• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Articles clean-up reports (New forum)

Now that I look, that string of edits was responsible for another problematic calc; where the creation of a forest was considered equal to the destruction, despite that calc being added 7 months after we revised creation feats to be based on mass instead....

One of the concerns I have with the References for Common Feats page is how we're meant to find any pages which reference calcs which we change/remove.
Well, there are currently "only" 401 of them, so it is not an overwhelming task to check, note down the URLs of the relevant pages, and then update the statistics of the verses that are affected accordingly, but I know what you mean.

 
Last edited:
Thank you for the reply.
 
It was added by @DemonGodMitchAubin, with the original calc being done by @Hagane_no_Saiyajin.

Now that I look, that string of edits was responsible for another problematic calc; where the creation of a forest was considered equal to the destruction, despite that calc being added 7 months after we revised creation feats to be based on mass instead....

One of the concerns I have with the References for Common Feats page is how we're meant to find any pages which reference calcs which we change/remove.
Did you try the #<specific reference calc> function to narrow down the search? That should help you change up the Common Feats calc for pages that use them.
 
Did you try the #<specific reference calc> function to narrow down the search? That should help you change up the Common Feats calc for pages that use them.
Yeah, I don't think that worked because it's only visible in source, and neither google nor fandom's searches cover that.
 
Feel free, I only added it to help out you guys cause you needed someone to add calcs to the page
Thank you for the reply.

@Flashlight237

Would you be willing to update the page section in question please?

 
Thank you for the reply.

@Flashlight237

Would you be willing to update the page section in question please?

I had adjusted the values to properly match the SI unit for specific heat capacity (J/kg K); however, I hadn't modified the actual math part since I hadn't had the permission to do so.
 
Thank you for the reply.

@Flashlight237

Would you be willing to update the page section in question please?

I had adjusted the values to properly match the SI unit for specific heat capacity (J/kg K); however, I hadn't modified the actual math part since I hadn't had the permission to do so.
@DemonGodMitchAubin @KLOL506 @Therefir

Is it fine with you if Flashlight237 handles that as well?
 
@DemonGodMitchAubin @KLOL506 @Therefir

Is it fine with you if Flashlight237 handles that as well?
Pretty sure the feat as a whole was rejected multiple times since you'd need to apply heat from an outside source and physical strength alone wouldn't cut it as per what @Antoniofer said in an old thread so might as well just remove the feat completely.

It just isn't calculable.
 
Okay. If it is best to remove it entirely, would you be willing to handle it please?
 
Done. Please check the Edit History for any mistakes.

 
Done. Please check the Edit History for any mistakes.

Thank you for helping out.
 
According to the Lifting Strength page, Stellar's cap and Multi-Stellar's baseline is the weight of the most massive star at 6.3×10^32 kg (316.75 M☉). But I could only find that the three most massive stars discovered are Westerhout 49-2, BAT99-98 and R136a1 with a maximum weight of 222 to 250 M☉ (4.415×10^32 to 4.972×10^32 kg). Is that an error?
Since the value of 315M☉ for R136a1 is outdated, the most massive star would be Westerhout 49-2 with 250M☉, but its value has significant uncertainty since it can vary a lot and there is a possibility that it could be a binary system, reducing its mass considerably. So now we have BAT99-98 with 226M☉ and R136a1 with 222M☉
Bump, by the way, the mass of R136a1 was recalculated at 196M☉
 
Looking it up, the value was based on R136a1. The wikipedia page still mentions the analysis that resulted in a mass of 315 solar masses, but today seems to prefer another measurement.
Now, we could simply update the result to what currently is the top result of wikipedia's list of biggest stars, but to quote myself from days long past:
After thinking more about the idea of using the biggest known star/galaxy as border, I'm also not so sure about it anymore.

The idea is fine in the present, but science keeps progressing. What the mass of the largest known galaxy/star is can easily change by the scientists pointing their best telescopes at a new part of the nightsky and finding a bigger one. Or using a better tool/method to predict the mass.

As wikipedia notes, many of these mass values are already contested today.

While new facts, estimates and measurements are something that can influence anything in science, we are building our standard on particularly instable foundation here, in my opinion.
Perhaps we should agree on a border other than just what currently is on top of the list. Wikipedia mentions theoretical mass limits of 200 or 300 solar masses. Perhaps using that would make more sense.
 
I trust your judgement regarding this issue, but you can start a calc group forum thread regarding this issue, and summon our calc group members to provide input for you there if you wish.
 
The Standard Format for Weapon Profiles' Mass section (under Optional Values) has an error. It talks about listing values in metric and imperial, but lists units of length, not mass. I'd suggest changing the Wikipedia link to this, and the units from "# m (# in/′  - ft/′ ′ - yd - mi)" to something like "# kg (# oz - lb - st - t)"
 
Thank you for the information. Are you willing to correct the problem if I unlock the page in question for you?
 
Thank you. I have unlocked the page now. Tell me here when you are done.
 
Thank you for helping out.
 
I could make the edit, but I don't know a character that would replace it.
 
Sounds good. Applying it.

EDIT: Applied.
 
This also
 
This also
@Firestorm808

Would you be willing to take a look please?
 
@Firestorm808

Would you be willing to take a look please?
I was just giving an examples of Acausality Type 2 users.

Anyways
Please have a look at this profile
Please replace this with Acausality type 2 ,which covers both of the above resistances.
He has an explaination for his acausality on his profile
Raziel is free from the Wheel of Fate, the circle of Life and Death, and thus no longer bounded or affected by fate. Additionally, due having his own soul bounded to his arm he exist in a paradoxical state, being unaffected by time paradoxes and capable to change an otherwise immutable timeline)
 
I was just giving an examples of Acausality Type 2 users.
Oh. Sorry about that then. I forgot about the context of the preceding posts.

That can probably be applied then, @Agnaa .
Anyways
Please have a look at this profile

Please replace this with Acausality type 2 ,which covers both of the above resistances.
He has an explaination for his acausality on his profile
What do you think, @Elizhaa ?
 
It doesn't seem to be type 2 acausality since there is no clarification if the character doesn't exist in the past and future.
Type 2: Temporal Singularity: Characters with this type of Acausality do not exist in either the past or the future, only the present. This means they cannot be affected by changes to the past, while also making them resistant to Precognition that works by viewing the future, as they do not exist within it, and Fate Manipulation, for the same reason. In essence, they are able to choose their own fates, but they remain just as vulnerable at the point in time in which they do exist.
 
Back
Top