Topic: Tag Implication: mustela -> mustelid

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Implicating mustela → mustelid
Link to implication

Reason:

Mustela, also known as "weasels", are a genus of mustelid

God this is long. Apologies beforehand for any errors

Related mustelid implications

Related mustelid aliases

1 Not an actually species, though fictional character Sticks is called one. Most likely she's referred to as just a badger who happens to live in the jungle, not a separate species, as she's a generic badger in design and not a specific species. For this, it might be good to just alias it to plain badger.

2 To avoid any confusion with the japanese_badger, I suggested its other name instead.

3 Vague term. Could refer to the fisher mustelid (also known as the "fisher cat"), the kingfisher bird, fishermen, the act of fishing, various character names, fisher-price... etc etc.

4 Would be best to alias the entirety of the original sable tag to sable_(marten) FIRST, and then create the sable disambiguation alias. Sable is a character from animal crossing, a species of antelope, and several other character's names.

5 I mainly suggested this because most usage of the term ferret is referring to the domesticated ferret, similar to the usage of "cat". However, if this isn't agreed upon, I could also see both the common and domestic ferret implying the base "ferret" tag, which in itself implies mustela.

Updated by Ratte

eyetest said:
can we please have 'weasel' back

weasel still exists, aliases means the tag has the exact same functionality as before but the name just changes upon searching

if you search weasel, you're still gonna get weasel. just has a different name

Updated by anonymous

Hmm... I think I never had the opportunity on commenting on this usage of biological nomenclature over more common names, until now. It surely is more accurate, I won't deny that, but I feel like it causes a sort of alienation effect; mechanic-wise the tag still works well, but the effects of using biological "jargon" excessively could lead to an overall felling of unfamiliarity to many users. Also in some cases the gain in accuracy isn't even that big, the general usage of the word "bear", for instance, matches its biological counterpart better than most, same goes for "otter" and others (I know these also are names for kinds of body-type, but I highly doubt people would use them as tags like that, not in the furry fandom, unless someone is trying to make a pun; and I don't think using the biological terms instead of the more common ones would exactly help with that either, since aliasing would allow such mistags regardless). Overall, I think the use of taxa as tags is actually useful in many instances, but this seems like a bit of overuse.

Also, to be totally honest, I feel like the utilization of genera as tags is excessive in the large majority of cases. Genera aren't embracing enough to effectively work as grouping tags (for the site) and are way too specific and "obscure" to actually help people finding species; think this way: people who are intetested on a general group of species would search for families or higher taxa, while people interest on specific species would just search for the species directly, genera only would work for someone trying to find groups of species in the limbo between very specific and sort of specific.

Note: there indeed are genera so large that they have their own subdivisions, but that doesn't matter all that much for us here unless people suddenly grow an absurd interest on drawing and seeing multiple specific species of bee or something of that nature.

Updated by anonymous

Ratte

Former Staff

The mustelid tags required more work than other groups because of two reasons: how they look, and how they're known.

I know people would scream if I implicated anything to do with ferrets to weasel because "reee they're not weasels they're ferrets" ignoring the fact that anything in that genus is a weasel. They're part of that genus, so they're weasels. It was aliased to mustela so people wouldn't be able to focus on weasel as a general term, but both terms are still searchable because they're aliased. Otherwise, the use of genera, especially for this family, is to make it easier to find more similar things with your search results. This can be useful if a genus is large. We already do this for foxes (Vulpes) so why is it suddenly terrible to do this with anything else? The only annoying thing is that it bloats the species tag type on posts, but that's not really a bad enough reason to avoid taking some kind of step to refining possible searches. If you only want to see weasels and martens, you can search mustela marten instead of trying to cram only your most favorite species into your searches and hoping it works, or it can be easier to filter out things you don't want because now those things are in more defined groups. If you want to see true badgers (Meles) but you don't want to see all the things people just call badgers, you can search meles instead of badger -ferret-badger -honey_badger -american_badger -hog_badger and oh no there's almost all of your tags used up just from one search. Want to see mustelines (see: not otters) that aren't true weasels (Mustela)? You can just search musteline -mustela instead of mustelid -otter -weasel -mink -ferret and oops all but one tag is still left to search again, what a shame.

This isn't done to be annoying, it's done to make it easier to find similar things instead of just jumping from species to family with nothing in-between (unless for some reason it's magically more acceptable like it was with fox). If you don't like the use, you're not obligated to use it. Everything will still work how it did, some things might just have a different name but still work the same way.

Updated by anonymous

Firstly, sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but when I made my second point I wasn't necessarily focusing on weasels or even mustelids really; I was talking about genera in general (no pun intended). But again it can be useful to large and (relatively) well know genera but not to so much to many of them. I should have made this more clear.

Ratte said:
I know people would scream if I implicated anything to do with ferrets to weasel because "reee they're not weasels they're ferrets" ignoring the fact that anything in that genus is a weasel. They're part of that genus, so they're weasels. It was aliased to mustela so people wouldn't be able to focus on weasel as a general term, but both terms are still searchable because they're aliased.

Are you saying aliases such as weasel → mustela were made so people who don't know what they were talking about stop complaining? Is this really that good of reason?

Also that falls into my first point of possibly causing a sense of unfamiliarity in many users. I don't have any reason to think some people making unsubstantiated complaints is worse that, people can make this sort of complaint about pretty much anything.

Ratte said:
Otherwise, the use of genera, especially for this family, is to make it easier to find more similar things with your search results. This can be useful if a genus is large. We already do this for foxes (Vulpes) so why is it suddenly terrible to do this with anything else? The only annoying thing is that it bloats the species tag type on posts, but that's not really a bad enough reason to avoid taking some kind of step to refining possible searches. If you only want to see weasels and martens, you can search mustela marten instead of trying to cram only your most favorite species into your searches and hoping it works, or it can be easier to filter out things you don't want because now those things are in more defined groups. If you want to see true badgers (Meles) but you don't want to see all the things people just call badgers, you can search meles instead of badger -ferret-badger -honey_badger -american_badger -hog_badger and oh no there's almost all of your tags used up just from one search. Want to see mustelines (see: not otters) that aren't true weasels (Mustela)? You can just search musteline -mustela instead of mustelid -otter -weasel -mink -ferret and oops all but one tag is still left to search again, what a shame.

First foxes aren't really a single genus; If I recall correctly they are a tribe, which encompass a couple of genera, one of those genera (the type genus) is vulpes. But that is mostly nitpicking on my part.

To search for true badgers (like in your example) it wouldn't demand as many tags as you makes out to be, the genus has literally three species, european badger, asian badger and japanese bafger. An absurd number of mammal genera, albeit to necessarily most of them, are in this range of one to three species (excluding many rodent and bat genera, since those two orders have lots of species). Additionally this is in that limbo I mentioned, "meles" would only work for people wanting something between sort of specific (badger) and really specifc (european badger) what is ridiculously uncommon and (as mentioned) wouldn't be much of a bother for the searcher to begin with, even without this tag.

Your second example with mustela don't exacly mean much to the discussion in question. It is the equivalent of a tag we already had (weasel), and I am not opposed to having it in any way; the point about excessive use of genera I was making is more direct to tags such as lontra and meles. If I would have anything to say about the genenus mustela being used as a tag it would be the preference for biological "jargon" over common names when it isn't needed (but I already mentioned that).

Ratte said:
This isn't done to be annoying, it's done to make it easier to find similar things instead of just jumping from species to family with nothing in-between (unless for some reason it's magically more acceptable like it was with fox). If you don't like the use, you're not obligated to use it. Everything will still work how it did, some things might just have a different name but still work the same way.

I know there is reason behind those desisions, and I am not debating that. I am just saying that part of this (I already mentioned which ones) is too much work for little to no actual reward.

I think it is an worthwhile effort for tribes and larger genera (specially if they involve species portrayed with frequency), but I already mentioned why I think this isn't the case with all genera currently being used as tags on the site.

Side note: biology is literally my field, I understand the importance and potential usefulness of genera for organizational purpose, but unless the site is basically focused in biology sometimes it is just way too much, beyond what would be necessary, truly useful or even worthwhile.

Updated by anonymous

Ratte

Former Staff

O16 said:
Are you saying aliases such as weasel → mustela were made so people who don't know what they were talking about stop complaining? Is this really that good of reason?

Yes. They're the same things, so they're used the same way. The only difference is the resulting name.

O16 said:
Also that falls into my first point of possibly causing a sense of unfamiliarity in many users. I don't have any reason to think some people making unsubstantiated complaints is worse that, people can make this sort of complaint about pretty much anything.

People can start using the wiki. That's why it's there.

O16 said:
First foxes aren't really a single genus; If I recall correctly they are a tribe, which encompass a couple of genera, one of those genera (the type genus) is vulpes. But that is mostly nitpicking on my part.

Fox was cleaned and made equivalent to the Vulpes genus. "Fox" as a term is (surprisingly) vague, this is a much clearer definition.

O16 said:
To search for true badgers (like in your example) it wouldn't demand as many tags as you makes out to be, the genus has literally three species, european badger, asian badger and japanese bafger. An absurd number of mammal genera, albeit to necessarily most of them, are in this range of one to three species (excluding many rodent and bat genera, since those two orders have lots of species). Additionally this is in that limbo I mentioned, "meles" would only work for people wanting something between sort of specific (badger) and really specifc (european badger) what is ridiculously uncommon and (as mentioned) wouldn't be much of a bother for the searcher to begin with, even without this tag.

Yeah, you're right that was not the best example. I still don't see this as a good reason to not have this group if it's correct.

O16 said:
Your second example with mustela don't exacly mean much to the discussion in question. It is the equivalent of a tag we already had (weasel), and I am not opposed to having it in any way; the point about excessive use of genera I was making is more direct to tags such as lontra and meles. If I would have anything to say about the genenus mustela being used as a tag it would be the preference for biological "jargon" over common names when it isn't needed (but I already mentioned that).

Lontra and lutra I could humor doing away with, but the problem I find then is that "river otter" can mean just about anything, so it's used as an informal group similar to badger and jackal. I have not found a better way around this, but I'm open to suggestions.

O16 said:
I know there is reason behind those desisions, and I am not debating that. I am just saying that part of this (I already species which ones) is too much work for little to no actual reward.

I think it is an worthwhile effort for tribes and larger genera (specially if they involve species portrayed with frequency), but I already mentioned why I think this isn't the case with all genera currently being used as tags on the site.

I really don't like dealing with tribes as they lead to more confusion than they solve. See: "vulpine" used for fox and the resulting crying because "foxes are vulpines not canines reeee". I see this a lot more often than I'd like.

O16 said:
Side note: biology is literally my field, I understand the importance and potential usefulness of genera for organizational purpose, but unless the site is basically focused in biology sometimes it is just way too much, beyond what would be necessary, truly useful or even worthwhile.

I don't see a reason not to try to make possible searches more refined if this is something we already did for other things "just because". Taxonomy getting ruled by feelings never sat right with me and this can still help people find more things that are similar/related to what they're looking for, especially for something like the grison which could be one of two things. I do typically prefer using more common terms for things like genera and species, but I'm concerned that people will screech about ferrets getting tagged as weasels or whatever, because this already happens on other places I've been. If it's preferred I don't mind switching that alias, but then people will have to deal with the weasel tag showing up on ferret posts.

Updated by anonymous

  • 1