such as "Now, where could she be...?"

2. How severe would a mistake have to be to count? For examples, not capitalizing "earth" in "what on Earth"; misuse of "who" and "whom"; not capitalizing Japanese nouns and/or honorifics used as proper nouns, e.g. "Are you okay, Senpai?"; and very common misspellings, such as "embarassing".

As for point 1 and 2, this has yet to be specified, suggestions and ideas is welcomed. However the spirit of the tag is that it should be used for content where the reader strongly reacts on the overall quality of the translation. Ergo if the reader really have to search and scrape together a couple of words lacking capital lettering and a missing punctuation it's not what this tag is about.

Apparently some people think that certain linguistic errors do not fall under the umbrella of "grammar." Let's consult Wikipedia. The first sentence of the article on grammar: "grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words." This is actually kind of unclear, as "composition" can refer to how something is made and also how multiple things are used together. However, if you bother to read past the first sentence, you see that Wikipedia also includes a definition that's much more simple and succinct: grammar is a set of internalised rules.

Capitalization, punctuation, and spelling fall directly under the category of orthography. And orthography is technically different from grammar. But the question is if they are different in the same way that cats are different from dogs, or in the way that squares are different from rectangles.

So here's two problems: First, why are we splitting orthography so that some orthographic errors count towards the "poor grammar" tag, but some don't? Second, why is orthography not grammar?

Currently, the definition of grammar is being stretched, and I will admit I am one of those guilty of stretching. I am honestly shocked that no one that it was stupid that I listed not capitalizing the first letter of a sentence in an allcaps font as an error. However, the "spirit of the tag," to quote Binglo, is not being violated. Or at least not being violated in such a way that isn't being immediately squelched by the tag misuse thread. The reason trivial errors are being listed isn't for lack of ability to find "real" errors, but because (a) it saves time, having to read fewer pages and (b) it saves sanity, also from having to read fewer pages. Here is one example where the density of small errors was taken advantage of to save time.

So now seems like a good time to improve the definition of "poor grammar," both to address current disagreements and to prevent potential abuse that isn't in the spirit of the tag. I honestly don't care how the tag is defined, since a truly poor translation will be apparent regardless of how far you stretch the definition of "grammar." But we need a good definition.

The first step to getting closer to a good definition for any tag would involve getting rid of the baseline. I take it baselines are meant to give a cue on how to tag something, but any baseline screams for abuse. Especially the ones involving hard figures. What did the OP have in mind when poor grammar was passed? Replying to the previous quotes from Binglo, there will always be negative feedback. You can't prevent haters from hating on the Internet, especially when there's precedence on the hate.

Here is a rare case where poor grammar works as intended. This is not because of the definition, but because of the translator's mindset.
http://ehentaihip.com/g/784439/69acdf11f6/ TSHH. Translator shows willingness to improve. The uploader spent a good while fixing the gallery from the feedback. The comment unnes wrote pretty much sums it up.

Let's get back to the tag. If the tag is intended to improve translations, the translator ultimately needs a QC - and they can find one in the cove. You can't change their mindset if they decide to troll or refuse to fix their galleries - ignoring them works best, and if you can't ignore and decide to be needlessly vocal about it, that will only encourage them to troll further.

Can this tag get a proper definition? My biased answer is no.

Just a random idea: could a gallery be replaced (as in expunge replace) by the same gallery but with (say) "at least 10 grammatical or spelling errors" corrected by another uploader. i.e. someone pissed about a bad translator could just re-edit and re-upload the gallery fixing the errors, instead of ranting about bad translation.

That's a nice idea. It has two drawbacks, though. It involves a system change and it's still abusable - the same way people abuse update limitations with rips. Of course, everything is abusable, so users might still want this over some kind of tag born from collective hate and yay'd by trolls who no longer tag.

This post has been edited by Luna_Flina: Feb 14 2015, 04:31

Let's get back to the tag. If the tag is intended to improve translations, the translator ultimately needs a QC - and they can find one in the cove. You can't change their mindset if they decide to troll or refuse to fix their galleries - ignoring them works best, and if you can't ignore and decide to be needlessly vocal about it, that will only encourage them to troll further.

Just a random idea: could a gallery be replaced (as in expunge replace) by the same gallery but with (say) "at least 10 grammatical or spelling errors" corrected by another uploader. i.e. someone pissed about a bad translator could just re-edit and re-upload the gallery fixing the errors, instead of ranting about bad translation.

This is far from perfect as, most likely, the person fixing the gallery will not understand jap. Still it would be a better and fluent (even if mistranslated) read than some translations out there.

On another topic, today I got astonished by using the tag system for a different purpose. I can read (and speak some) Polish but lack words, and today I needed to know the polish word for "virginity". Just typed l:polish, f:defloration in the search, looked at two doujins and discovered that it is "dziewictwo" (oh god, what a complicated language).

On another topic, today I got astonished by using the tag system for a different purpose. I can read (and speak some) Polish but lack words, and today I needed to know the polish word for "virginity". Just typed l:polish, f:defloration in the search, looked at two doujins and discovered that it is "dziewictwo" (oh god, what a complicated language).

Have you ever watched the Big Red One with Lee Marvin and Mark Hamill? Well, in the scene where they are delivering the baby inside a German Panzer, Lee Marvin's character has to tell the French woman in French to push. Well, when he says it, it comes our as "pussee" which sounds like "pussy". So languages are fun with words. lol

So here's two problems: First, why are we splitting orthography so that some orthographic errors count towards the "poor grammar" tag, but some don't? Second, why is orthography not grammar?

Because orthography is meant to enhance interpretation, not restrain it. One grammatically correct sentence can have multiple meanings, and orthography helps with "guessing" the intended meaning. Orthography can't become grammar, because then it will take out the ambiguous, rhetorical nature of written language.

This is an example of a grammatically correct sentence that omits orthographic rules.
[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffa...Buffalo_buffalo

Bonus: articles on the theory to measure the grammatical compliance of a given sentence.
[en.wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticality

This post has been edited by holy_demon: Feb 13 2015, 22:19

Found a curious situation for the m:guys only tag, the definition states:

Description: All sexual, fetishized, or intimate interactions in the gallery are strictly between males. Requires at least two males interacting.

Therefore m:tentacles invalidates m:guys only because you cannot identify the sex of a tentacle.

BUT

In this gallery at page 142 we have a story where two boys are fucked by several male bunnies (it is because of stories like that that we love hentai, right?). All interaction is between males yet I do not fell well adding m:guys only to the gallery. And i would like a second opinion on this.

This post has been edited by blue penguin: Feb 16 2015, 08:47

The "guys only" tag is pretty much meant for identifiable guy on guy action.

???



A quick google search suggests nobody spells it like it's a combined word.

This post has been edited by Ubersuntzu: Feb 23 2015, 04:47