Implicating baby_kangaskhan → kangaskhan
Link to implication

Reason:

The baby Kangaskhan is sometimes featured separate from the mother's pouch, and has been given its own species tag already. If we're going to consider it the same species, it should be implicated, so that people can still search for it separately.

I'd also be fine with it if it's treated as a separate species, though that will require a bit of tag updates.

Update: Kangaskhan and Baby Kangaskhans should be kept separate for images that have only one or the other, and Mega Kangaskhan from Baby to help find them separate or together too.

Actually, something else I just realized: "Mega Kangaskhan" refers entirely to the baby kangaskhan, since the mother never actually changes form, so I might have to go back and undo a couple, since Megas are considered a different species.

I've approved an implication directly to pokémon instead. It's a pretty small tag so it shouldn't be much of a problem, and this will allow them to be tagged separately if needed.

parasprite said:
I've approved an implication directly to pokémon instead. It's a pretty small tag so it shouldn't be much of a problem, and this will allow them to be tagged separately if needed.

This was definitely for the best:
post #859788

However, should we still be tagging which Kangaskhan it is, contrary to standard Mega tagging rules? It's either that, or we can create a new mega_adult_kangaskhan for this case.

Furrin_Gok said:
This was definitely for the best:
post #859788

However, should we still be tagging which Kangaskhan it is, contrary to standard Mega tagging rules? It's either that, or we can create a new mega_adult_kangaskhan for this case.

I'm in for making the new tag.

I think I posted to the wrong thread (I meant to do the Mega -> Baby one) but oh well.

Looks like this was recently moved over to a kangaskhan implication, which goes against the whole form difference thing.
post #375420
There's no Kangaskhan present in this image, for example.

Furrin_Gok said:
Looks like this was recently moved over to a kangaskhan implication, which goes against the whole form difference thing.
post #375420
There's no Kangaskhan present in this image, for example.

Fixed. Apologies for that. Now the tag just needs clean up.

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Fixed. Apologies for that. Now the tag just needs clean up.

Partially my fault for not clarifying the change in opinion here.