So there's something that's come to mind. On some other boorus, they make use of a hard_translated tag to differentiate images that have been translated through image editing, as opposed to using the note system provided by such sites. For example, @MidoriTranslates tends to upload images that have been translated through editing.

But, more importantly, one thing that really caught my attention is pool #4931. It's not an actual translation, but rather, a dialogue and story rewrite of the original comic.

If somebody were to, say, upload the unedited scans for the above pool, would this necessitate the removal of the older images, or would both the original Japanese and the English rewrite exist side-by-side?

Danbooru actively discourages uploading hard translations due to issues relating to image quality, typesetting, and checking translations, and it might be a good idea to implement a similar policy on here, whether it's to delete hard translations when possible, or parent them to the original, untranslated images.

a good scan should suffer no loss in quality, so long as the translators know how to edit them properly. i'm okay with a inaccurate translation so long as it's still good, as there's always the source to fall back on. typesetting... well, the rule of typesetting is that 99% of writers can't do it.

personally i find it a chore to move my mouse over every note when reading something. i would be okay with keeping both versions; this is an English site, after all.

We have a hard_translated tag too, it's just under-tagged. When there's a hard-translated version and a note translated version, both are kept. Usually people just mention the other version of the comic in the pool description (example: pool #1152). Here's an example where they do the parent-child thing you described pool #6316, which can't hurt but perhaps doesn't have much point.

We keep the original language and an english translation, if available. If it's a rewriting of the story it's usually inferior unless it's allowed to exist by the original author themselves.

Also, the hard_translation tag sounds useful to me, so I'm not opposed to adding that tag to our repertoire.

i'll point out that since this thread was created, the hard_translated tag has been used a small bit. but there would need to need to be additional curation to legitimise it.

fewrahuxo said:
i'll point out that since this thread was created, the hard_translated tag has been used a small bit. but there would need to need to be additional curation to legitimise it.

I guess the main issue is the first point on the wiki, which states it to mean bad/literal/google translate translation.

So the wiki should be made to reflect tag to only mean hard translations and move the other point under some other more fitting tag.

Mario69 said:
[...]

i've removed the "bad translation" definition. i believe that fits under engrish.

fewrahuxo said:
i've removed the "bad translation" definition. i believe that fits under engrish.

Engrish for hard_translated, translation_check/translation_request for notes.