The tag implication #41130 looking_back_at_another -> looking_back has been approved.

Reason: Kind of requires looking back to be looking back at a partner.

EDIT: The tag implication looking_back_at_another -> looking_back (forum #315647) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

Been a while since I've done it, so would a separate request post need to be made to also implicate LBAP to looking_back_at_another?

imagoober said:
Been a while since I've done it, so would a separate request post need to be made to also implicate LBAP to looking_back_at_another?

You could make a BUR which would allow you to add it to this thread and also to edit the implication in the future. (You don't need to redo the one you've already made, though.)

clawstripe said:
You could make a BUR which would allow you to add it to this thread and also to edit the implication in the future. (You don't need to redo the one you've already made, though.)

I could if I knew how to use it, which I don't. :(

imagoober said:
I could if I knew how to use it, which I don't. :(

At the top of this page, there's "Request BUR". Click that, and you'll get the BUR page. Slap in a title, a reason, and if you want it added to this particular thread, put 30571 as the forum topic.

For the script, it's not hard. Hit "Help" under the box which will call up a mini-window with different tag suggestion templates. Select the one you want, copy and paste it in the Script box, then replace the "aaa" with the tag you want to implicate/alias/whatever and the "bbb" with the tag you want "aaa" to imply/alias to/whatever.

As you want to imply looking_back_at_partner to looking_back_at_another, you'd copy

imply aaa -> bbb

and paste it in the Script box, then replace aaa and bbb like so:

imply looking_back_at_partner -> looking_back_at_another

The bulk update request #1251 is active.

create implication looking_back_at_partner (2580) -> looking_back_at_another (3700)

Reason: Multiple implication requests for looking_back_at_partner.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1251 (forum #315752) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

Do we need separate looking_back_at_partner/looking_back_at_another tags? The looking_back_at_... tags already seem a bit flimsy (are there a lot of misses with looking_back+looking_at_...?), but even with them, is it worth the inevitable fights and mistags over what does or doesn't count for partner instead of another?

clawstripe said:
(...)

thx I'm kind of in the same situation that explanaition helps a lot
it is ages ago I did a request and didn't know this BUR exist now ... or how it works

imagoober said:
Been a while since I've done it, so would a separate request post need to be made to also implicate LBAP to looking_back_at_another?

Last time I did it, you had to write the other suggestions in one post ... I had a neutral record for spamming aliases because I did to many separate suggestions.

imagoober said:
I could if I knew how to use it, which I don't. :(

Sitting in the same boat XD

Ok I did it now too for my topic, after observing what you did here...thanks a lot :D
this would have been quite confusing without an example.

The tag implication looking_back_at_another -> looking_back (forum #315647) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

imagoober said:
create implication looking_back_at_partner (842) -> looking_back_at_another (504)

Any objections, o people of the forum? Nothing against this in particular, but it's a significant change and I wanna be sure it won't mess up searches for whatever reason

gattonero2001 said:
Any objections, o people of the forum? Nothing against this in particular, but it's a significant change and I wanna be sure it won't mess up searches for whatever reason

looking_at_partner already implies looking_at_another so there's no reason to object to this one. What I'm wondering is why neither of the looking_back_at_* tags imply their looking_at_* counterparts.

The bulk update request #1251 (forum #315752) has been approved by @gattonero2001.