Implicating Wyvern -> Wings.

Reason: Wyverns, like pegasi, are defined by their wings.

i dont know about that. i know games like monster hunter have wingless wyverns

Why do we imply body parts again? That's like having human imply arms and legs and stuff.

Dogenzaka said:
Why do we imply body parts again? That's like having human imply arms and legs and stuff.

In some cases it makes sense. For example pegasus without wings is not pegasus anymore. It's just a horse.

It just gets in the way when say for instance, someone tags Rainbow Dash as a pegasus even though no wings are present, and it gets the wings tag.

Dogenzaka said:
It just gets in the way when say for instance, someone tags Rainbow Dash as a pegasus even though no wings are present, and it gets the wings tag.

Then that someone is tagging incorrectly, because Rainbow Dash is not a pegasus on that picture. People thinking "oh, it's a winged horse" when seeing wingless horse is not a fault of the rule, and certainly not a reason to remove implications that are very useful when you're tagging picture.

Disagree with the Wyvern -> Wings as there is indeed Wyvern without wings.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
In some cases it makes sense. For example pegasus without wings is not pegasus anymore. It's just a horse.

What about an image of a pegasus with wings that were lost to some sort of injury (evident in the image through, say, little stumps)?

Snowy said:
What about an image of a pegasus with wings that were lost to some sort of injury (evident in the image through, say, little stumps)?

That would be sad, reminding a pegasus who has lost its wings by mentioning them.

Snowy said:
What about an image of a pegasus with wings that were lost to some sort of injury (evident in the image through, say, little stumps)?

They still get it.

ippiki_ookami said:
They still get it.

Define "it" in this context, please.

Snowy said:
Define "it" in this context, please.

pegasus tag

Ippiki you play monster hunters

Guys, 6 month old thread, leave it alone.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
In some cases it makes sense. For example pegasus without wings is not pegasus anymore. It's just a horse.

But what if there is an image in which a pegasus has its wings clipped to leave only the nubs of its wing behind? You wound't call them whole wings anymore, and simply clipping the wings off doesn't make it a non-pegasus. In such a case, pegasus -> wings seems invalid.

FatherOfGray said:
But what if there is an image in which a pegasus has its wings clipped to leave only the nubs of its wing behind? You wound't call them whole wings anymore, and simply clipping the wings off doesn't make it a non-pegasus. In such a case, pegasus -> wings seems invalid.

Clipping the wings off doesn't necessarily mean that there were never any wings at all, which not implying wings would infer. Wyverns are arm-winged drakes, with only hind legs- basically giant draconic bats. Recognizing a wyvern as a wyvern without it having wings... Would just be wrong. o.o

123easy said:
Clipping the wings off doesn't necessarily mean that there were never any wings at all, which not implying wings would infer. Wyverns are arm-winged drakes, with only hind legs- basically giant draconic bats. Recognizing a wyvern as a wyvern without it having wings... Would just be wrong. o.o

Something with the stubs of what used to be wings should not be tagged as having wings.

Definition of Wyvern:

A wyvern /ˈwaɪvərn/, sometimes spelled wivern, is a legendary winged creature with a dragon's head, which may be said to breathe fire or possess a venomous bite, a reptilian body, two legs (sometimes none), and a barbed tail. A sea-dwelling variant, termed the sea-wyvern, has a fish tail in place of a barbed dragon's tail. The wyvern in its various forms is important to heraldry, [...]

=> Wyverns have wings. (Implication asked here!)
=> Wyverns are always scalies. (additional implication?!)
==> Wyverns are a subtype of dragon. (possible implication?!)
=> Wyverns have at best 2 legs
=> Wyverns are a heraldy item, that describes one specific form:
==> in Heraldy wyvern is described as "a dragon with 2 legs and wings"; a "wyvern sans legs" exists for those cases without legs.

It is not to be confused with the Lindworm - the bipedal dragon without wings!

You're talking about a definition of a fictional creature that was probably written by some kid who likes fantasy stuff. I've seen wyverns without wings, legs, and tails. Since it's not real and is different everywhere you look, there is no "official" definition.

ippiki_ookami said:
You're talking about a definition of a fictional creature that was probably written by some kid who likes fantasy stuff. I've seen wyverns without wings, legs, and tails. Since it's not real and is different everywhere you look, there is no "official" definition.

And yet, this implication was approved...

There is one: in Heraldy. Those are written down in codices since at least 1600.
Dragon, 2 or 0 legs, wings: Wyvern
Dragon, 2 legs, no wings: Lindworm.
Dragon, 4 legs, no wings: Tatzelworm.
Dragon, no wings, no lags: Snake

Linnefer said:
There is one: in Heraldy. Those are written down in codices since at least 1600.
Dragon, 2 or 0 legs, wings: Wyvern
Dragon, 2 legs, no wings: Lindworm.
Dragon, 4 legs, no wings: Tatzelworm.
Dragon, no wings, no lags: Snake

So, you're saying that snake is wingless dragon with decent Internet connection?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
So, you're saying that snake is wingless dragon with decent Internet connection?

I laughed.

ippiki_ookami said:
You're talking about a definition of a fictional creature that was probably written by some kid who likes fantasy stuff. I've seen wyverns without wings, legs, and tails. Since it's not real and is different everywhere you look, there is no "official" definition.

I'd really like to see these wyverns you're talking about, because it is a standardized definition. Just like Elf means pointy ears (and since tolkien, long willowy limbs and being tall and ageless and stuff like that). If it's standard, it fits.

123easy said:
I'd really like to see these wyverns you're talking about, because it is a standardized definition. Just like Elf means pointy ears (and since tolkien, long willowy limbs and being tall and ageless and stuff like that). If it's standard, it fits.

How about this?

123easy said:
I laughed.

I'd really like to see these wyverns you're talking about, because it is a standardized definition. Just like Elf means pointy ears (and since tolkien, long willowy limbs and being tall and ageless and stuff like that). If it's standard, it fits.

http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Monster_Encyclopedia:_Brute_Wyverns

Edit: Not to mention, what happens when you have a hybrid character that's half wyvern and half fish, and has fins, not wings.
According to tagging guidelines it's still tagged wyvern because it's a hybrid, and now you're stuck with a wings tag it shouldn't have.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
How about this?

That does not have wings, nor has any indication that it has ever had wings, thus is not a wyvern. It just looks like one in the sense that it's draconic and has two legs on a long body. Thus, Pseudo-Wyvern or Proto-Wyvern. :)

Halite said:
http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Monster_Encyclopedia:_Brute_Wyverns

Edit: Not to mention, what happens when you have a hybrid character that's half wyvern and half fish, and has fins, not wings.
According to tagging guidelines it's still tagged wyvern because it's a hybrid, and now you're stuck with a wings tag it shouldn't have.

1) MH refuses to call a dragon a dragon, they call everything draconic a wyvern in that game. :/

2) That, however, is a good point. Remove my vote for this alias.

123easy said:
...
1) MH refuses to call a dragon a dragon, they call everything draconic a wyvern in that game. :/
...

Odd, they seem to have these dragon-like things aside from wyverns.
http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Monster_Encyclopedia:_Elder_Dragons
So, you know, yeah.

Halite said:
Odd, they seem to have these dragon-like things aside from wyverns.
http://monsterhunter.wikia.com/wiki/Monster_Encyclopedia:_Elder_Dragons
So, you know, yeah.

You mean like the -Kirin- that is called a "dragon"? yeaaaaah. MH has its own system that doesn't call anything properly by species. They're more catagories of difficulty.

Halite said:
And yet, this implication was approved...

And now it's deleted, considering it was never agreed on in the first place.

Just because it's called a wyvern doesn't make it one, and shouldn't be tagged as one. We don't tag komodo dragons as dragons either.

"a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail."
That's directly from Oxford dictionary. Seems clear-cut enough: wyvern implies wings.

Genjar said:
Just because it's called a wyvern doesn't make it one, and shouldn't be tagged as one. We don't tag komodo dragons as dragons either.

"a winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail."
That's directly from Oxford dictionary. Seems clear-cut enough: wyvern implies wings.

If Imaginary creature A is called a wyvern by the game that created it, then we tag it as one even if it doesn't fit definition B that uses the same name for a different imaginary creature.

Edit: And we don't tag komodo dragons as dragons because they're real creatures that aren't actually dragons.
The situations do not parallel, not a valid argument for implication wings to wyvern.

Halite said:
If Imaginary creature A is called a wyvern by the game that created it, then we tag it as one even if it doesn't fit definition B that uses the same name for a different imaginary creature.

If you're referring to MH, then as was already mentioned before: it's a monster class, and the westernized name is specifically brute wyvern. They should be tagged as such, not as wyvern.

Lumping two completely different creatures under the same tag only makes it harder to find what you're looking for. And I don't see any point in having at least four 'species' tags for each MH creature (species, subspecies, class, and subclass, possibly reptile and scalie tags too). That seems overly cluttery.

A wingless wyvern is a contradiction in terms. MH "wyverns" aren't wyverns by the same tagging rule that means a wingless Rainbow Dash isn't a "pegasus".

31h253 said:
A wingless wyvern is a contradiction in terms. MH "wyverns" aren't wyverns by the same tagging rule that means a wingless Rainbow Dash isn't a "pegasus".

She is if there's still stumps.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
How about this?

Tatzelwyrm. at least heraldic.

Halite said:
She is if there's still stumps.

And if she has stumps where her *wings* used to be, it should be tagged as such. Wing_stumps would still implicate wings because it indicates that, at some point in time, they were complete wings and not just stumps.

123easy said:
And if she has stumps where her *wings* used to be, it should be tagged as such. Wing_stumps would still implicate wings because it indicates that, at some point in time, they were complete wings and not just stumps.

Um, no.
We don't tag characters as babies because they at some point used to be.
You tag what is in the picture, if the wings aren' in the picture you can tag stumps, but not wings.

Halite said:
Um, no.
We don't tag characters as babies because they at some point used to be.
You tag what is in the picture, if the wings aren' in the picture you can tag stumps, but not wings.

Well then we'd have to undo the pegasus -> wings implication because of a small handful of posts with wing stumps. And that wouldn't be good.

ippiki_ookami said:
Well then we'd have to undo the pegasus -> wings implication because of a small handful of posts with wing stumps. And that wouldn't be good.

Why would that be bad?
It would allow for more accurate tagging.

Halite said:
Why would that be bad?
It would allow for more accurate tagging.

It would reduce automation. Perfect tagging is sometimes rejected because nobody wants to vet thousands of images for correct tags to satisfy an edge case affecting a handful of them.

Halite said:
Why would that be bad?
It would allow for more accurate tagging.

Because a pegasus is not a pegasus unless the wings (or stumps) are showing, therefore the implication is needed, as it saves time and discourages people from mistagging. Undoing an implication that affects tens of thousands of posts just to satisfy a tiny pocket of images containing stumps, well, I mean come on.