Hey Mr. Bambu!
Sorry to disturb you, but I had a quick question about how we handle tricky situations on the wiki.
Let’s say in a movie, something is visually depicted as a black hole (with features like an accretion disk and event horizon), but in the dialogue it's called a neutron star at least twice. On top of that, there are multiple WoG statements, from the director, explicitly referring to it as a neutron star, and they even mention that a physicist helped them design it accurately.
So from one angle, the visual and technical elements suggest a black hole, but there’s a strong and consistent set of statements identifying it as a neutron star.
In a case like this, which takes precedence on VSBW, visual depiction or explicit statements?
Sorry to disturb you, but I had a quick question about how we handle tricky situations on the wiki.
Let’s say in a movie, something is visually depicted as a black hole (with features like an accretion disk and event horizon), but in the dialogue it's called a neutron star at least twice. On top of that, there are multiple WoG statements, from the director, explicitly referring to it as a neutron star, and they even mention that a physicist helped them design it accurately.
So from one angle, the visual and technical elements suggest a black hole, but there’s a strong and consistent set of statements identifying it as a neutron star.
In a case like this, which takes precedence on VSBW, visual depiction or explicit statements?

I'll try to take a look.

Reactions: FriendOfTheTeaParty