[X] My Assistant

From the translators note on:
http://ehentaihip.com/g/679022/3f69971e07/

Some of the dialog in the original are redundant so I changed them a bit

From the wiki

Description: Someone has filled in their own text either in place of the original text or where there was no text.

So my question is, if the general meaning of the translation is the same, but it was expanded upon to avoid redundancies, would this be a rewrite, or simply a liiberal translation? My means of thinking is that per the wiki, this would be like filling in where there is no text, but I can understand the idea of not wanting "rewrite" in there, as this looks "bad". Or is my interpretation off from what the wiki is trying to say?

Compared to the amount of ambiguity you get by translating from an asian language to a western laguage such a small change is probably irrelevant. It's probably smaller than the difference between two translations of a doujin by two distinct translators.

As I understand that definition of rewrite on the wiki means that someone filled the text of the entire story, which is not the case here.

While I would agree with that, since there will be some rewrite regardless just because there isn't always a direct translation, if it is intended to mean for the full story, then it should be explicitly said as such. This would be a logical use, but until it is explicit, I'd say my interpretation is a valid interpretation, even if not the intended one.

It's a unique situation AFAIK; overall I'd still lean towards "translation". I'll push the issue further up to be sure.

It's a unique situation AFAIK; overall I'd still lean towards "translation". I'll push the issue further up to be sure.

Thanks for pushing it up. Unique situations do allow for rule clarifications!

freudia would say it was full on just a translation, /index.php?s=&am...t&p=3081821

Anywho, I never had tagged it one way or the other, just looking to be certain of the meaning from the wiki.

Thanks for pushing it up. Unique situations do allow for rule clarifications!

freudia would say it was full on just a translation, /index.php?s=&am...t&p=3081821

Anywho, I never had tagged it one way or the other, just looking to be certain of the meaning from the wiki.

imo it isnt a rewrite; afterall he never used his own text - he just worded it differently

I'm now fully of the opinion that the gallery in question is not worthy of a rewrite tag, however I do believe the note could still be added to the rewrite definition. The reasons for this are the following bits on the wiki:

In general, do NOT tag something unless it has a fair amount of presence in a gallery. Anything found in only 1-2 images should almost never be tagged.

Do Not

• Use a language tag on an imageset gallery unless a vast majority of it (75%+) contains text in that language.

With these two bits, unless a gallery was at least 25% rewrite and 75% direct translation (or the reverse) it couldn't be both a rewrite and a translation. I still hold that the rewrite definition could be modified to:

Someone has filled in their own text either in place of the original text or where there was no text for a significant portion of the gallery.

The rewrite tag should be used if and only if the translator's just making things up. And by 'making things up' it means 'writing a whole new story'. That modification should be rather obvious to those who know Japanese; otherwise it's just 'another translation'.

And it's extremely rare to see someone filling in text for a gallery without dialogue, and when that happens, they just fill in the whole story, so the modification's probably not needed.

This post has been edited by varst: Feb 26 2014, 06:34

That was my initial understanding of the tag as well, but it was after re-reading the definition that I came to wonder if the tag also could apply. Now again, I was getting this impression from the letter of the definition, not the intended spirit, and I FULLY grant that, yet the definition itself could be interpreted as allowing for any amount of rewrite if not used in conjunction with the other rules about tagging in general. This would be what my main contention would be.

I knew what rewrite was intended for, but the intention is not stated in the definition.

But if 25% of the story is re-written, then it hits the re-write. From the other rules though you could have a 30 page entry, and leave the first 28 pages as direct translations (given differences in style for the structural differences of the languages and cultural issues) and then change the last 2 pages, fully make them up. From the general guidelines page, this wouldn't fit having a rewrite though, but when the ending changes, it completely changes the story. In this case, it would be just a translation, at least per the defined terms. But yet because it isn't 25% re-written, only 7% re-written, per the Presence rule and the requirement for at least 25% in that language tag.

Now if the answer is shut up, we will just leave it as is, that is one thing, but I still hold the rewrite definition should be modified.

This post has been edited by Ashley Borkman: Feb 26 2014, 06:50

The line between rewrite and translation is always blurred.
First you need to consider the usage of words of the translated language.
Then you should consider the flow and pace of the translation.
And then you need to consider if your translation is grammatically correct.

In other to avoid the above confusion, the 'rewrite' tag needs to be applied objectively i.e. if and only if the translator's just making the whole story up. The example you've given can be classified as 'a very bad translation'.
We aren't here to determine the % of content is 'rewritten', cause to a certain extent, translation is already some kind of 'rewriting' the story.

This post has been edited by varst: Feb 26 2014, 06:54

I guess it's a translation..ish?

Tenboro, master of decisiveness.

Tenboro, master of decisiveness.

It's a 2000's dub. Sakura and Madison would be proud.