alias symbol_commentary -> symbol-only_commentary

BUR #6382 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias symbol_commentary -> symbol-only_commentary

symbol_commentary is supposed to be used when a commentary consists solely of symbols. Right now, it's heavily used in cases when any symbol is present. Theoretically this means symbol_commentary should always be tagged with commentary, and never with commentary_request. The hope is that naming it something like "symbol-only_commentary" would lead to fewer mistags.

Previously renamed from emoji_commentary in topic #18187.

I'd also like to post the question of whether things like URLs and hashtags should disqualify a post from being tagged symbol_commentary.

Talulah said:

I'd also like to post the question of whether things like URLs and hashtags should disqualify a post from being tagged symbol_commentary.

They don't act as commentary most of the time, so i don't think they should count against.

Talulah said:

symbol_commentary is supposed to be used when a commentary consists solely of symbols. Right now, it's heavily used in cases when any symbol is present.

That's just taggers being stupid. Those people should be hit on the head.

Username_Hidden said:

They don't act as commentary most of the time, so i don't think they should count against.

I agree with this, and that's why I'm not going to support this alias.

To be honest, I've always followed the guidelines that apply to "English commentary".

That is, "If there there is any English commentary, tag it with english_commentary, whether or not the commentary is entirely in English."

Therefore, my mindset has been: "If any emoji appears in the commentary, tag it with symbol commentary."

That's an overliteral interpretation of the tag. This tag is for commentaries that contain emojis only, no written text other than hashtags or URLs. The point is that the commentary doesn't contain any meaningful text to translate or read.

evazion said:

That's just taggers being stupid. Those people should be hit on the head.

Maybe the problem is not in the users themselves, but in the description of the tag?

Initially, since 2018, the tag had no description and was used when there were symbols in the comments.
First post #3118910, second post #3120089 symbol & link. Not everyone can understand that the link to the source in the format of a note is not part of the comment. It is better to include this in the description of the tag (symbol_commentary. Those, indicate that the source commentary should consist only of symbol.

Then, since 2020 the tag commentary the description is supplemented by the text that has survived to this day:

Commentary featuring symbols is symbol commentary. Alongside language-based commentary, use of the commentary tag will depend on rendering to English. However, commentary entirely of symbols or emoji should receive the commentary tag as well.

It was this description that broke the tag's true meaning, eliminating the need to navigate to the tag description page.
Can transfer "Symbol Commentary" to the item "See also", and transfer its varieties and similar tags from the description of the main tag to the description of the designated tag?

Based on the above.
Changed the description of the tag. This should make the tag easier to understand.
Since this is one of the types of commentary, in the description of the main tag, I transferred it to other types.

The moderator or owner will probably have to execute a script that will remove the symbol_commentary tag if there are other language tags present. This will not eliminate the inconsistency entirely, but should make it easier to clean up the tag later on.

Symbol commentary should receive the commentary tag as well.

With this, I have rephrased the original phrase from the description of the base tag (commentary).

However, commentary entirely of symbols or emoji should receive the commentary tag as well.

If I wrote it correctly, should I remove this phrase and create an implication query? imply symbol_commentary -> commentary

I think most of that information is redundant. "A commentary made entirely of symbols" is clear enough, and anyone who doesn't understand such a basic sentence is not likely to understand a longer explanation.

nonamethanks said:

I think most of that information is redundant. "A commentary made entirely of symbols" is clear enough, and anyone who doesn't understand such a basic sentence is not likely to understand a longer explanation.

Ok. So be it.
___
I goto: topic #15861 about implication.

The bulk update request #6382 (forum #192217) has been approved by @evazion.