Follow TV Tropes
Pulled this from the caption:
[[hottip:*: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Norwegian_spiral_anomaly Caused by a failed Russian missile test.]]
Work it out here like reasonable people instead of turning our articles into a battlefield.
Wikipedia article looks legit and the link doesn't look out of place. Methinks it can stay like that.
Before Mega showed up there, it looked like this: "Generally agreed to be a Russian missile test gone WAY the hell out of control, but where's the fun in that?" Could be rolled back to that too, maybe with the link still.
Either sounds fine. Or we could split the difference with:
Generally agreed to be a Russian missile test gone WAY the hell out of control, but where's the fun in that?
I'd be good with that, though just having the WP link is okay as well. The image does need to be sourced.
By sourced, do you mean crediting the photographer, or explaining what's being photographed? Because the former is what's almost always meant by "sourcing" when it comes to photos.
My apologies; I meant the latter, though I mostly use the term for the former. It'd drive me crazy to not know what it is! Don't know where the image is from photographer-wise, though the Daily Mail credits "Rex Features" if that's helpful.
That sounds like a made-up name, honestly, but we can add it. It's probably not public domain, so crediting would be good.
I went ahead and restored the note. If we want to trim it back down, we can, but I think the "where's the fun in that" part is pretty cute, myself.
Rex Features is a thing. However, I couldn't find the image in their archive and it's also all over the net without the mark.
Would just adding "(C)Daily Mail/Rex Features" to the footnote work?
Assuming Daily Mail got it right, though, the copyright has nothing to do with them — they were just an English site in the source list (though they shouldn't ever really be cited IMO!) so I looked there for if a copyright notice could be found. The New Scientist source (who are reputable) also has the image, giving credit to Jan Petter Jorgensen/Rex Features; it should probably be changed to that.
Are we happy with what's here?
I am; thanks!
Yep, looking good.
The description of this trope suggests that most black holes have no accretion disks and the few that have them are "special" for having them. In reality, nobody has ever discovered a black hole without an accretion disk. Such a "naked singularity" is believed to be impossible.
I'd change the text to reflect this, but it woudl mean more than just changing "some" to "all," as the error is reflected throughout the entire description. Perhaps some troper will be clever enough to completely re-write the description without ruining this trope.
Community Showcase More