The bulk update request #9028 is pending approval.

remove implication pattern_panties (6028) -> pattern_bottomwear (9418)
remove implication plaid_panties (36) -> plaid_bottomwear (952)
remove implication striped_panties (4505) -> striped_bottomwear (5429)
remove implication argyle_panties (0) -> argyle_bottomwear (0)
remove implication spotted_panties (79) -> spotted_bottomwear (156)
remove implication checkered_panties (2) -> checkered_bottomwear (56)
remove implication camo_panties (9) -> camo_bottomwear (1097)

Reason: panties doesn't imply bottomwear, and neither does red_panties or any of the other color_panties tags, so I think it's pretty clear that panties are underwear, not bottomwear. They can sometimes be worn like bottomwear, but I think that's a discussion for the panties tag, right now I think it's better to get rid of these implications until the parent tag (panties) changes.

Ah, the implications were made by the usual suspect

In what situations would panties not be bottomwear? Not all underwear is bottomwear (bras), so these implications will be needed instead of relying on underwear to implicate bottomwear.

lizarian said:
They can sometimes be worn like bottomwear, but I think that's a discussion for the panties tag, right now I think it's better to get rid of these implications until the parent tag (panties) changes.

Might be better to have that discussion now then, before removing these implications since they'll just need to be added back if the discussion concludes they're bottomwear. panties are intended to be worn around the waist and crotch, similar to some minishorts or hotpants, which imply shorts that imply bottomwear.

I think bottomwear could use a better name, sure, but right now I think it's regarded to mean things like pants, skirts, and other things worn over the legs, at least covering the hips and upper thighs. I think it's proper to have a distinction between things worn OVER underwear covering the bottom half of the body (bottomwear), and things worn under them (underwear), but I don't know if these often mix.

I can see the argument for the other side, there are different types of "underwear" and only some of them are worn over the bottom half and others over the top half, there's currently no umbrella tag for things like briefs, boxers and panties except underwear which includes top half items. Maybe it'd be better to create an umbrella for them but it could just as easily be tacked onto bottomwear and seem just as proper.

I'm not sure--I don't feel very strongly but I do lean in favor of keeping panties =/= bottomwear since it just doesn't FEEL right to put them in the same category as pants unless that category is "clothing." Then again, both gloves and arm_warmers fit under armwear, thigh_highs and leg_warmers fit under legwear, it is a bit weird that stuff worn over the bottom isn't bottomwear.

Maybe create an outerwear tag?? Now THAT would be an undertaking... no pun intended

lizarian said:
but right now I think it's regarded to mean things like pants, skirts, and other things worn over the legs, at least covering the hips and upper thighs.

Don't stuff like minishorts and microskirts count as bottomwear?

watsit said:
In what situations would panties not be bottomwear? Not all underwear is bottomwear (bras), so these implications will be needed instead of relying on underwear to implicate bottomwear.

Might be better to have that discussion now then, before removing these implications since they'll just need to be added back if the discussion concludes they're bottomwear. panties are intended to be worn around the waist and crotch, similar to some minishorts or hotpants, which imply shorts that imply bottomwear.

Would that mean diaper should imply bottomwear?

lizarian said:
I think bottomwear could use a better name, sure, but right now I think it's regarded to mean things like pants, skirts, and other things worn over the legs, at least covering the hips and upper thighs. I think it's proper to have a distinction between things worn OVER underwear covering the bottom half of the body (bottomwear), and things worn under them (underwear), but I don't know if these often mix.

Bottomless is still distinguished from pantsless, suggesting that underwear is bottomwear.

xerxes_i said:
Bottomless is still distinguished from pantsless, suggesting that underwear is bottomwear.

I would say that your example goes against what you were trying to prove; bottomless means topwear only, while pantsless is topwear + underwear (and both are without bottomwear), if we're following the

At this point maybe we should just create a new tag called crotchwear or something to silence this interminable debate.

snpthecat said:
Would that mean diaper should imply bottomwear?

I don't really see how that disproves Watsit's point?

snpthecat said:
Would that mean diaper should imply bottomwear?

I just look at it like this

Panties, Boxers, Y-Fronts, Diapers ect = Underwear
Jeans, Shorts, Skirts, Miniskirts ect = Bottomwear

fuyu_graycen said:
I just look at it like this

Panties, Boxers, Y-Fronts, Diapers ect = Underwear
Jeans, Shorts, Skirts, Miniskirts ect = Bottomwear

the problem is that underwear also include bras.

dba_afish said:
the problem is that underwear also include bras.

And there are various articles of clothing that are considered topwear, but which is also intended to be worn under another pieces of clothing (e.g. a white dress_shirt is typically worn under a suit jacket, just as a bra is typically worn under a shirt). Or various swimwear which is usually worn without any underwear, acting as outerwear, but can be worn under proper pants or shorts when not in the water, acting as underwear.

I think it's easiest to handle as: clothing worn around the crotch and thigh area = bottomwear, clothing worn around the abdomen and chest area = topwear, regardless of it being under or outerwear (which can be context dependent, ala thong vs bikini_thong, and/or not have enough detail to distinguish as being under or outerwear, like some shorts or minishorts vs boxers or briefs vs some swimming_trunks). Given something like

dba_afish said:
the problem is that underwear also include bras.

Yes...

That's the exactly what it is classed as whenever you go to a store, it's in the "Underwear" section

Fun fact: Vests are also classed as "Underwear" in a lot of places because you wear them under shirts in the winter to keep you warm

It's kinda funny because Y-Fronts, Boxers ect are actually classed as "Underpants" so it's more defined under such a massive umbrella that "Underwear" is so people know you're on about lower half Underwear