Implicating head_tails → multi_tail
Link to implication

Reason:

Should they? while they look like tails and often are prehensile they do tend to be boneless composed of just muscle and nervous tissue and really are never used for balance...

EDIT: The tag implication head_tails -> multi_tail (forum #228244) has been rejected by @furrypickle.

I guess not, The description you made is much closer to tentacles than tails. I have stated before that 'head_tails' should be aliased to 'head_tentacles' for this exact reason.

This is a tail on head.
post #1177481

These are just tentacles.
post #68866

Edit: I almost forgot the -1.

Maybe after the mistags have been cleaned out. If there's anything left after that.

Head_tentacles is for tentacles, head_tails for tails (such as the one that O16 posted).

Genjar said:
Maybe after the mistags have been cleaned out. If there's anything left after that.

Head_tentacles is for tentacles, head_tails for tails (such as the one that O16 posted).

I analyzed all the posts tagged with 'head_tails' and none of them really shows tails attached to the head, hence I still prefering the alias; maybe we could make an alias and un-alias it soon after in the case of 'head_tails' be necessary (remembering we also have 'head_tail').

thing is as stated in a previous thread a couple months ago the fandom surrounding star wars and its characters and species generally refer to them as tails, they are never once referred as tentacles.

forum #223669

And at this point nether do they actually look like tentacles O16, not all tails have to have flippers.

Add also that also as stated in the previous thread that head_tentacles tag contains dozens of posts that have nothing at all to do with tentacles

Ruku said:
thing is as stated in a previous thread a couple months ago the fandom surrounding star wars and its characters and species generally refer to them as tails, they are never once referred as tentacles.

forum #223669

Oh, so here it is. I had the feeling of have seen a discussion about this subject before, but didn't remembrered where.

Ruku said:

And at this point nether do they actually look like tentacles O16,[…]

As I said, they look much more like tentacles than tails, additionally, they seems to be tentacles to me (remembering: tentacles non-necesessarily have suction cups)

Note: vocatives are separated from the rest of the sentence by commas, points or other punctuation marks.

Ruku said:

[…] not all tails have to have flippers.

I know it, that was just an example.

Ruku said:

Add also that also as stated in the previous thread that head_tentacles tag contains dozens of posts that have nothing at all to do with tentacles

Now we fall in that annoyng situation in which you say "X = Y ≠ K" and I say "X = k ≠ Y"; What probably means we need more opinions.

Ruku said:
thing is as stated in a previous thread a couple months ago the fandom surrounding star wars and its characters and species generally refer to them as tails, they are never once referred as tentacles.

This is not a Star Wars booru, so it doesn't matter how SW fans use it.

The obvious association is that head_tails refers to more than one head_tail, rather than head_tentacles. And we clearly need to keep the head_tail tag separate, judging by the example in the second post.

Genjar said:
This is not a Star Wars booru, so it doesn't matter how SW fans use it.

Nether is it a guild wars booru, none the less we are explicitly required to break twys to comply with that fandoms canon in regards to charr's secondary features.

The example is a extreme but none less is a perfectly valid case.

We arnt talking about canon in regards to head tails but it obviously did matter how fans felt when it came to charrs, one of the only species on e621 to be under a conditional canon that supercedes visual cues read under twys, and are punished for non compliance to canon.

The tag implication head_tails -> multi_tail (forum #228244) has been rejected by @furrypickle.