The bulk update request #466 has been rejected.

remove implication pattern_panties (6268) -> pattern_bottomwear (9934)
remove implication striped_panties (4675) -> striped_bottomwear (5666)
remove implication spotted_panties (82) -> spotted_bottomwear (166)
remove implication checkered_panties (3) -> checkered_bottomwear (68)
remove implication plaid_panties (38) -> plaid_bottomwear (1023)
remove implication camo_panties (11) -> camo_bottomwear (1173)
remove implication argyle_panties (0) -> argyle_bottomwear (0)
remove implication pattern_bra (480) -> pattern_topwear (11903)
remove implication striped_bra (244) -> striped_topwear (5166)
remove implication spotted_bra (23) -> spotted_topwear (151)
remove implication checkered_bra (0) -> checkered_topwear (461)
remove implication plaid_bra (13) -> plaid_topwear (1422)
remove implication camo_bra (14) -> camo_topwear (351)
remove implication argyle_bra (0) -> argyle_topwear (59)

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.