A few suggestions regarding "clothing"_down and "clothing"_pull tags, let me know what you think:

Removing aliases:

• panties_down <- removing_panties
• panties_down <- breifs_down (misspelling, and probably misleading due to often referring to the male garment)

Add implications:

• removing_panties -> undressing
• removing_panties -> panties
• briefs_down (0) -> briefs (wiki on briefs literally made me raise an eyebrow)
• ... (see more below)

So with a structure of something similar to:

• clothing_down? (0) implies clothing, partially_dressed?
• pants_down (2497) implies pants
• shorts_down (72) implies shorts
• underwear_down (328) implies underwear
• panties_down (1742) <- breifs_down, removing_panties, implies panties
• briefs_down? (0) implies briefs
• Other unimplemented "underwear"_down?
• skirt_down (11) implies skirt
• clothing_around_one_leg? (0) (implies clothing, partially_dressed?)
• pants_around_one_leg (19) implies pants
• shorts_around_one_leg (10) implies shorts
• underwear_around_one_leg implies underwear
• panties_around_one_leg <- panties_on_leg, panties_on_one_leg, implies panties

Also have:

• 3 pants_pulled_down (2 of which are pants_down)
• 1 pulling_panties_down
• 2 underwear_around_legs (both of which are pants_down)
• 2 panties_around_leg (both of which are panties_down)
• 2 panties_on_foot

Related is "pull" tags:

• clothes_pull (16)
• underwear_pull (85) implies underwear
• panty_pull (612) <- panties_pull (10), implies panties (wiki contradiction here!!!)
• panty_hose_pull (3)
• pants_pull (149) implies pants
• pantsing? (52) (implies clothing)
• shorts_pull (1) (probably pantsing)
• skirt_pull (17) implies skirt
• shirt_pull (85) implies shirt
• necktie_pull? (24) implies necktie
• dress_pull (3) implies dress
• scarf_pull (1) imples scarf

How to handle differentiation between male and female underwear? It seems to be wanted based on tags used. Underwear_pull is used more for males and non-panties, e.g. only 4 posts with females and only 10 with panties. Currently panty_pull says it's for all kinds of underwear/swimwear, but implies panties. Personally I see little harm in dividing further(/keeping as it is), e.g. keep non-panties on their own.

I find it mildly confusing using panty_pull for both genders since as far as I know panty would never be used to describe men's underwear today (or pants for that matter). We even have panty aliased to panties... No matter how, this needs to be fixed.

Related:
forum #150980: Implication: panty_pull -> panties
forum #17879: Alias: removing_panties -> panties_down (approved)
forum #17881: Implication: panties_down -> undressing
forum #142588: Implication: panties_around_one_leg -> panties_down (denied)

Edit: As @Juofthat mentiond:

• clothing_aside (7) implies clothing
• underwear_aside (146) implies underwear
• panties_aside <- panties_on_side, implies panties
• fundoshi_aside (3) implies fundoshi
• loincloth_aside (97) implies loincloth
• swimsuit_aside (36) implies swimsuit
• bikini_aside? (0) implies bikini
• sling_bikini_aside? (0) implies sling_bikini
• pants_aside? (4) implies pants (this is a bit interesting)
• shorts_aside (10 implies shorts
• leotard_aside (4) implies leotard

Great post, something definitely needs to be done here. Aside from adding the proposed new tags, there should for instance be an umbrella tag that's implicated to every form of xxx_down as far as undergarments are concerned. Makes it much easier than needing to search for every variety by hand, if you're not looking for something really specific that is.

We're also missing a lot of xxx_aside tags. Which can lead to this:

post #675801

That's a bikini. I wanted to put a bikini_aside tag there, but there weren't any, so unless I was willing to make a new tag there and then, I had to make do with panties_aside since that's the closest valid tag. Problem of course being that it also adds panties, which comes a lot closer to a mistag.

I've complained about that before, and I wholeheartedly support not separating by underwear/clothing types in these cases.

Jugofthat said:
Great post, something definitely needs to be done here. Aside from adding the proposed new tags, there should for instance be an umbrella tag that's implicated to every form of xxx_down as far as undergarments are concerned. Makes it much easier than needing to search for every variety by hand, if you're not looking for something really specific that is.

That's why I put clothing_down at the top of the tree and underwear_down as parent of panties_down ;)

Jugofthat said:
We're also missing a lot of xxx_aside tags. Which can lead to this: post #675801

That's a bikini. I wanted to put a bikini_aside tag there, but there weren't any, so unless I was willing to make a new tag there and then, I had to make do with panties_aside since that's the closest valid tag. Problem of course being that it also adds panties, which comes a lot closer to a mistag.

Pondered of adding the aside tags, but couldn't bother after pull/down, I made an update to OP at bottom.

Closest existing tag would probably be swimsuit_aside which has a few posts, unless we want more specific tags.

Circeus said:
I've complained about that before, and I wholeheartedly support not separating by underwear/clothing types in these cases.

Well, in my opinion that is not really a problem as long as one doesn't remove general terms in favor for more specific one.

Chessax said:
Closest existing tag would probably be swimsuit_aside which has a few posts, unless we want more specific tags.

Whelp, completely forgot about the possibility of a swimsuit_aside tag existing. Thanks, I'll edit that in.

Placeholder made