Topic: [BUR] Imply hand_in_* -> hand_under_clothing

The bulk update request #11325 is pending approval.

create implication hand_in_pants (1063) -> hand_under_clothing (334)
create implication hand_in_underwear (1663) -> hand_under_clothing (334)
create implication hand_in_shirt (47) -> hand_under_clothing (334)
create implication hand_in_swimwear (36) -> hand_under_clothing (334)

Reason: These seem like logical implications to me. Many of the images tagged hand_under_clothing feature one of these scenarios.

See topic #56286 and topic #57365 for related BURs.

Hand_in_pants, hand_in_shirt, and hand_in_swimwear sound like they can also apply to pockets (swimwear doesn't typically have pockets, but I have seen some that do).

watsit said:
Hand_in_pants, hand_in_shirt, and hand_in_swimwear sound like they can also apply to pockets (swimwear doesn't typically have pockets, but I have seen some that do).

We have hand_in_pocket for that, and people seem pretty good about not mixing the tags. hand_in_pocket hand_in_pants returns only 1 result, which is tagged such because it also includes a "hand down front of pants" scenario. hand_in_pocket hand_in_shirt returns nothing.

Relatedly, we should probably resolve the difference between hand_under_<clothing> and hand_in_<clothing>, because both types of tags exist.