Requesting the following implications:

body_markings -> markings

facial_markings -> markings

arm_markings -> markings

leg_markings -> markings

tail_markings -> markings

glowing_markings -> markings

ear_markings -> facial_markings

Reason: [subset] - [set] relationship

Not 100% sure about this one

whisker_markings -> facial_markings

--

Also noticed there were *_cutie_mark & cutie_mark tags; should they be implicated as well?..all 24 of them

Agreed on the first marking subset, disagree on the second marking subset; I'd advocate just nixing the entire whisker_markings tag and folding it into facial_markings while invalid_tagging whisker_markings. There's only 35 whisker_markings posts and 313 facial_markings posts, it seems kind of silly to diversify it so.

With the _mark tags I'd just do the same as with whisker_markings; fold it back into cutie_mark and alias *_cutie_mark to invalid_tag.

EDIT: God, talking about tags makes my head go funny. Fixed innumerable grammar fuckups.

Well, if a body marking is glowing, it should already be tagged separately from the area of the body it is on, so that implication isn't necessary.
I'm not sure about the whisker markings implication either. Whiskers aren't really a set part of the face, but rather an extension of it. Like a beard or a moustache. If you catch my drift.

Also, it appears someone has taken the liberty of clearing out the *_cutie_mark tags, so nothing is needed there.
I've added all your other implications, though.

Thanks Riversyde, you might be right; it would've most likely been tagged with the glowing body part first