The tag implication #51897 looking_left_looking_right -> looking_away has been rejected.

Reason: looking_left and looking_right are currently aliased to looking_away, which is creating some confusion since another tag (looking_aside) has a vague description that appears to accomplish the same thing (Quote: "Used for posts depicting a character looking to the left or right."). This is leading to situations where posts are being haphazardly tagged with looking_away, looking_aside or combinations of both, with no apparent pattern.If looking_left and looking_right implicate looking_away it wouldn't be necessary to rely on looking_aside, which would avoid confusion and bring all directional "looking" tags under a proper hierarchy.

Should have made a BUR, ignore this thread.

EDIT: The tag implication looking_left_looking_right -> looking_away (forum #376786) has been rejected by @Sparklepaws.

I think you made a formatting error with your request. looking_left and looking_right should be separate implications under a BUR, rather than phrased here with looking_left_looking_right under a single implication request.

draccius said:
I think you made a formatting error with your request. looking_left and looking_right should be separate implications under a BUR, rather than phrased here with looking_left_looking_right under a single implication request.

Thank you, first time making an implication thread. Sorry for the mistake!

Edit: Might be for the best either way, I realized after creating this thread that a simpler way to solve the problem would be to implicate looking_away when using looking_aside.