The bulk update request #11591 is pending approval.

create alias pantiless (66) -> no_underwear (20923)
create alias pantyless (0) -> no_underwear (20923)
create alias underwearless (0) -> no_underwear (20923)
create alias without_underwear (0) -> no_underwear (20923)

Reason: Aliases away a few mistags. pantiless is by far the most common of these, though its typo'd version is also frequent. without_underwear hasn't been tagged before and is only included for parity with the existing without_panties alias.

Tag history:
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=pantiless
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=pantyless
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=underwearless
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=without_underwear

related discussion: topic #57980

dba_afish said:
related discussion: topic #57980

Sure, we could move these to going_commando instead if that reduces ambiguity.

If that's going to be pending for a while, these aliases could probably be approved for now. We'd still be under the 25 line limit to unalias them in a single BUR and move them over in a separate BUR in the same topic. These aliases might also get lost in the shuffle if this BUR is rejected or hangs, so I'd prefer rehoming them afterwards to avoid that scenario.

song said:
Sure, we could move these to going_commando instead if that reduces ambiguity.

If that's going to be pending for a while, these aliases could probably be approved for now. We'd still be under the 25 line limit to unalias them in a single BUR and move them over in a separate BUR in the same topic. These aliases might also get lost in the shuffle if this BUR is rejected or hangs, so I'd prefer rehoming them afterwards to avoid that scenario.

yeah true, these do need to be aliased either way.