Tag implication: toe_scrunch -> toes

create implication toe_scrunch -> toes

Link to implication

To see a toe scrunch you have to see the toes, right?

A lot of posts under a toe_scrunch socks search probably shouldn't be tagged toes. Of course the bulk of such images appeared to have been tagged by one user, so it's possible that a lot of these posts don't even qualify for toe_scrunch and that by doing some tag cleaning this issue might be nonexistent.

I do think toes and feet need a clean up.

NWF_Renim said:

A lot of posts under a toe_scrunch socks search probably shouldn't be tagged toes.

Why not? Looking like the toes are prominent in many of those images (they have to be in order to see a "toe scrunch"). Shouldn't matter whether there's socks over them or not (the barefoot tag is there if one wants to narrow the search to bare toes).

EB said:

Why not? Looking like the toes are prominent in many of those images (they have to be in order to see a "toe scrunch"). Shouldn't matter whether there's socks over them or not (the barefoot tag is there if one wants to narrow the search to bare toes).

Then what about these examples? (nsfw) post #376023, post #225294, and post #105375.

They are good points in favor of not doing an implication. I still think most of what I see in the tag search counts for toes, though, if it's equivalent to the feet tag where the wiki says those "covered by sandals, socks, thighhighs, or pantyhose still count".

The tag implication toe_scrunch -> toes has been rejected.