Topic: Looking Back at Partner/Another BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #469 is pending approval.

create implication looking_back_at_partner (70) -> looking_back_at_another (20)
create implication looking_back_at_partner (70) -> looking_at_partner (1370)
create implication looking_back_at_another (20) -> looking_back (14113)
create implication looking_back_at_another (20) -> looking_at_another (3550)

Reason: ["looking_at_partner" implies "looking_at_another" so that makes the first implication in this BUR make sense to me. "looking_back_at_viewer" implies "looking_back" so that makes the third implication make sense to me.] <- Original Reason

EDIT: All of these match with e621 tag implications.

Updated

dfy6c said:
The bulk update request #469 is pending approval.

create implication looking_back_at_partner (70) -> looking_back_at_another (20)
create implication looking_back_at_partner (70) -> looking_at_partner (1370)
create implication looking_back_at_another (20) -> looking_back (14113)
create implication looking_back_at_another (20) -> looking_at_another (3550)

Reason: "looking_at_partner" implies "looking_at_another" so that makes the first implication in this BUR make sense to me. "looking_back_at_viewer" implies "looking_back" so that makes the second implication make sense to me.

I'm slightly against 2nd implication: looking_back is a character pose (head, sholder, sometimes back, all twisted on side to look back)
looking_back_at_another is really an action that could maybe done with a mirror... The reasons might be edge cases, but do we want an implication...

I dunno, I'm not even convincing myself.

kalethorebiter said:
I'm slightly against 2nd implication: looking_back is a character pose (head, sholder, sometimes back, all twisted on side to look back)
looking_back_at_another is really an action that could maybe done with a mirror... The reasons might be edge cases, but do we want an implication...

I dunno, I'm not even convincing myself.

Back when I first wrote this, I didn't reference e621 before for some reason, but looking at it now, they actually do the same implication as I wrote with looking_back_at_another -> looking_back. If you want, here's the e621 thread if you want to see their discussion about it.

Now that I referenced e621, I'm actually adding a couple more lines to the BUR that are directly ported from e621, and so all of these are matching from there. That doesn't necessarily mean we can't deviate if what you think makes more sense, but I believe this probably does actually make more sense. For example, when I search on e621 with "looking_back_at_another" + "mirror" there doesn't seem to be a single example of the scenario you describe. Your scenario probably fits more of a "looking_at_mirror" + "looking_at_another" tag combo in my opinion.

Updated

dfy6c said:
Now that I referenced e621, I'm actually adding a couple more lines to the BUR that are directly ported from e621, and so all of these match with e621. That doesn't necessarily mean we can't deviate if what you think makes more sense, but I believe this probably makes more sense. For example, when I search on e621 with "looking_back_at_another" + "mirror" there doesn't seem to be a single example of the scenario you describe. Your scenario probably fits more of a "looking_at_mirror" + "looking_at_another" tag combo in my opinion.

Can't see fault in the implication logic (so I think the change are safe), and I already shared my view.

I'm not against, it's not a bad idea. I dunno, tonight my brain doesn't want to accept it XD