Legwear Aliases & Implication

BUR #4268 has been rejected.

create alias see-through_legwear -> sheer_legwear
create alias embroidered_legwear -> lace-trimmed_legwear
create alias smartphone_in_legwear -> in_legwear
create alias weapon_in_legwear -> in_legwear
create alias pen_in_legwear -> in_legwear
create alias pantyhose_under_socks -> socks_over_pantyhose
create alias hands_in_pantyhose -> hand_in_pantyhose
create implication bridal_legwear -> toeless_legwear
create implication pinstripe_legwear -> pinstripe_pattern
create implication pinstripe_legwear -> vertical-striped_legwear
create implication diagonal-striped_legwear -> striped_legwear
create implication bear_band_legwear -> animal_band_legwear

To clean up duplicate / seldomly used tags and link related tags together.

1. The usage of *_band_legwear is up for debate in topic #177525.
2. Add the implication of diagonal-striped legwear -> diagonal stripes
3. Are we calling all embroidered items a wash then? We should only do the above alias if we want to nuke all of those tags. Otherwise, the tag just needs to be cleaned up.
4. Should we abandon the "see-through" prefix in favor of the "sheer" prefix for all tags then? It doesn't make much sense to do these onesie-twosie. The usage of wet to indicate see-through will have to be cleaned up from them first though.
5. Can we just abandon all of the in legwear tags as bad tags? From what I see, apparently this also includes leggings (post #3512523), and that's not what comes to mind when I think of that tag. Would it instead be better and more accurate to use in_calfband, in_thighband, and in_waistband, or something like unto them?

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #4268 (forum #177854) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.