Probably because scar got it higher
How funny would it be to recalculate it with the number of stars shown * star gbe
Aint nobody counting allat
That's it's not a galaxy for sure though, it's based on interpretation at best.
Well it's not verbatim stated of course, but this wiki usually abides by the duck test right?
Mangakas rarely, if ever, think about the colours of the gazillion specific stars in a galaxy to hammer home the fact that there is meant to be a galaxy, especially if it's far away. In fact, since
Kubo and many authors who make galaxies such as
Naoko Takeuchi draw them in black and white, there is no logic that wouldn't be considered absurd to assume Kubo would need to think about that for it to be valid (especially when the coloured edition wasn't even from him, it was from Shueisha)
(Also the shape is irregular and it's not an obvious galaxy either, you can argue it can be different). Also the shape is irregular and it's not an obvious galaxy either, you can argue it can be different) They are also just a perfect match to stars clusters...
I meant the one at the bottom right of the scan, which looks like a
"regular" shaped galaxy from far away to me. The one at the top matches the cluster interpretation you made so I thought I would make it clear
He wouldn't need to show it in this scan for it to be true in another scan, also we don't see planets in either interpretation of the feat so galaxies being a possible thing to exist can be true (also,
galaxies are just a bunch of stars really)
Anime not showing it make it worse. Because it support the interpretation there's not any.
But we didn't erase any feats made from the manga, we made it into secondary canon where it can supplement stuff the anime either forgets or omits that isn't contradictory. That's why in the second EE thread I made, I was completely against banning the usage of Mayuri's statement about Aizen's immortality just because it was manga-exclusive.
Doesn't matter if now God Tiers scales higher, and so it would "make sense", there is still not a concrete proof that's a galaxy.
That's not the argument I made, the Senna feat upscale is irrelevant to what I was trying to say.
Just because you see an amass of stars =/= galaxy. Just because it can be a galaxy doesn't mean it has to be an actual galaxy.
Duck test applies here imo, but sure ig.
Milky way has a diameter of 100,000 light-years across, many irregular galaxies are few thousand to a few tens of thousands of light-years. (Unless we take the high-end of irregular ones). So the feat would qualify in the very high range, of 4A.
Alright, so should we change the baseline of
3-C just because there are smaller constructs considered as galaxies aswell? Of course not, that's absurd. We take the accepted baseline of what we consider to be a galaxy and move from then on. There are smaller solar systems than our Solar System, smaller stars than our sun, smaller moons than our moon, smaller planets than Earth and etc. so should their respective tiers also be lowered by that logic?