Implicating okapi → mammal
Link to implication

Reason:

Technically part of the same family as the giraffe (giraffidae), but seeing as there are only 2 species in this family and they look nothing alike, we might as well just go straight to mammal.

Lazy wikipedia source

Approved.

It's approved but I'm not sure...

I felt the same for platypus and equidna, but monotreme was added as an implication for both anyway.

Monotremes are pretty distinct as far as mammals go (weird genitalia, egg-laying, etc.) and was already in use iirc. Would you rather they get implicated to girrafidae?

blackest_vulture said:
It's approved but I'm not sure...

I felt the same for platypus and equidna, but monotreme was added as an implication for both anyway.

Is there a reason you're not sure?

The reason I approved implicating okapi directly to mammal is because "Giraffidae" isn't really a tag. And if it was, it probably would be tag clutter. There's only two animals which would qualify for the tag: giraffe and okapi. And these two animals, like already stated, look nothing alike and don't have much in common in any significant way for tagging. So I doubt there's any real benefit to having a tag specifically available to be able to search both at the time time with just one tag. Nor is there any instances where it's going to be drawn ambiguously so people would have troubles knowing which one it is specifically but need a way to tag it as being in that group of animals. And it would be an extra tag on all of those images without any real benefits that I can see. So both giraffe and okapi are implicated directly to --> mammal. But if you know of another reason that's been overlooked, please bring it up.

--------

The monotreme tag was already in fairly high use as a separate tag by a surprisingly wide variety of users. And a few users seemed to find it useful to keep it as a tag. So I went ahead and folded it into the existing tag structure, so that it would at least have the right implications when it was used. These two animals tend to get spotlighted and celebrated in culture for their weirdness and that may have popularized the term "monotreme" and created a reason why people would want to search for both easily. They do have a few weird traits that they only share with each other. Normally it wouldn't have been kept, because normally it would be the sort of term few would recognise, no one would use and there'd be no need for it here. But this one is recognised, is in use, and is valued by a surprisingly wide variety of users (not just one or two people).

If people find a tag useful, and it serves a valid purpose, and it's not causing any other problems with tags, then I tend to favor allowing it. If the tag hadn't been in use, and valued, then it would have been aliased away. It was a bit of an edge case.

Well, now that you explained it, it seems fair enough. I just thought that it could that there was more consistent if we implicated all the species the same way. You convinced me.

Thank you for explaining.