Implicating raised_tail -> tail.

Reason: If a tail is raised then a tail is present.

This implication already exists. Next time, can you make sure it doesn't already when you suggest one?

Riversyde said:
This implication already exists. Next time, can you make sure it doesn't already when you suggest one?

Very sorry. I thought it would automatically tell me that it already exists. :( sorry. also I searched "tail" in the implications thingy, but I guess I didn't search correctly.

Gayteensex said:
Very sorry. I thought it would automatically tell me that it already exists. :( sorry. also I searched "tail" in the implications thingy, but I guess I didn't search correctly.

If what you did was click Tags -> Implications, then type in "tail" and click "Search Implications," it should have been on the list. In fact it is, I just looked.

http://e621.net/tag_implication?query=tail&commit=Search+Implications

They're listed alphabetically and show all things that have tail in them as either the predicate (the tag that implies) and consequent (the tag that is implied). Sorry if that seems condescending, I swear I'm just trying to be thorough, as there's no way for me to know what you know.

RedOctober said:
If what you did was click Tags -> Implications, then type in "tail" and click "Search Implications," it should have been on the list. In fact it is, I just looked.

http://e621.net/tag_implication?query=tail&commit=Search+Implications

They're listed alphabetically and show all things that have tail in them as either the predicate (the tag that implies) and consequent (the tag that is implied). Sorry if that seems condescending, I swear I'm just trying to be thorough, as there's no way for me to know what you know.

Weird. I know for a fact I searched at least one of those tags. I dunno, maybe I did something wrong.

also np, you didn't sound condescending. :)