The bulk update request #11701 is pending approval.

create implication shorts_only (1213) -> shorts (123398)
create implication pants_only (889) -> pants (201298)
create implication pants_only (889) -> topless (144747)
create implication jeans_only (31) -> jeans (26723)
create implication jeans_only (31) -> pants_only (889)
create implication skirt_only (212) -> skirt (89960)
create implication skirt_only (212) -> topless (144747)
create implication sarong_only (29) -> topless (144747)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> gym_shorts (4216)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> shorts_only (1213)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> spandex_shorts (2686)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> shorts_only (1213)
create implication miniskirt_only (2) -> miniskirt (10443)
create implication miniskirt_only (2) -> skirt_only (212)

Reason: I'm basing this BUR on the fact bottomwear_only is aliased to topless BUT with the precedent set by approved implications such as forum #390064 (imply shorts_only -> topless) and topic #38457 (imply loincloth_only -> loincloth AND topless). These implications define that it is valid for specific types of bottomwear to have their own *_only tags in spite of bottomwear_only being aliased away.

This is similar to the pending BUR #9688 which deals with several *_only tags, including pants_only which I included in my BUR because imply jeans_only -> pants_only requires it to be.

My BUR focuses on various specific bottomwear_only tags that already exist, some of which would probably get more use if they had the implications to legitimize it.