Talk:Purple Kangaroo

Name and popular culture
I am uncertain how appropriate the name "purple kangaroo" is for this animal. It appears to be a media creation, and the name "purple-necked rock-wallaby", while a mouthful, is much more descriptive and is used in scientific literature on the animal. So I am recommending that the name of this article should be changed. If that does occur, I think it would be appropriate to delete the popular culture information, since this animal only has a purplish neck. Cameron 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is rapidly evolving from its origin as a cryptozoology topic. At some point I expect it will be renamed to the correct species name. --Coyoty 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not a Cryptozoological topic, the current text of the article is very inaccurate (based on the Discovery Channel info) and misleading. The Australian Journal of Zoology article (which the ABC article followed fairly accurately) makes it clear that there was no doubt of the existence of this species, and that it was first known from a specimen acquired by A. S. Le Souef in 1924. It has been in a state of upheaval from the 40's to 90's where it was variously classified as a P. inornata varient, new species, P. penicillata variant, or P. lateralis subspecies. All the AJZ article did was finalize which species this belonged to. It mentioned that this species is in fact present in captivity in some locations. Cameron 05:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to split the clearly unrelated purple kangaroo and purple-necked rock wallaby into separate pages with the text at the top stating the potential confusion. Cameron 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC) zookeeper for a day experience

Will the real Le Souef please stand up?
I had thought it was discovered by Ernest Albert because of the timeline, but the ABC article credits the sighting to "A S Le Souef", which would correspond to Albert Sherbourne, who was director of the Taronga Zoo in 1924. Can anyone confirm this? --Coyoty 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There has been some confusion between the Le Souef brothers (both had an interest in natural history), and it was in fact A. S. Le Souef who first described the animal in 1924 according to the AJZ article. Cameron 05:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Purple Necked Rock Wallaby as inspiration for Purple Kangaroo?
Nintendonien, can you please provide a reference to the statement that the purple kangaroo logos were "inspired by sightings of 'purple kangaroos' in the wild"? I have never found any references even vaguely suggesting the connection you have written about. Cameron 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That line was my fault, because it seemed obvious from the articles I read when creating the original Purple Kangaroo article. I can't find any specific source for the inspiration, though, so I have changed the line. --Coyoty 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nintendoniens thoughts
Firstly I did not write the part about the inspired sightings. Secondly I think they should be merged because although the purple kangaroo is much more of a popular culture reference it is also another name for which the creature is known by and it would be much simpler to just have an article with both the popular culture and the information on the species. Putting them together (at least in my opinion) and having Purple Kangaroo in brackets next to purple-necked rock-wallaby wouldn't hurt.-Nintendonien
 * The name "purple kangaroo" is very informal and inaccurate, and was apparently only bestowed upon the animal by the media in 2001. The name "purple necked rock wallaby" is the more formal and accurate name given by Le Souef and re-iterated by the AJZ paper. I see no reason for merging the articles, and I think mentioning at the top that "purple kangaroo" is a informal, recent nickname for a real animal is sufficient. These two entities are quite separate and I see no reason for them to be merged. Cameron 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a name used by the media. That is why many people know the "purple necked rock wallaby" as the "purple kangaroo" this is why I think that they should be merged for the convenience of the people that have heard of a "purple kangaroo", but have no idea as to what a "purple necked rock wallaby" is. Although I do agree to the fact that it is a nickname and is extremely informal, but the people that are reading the Wikipedia probably know it by this name. Another reason why they should be merged is because they are the same animal just under a different name.-Nintendonien
 * And it should be noted that some of the media article clones used both names, as exemplified by Discovery Channel Article, and the Ananova Article. I am seriously doubtful that many people remember this story from nearly five years ago and would look it up, and I think that the information present at the top of "purple kangaroo" is sufficient to clear up any confusion. Also, while "kangaroo" and "wallaby" are used interchangably and are very closely related, "rock wallabies" are treated as a separate group and none of them are considered "kangaroos". Additionally, I have not found the nickname "purple kangaroo" in any non-media pieces about the animal, but the name "purple-necked rock wallaby" has shown up on other pages such as ecopix, and this one on the First Victorian Reserve. Le Souef mentioned that the coloration was occasionally present on the head as well as the neck, and why he called it the "purple necked rock wallaby" anyways is confusing; unless he meant that the neck was consitently pigmented or the pigment originates from glands on the neck (I can't find any references to the mechanics of what makes the pigment). But I think the name "purple kangaroo" is still far less accurate, and I think the name "Purple-necked rock wallaby" should be kept separate. Since there was nothing to discuss on this page that is why I "stopped talking", and a six hour gap in responce time certainly is not very extreme. If any future information on the band or company is added, I think the separation of the article would be appropriate, since similarly named animals and companies are always kept separate on wikipedia. I do realize that I falsely accused you of adding bad information earlier on, and I appologize for that.Cameron 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most people will not remember what a “purple kangaroo” is, but more people will remember what a “purple kangaroo” is than a “Purple-necked rock wallaby". As I keep saying they are not similar animals, but the same animal. The only difference is that one name is used in the media (and is more popular with the public although less correct) and another is used in science. Yes, not too many people will search "Purple-necked rock wallaby" nor "purple kangaroo", but the few people that will search one or the other it will be slightly more convenient. I just can't see any negatives to merging these articles. And I appreciate the apology. -Nintendonien

I think the current arrangement is the best compromise. WikiPedia standards are that the most popularly known name, Purple Kangaroo in this case, should be used because most people will look for it by that name. However, the official name is quite different, and scientifically minded people will be looking for it by that name. The way it is now satisfies both parties. --Coyoty 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of a compromise.-Nintendonien

I think that a compromise would be the best idea :)Purpleflyinghippo 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)