The bulk update request #466 has been rejected.

remove implication pattern_panties (5661) -> pattern_bottomwear (8657)
remove implication striped_panties (4252) -> striped_bottomwear (5087)
remove implication spotted_panties (73) -> spotted_bottomwear (149)
remove implication checkered_panties (1) -> checkered_bottomwear (50)
remove implication plaid_panties (30) -> plaid_bottomwear (850)
remove implication camo_panties (9) -> camo_bottomwear (941)
remove implication argyle_panties (0) -> argyle_bottomwear (0)
remove implication pattern_bra (418) -> pattern_topwear (9000)
remove implication striped_bra (215) -> striped_topwear (3987)
remove implication spotted_bra (24) -> spotted_topwear (142)
remove implication checkered_bra (0) -> checkered_topwear (336)
remove implication plaid_bra (12) -> plaid_topwear (1144)
remove implication camo_bra (14) -> camo_topwear (286)
remove implication argyle_bra (0) -> argyle_topwear (34)

Reason: Discovered odd implications surrounding pattern_bra and pattern_panties...

Unless there had been plans to implicate bra and panties to topwear and bottomwear, respectively.

EDIT: The bulk update request #466 (forum #300989) has been rejected by @Monsterbomb10010.

I'm fairly sure those implications are from a BUR I submitted. I was planning on eventually making several implications for bra -> topwear and panties -> bottomwear (and all the other bra and panties tags), since bra/panties simultaneously serve as both underwear and as topwear/bottomwear. But these plans (and the implications that have already been approved) can be reversed if folks feel differently about it.

For me, I don't like the implications. Underwear is enough for these two tags. I mean, it's easy to search posts with characters wearing underwear only, right?

I think the *_topwear and *_bottomwear tags are useful in the case that someone wants to see a striped top or bottom and doesn't care what type of clothing it is.

The bulk update request #466 (forum #300989) has been rejected by @Monsterbomb10010.