Ok So... Right now a bunch of foreskin tags still imply uncut and as a whole the entire tag is kind of a mess. As much as it seems like a good idea to have foreskin and its friends (man that sounds funny out loud) implicate uncut with most of their tags, unfortunately it breaks the tagging on some images, leading to certain descriptors needing to be removed from the image for it to avoid using the uncut tag.

retracted_foreskin (this one is ok), foreskin_play (issue), long_foreskin(possible issue), phimosis(ok), partially_retracted_foreskin, foreskin_piercing(issue), foreskin_pull (big issue, and why the thread was made)

One of the fundamental issues with this arises with, especially and most specifically https://e621.net/wiki/show/foreskin_pull

The wiki page describes as such:

General: foreskin pull
The act of pulling on an uncut foreskin, often using one's lips.

Furthermore despite having it in the name, it doesn't implicate foreskin.

Tags that need to implicate foreskin, but don't.

phimosis > foreskin
foreskin_pull > foreskin
foreskin_play > foreskin
uncut > foreskin

and most shockingly of all, uncut does not implicate foreskin. Still.

As just uploaded recently, (Warning both feature circumcision kink please don't clickthrough if squeamish, you have been warned.)
post #1940550 and post #1940553 (which I just removed foreskin_pull from to fix this issue) imply uncut which is an incorrect/invalid tag as per twys and the foreskin tags should with the exception of the "retracted" tags not implicate uncut due to this issue.

I know its a small case basis as this isn't a popular fetish, but its a clear issue with the tag and how unclean the implications web is around it.

Generally speaking the idea of implications is that they "imply" a certain thing to be true.

So if X is true then the implication that Y is, must also be true.

But a simple descriptor of foreskin as an organ or elements of it (such as foreskin_pull or foreskin_piercing) should not imply that it is an uncut foreskin.