breast_sucking + lactation = breastfeeding

BUR #18577 has been rejected.

create implication breastfeeding -> breast_sucking
create implication breastfeeding -> lactation

Based on this site’s definition of breastfeeding, it should implicate breast_sucking and lactation. Additionally, if the same can be done in reverse, having both of those tags present should add breastfeeding. I’ve seen numerous posts that use feeding in place of sucking (ex. lactation is not present), use feeding when sucking is also present (so only one tag is applied when both should be), or feeding without lactation added.

A few things to consider: There are several breastfeeding posts where milk is not visible, yet it's clearly meant to be breastfeeding because it's a baby or a small animal sucking. Should lactation really be in a post where no breastmilk is visible?
Then there's images like post #544672, should breast_sucking be in a post with no human breasts?
There's also currently several breastfeeding pics that are not tagged lactation, and are also not about feeding babies (although this can be easily fixed by gardening).

SSJG said:

A few things to consider: There are several breastfeeding posts where milk is not visible, yet it's clearly meant to be breastfeeding because it's a baby or a small animal sucking. Should lactation really be in a post where no breastmilk is visible?
Then there's images like post #544672, should breast_sucking be in a post with no human breasts?
There's also currently several breastfeeding pics that are not tagged lactation, and are also not about feeding babies (although this can be easily fixed by gardening).

That all makes perfect sense. In that case, the definition of breastfeeding should be edited. Is that something that normal users can do? I haven’t tried before, but I just assumed that that was restricted.

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

Icy_Auron said:

That all makes perfect sense. In that case, the definition of breastfeeding should be edited. Is that something that normal users can do? I haven’t tried before, but I just assumed that that was restricted.

As the wiki page isn't locked, it is absolutely possible for member (of in your case, gold) level users to edit pages. Knock yourself out.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #18577 (forum #248739) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.