The bulk update request #11701 is pending approval.

create implication shorts_only (1211) -> shorts (123178)
create implication pants_only (885) -> pants (200881)
create implication pants_only (885) -> topless (144507)
create implication jeans_only (31) -> jeans (26660)
create implication jeans_only (31) -> pants_only (885)
create implication skirt_only (211) -> skirt (89784)
create implication skirt_only (211) -> topless (144507)
create implication sarong_only (29) -> topless (144507)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> gym_shorts (4210)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> shorts_only (1211)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> spandex_shorts (2685)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> shorts_only (1211)
create implication miniskirt_only (2) -> miniskirt (10420)
create implication miniskirt_only (2) -> skirt_only (211)

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.