congrats on the merger

I think performing a merge and then re-creating a new tag with the intention of Poor Grammar would be ideal. The tag has been flooded by things that don't fit it and very few things that do fit have been tagged that way. Better to start over with a merge and create a more clear tag like Slurred Speech or something similar. A manual correction of tags by voting is theoretically better but I think people are too used to the current usage of Poor Grammar for those votes to work clearly, thus a blanket correction through this is more effective.

I don't think they're the same, however they ARE been used as the same tag. Poor grammar as far as I'm concerned usually means some character that has poor grammar/speaks in some kind of broken language, both momentarily and full time. Rough translation I think it's mostly being used for MT and AI assisted translations, which makes sense since it's usually roughly translated unless some cleaning/correction process is done. Thing is, if you merge both of these, all poor grammar correctly labeled doujins will be labeled with rough translation, which is not correct. Yes, there ARE doujins that are correctly labeled, both new and old ones and you would be burying them in a pile of MT and AI translated slop. I say don't merge, start a correction of labels using the community tags to remove "poor grammar" where it doesn't apply and add "rough translation" where it does, wanna be more specific ? Divide "rough translation" into "Machine translated" and "AI translated" or something similar.

Poor grammar can be good though, rough translation is just ass

@GodOfHentai pretty sure the tag has never been used like that, otherwise it'd be a lot more common

No merge please. Poor grammar is completely different like the women can no longer say yes instead it becomes yesh etc.

I would've originally used "poor grammar" for something that's understandable and just needs some relatively minor corrections, but "rough translation" works for the full spectrum. For intentional bad grammar, like with country hick type characters, maybe something like "ignorant grammar"?

I would have disagreed with this merger if it wasn’t for depravitas. It does seem that poor grammar was the precursor to rough translation so I say go for it. To those that still disagree I propose one of you to create a new tag that involves characters INTENTIONALLY speaking poorly, not because of a bad translation.

Don't merge, it's different

poor grammar regards intentionally poor character grammar, not translation quality. don't merge

on god. I swear ppl here can be more civilized and more logical than the people on irl porn websites

Nhentai community might be the most polite, logical, lowkey ppl in the net

I think the discussion has reached its logical standpoint, especially if we take @depravitas's research as factual. Thus, the proposed merge makes sense, but at the same time, a new tag for characters explicitly speaking the language after translation with certain quirks is necessary, I myself have encountered many such examples. Although I am normally a proponent of exact language, I think the word "idiolect" might be too uncommon for the average person for it to transmit immediately its meaning, but with the new tag description feature, I think we can afford to use the most succinct and appropriate wording for tags itself and clarify their meaning in the description.

My respect to Depravitas, I applaud you! If your findings are true, I am thoroughly convinced: 'poor grammar' got replaced with 'rough translation'. Your comment has changed my downvote to an upvote in this suggestion. Furthermore, I think we ought to create a new tag like 'joke grammar' or 'weird idiolect' (thank you h2016) for those specific cases. I am aware this is not what you concluded; I respect your own take on this as well, ofcourse.

We got the hentai historian on the case holy, nice write up my dude lol

Part 3/3 Anyway, I digress. The question this forum faces is: should we merge the poor grammar tag into rough translation? I do think that rough translation is the superior tag for the kinds of works it, and "poor grammar", are used in. Moving forward, it may be best practice to label all incoming works with flawed translations as "rough translation", unless one is convinced that the flaw lies in poor grammar, in which case the older tag can also be added. However, I would still argue that we should keep the "poor grammar" tag, if only for historical reasons. The website is old, and throughout its age has introduced many improvements to it. But this does not mean that we cannot appreciate the quaint details that remind us of its past. In a period where official publishers are hellbent on erasing all traces of this website, we should cherish all relics of its history.

Part 2/3 This time interval is long enough to be a plausible sign of an abrupt, intentional abandonment of the old term for the new one. It is possible that the last users of the "poor grammar" tag were using it for exclusively human-translated works at a time when ALL translations were of that nature. In the past, "poor grammar" may have been a shorthand for all kinds of flaws encountered in a translation, not only the explicit meaning of the terms. Meanwhile, "rough translation" may have emerged, at first, when translators/uploaders were dissatisfied with the limited scope that poor grammar denotes, and started using the newer tag to signify translations of poor quality, whether due to grammar or other factors (e.g. machine/AI translations, translations of those with a poor facility in Nihongo, etc.). Or maybe the websites from which NH derives its galleries suddenly phased out the "poor grammar" tag for some reason.

Part 1/3 I think there's a simpler explanation for all this: "poor grammar" is simply the old tag which carries part of the broader meaning that "rough translation" now signifies — that is, the use of poor grammar in an English translation of a work. A cursory look at the history of tagged works from both sides attests to this. The earliest usage of "poor grammar" in extant galleries is in 3301, an almost 12-year old work, while the last work with this tag is #377381 | Natsume-san wa Chorosugiru! | Natsume-s… | 15,586 , which was posted here 4 years and 6 months ago. MOST IMPORTANTLY, all these works are tagged as English (except for #250607 | SPIRAL ZONE DxD II | 1,541 and #351439 | OKKRdeZIPZIP! Vol.1 | 582 , which are Chinese translations of the Japanese originals), weakening prior commenters' claims that it may have been used to tag original works. Meanwhile, the earliest usage of "rough translation" is #384719 | Miiko to Nagai Papa | 9,886 , posted 4 years and 4 months ago.

> My concern or question I guess is what if as an artistic choice the work intentionally has characters speak / use poor grammar? That should not be the case for these tag. We could use more specific term for that case: idiolects => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect > [!NOTE] Wiki > Idiolect is an individual's unique use of language, including speech. This unique usage encompasses a **person's** active vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among a group of people.

Even though it's niche, I've seen it a bunch of times. I think it was a fad 5-10 years ago. Maybe... a better solution would be to rename both tags and put clear instructions into the descriptions? Perhaps 'grammatically humorous' or 'joke grammar'; and "badly translated" or 'translation errors'?

I think there is a very niche scenario where they don't overlap, that being characters intentionally speaking with incorrect grammar, but 99.9% of the time these tags are used interchangeably. Imho these two should still be merged and there should be a new tag called "speech quirk" for those galleries that have characters with intentionally poor grammar.

Yes, I agree with Ranchdog. 'poor grammar' = Teh characturrs may speek loike dis yooooooo amirite lololol!!!!11!!1 'rough translation' = May have been seen according to kore kore kore (someone needs a study 日本語 plentyfully)

I was not referring to genuine mistakes in work with my message. My concern or question I guess is what if as an artistic choice the work intentionally has characters speak / use poor grammar?

I don't think author script could be consider as translation though. Maybe we can make it clear description instead merging? `poor grammar` => grammar mistakes of origin work `rough translation` => translation mistakes (grammar or typo)

in my opinion if the artist just doesn't speak well the language he's writing, it's still technically a translation. If we're talking about characters then "poor grammar" doesn't feel appropriate, like the grammar could be fine but the character has some other type of speaking problem. In which case we might create a tag like "speaking impairment", at the very least it would make more sense than "poor grammar". I guess if @ranchdong prefers we can simply rename the tag to something that makes more sense. Most people anyway seem to not be interested in the "poor grammar" tag

That is an interesting distinction there might be some situations where poor grammar was an intentional choice and removing this removes that home. I'm leaning towards rejecting this due to that case

personally I considered poor grammar to be something intentional. Like maybe a character can't speak a language that well. For example that one about taking a bath with a german girl.

Poor grammar can be a cause of things other than just bad translations. Like the work could be originally in english, but the artist just didn't speak english that well.