The tag alias #64024 looking_aside -> looking_away has been rejected.

Reason: The existence of looking_aside is repetitive and unnecessary. looking_away already handles situations where subjects are looking left or right.

Having both tags separate leads me to believe that looking_away is meant for subjects actively looking at something, while looking_aside is for subjects looking passively at nothing. If this is the case then it makes both tags subjective, since there are cases where it's unclear whether the subject is looking at something or nothing.

Unless looking_aside is meant to be mutually exclusive from looking_away for some reason, I think it makes sense to alias it for clarity.

On the other hand if you think implication makes more sense (I personally don't), downvote this thread and then upvote the following topic: https://e621.net/forum_topics/40402

EDIT: The tag alias looking_aside -> looking_away (forum #376806) has been rejected by @slyroon.

These seem like separate things to me. "Looking aside" meaning a character is looking to the side, they can be looking at something or nothing. "Looking away" meaning a character is looking away from something, they can be looking in any direction as long as it's away.

watsit said:
These seem like separate things to me. "Looking aside" meaning a character is looking to the side, they can be looking at something or nothing. "Looking away" meaning a character is looking away from something, they can be looking in any direction as long as it's away.

That's part of the problem, the existence of both tags has created a situation where both of us have subjective interpretations and either could be correct. I'm interesting in your thoughts though, so here's my opinion:

looking_away specifically states that the subject can be looking at something (they don't have to be), provided they aren't looking in the direction their body is facing. This includes looking to the side (such as left or right), or in this case "aside".

In comparison, looking_aside is highly specific and only refers to looking left or looking right. It also doesn't clarify whether subjects can be looking at something or not. looking_left and looking_right are older tags that have already been aliased to looking_away, which seems to imply that looking_away was meant to take over their roles. In my opinion that means looking_aside is repetitive.

Edit

Here's an example of a situation where the tag usage gets muddy. Imagine you have an image of a subject who is looking to the left and upward. There are several ways you could tag it:

1. Currently

• looking_away
• looking_aside
• looking_up

OR

• looking_aside
• looking_up

OR

• looking_away
• looking_up

2. Aliased

• looking_away
• looking_up

In the first example, we are technically allowed to use both looking_away and looking_aside however we please, since the subject is both looking left (aside, away) and left-up (away). The description's vague nature also leaves much to interpretation, which weakens both tags and risks splitting images that are exactly the same into separate categories (imagine searching for looking_aside looking_up, only to discover that you should have been using looking_away looking_up).

In the second example, looking_away implies they are looking left or right, then looking_up extends the meaning to "looking left and up" or "looking right and up". This happens without looking_aside.

I was always under the impression that looking_away meant that the head was turned to the side, while looking_aside meant that the eyes were turned to the side.
Each with little regard for the other.

No.

All example thumbs from posts I've tagged except one.

post #3785489 post #1194915 post #3131722 post #4027879 post #4027870 post #4008789

Looking aside: head facing one way, eyes (iris, pupils) to the left or right (aside). Head is usually facing forward. This is very easy.

"Aside" here implies (looking) forward is the opposing state. Looking up/down are not comparable here.

Worth mentioning that this wiki edit mistakenly swapped a correct example thumb for an incorrect one. 👏👏👏

post #4277090 post #4275881 post #4028072 post #4001680 post #3875275

Looking away: generally, the head is turned away from the torso's direction. Usually, the "body language" of the head is different than the rest of the body, implying the character's focus is drawn away by something else than the rest of their body is oriented for. It's like having split attention where the body hasn't caught up. Maybe the character is just looking at the new thing for now and hasn't committed to fully facing it yet or will decide not to face that thing. This concept requires interpreting the character's body language and focus, and the art may not illustrate what has drawn the character's focus.

The "split attention" idea works most of the time as a general rule, but sometimes strange situations arise that still fit the basic idea.

post #3829960

A dueling stance that requires the head to look away from what the body is facing... Perhaps this is "facing away" and not looking away. A person can also look away from something uncomfortable, as opposed to closing their eyes, almost as though they are trying to divert their focus. And a character not looking at what they are doing can also be called "looking away." The problem is that "looking away" is a common English phrase with various recognized acceptable uses that may not be entirely consistent with each other.

post #4280074 post #3841309

A common porn situation is looking_back + presenting_hindquarters or from_behind_position. This is not "looking away" because that character's head and body are focused on the same thing. I know this contradicts the duelist example somewhat. Both statements should be true. I just don't currently have the words to wedge them apart.

"Away" here implies a "toward" direction also exists, and that both away and toward directions must be discernible from a character's posing to correctly apply the looking away tag.

Now... do people tag like this? I don't really care. This is what these words mean. Again, looking aside is pretty easy to figure out, but looking away is a test of reasoning and English skill, which goes beyond what basically all taggers invest into their tagging.

Bonus! Because the responses you received in Discord missed the bigger picture...

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/530154835648053258/1152146086832648192/95298f525469d2b06790c08ac1bc020379f71e09cdc33040575d46627a1cb3aa.jpg

That is not "looking up." That is looking at eye level, something I don't think we tag.

Looking up/looking down examine where the character is in their world, the absolute direction their eyes are pointed, and the orientation of the viewpoint. In other words, a character looking up is looking skyward, and a character looking down is looking earthward. It's that simple, but you must also determine what direction sky and earth are for that character. This corrects a lot of logical issues that tagging by iris location would have.

post #4251528

upside_down + front_view + eyes toward the ground

If the art you asked about was looking_up, then this would have to be looking_up too... except that is obviously, logically wrong.

post #454543

on_back + direct high-angle_view + eyes toward the "sky"

If the art you asked about was looking_up, then this would not be looking_up... even though the viewer is directly above the character who is looking forward, at the viewer. Also, narrowed eyes would just be difficult to ever tag looking up because the necessary portion of the sclera would be covered.

abadbird said:
No.

All example thumbs from posts I've tagged except one.

post #3785489 post #1194915 post #3131722 post #4027879 post #4027870 post #4008789

Looking aside: head facing one way, eyes (iris, pupils) to the left or right (aside). Head is usually facing forward. This is very easy.

"Aside" here implies (looking) forward is the opposing state. Looking up/down are not comparable here.

Worth mentioning that this wiki edit mistakenly swapped a correct example thumb for an incorrect one. 👏👏👏

Now... do people tag like this? I don't really care. This is what these words mean. Again, looking aside is pretty easy to figure out, but looking away is a test of reasoning and English skill, which goes beyond what basically all taggers invest into their tagging.

Bonus! Because the responses you received in Discord missed the bigger picture...

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/530154835648053258/1152146086832648192/95298f525469d2b06790c08ac1bc020379f71e09cdc33040575d46627a1cb3aa.jpg

That is not "looking up." That is looking at eye level, something I don't think we tag.

Looking up/looking down examine where the character is in their world, the absolute direction their eyes are pointed, and the orientation of the viewpoint. In other words, a character looking up is looking skyward, and a character looking down is looking earthward. It's that simple, but you must also determine what direction sky and earth are for that character. This corrects a lot of logical issues that tagging by iris location would have.

post #4251528

upside_down + front_view + eyes toward the ground

If the art you asked about was looking_up, then this would have to be looking_up too... except that is obviously, logically wrong.

post #454543

on_back + direct high-angle_view + eyes toward the "sky"

If the art you asked about was looking_up, then this would not be looking_up... even though the viewer is directly above the character who is looking forward, at the viewer. Also, narrowed eyes would just be difficult to ever tag looking up because the necessary portion of the sclera would be covered.

Thank you for the comprehensive post, it's incredibly helpful. I also appreciate you taking the time to answer the questions I had posed on Discord, I feel much more informed now. Initially (after reading your reply) I was going to respond to each of your talking points, but after some consideration I think it's better to summarize.

I think this thread reflects poorly on the wiki's current state. I had previously considered some of the solutions you mentioned (such as looking_away indicating head direction, or looking_up referring to relative environmental positions), but the wiki is nebulous and it was difficult to decipher without proper context. Unfortunately access to that context appears to be rooted in experience; I wouldn't expect an average user to apply grammatical nuance like polysemous words to a tag, which should ultimately be self-descriptive or come with the logic necessary to utilize it properly. I'm a new to the inner workings of E621's tagging system, but I work in data management. Is there a way to request changes to the wiki descriptions themselves or are they handled by the community?

As a side note, the ambiguous nature of some tags appear to make the database structurally unsound. Since average users aren't able to tag images "correctly", posts are being split up (as with the looking_aside vs looking_away example I gave above). Do you know how this problem is being navigated, and are there any short term solutions?

Sorry for the questions, and thank you again for the stellar response.

The tag alias looking_aside -> looking_away (forum #376806) has been rejected by @slyroon.