Implicating knotting → knot
Link to implication

Reason:

"A character (typically a canine) with a knot-bearing penis having sex and the knot is inside the the other character's body" on wiki page for knotting.
Knotting requires a knot, right? The counter-point could be knotting with knotted_dildo but then why not have knotted_dildo implicate knot?

One problem with this implication would be for those images where it is clear that the two are knotted together - such as, two canines standing end-to-end, maybe even with part of the penis visible, but the knot itself might not be visible.

In other words, you might be able to see that there is knotting going on without seeing the knot.

Clawdragons said:
One problem with this implication would be for those images where it is clear that the two are knotted together - such as, two canines standing end-to-end, maybe even with part of the penis visible, but the knot itself might not be visible.

In other words, you might be able to see that there is knotting going on without seeing the knot.

So in essence, all posts with knotting but the knot is not visible should have knot removed?

Same reason anal_penetration does not imply anus - a knot won't always be visible, but the act of knotting may be inferred through dialogue, such as in post #722994, or through posture, post #936129, or even through other means, such as a prominent bulge around the receiver's orifice.

other examples: knotting -knot

On that note, if knotting is tagged without any clues as to whether or not a penetrating anthro character has knot (other than being canine), it probably shouldn't be tagged.

If a knot is clearly not penetrating, even shallowly, knotting shouldn't be tagged.

tl;dr it needs to be dealt with case-by-case.

This has been denied a few times. Latest one in forum #190886.

Genjar said:
This has been denied a few times. Latest one in forum #190886.

Denied it again.