The bulk update request #11775 is pending approval.

create implication furgonomic_pants (206) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_skirt (16) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_briefs (2) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_shorts (0) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_kilt (0) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)

Reason: tail button bottoms implies furgonomic_bottomwear; I think other types of bottomwear should do the same.

Note that the tags furgonomic_shorts and furgonomic_kilt are not currently in use on any posts, but I've included them in this BUR just in case they get used in future. I looked through the list of bottomwear on tag group:clothes, and those two seemed to be the most likely ones to need this implication at some point.

I also noticed that the tag furgonomic_diaper is used on 161 images. But I haven't included that in this BUR because diapers are not listed as bottomwear on the clothing wiki page, and because the main diaper tag doesn't imply bottomwear. Should I add "furgonomic_diaper -> furgonomic_bottomwear" to this BUR too?

chemistrynoisy said:
The bulk update request #11775 is pending approval.

create implication furgonomic_pants (206) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_skirt (16) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_briefs (2) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_shorts (0) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)
create implication furgonomic_kilt (0) -> furgonomic_bottomwear (2275)

I also noticed that the tag furgonomic_diaper is used on 161 images. But I haven't included that in this BUR because diapers are not listed as bottomwear on the clothing wiki page, and because the main diaper tag doesn't imply bottomwear. Should I add "furgonomic_diaper -> furgonomic_bottomwear" to this BUR too?

My take is those tags should be consistent. So either furgonomic_diaper and diaper implies furgonomic_bottomwear / bottomwear or they don't. I guess you could make a separate BUR for those so we'd have a topic to discuss it.

On a personal level I think a diaper is an underwear and should not be considered a bottomwear: diapers are not really what I expect peoples to expect when they look for bottomwear.

However, I can see the logic behind having diaper imply both underwear and bottomwear.