Okay, I dunno who even approved this, or when it even happened but it was a stupid move. Now every kangaroo is a macropod and when you search for a kangaroo it returns every type of macropod.

If whoever did this was trying to implicate instead, they failed. Please fix.

PheagleAdler said:
Okay, I dunno who even approved this, or when it even happened but it was a stupid move. Now every kangaroo is a macropod and when you search for a kangaroo it returns every type of macropod.

If whoever did this was trying to implicate instead, they failed. Please fix.

...Macropods ARE kangaroos; they're the kangaroo family

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
...Macropods ARE kangaroos; they're the kangaroo family

Macropods include things not commonly recognized as kangaroos, such as wallabies and quokkas. Now, as for whether there is actually some scientific distinction to distinguish a quokka from a kangaroo, or, if properly defined, quokkas would be a type of kangaroo... Well, I can't really answer that, since I don't know a whole lot about marsupial taxonomy.

There is, however, a social distinction of sorts. Most people would not recognize this as a kangaroo.

Looking into it, it seems like the species generally referred to as "kangaroos" do belong to a specific genus (macropodus) as distinct from the larger family macropodidae. Though of course, common names and scientific names have a... interesting relationship, to say the least.

However, even with all that said, we don't always go strictly with taxonomy here. We don't implicate bird to dinosaur despite that being an accurate implication. Even if you could demonstrate that all macropods ought to be considered kangaroos, that would not necessarily be sufficient for an alias, given, again, the social distinction.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
...Macropods ARE kangaroos; they're the kangaroo family

A lot more than just kangaroos. Hence my reason for this thread. It's stupid to alias something that's going to cause more than what you're searching for to show up. Please fix it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macropod

This was brought up by someone in the General topics section, who was confused that they couldn't tag anything kangaroo.

I would propose we de-alias kangaroo -> macropod, implicate kangaroo -> macropod, and then add the following implications:

• red_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• western_grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• eastern_grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• antilopine_kangaroo -> kangaroo

...and then debate whether to implicate tree-kangaroo -> kangaroo.

For my two cents, I would agree that macropod is an overgeneralization. Obviously it's fine as an implication, as all kangaroos are, by definition, macropods. But as an alias it feels like refusing to distinguish between wolves and dogs, specifically because macropod includes wallabies and quokka, which would generally not be thought of as entries under the umbrella term kangaroo.

The one argument I can think of against having the common umbrella term "kangaroo" would be the case of tree-kangaroo, which as a species seems quite distinct from the other kangaroos, but literally uses the word "kangaroo" in their name. This could result in confusion in either case, where someone searches for "kangaroo" and the results either do or not include tree-kangaroos, though I feel there would be less confusion if the results excluded tree-kangaroo.

Maybe that's just being pedantic, after all we don't implicate werewolf -> wolf, in spite of the relationship. We do implicate werewolf -> werecanine -> canine, so maybe the lack of a direct implication werewolf -> wolf is an oversight. I wouldn't necessarily agree with adding that implication, but I could understand where it comes from, taxonomically.

But I still agree that returning all macropods with a search for "kangaroo" seems wrong, no matter whether you include tree-kangaroos or not.

ikdind said:
This was brought up by someone in the General topics section, who was confused that they couldn't tag anything kangaroo.

I would propose we de-alias kangaroo -> macropod, implicate kangaroo -> macropod, and then add the following implications:

• red_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• western_grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• eastern_grey_kangaroo -> kangaroo
• antilopine_kangaroo -> kangaroo

...and then debate whether to implicate tree-kangaroo -> kangaroo.

For my two cents, I would agree that macropod is an overgeneralization. Obviously it's fine as an implication, as all kangaroos are, by definition, macropods. But as an alias it feels like refusing to distinguish between wolves and dogs, specifically because macropod includes wallabies and quokka, which would generally not be thought of as entries under the umbrella term kangaroo.

The one argument I can think of against having the common umbrella term "kangaroo" would be the case of tree-kangaroo, which as a species seems quite distinct from the other kangaroos, but literally uses the word "kangaroo" in their name. This could result in confusion in either case, where someone searches for "kangaroo" and the results either do or not include tree-kangaroos, though I feel there would be less confusion if the results excluded tree-kangaroo.

Maybe that's just being pedantic, after all we don't implicate werewolf -> wolf, in spite of the relationship. We do implicate werewolf -> werecanine -> canine, so maybe the lack of a direct implication werewolf -> wolf is an oversight. I wouldn't necessarily agree with adding that implication, but I could understand where it comes from, taxonomically.

But I still agree that returning all macropods with a search for "kangaroo" seems wrong, no matter whether you include tree-kangaroos or not.

The thing is, the way kangaroos are separated informally as being distinctively kangaroo is, like, generally based on things such as height differences. These distinctions on what make something a "standards" kangaroo or not can even vary as well, making it hard to really correctly separate what exactly makes a kangaroo or not

I suppose one way of "sort of" dealing with this is creating the Macropus genus tag, but even then that includes various species of wallaby and wallaroos and not just exclusively the "traditional" kangaroo

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
The thing is, the way kangaroos are separated informally as being distinctively kangaroo is, like, generally based on things such as height differences. These distinctions on what make something a "standards" kangaroo or not can even vary as well, making it hard to really correctly separate what exactly makes a kangaroo or not

I suppose one way of "sort of" dealing with this is creating the Macropus genus tag, but even then that includes various species of wallaby and wallaroos and not just exclusively the "traditional" kangaroo

Size is one quality, in addition to more compact legs and a glossier coat.

PheagleAdler said:
Size is one quality, in addition to more compact legs and a glossier coat.

Wallabies have the exact same exact compact leg structure as "traditional" kangaroos. They're just generally smaller in size.

Also, mind sharing the source for the glossier coat bit? I genuinely am not seeing any information whatsoever about kangaroos having distinctively glossier coats.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Wallabies have the exact same exact compact leg structure as "traditional" kangaroos. They're just generally smaller in size.

Also, mind sharing the source for the glossier coat bit? I genuinely am not seeing any information whatsoever about kangaroos having distinctively glossier coats.

I'm just doing research on their differences.

https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/12/20/difference-between-kangaroos-and-wallabies/
https://www.dw.com/en/whats-the-difference-between-a-wallaby-and-a-kangaroo/a-18203830

PheagleAdler said:
Size is one quality, in addition to more compact legs and a glossier coat.

Glossy coat is not depicted in art in most circumstances:

post #1807001 post #1694769 post #1438363

Not seeing much different than a kangaroo. -rocko's_modern_life wallaby

There are 9 quokka posts. in several of them, they appear to be drawn as a rat (post #1405069)

Otherwise, in general, they look like kangaroos. Just a little more compact in general.

SnowWolf said:
Glossy coat is not depicted in art in most circumstances:

post #1807001 post #1694769 post #1438363

Not seeing much different than a kangaroo. -rocko's_modern_life wallaby

There are 9 quokka posts. in several of them, they appear to be drawn as a rat (post #1405069)

Otherwise, in general, they look like kangaroos. Just a little more compact in general.

Yeah, I agree, wolf.

At the very least, I can maybe see us putting the Macropus genus tag to use to sort of be a middle ground for this, but even then it isn't a "perfect" solution or anything.

SnowWolf said:
Glossy coat is not depicted in art in most circumstances:

post #1807001 post #1694769 post #1438363

Not seeing much different than a kangaroo. -rocko's_modern_life wallaby

There are 9 quokka posts. in several of them, they appear to be drawn as a rat (post #1405069)

Otherwise, in general, they look like kangaroos. Just a little more compact in general.

And yet they're not kangaroos. Is this site really advocating lying?

Besides, I shouldn't have to add filters to view one particular species. That's ridiculous. Change it to where it makes more sense.

PheagleAdler said:
And yet they're not kangaroos. Is this site really advocating lying?

Besides, I shouldn't have to add filters to view one particular species. That's ridiculous. Change it to where it makes more sense.

Okay, Karen

Waba said:
Okay, Karen

Yeah, well I'm about to, because some people are too stubborn to understand they're wrong. I may not always know what I'm talking about, but for fuck's sake, are we really going to make such a dickish move to the site? Why not combine ALL tags because they're all just animals?

PheagleAdler said:
And yet they're not kangaroos. Is this site really advocating lying?

Besides, I shouldn't have to add filters to view one particular species. That's ridiculous. Change it to where it makes more sense.

when average person searches for kangaroo, they arent gonna give half rat's ass if theres wallabies in their search results. especially drawn cartoon wallabies look like kangaroos to literally anyone who havent spent shitton of time on learning to identify them.

hiekkapillu said:
when average person searches for kangaroo, they arent gonna give half rat's ass if theres wallabies in their search results. especially drawn cartoon wallabies look like kangaroos to literally anyone who havent spent shitton of time on learning to identify them.

People aren't exactly clamoring all over spelling errors in posts online either, that doesn't mean we should strive to make them.

Maybe this site really doesn't care about proper tagging, tags that make sense. Because it makes more sense to show "kangaroo" instead of a generic tag of "macropod."

It's great that you don't care, but I don't know why you even bothered commenting then.

Oh! Another thing I just realized, and it's a damning piece of evidence.

While you decided to the kangaroo tag by combining it with macropod, the wallaby tag is decidedly left alone! What kind of bullshit is this? Quit trying to play me, especially if you ain't gonna be consistent with your tomfoolery.

PheagleAdler said:
Oh! Another thing I just realized, and it's a damning piece of evidence.

While you decided to the kangaroo tag by combining it with macropod, the wallaby tag is decidedly left alone! What kind of bullshit is this? Quit trying to play me, especially if you ain't gonna be consistent with your tomfoolery.

It's an informal group.

Ratte said:
It's an informal group.

I...don't really understand what is meant by that?

PheagleAdler said:
And yet they're not kangaroos. Is this site really advocating lying?

Besides, I shouldn't have to add filters to view one particular species. That's ridiculous. Change it to where it makes more sense.

That's not how aliases and implications work.

If I draw a red kangaroo. I can tag it red kangaroo. WHen I do, it'll be tagged red_kangaroo, and ALSO Macropod. This makes sense, because a Red Kangaroo is a macropod. Specifically "Macropus rufus."

If I search "red kangaroo," I"m only gong to get red kangaroos.

Here are the names of the other "kangaroo" species:

Eastern grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus
Western grey kangaroo, Macropus fuliginosus

There is the Antilopine kangaroo, which -- oh no! It's ALSO called the Antilopine wallaroo AND the Antilopine Wallaby! But what is it? well, it's Macropus antilopinus. Looks like a kangaroo to me.

what's a wallaroo anyway? Here's the Common wallaroo -- Macropus robustus... looks pretty kangaroo like. Black Wwallaroo? Yep.

waht about wallabys? agile wallaby
black striped wallaby? tammar wallaby? Western brush wallaby? Parma wallaby? Whiptail wallaby? red necked wallaby?

Those all look like kangaroos.

Actually to be more precise, they look like macropods.

and what a wonderful thing it is too, as each and every one of them are macropods. There's no single animal or animal family called a Kangaroo.

Actually, the red kangaroo and the western/eastern gray kangaroos are in different subgenera. There are wallabies in Notamacropus, osphranter, and macropus.

And looking at those pictures, it's pretty easy to see why.

These animals arecalled "kangaroo" and "wallaby" and "wallaroo" because tha'ts what humans called them.

That's why they've got scientific names: Macropus robustus, Macropus giganteus, Macropus dorsalis, Macropus parryi, Macropus antilopinus .... they are all macropods.

If ya want something tagged "kangaroo" ... tag it as a species of kangaroo. Or wallaby. or wallaroo. then it'll be tagged the "right" way. If someone has drawn a 'generic kangaroo'... that animal doesn't exist. and, visually, an anthro wallaby and an anthro kangaroo will look a LOT a like. That's why we made the choice we did.

SnowWolf said:
That's not how aliases and implications work.

If I draw a red kangaroo. I can tag it red kangaroo. WHen I do, it'll be tagged red_kangaroo, and ALSO Macropod. This makes sense, because a Red Kangaroo is a macropod. Specifically "Macropus rufus."

If I search "red kangaroo," I"m only gong to get red kangaroos.

Here are the names of the other "kangaroo" species:

Eastern grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus
Western grey kangaroo, Macropus fuliginosus

There is the Antilopine kangaroo, which -- oh no! It's ALSO called the Antilopine wallaroo AND the Antilopine Wallaby! But what is it? well, it's Macropus antilopinus. Looks like a kangaroo to me.

what's a wallaroo anyway? Here's the Common wallaroo -- Macropus robustus... looks pretty kangaroo like. Black Wwallaroo? Yep.

waht about wallabys? agile wallaby
black striped wallaby? tammar wallaby? Western brush wallaby? Parma wallaby? Whiptail wallaby? red necked wallaby?

Those all look like kangaroos.

Actually to be more precise, they look like macropods.

and what a wonderful thing it is too, as each and every one of them are macropods. There's no single animal or animal family called a Kangaroo.

Actually, the red kangaroo and the western/eastern gray kangaroos are in different subgenera. There are wallabies in Notamacropus, osphranter, and macropus.

And looking at those pictures, it's pretty easy to see why.

These animals arecalled "kangaroo" and "wallaby" and "wallaroo" because tha'ts what humans called them.

That's why they've got scientific names: Macropus robustus, Macropus giganteus, Macropus dorsalis, Macropus parryi, Macropus antilopinus .... they are all macropods.

If ya want something tagged "kangaroo" ... tag it as a species of kangaroo. Or wallaby. or wallaroo. then it'll be tagged the "right" way. If someone has drawn a 'generic kangaroo'... that animal doesn't exist. and, visually, an anthro wallaby and an anthro kangaroo will look a LOT a like. That's why we made the choice we did.

There's no such thing as a generic "eagle" either but speaking as someone with common sense, not everyone can identify specific species of animals and a generic name works just as well.

Are you a biologist or what? No one calls them 'macropods' in normal conversation. Stop kidding yourself.

Actually, wait, if you were a biologist, you wouldn't say wallabies "look like kangaroos." Maybe when I was a kid I thought Rocko was a kangaroo, but as I got older I knew better. And I can tell the difference.

And if I want to search for kangaroos, just kangaroos, I should be able to.

I think you're being ignorant and stubborn, not even bothering to take me seriously, and can't admit that you made a bad decision with the tagging system. There was no reason to go there unless you wanted to incite backlash.

PheagleAdler said:
I...don't really understand what is meant by that?

It's a wastebasket term in the same vein as jackal and antelope done solely for easier searching of similar things. It isn't closely tied into anything biological because it's just a collection of animals called wallabies.

If you want an easier time finding kangaroos you and everyone else can start tagging them properly. Most of them are likely just red kangaroos since that's the one most people know about, just like how the spotted hyena often just gets the hyena tag because it's the one everyone knows about. People will often go out of their way to make it known if it's supposed to be something other than the most common one.

If this is how this thread is gonna go I'm not going to bother keeping it open. We all have better things to do.