[REJECTED] Tag implication: symbol_commentary -> commentary

create implication symbol_commentary -> commentary

Link to implication

EDIT: The tag implication symbol_commentary -> commentary (forum #153695) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

-1 I've used symbol commentary before when either the title or the body was all symbols, but not necessarily both (post #3237214, post#3299756).

Also symbol commentary doesn't really have any guidelines (or a wiki), but shouldn't it be similar to all of the other language commentary tags? I'm not talking about just a few symbols here or there, but perhaps a whole line in the commentary body taken up by symbols.

The tag implication symbol_commentary -> commentary (forum #153695) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.

It is not clear why there can be no implication. The description for the commentary tag indicates that characters can be contained. An unambiguous decision must be made: the tag should always be (implication), or the commentary tag should not be used for true symbol_commentary.

For use on posts where the artist commentary is understandable by the average English speaker. This can be because it was translated by a Danbooru user into English from another language, the original commentary was already in English, or the commentary consists of symbols or something similar.

See also forum #192423 and adjacent messages.

Yeah, if the tag is for only symbols then the implication should go through. The issue is that people will just continue to misuse the tag imo if it keeps that name, thus propagating mistags.