The tag implication #65640 glistening_eyelids -> glistening is pending approval.

Reason: See similar tags which all implicate glistening:

Weren't we wanting to get rid of the glistening tags, because they get regularly misused for things that are simply lit/shaded, or have a simple highlight, vs. a shiny wet-like sheen?

watsit said:
Weren't we wanting to get rid of the glistening tags, because they get regularly misused for things that are simply lit/shaded, or have a simple highlight, vs. a shiny wet-like sheen?

I'd definitely like to tear down that entire tree, I see no use in those tags with how overapplied they are

watsit said:
Weren't we wanting to get rid of the glistening tags, because they get regularly misused for things that are simply lit/shaded, or have a simple highlight, vs. a shiny wet-like sheen?

do we actually have an alternative tag for characters that seem to have a polished/reflective(non-metallic & and non-wet presentations) body texture through? I do not think glistening should be removed until we do have one.

donovan_dmc said:
I'd definitely like to tear down that entire tree, I see no use in those tags with how overapplied they are

I don't think I mind glistening_* in general, I think the main problem with the tags was just applying it to almost every single thing in the "object noun" group regardless of how much sense it made.