For future reference, you should get properly acquainted with our standards. This thread touches quite a few of them scattered throughout our pages, so I understand the confusion.
For the first point:
Feats:
You are attempting to invoke the following
However, even feats can be discredited if they are unsupported by context of the story, whether being far outliers, or retconned out of canonization.
However, this can be challenged through a
calculation.
As defined on our
Calculation Guide page:
In simplified terms, a calc is the best and most objective method to either prove or disprove a statement.
Through this sentiment, we can gauge one of the core principles of the wiki. Feats > Statements
In this case, Roshi's feat isn't actually Moon Level. Why is this the case, since he blew up a moon? Look up our
Attack Potency page:
Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency depends on the energy output of a single attack, not the area of effect of the attack.
Keep in mind that certain tiers do not necessarily correspond to the destruction of their namesakes in any meaningful fashion. This is because the minimum requirements for these tiers are arbitrary values.
Through a
calculation we can establish Roshi's feat falls more in line with our energy values for planet level, rather than moon level. As such, the statement regarding the minimum power level to destroy a planet in Dragon Ball is irrelevant. It doesn't actually contest Roshi's feat mathematically, which is what we care most about. Feats > statements.
Second (and to an extent, the third, but I will raise a different standard for that one) point:
You raise a potential issue given comments in regards to the narrative intent of an opponent capable of blowing away planets, suggesting Roshi isn't capable of such in the story. Well... Roshi's calculation doesn't contradict that. He didn't blow a planet, but the moon; it just so happens that blowing away the moon in the manner that he did so happens to correspond with our energy values for exploding planets. Now then, this can also be shown in the series itself.
When invoking the word "planet",
we define it as one of at least Earth size. This is straightforward, but, what happens when a series gives us a different definition/parameter?
From our page on
Canon:
With few possible exceptions only canon material is featured in the character pages, with non-canon material to be ignored.
This means in practice that we give priority to what the work itself shows us, rather than our potential arbitrary distinctions based on our system. Why does this matter? Well, it was shown to us that a "planet" in DB is of
greater size than our Earth. We determined such, once again, through a calculation (refer to point 1). So the statement made in regards to moon-busters vs planet-busters isn't contradicted, as Roshi did not affect anything close to what the series properly defines as a planet, and thus his feat would still be appropriate.
Third point:
This one is very easy to show why it doesn't matter. You see, we employ on the wiki the concept of Death of the Author. I will not link to an outside article, you may research upon this concept on your own time. However, the sentiments of such can be glanced upon on our
Glossary page:
"WoG": An abbreviation for "Word of God." It represents Author, or editorial, statements about a certain franchise, and/or its characters. However, take note that if this heavily contradicts, rather than complements, reliable in-story statements or feats, we tend to disregard them.
The sentiment to, as you try to imply, "cap" certain characters to a particular level is directly contradicted in the story itself. Roshi, plain and simple, possesses a feat calculable as beyond what they may or may not have imagined a "moon level" to be (and as raised in point 1, that definition in itself is dependent on the system or standards being used under the discussion; for our particular purposes, the name of the tier is merely that, a name; what matters is the energy value calculated).
Forth point:
You invoke that we seemingly followed narrative implications for a particular scaling. While this is true... We actually value something more than that: Consistency.
From our page on
Inconsistencies:
Generally, inconsistencies should not be accepted unless there is a good reason for it (such as a character who usually holds back on his or her full power).
We strive to reconcile as much of the narrative and feats displayed as we can. Cell's tiering is reached not only through
his statements regarding being capable of blowing away the solar system, but also through the
series' scaling over
the application of
multipliers.
Through the series' multiplier scaling in combination with the feats its shown, we find the consistency to completely accept Cell's feat. Is not just that he's stated to be a solar system buster (in fact, our calculation actually puts him a thousand times above our minimum energy value for the tier), but that the series shows a continuous progression of power through the usage of the Ssj transformations and enemies capable of toppling these, forcing them to train and get stronger as a result.
Extra question:
Master roshi feat has no timeframe only on the anime idk why they use anime timeframe on the manga
Refer back to our canon page:
If the feat is correctly depicted over multiple canons any of these can be used to judge the feat.
The anime is a valid source to be able to calculate Roshi's feat, as it happens practically 1-to-1 to the manga's events, but actually gives us more values to work with (in particular, timeframe). This is the reason the anime calculation got accepted.
-
As you can see, our rating for Roshi is supported through a lot of our standards: from narrative (justifying it not being an outlier); mathematically (through our calculation attempts); and scaling (for the higher later showings that serve to show consistency).
I will close this thread now. Please try to get more familiarized with our standards in the future. It is also helpful to lookout the multiple threads discussing similar topics. While many may find it annoying, I always advocate the usage of our Discussion Threads (the DB-specific one
here) to be able to ask supporters questions regarding our ratings and discussions. It is a valuable way to gain familiarity with our standards, the way we operate and the reason behind our ratings beyond the pages themselves.
To be noted: this is not to say our pages are perfect. In fact, it may truly come a time we may go back on many on the standards I've cited, or find new information that contradicts our current conclusion (for better or worse). That's the main reason
content revision threads exist. But for the time being, this particular thread simply does not contradict anything but instead fails to adhere to our standards.
