>>57526589>dialga has two tails, you know which one I’m talking about and are purposely being obstinantDialga has one tail. To deny this is to deny objective reality. A frill is not a tail.
>like I said, it’s also a dragon, because the pre-tolkien meaning of dragon was a strong creature>this is evidenced by tiamat (the original dragon) not being described like a typical post-tolkien dragonNot only does this not answer what dragon the mata-mata is, but it deflects to talking about Tolkien. Meanwhile, pic rel is a dragon from before his time, and your OC fake species is a dragon in name only, be they historical (basically a chimera that looks scary) or modern (big maybe-winged reptile). It'd be better off as a Gastrodon regional form!
>other pokémon having blue inspirations (water and the sky) doesn’t stop this one from having a blue inspirationDiamonds are, besides clear, often described as somewhat blue, such as in Minecraft or the famous blue Hope Diamond. Furthermore, steel, not just one of Dialga's types, oftentimes has a slightly blue oxide layer. Your OC fake species isn't even the right blue. It's too vibrant, like a tree frog.
>what about the part where both of them are immune to extremely potent toxins?Mongooses are famously resistant to the potent King Cobra's toxins, yet you wouldn't say they're an inspiration for Dialga, would you?
>would you say that jirachi does not derive any inspiration from tanzaku just because it isn’t explicitly mentioned?you blithering idiot, those straight up are the strips Jirachi has on it, and is the direct inspiration for its wish granting abilities. Of course Tanzaku isn't mentioned directly, it doesn't have to be when it IS the mon. Meanwhile, Dialga straight up isn't your OC fake species. It much more closely visually resembles a sauropod, specifically one with all of two frills and an elongated head, whereas your OC fake species has many, many more frills all over and a stout head.
