Thread:MalaCassida/@comment-25936766-20160923123833/@comment-25936766-20160923132313

MalaCassida wrote: 1-As I said before there is no "technically classified as a wyvern" as its nothing more than a fictional classificiation...

2-A fantasy Creator can make his own rules for his and he/she should not be told that his creature is "technically" this or that just becuase some others works classified them as such.

3-I would be all for removing that whole unnecessary trivia part about the Gimm Drgaon beeing considered a wyvern by certain standards altogehther as it adds nothing addworthy but I wanted to compromise and show that there are some people who would refer to this a whyvern. 1-Ah-hem....just saying.

2-Let's spin it then: ''"A fantasy Creator can make his own rules for his and he/she should not be told that his creature is "technically" this or that, because some other works did not make the distinction". ''Do you think that makes you much better?

Some works make the distinction. Others don't. Yet the point remains that it's real-life definition, linked up there, makes the Dragon technically a Wyvern because of it's physiology. And yet, a Wyvern is just a kind of Dragon, so we're not saying they were entirely wrong or that the Dragon is not a Dragon.

Like I told you: "It's not just a bear, it's a polar bear". It was more of a clarification, not saying it's wrong.

3-Whyvern. Why indeed.

Trivia is trivia. It's far more miscellaneous. Most trivia isn't really necesary, yet not something worth eliminating altogether, since it's just extra info for the curious.