I swear this isn't leading up to a joke of some kind
I've seriously been wondering this for the longest time lolz ◠‿◠)

Just that-
Dragons are usually classified by body length, Shape, and of course their wings.

Now, can a dragon or dragon-like anthro still classify themselves as a dragon without wings?

just got me thinking, once I actually took a sec to consider ╹ ╹)

Notkastar said:
I swear this isn't leading up to a joke of some kind
I've seriously been wondering this for the longest time lolz ◠‿◠)

Just that-
Dragons are usually classified by body length, Shape, and of course their wings.

Now, can a dragon or dragon-like anthro still classify themselves as a dragon without wings?

just got me thinking, once I actually took a sec to consider ╹ ╹)

Eastern dragon. Don't know about anthros though. I'm guessing any scalie can be confused with a dragon

Yes. Dragonoids can still be tagged dragon despite their (lack of / variant) wings, it is dependent on a body shape.

supermarcopolo said:
Eastern dragon. Don't know about anthros though. I'm guessing any scalie can be confused with a dragon

Siral_Exan said:
Yes. Dragonoids can still be tagged dragon despite their (lack of / variant) wings, it is dependent on a body shape.

(Thanks for your swift replies guys, Really appreciate it)

Where is the line though when it comes to anthros,
I mean I could understand if the anthro in question was eastern style since those would be seen as dragons as default thanks to the culture and movies like spirited away backing them up but say-

Like an Anthro like this
post #1406294
I know it's a crocodile but what if they classified it as a dragon.
Would they be wrong?

Notkastar said:
(Thanks for your swift replies guys, Really appreciate it)

Where is the line though when it comes to anthros,
I mean I could understand if the anthro in question was eastern style since those would be seen as dragons as default thanks to the culture and movies like spirited away backing them up but say-

Like an Anthro like this
post #1406294
I know it's a crocodile but what if they classified it as a dragon.
Would they be wrong?

Frankly that looks more like a dragon than it does a croc. Furry species tend to exist in a foggy grey of generic animal shapes anyway without bringing in made-up animals that can look however you want them to, so unless something is super blatant, what the artist says goes.

regsmutt said:
Frankly that looks more like a dragon than it does a croc. Furry species tend to exist in a foggy grey of generic animal shapes anyway without bringing in made-up animals that can look however you want them to, so unless something is super blatant, what the artist says goes.

Guess you right dood,
Just throws me through a loop when I think about it.

Like a shark anthro without fins,
A monkey anthro with a tail or
A Bee-Anthro without wings;
Could they still be considered that animal?

Lolz but like you side, It's really up to the
an artist when it comes to that sorta thing ╹‿╹)

I mean it can technically be the former but if
the artist says it's the ladder than it is. ◠‿◠)

(But boy, It most get complicated when it comes
to tagging that stuff here. Guessing an entire wiki
page might need to be made for the character just to
make sure it's clarified ╹ ╹)

post #1426690

yes

post #1383927

A few weeks ago, I started to make a post complaining about the fact that 'drake' is aliased away... but I deleted it because I realized that a lot of dragon-types, especially anthros, don't always have wings... and that it would cause a lot of fuss for people who's characters are tagged dragon when they SHOULD be drakes, etc etc. So I can understand why.

as for what species to tag things--I generally just go for a 'general look'... dinosaurs, gators/crocs, and dragons all tend to have different sort of facial construction. But when in doubt...I jsut tag whatever might apply.

I ask myself "If I wanted to find a croc, would I be happy looking at this?" and tag appropriately.

for me so long as they have spikes at the very least then they're dragons

I'll take a stab at this.

Dragons can also have: horns, fins/frills, spines, a mane, a snout, and a usually long and/or thick tail. Generally, dragons share the first four traits with only dinosaurs and some other known fantasy or game scalies, like kobolds and argonians. I think, on the whole, we can say that anthro dragons have more aggressive animal traits than non-dragon scalies, when neither creature can be tagged as known characters or subspecies.

Scouring dragon anthro -frill -horn -wings -mane, I'd say at least half of the results are missing one of those tags which make a character more dragonic. A scalie character with only a snout and a tail is much less likely to be a dragon.

wingless_dragon

abadbird said:
I'll take a stab at this.

Dragons can also have: horns, fins/frills, spines, a mane, a snout, and a usually long and/or thick tail. Generally, dragons share the first four traits with only dinosaurs and some other known fantasy or game scalies, like kobolds and argonians. I think, on the whole, we can say that anthro dragons have more aggressive animal traits than non-dragon scalies, when neither creature can be tagged as known characters or subspecies.

Scouring dragon anthro -frill -horn -wings -mane, I'd say at least half of the results are missing one of those tags which make a character more dragonic. A scalie character with only a snout and a tail is much less likely to be a dragon.

Well put together. THere are some other trades I can ID--like a typically narrower face, that may be horselike,and/or/maybe long wide belly scales like a snake, but those are a pretty robust list of dragonlike trades. Horns especially. fins too.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
wingless_dragon

I searched dragon -wings the other day and about started crying for the number of wings I saw.

SnowWolf said:
post #1383927

A few weeks ago, I started to make a post complaining about the fact that 'drake' is aliased away... but I deleted it because I realized that a lot of dragon-types, especially anthros, don't always have wings... and that it would cause a lot of fuss for people who's characters are tagged dragon when they SHOULD be drakes, etc etc. So I can understand why.

as for what species to tag things--I generally just go for a 'general look'... dinosaurs, gators/crocs, and dragons all tend to have different sort of facial construction. But when in doubt...I jsut tag whatever might apply.

I ask myself "If I wanted to find a croc, would I be happy looking at this?" and tag appropriately.

That graphic seems to focus mainly on the D&D definitions of those creatures. If we're using D&D and like-fantasy logic, then all of those creatures are of the dragon creature type anyway, so can safely be called dragons of one shape or another.

As far as the broader context of dragons and fantasy, I think it's largely up to the artist's interpretation of what a dragon is, including whether or not it has wings.

ass3mblyr3quir3d said:
That graphic seems to focus mainly on the D&D definitions of those creatures. If we're using D&D and like-fantasy logic, then all of those creatures are of the dragon creature type anyway, so can safely be called dragons of one shape or another.

Mostly I linked it so I wouldn't have to explain 'drake'

Though that said, while D&D did use similar terms, those names are commonly used through history in various forms. Wyvern comes from european and british heraldry. Lindwurm comes from old nordic/scandenavian. Drake, as a word, has been desperate of 'dragon' since the 13th century.

That said, D&D, much like Tolkien, has helped to define a lot of modern fantasy ideas--one must remember that for much of history an 'elf' ranged from 'dwarf' to 'fairy,' from 'benevolent' to 'vicious'. Tolkien made ''elves' into Legolas. D&D did similar.

So, basically, even if 'drake' as a 'wingless dragon' is defined as such by D&D, that doesn't change the fact that modern society defines a drake that way.

That said, it's certainly a bit fuzzy--games like world of warcraft use 'drake' to describe any number of dragon-like creatures with various anatomy and builds.

regardless, you're, ah, kinda picking at threads here-- the point of my statement was, to sum it up, "Lots of people draw dragons without wings."

As far as the broader context of dragons and fantasy, I think it's largely up to the artist's interpretation of what a dragon is, including whether or not it has wings.

As far as this goes, that's very true, but if you draw a dragon and say it's a rabbit, our job here is to tag 'dragon' if it looks like a dragon.So, for us, definitions of what 'defines' a dragon are important.

Dragons are very versatile, they have hundreds of different variations, maybe thousands. Some I look at and think, how is that a dragon? But as said further up if the artists says it is a dragon, it is. And that is final.

rhyolite said:
And that is final.

Nah. If it doesn't look like a dragon, it shouldn't be tagged as one.
Pokemon is a good example of that. Several users have tried mass tagging all dragon-type Pokemon ^{_{(Goomy, Sliggoo, Altaria, Gabite, Kingdra, Tyrunt, etc)[/sup]} as dragons regardless of the appearance, and have got slapped for it.}

SnowWolf said:

As far as this goes, that's very true, but if you draw a dragon and say it's a rabbit, our job here is to tag 'dragon' if it looks like a dragon.So, for us, definitions of what 'defines' a dragon are important.

Maybe I should have added "Within reason" To the end of that statement ;)