More actions
I edited the page to change the "exoskeleton" interpretation in order to eliminate what seems to be a direct contradiction via the Visual Dictionary section. My edit was reversed with the comment "the Visual Dictionary is not a valid source for in-universe articles." Fair enough ... now I know that rule! But this raises a different question, then:
What authoritative source proves that the Sycorax do, in fact, have exoskeletons and not helmets? If such evidence exists, it should be cited, right? And if it does not, then should the article be rewritten to say "the appearance of an exoskeleton" or something?
In other words, if there is no such evidence that it is truly an exoskeleton, why does speculation trump the Visual Dictionary?
It sure looks like a helmet. And if it isn't, then how do these guys eat their dinner?
http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/sycorax.jpg
(Or even talk, for that matter.)
Also, Weta's officially licensed product is called a "Sycorax helmet," not a Sycorax exoskeleton ... doesn't that at least suggest the creative intent was the former moreso than the latter?
http://www.wetanz.com/sycorax-helmet/
Not trying to be a troublemaker ... just trying to learn the ropes.
Just another Bill ☎ 03:19, June 20, 2013 (UTC)