The bulk update request #2439 has been rejected.

create implication pantyshot_(jumping) -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_(jumping) -> jumping
create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> pantyshot
create implication pantyshot_(kicking) -> kicking

Reason: Missing implications, consistent with the rest of the pantyshot_(*) tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2439 (forum #164852) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

Also should pantyshot (one knee) be moved to pantyshot (kneeling) + one knee, or does it deserve its own tag?

As reference:

topic #12803
topic #12551
topic #8247

Well, seeing the discussion in the topics linked by Provence, I agree with nuking the pantyshot_* tags if everyone else agrees.

nonamethanks said:

Well, seeing the discussion in the topics linked by Provence, I agree with nuking the pantyshot_* tags if everyone else agrees.

I havent seen anyone object to nuking before, I say cut them.

The bulk update request #2439 (forum #164852) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #2440 is pending approval.

Reason: Well, let's try this then.

These are all the existing pantyshot tags.
It's better to not turn the implications into aliases, that way the posts that still get tagged as such can be manually moved to both tags.

Having less tags is a good idea.