The tag alias #69388 foot_holding -> footsie has been approved.

Reason: Same thing. Footsies are like hand holding but with feet, so this is what foot_holding was trying to accomplish.

I swear there was a discussion about this involving post #2169009 but I can't find it. The tag edits there include replacing foot_holding with footsie.

EDIT: The tag alias foot_holding -> footsie (forum #401089) has been approved by @scaliespe.

Intertwining toes or intertwined toes with fingers (hand holding, but with feet) seems fairly specific compared to any sort of foot-foot contact? Seems more like an underused tag or something that has another name.

I also checked the edit history of the person who changed those tags and it's full of dubious edits so probably take it with a grain of salt.

I'm also fine with keeping it a separate tag, but then the posts that I added foot_holding to that were edited with +footsie -foot_holding need to be restored. Is there a way to view posts that used to have a tag?

aaronfranke said:
I'm also fine with keeping it a separate tag, but then the posts that I added foot_holding to that were edited with +footsie -foot_holding need to be restored. Is there a way to view posts that used to have a tag?

You can go to Post Changes to do that.
And it seems to be only one post

Ah, I did not recall how many since it was so long ago, if it's only one post that is easy.

The tag alias foot_holding -> footsie (forum #401089) has been approved by @scaliespe.

Does the footsie -> foot play implication seem weird to anyone else, or is it just me?

scaliespe said:
Does the footsie -> foot play implication seem weird to anyone else, or is it just me?

Yes. footsie is able to be depicted without being necessarily sexual, while foot_play can't, going by it's wiki

Feet, hindpaws, toes, etc being used to stimulate any and all of the sexual body parts, or being stimulated themselves directly (e.g., foot licking).

The bulk update request #8049 is active.

remove implication footsie (573) -> foot_play (32301)

Reason: Given above

Followup:
implicate footsie -> feet
I don't think you can tag footsie without a foot present

EDIT: The bulk update request #8049 (forum #404682) has been approved by @scaliespe.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #8049 is active.

remove implication footsie (573) -> foot_play (32301)

Reason: Given above

Followup:
implicate footsie -> feet
I don't think you can tag footsie without a foot present

the followup doesn't need to be a followup, you can include it in this bur

scaliespe said:
the followup doesn't need to be a followup, you can include it in this bur

No, foot_play already implies feet through foot_fetish and that blocks it. It doesn't care you're currently unimplying something that'll remove the indirect implication

snpthecat said:
No, foot_play already implies feet through foot_fetish and that blocks it. It doesn't care you're currently unimplying something that'll remove the indirect implication

post #3000851
That's dumb, but ok.

I'll let this one sit for a bit to give people time to raise objections

The bulk update request #8049 (forum #404682) has been approved by @scaliespe.

The bulk update request #8486 is pending approval.

create implication footsie (573) -> feet (617805)

Reason: Followup