imply sideways_glance to looking_to_the_side

BUR #3616 has been rejected.

create implication sideways_glance -> looking_to_the_side

I propose removing the useless clause that makes these two tags mutually exclusive. As shown by a simple look at the latter tag, people already use it for both anyway.
I wasn't even aware of the distinction until it was brought up on discord a few days ago.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3616 (forum #173921) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

While they usually don't match the wiki definition for sideways glance, there are quite a few images in sideways glance that would fall under looking back rather than looking to the side eg. post #3306688 or post #3187829 and I had been under the impression that sideways glance had been meant to include things like this, as well as situations where a character had their head turned to the side but was then looking out the corner of their eyes to be actually looking roughly forwards eg. post #3114402 (which also has this tag added)

skylightcrystal said:

While they usually don't match the wiki definition for sideways glance, there are quite a few images in sideways glance that would fall under looking back rather than looking to the side eg. post #3306688 or post #3187829 and I had been under the impression that sideways glance had been meant to include things like this, as well as situations where a character had their head turned to the side but was then looking out the corner of their eyes to be actually looking roughly forwards eg. post #3114402 (which also has this tag added)

Ah, that is true. I guess the implication would be bad then. I'll reject it.

Still, anyone contrary to removing the clause for head moving?

The bulk update request #3616 (forum #173921) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.