The bulk update request #11701 is pending approval.
create implication shorts_only (1383) -> shorts (132888)
create implication pants_only (1017) -> pants (217638)
create implication pants_only (1017) -> topless (154393)
create implication jeans_only (39) -> jeans (28963)
create implication jeans_only (39) -> pants_only (1017)
create implication skirt_only (224) -> skirt (96286)
create implication skirt_only (224) -> topless (154393)
create implication sarong_only (32) -> topless (154393)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> gym_shorts (4711)
create implication gym_shorts_only (10) -> shorts_only (1383)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> spandex_shorts (2804)
create implication spandex_shorts_only (7) -> shorts_only (1383)
create implication miniskirt_only (3) -> miniskirt (11112)
create implication miniskirt_only (3) -> skirt_only (224)
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.