Require Translation of Hashtags to tag as 'Commentary'

BUR #39119 is pending approval.

create implication hashtag-only_commentary -> commentary

Yes, I know we just voted on this implication in topic #30029 but I want us explicitly voting on whether or not to remove the following line from the wiki for commentary:

If the only untranslated portions of a commentary are meta, such as hashtags or mentions, then tag it with commentary and not partial commentary or commentary request.

Per this line, it is improper to request the translation of hashtags, and posts that consist only of untranslated hashtags should be considered translated and tagged as such. Per the failure of this same BUR in topic #30029, I move that we delete this line and require full translation of the entire commentary including hashtags in order to tag a post as commentary.

There was plenty of back and forth discussion that ultimately petered out without any action, so I'm explicitly putting the action at the very top this time: if the BUR is rejected, we're deleting this line.

definitelysleeping said:

if the BUR is rejected, we're deleting this line.

No, that's up to discussion, not a random timeout.

why did you create a new topic for this...?

ANON_TOKYO said:

No, that's up to discussion, not a random timeout.

Nobody wanted to continue discussing it, and you're free to offer an alternative and aren't doing so, so clearly the time for discussion is over and we need to pick one or the other.

definitelysleeping said:

Nobody wanted to continue discussing it, and you're free to offer an alternative and aren't doing so, so clearly the time for discussion is over and we need to pick one or the other.

I'm not required to offer an alternative when pointing out what you're doing (posting an "ultimatum") is wrong. You also don't have to tell me how annoying this inconsistency is, because I was one of if not the first who advocated for this implication.

ANON_TOKYO said:

I'm not required to offer an alternative when pointing out what you're doing (posting an "ultimatum") is wrong. You also don't have to tell me how annoying this inconsistency is, because I was one of if not the first who advocated for this implication.

People are already ignoring the guidance. I am constantly translating hashtag-only commentaries that are tagged commentary request in spite of what that quoted line says, and they make up about 4% of the tag despite those efforts. If there's no implication, then the correct thing to do is to translate the hashtags and then tag as commentary. And if that's what we're doing, then that line is wrong and should be removed or rewritten, so that's what needs to be done. Arguing against doing what is needed because everyone would rather sit on their hands and do nothing is stupid.

definitelysleeping said:

People are already ignoring the guidance. I am constantly translating hashtag-only commentaries that are tagged commentary request in spite of what that quoted line says,

Because there's disagreement: https://danbooru.donmai.us/bulk_update_requests?commit=Search&search%5Btags_include_any%5D=hashtag-only_commentary

Yes it's stupid, welcome to Danbooru, and posting weird ultimatums out of nowhere isn't how you encourage a normal discussion.

ANON_TOKYO said:

Because there's disagreement: https://danbooru.donmai.us/bulk_update_requests?commit=Search&search%5Btags_include_any%5D=hashtag-only_commentary

Yes it's stupid, welcome to Danbooru, and posting weird ultimatums out of nowhere isn't how you encourage a normal discussion.

There aren't ANY normal discussions here, and I have read all of the previous threads and the arguments.

The root of the issue is that right now, if you see the following commentary, you can tag it as commentary request so that hopefully someone might come across it and translate it:

ダンジョン飯

Sure, it's just the name of a copyright, not really much in the way of commentary, but it's what I am using for illustration. Now, through the magic of this one fundamentally STUPID line of text in the wiki for commentary, I can add a single '#' and poof:

#ダンジョン飯

Now we have a commentary that you're NOT supposed to translate! What's the difference between the two? And the initial argument was that these hashtags are 'untranslatable'? That's absurd, I'm swiftly approaching 10,000 commentaries and hashtags are the easiest fucking things to translate. And as I pointed out, people want them translated! So all we have to do is actually reject this BUR, rather than let it time out, and then we can go delete that line and have people actually translate the whole commentary instead of just part of it.

If I see a commentary that reads:

炎竜 / レッドドラゴン - ダンジョン飯

I can't just choose to translate it as 'Fire Dragon / Red Dragon - ダンジョン飯' and call it good and slap a commentary tag on it. That's a partial commentary and we all know it. I have to translate the whole text. And whether there's a '#' in front of a word shouldn't matter.

So, since we all know that the BUR isn't getting approved, we can just formally reject it instead, ending this debate, and then fix the glitch by getting rid of a stupid rule that doesn't make any sense and most users are ignoring anyway.

definitelysleeping said:

The point you’re missing is that it’s not your call whether that line gets deleted or not, even if it turns out to be the right thing to do. If you had just reworded “we’re deleting this line” as a suggestion or recommendation instead of a declaration, the two of you wouldn’t be arguing about this right now.

Blank_User said:

The point you’re missing is that it’s not your call whether that line gets deleted or not, even if it turns out to be the right thing to do. If you had just reworded “we’re deleting this line” as a suggestion or recommendation instead of a declaration, the two of you wouldn’t be arguing about this right now.

Which is why I'm not just doing it. I'm having us all vote on whether we should instead create the implication, and making sure everyone has an opportunity to discuss alternatives. Nobody wants to do that, just argue that I don't get to delete it, without a single reason why it shouldn't be deleted. Fine, since it's so important to him, ANON can delete the line. I don't care who actually does it, so long as it gets done.

Literally none of us here can unilaterally set or enforce policy by adding or removing things from wikis, only provide clarifying or missing information. Offloading the responsibility onto someone else doesn't change the root problem that neither you or any other builder can remove the line regardless of the vote's outcome given that this is not a small change that you're asking for - it's fundamentally changing the way commentary tags are applied, and in turn part of the translation process. You don't get to delete it because you can't. Nothing changes from Blank User's reply here.

I also am not a fan of fracturing discussion out into a separate topic - don't really know why you did that. This should've been in the original topic.

WRS said:

Literally none of us here can unilaterally set or enforce policy by adding or removing things from wikis, only provide clarifying or missing information. Offloading the responsibility onto someone else doesn't change the root problem that neither you or any other builder can remove the line regardless of the vote's outcome given that this is not a small change that you're asking for - it's fundamentally changing the way commentary tags are applied, and in turn part of the translation process. You don't get to delete it because you can't. Nothing changes from Blank User's reply here.

I also am not a fan of fracturing discussion out into a separate topic - don't really know why you did that. This should've been in the original topic.

I kept posting to the original topic, nobody wanted to reply, because nobody has anything to say. You have nothing to say, ANON has nothing to say, Blank has nothing to say, NOBODY is contributing to the conversation.

Also, I think I've clarified my position very clearly, I'm waiting to see the following:

The bulk update request #39119 (forum #343632) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

If the BUR times out, I'll just keep reposting it until it is rejected/approved, even if not a single one of you can come up with something to say for or against it.

Nobody has anything to say because everyone has already said what they wanted to say, I'm not going to repeat that just because you decided to open a new topic.

definitelysleeping said:

I kept posting to the original topic, nobody wanted to reply, because nobody has anything to say. You have nothing to say, ANON has nothing to say, Blank has nothing to say, NOBODY is contributing to the conversation.

...

If the BUR times out, I'll just keep reposting it until it is rejected/approved, even if not a single one of you can come up with something to say for or against it.

It's less useful to force people to contribute or expect they say something when, as you identified, no one has anything (further) to say on the topic. It's also less useful, and more harmful to you, to spam the forums up in quick succession about this - do you really think you'll get a different result if you repost the same thing immediately after people have already made their stance clear? It'll just become incredibly annoying at that point and may even invite staff intervention.

Builders can't help themselves from self-destruction, really.

ANON_TOKYO said:

Nobody has anything to say because everyone has already said what they wanted to say, I'm not going to repeat that just because you decided to open a new topic.

Yeah, and you know what everyone has said? I'll summarize for you right here, leaving you out since maybe you don't even know what you want:

Translate all hashtags/remove the line in question: Alixiron, AngryZapdos, BrokenEagle98, heartattack, Shinjidude, sinfulporcupine, Super Affection

Nuance: Cpt Skippy, evazion, tamuraakemi

Nuke the tag!: Unbreakable

Approve the BUR: DefinitelySleeping, WRS

Unbreakable hasn't actually weighed in on the question at hand, so we can ignore him, and I'm fine with translate all/remove line as the alternative, so that leaves literally just you and WRS as people who've weighed in and might potentially object. The three nuanced positions would all require at least *changing* the line in question, and you claimed to support changing/removing the line, which means it's really just WRS who is *potentially* opposed. Yeah, it's a big change, but nobody else is even bothering to weigh in!

WRS said:

It's less useful to force people to contribute or expect they say something when, as you identified, no one has anything (further) to say on the topic. It's also less useful, and more harmful to you, to spam the forums up in quick succession about this - do you really think you'll get a different result if you repost the same thing immediately after people have already made their stance clear? It'll just become incredibly annoying at that point and may even invite staff intervention.

Builders can't help themselves from self-destruction, really.

I didn't repost 'the same thing', and I am REALLY FUCKING TIRED of people claiming that. READ THE GODDAMNED FUCKING TITLE. Yes, it's the same BUR, but I created a new thread so that the TITLE could reflect the conversation that needs to be had so that other users can understand what is actually being discussed and maybe actually click it and join in. After all, hashtag-only commentary is a small ~25k tag, but commentary is a huge fundamental tag that will affect basically everyone. But nobody wants to join the conversation, and you all who did bother to show up from the previous thread just want to disparage me and insist that we never ever change anything and keep things in limbo perpetually.

You said it yourself in forum #343889.

definitelysleeping said:

If the BUR times out, I'll just keep reposting it until it is rejected/approved

You're using a rage-driven interpretation of my post to suggest that that I called this topic a duplicate; I never once did. My first post here said I didn't like that you fractured the discussion into a separate topic when it could've just as easily be done there, and my second post is saying that it would be stupid to continually repost the same BUR or topic if this one times out. You've got to chill out, you're really not helping your case this way.

WRS said:

You said it yourself in forum #343889.

You're using a rage-driven interpretation of my post to suggest that that I called this topic a duplicate; I never once did. My first post here said I didn't like that you fractured the discussion into a separate topic when it could've just as easily be done there, and my second post is saying that it would be stupid to continually repost the same BUR or topic if this one times out. You've got to chill out, you're really not helping your case this way.

I literally just explained why I created a new topic, which I had thought was self-evident from the title itself and the contents of the first post. Maybe you didn't bother to read it, maybe you didn't bother to think that I might have had a good reason for a new thread with a more fitting title, I don't care, you cannot continue claiming ignorance. I could not have 'just as easily' done it there, because nobody's going to have clicked on that thread unless they cared about the niche topic of hashtag-only commentaries.

As for 'helping my case', which side of the argument do you think I'm even on? Did you bother to check how I voted? No. Because Contributors can't help themselves or something.

My point is that this could just as easily have been a discussion on the original topic. Period. It doesn't matter what your intentions were - I don't like having to go back and forth between two topics that are trying to arrive at, or discuss, the same natural conclusion, since ultimately any result of voting or discussion here would impact the tag's usage and therefore also a potential implication. It's really that simple.

If you want to continue engaging me in bad faith, then I see no point in participating any further. I don't want to discuss this with someone who's actively hostile and continues to say things like I'm "ignorant" despite acknowledging and disagreeing with your stance and reason for creating the topic, or threatens to annoy everyone by reposting the same thing to force discussion when people have already made their stances clear, or takes the most extreme literal piss out of my comments.

I won't even bother to comment on that final quip you made. It's just clear bad faith.

definitelysleeping said:

Because Contributors can't help themselves or something.

Mind you, the only difference between Builders and Contributors is the ability to skip the queue. It has no bearing anywhere else. His comment on self-destruction applies to the latter as well; it just so happens that it was directed at someone without that privilege.