Articles clean-up reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

Your suggested changes seem fine to me at least, as long as DontTalk does not object to them.

Should I unlock the Nonexistent Physiology page for you to edit?

 

[Agnaa]

That could work.

 

[Antvasima]

I have unlocked the page. Tell me here when you are done.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will lock the page again.

 

[Agnaa]

Admittedly extremely minor, but I noticed tiny issue with this section I brought up earlier

On the Calculations page, under the section for "Change in Temperature and Vaporization or Melting Energy", there is a list of pre-calculated example values. The first 5 are formatted as "J/cm^3", but the last is formatted as "J/cc". I suggest changing the last to be in line with the rest.

The second value (melting cement) is formatted to use a full-stop to break up the numbers, while the sixth value (vaporization of titanium) isn't broken up at all. I'd suggest removing the first full-stop for the melting cement value, turning it into "12232.65 J/cm^3".

 

[Antvasima]

I will unlock the page in question for you. Tell me here after you are done.

 

[Agnaa]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. I will lock the page again then.

 

[RoTt35]

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?

 

[Antvasima]

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?

@DontTalkDT @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Executor_N0 @Antoniofer @AlexSoloVaAlFuturo

What do you think about this?

 

[Jasonsith]

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?

@DontTalkDT @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Executor_N0 @Antoniofer @AlexSoloVaAlFuturo

What do you think about this?

R136a1 does have a calculated mass of 315 solar mass = 6.3E+32 kg
So the value kind of justifies itself.
We only need to insert that as the basis for stellar's cap.

Our solar system has a solar mass of roughly 2E+30 kg, but the known mass of the heaviest known star is 315 times bigger than that.
Just insert the wikipedia link for the R136a1 in determining the cap for stellar and baseline for multi-stellar is fine

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply. Are you willing to handle it if I unlock our lifting strength page for you?

 

[RoTt35]

I swear the page said that R136a1 had a mass of 222M☉ instead of 315M☉. Although later it says that some analyzes were done to obtain the mass, one gave 315M☉ and another 256M☉, I also found another page that says it has 265M☉

 

[Agnaa]

I swear the page said that R136a1 had a mass of 222M☉ instead of 315M☉. Although later it says that some analyzes were done to obtain the mass, one gave 315M☉ and another 256M☉, I also found another page that says it has 265M☉

There was an edit made yesterday which changed R136a1's listed solar mass. According to that person's edit history, it seems like those star parameters came from this video game.

 

[RoTt35]

There was an edit made yesterday which changed R136a1's listed solar mass. According to that person's edit history, it seems like those star parameters came from this video game.

Those edits were undone with the justification that those parameters are not the most recent and now it is listed with a mass of 222M☉ again. Also the user who changed the mass to 315M☉ had created his profile yesterday and it doesn't exist anymore, so I guess he must have been a troll

 

[Agnaa]

I just noticed that Common Editing Mistakes, when advising people how to link threads, still suggests the way it was done on the old forum.

The image should be changed to something like this.

 

[Antvasima]

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?

R136a1 does have a calculated mass of 315 solar mass = 6.3E+32 kg
So the value kind of justifies itself.
We only need to insert that as the basis for stellar's cap.

Our solar system has a solar mass of roughly 2E+30 kg, but the known mass of the heaviest known star is 315 times bigger than that.
Just insert the wikipedia link for the R136a1 in determining the cap for stellar and baseline for multi-stellar is fine

Thank you for the reply. Are you willing to handle it if I unlock our lifting strength page for you?

@Jasonsith

I just noticed that Common Editing Mistakes, when advising people how to link threads, still suggests the way it was done on the old forum.

The image should be changed to something like this.

@Agnaa

I can unlock the page for you to edit if you wish.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa

I can unlock the page for you to edit if you wish.

That works.

EDIT: I'm about to sleep, so I won't be able to edit it in for quite a while. I've uploaded the image here in case anyone else wants to edit it in.

 

[RoTt35]

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☉

 

[Antvasima]

That works.

EDIT: I'm about to sleep, so I won't be able to edit it in for quite a while. I've uploaded the image here in case anyone else wants to edit it in.

Okay. That is unfortunate. Lots of other tasks got in the way of responding here quickly. Please mention here (or possibly via PM) when I should unlock the page for you to edit.

 

[Agnaa]

I can edit the page now.

EDIT: And unavailable again as I go back to bed.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

I have unlocked the common editing mistakes page. Tell us here when you are done.

 

[Agnaa]

I am done.

 

[Agnaa]

Najimi Ajimu's range has a misspelling; it should be Interdimensional not Intedimensional.

Also, at the end of her P&A, the description of Shapeshifting has a misspelling; instead of "abilities that lets her" it should be "abilities that let her".

 

[Antvasima]

I am done.

Thank you. I cleaned up the page further, and made some corrections to your edit as well.

Common Editing Mistakes

This is a page to help our members avoid common mistakes when writing source code, so other members do not need to spend considerable time cleaning up the mess. It is highly recommended that new users familiarize themselves with the contents of this page before making any edits on the wiki...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Najimi Ajimu's range has a misspelling; it should be Interdimensional not Intedimensional.

Also, at the end of her P&A, the description of Shapeshifting has a misspelling; instead of "abilities that lets her" it should be "abilities that let her".

I handled it.

 

[Flashlight237]

References for Common Feats

Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Under the section "Crushing Carbon to Create Diamond", the specific heat capacity of Anthracite coal is listed as 1.26 J/g K when, comparing it to the same site's listing for Graphite (0.71 J/g^-1 K^-1, or 710 J/g K), should actually be 1260 J/g K.

Also, I think J/g K is mistaken for J/kg K (720 J/g K is actually far higher than Water's 4184 J/kg K) https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Think that can be fixed?

 

[Antvasima]

References for Common Feats

Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Under the section "Crushing Carbon to Create Diamond", the specific heat capacity of Anthracite coal is listed as 1.26 J/g K when, comparing it to the same site's listing for Graphite (0.71 J/g^-1 K^-1, or 710 J/g K), should actually be 1260 J/g K.

Also, I think J/g K is mistaken for J/kg K (720 J/g K is actually far higher than Water's 4184 J/kg K) https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Think that can be fixed?

@KLOL506 @Jasonsith @Therefir @Executor_N0

What do you think?

 

[Agnaa]

That would require altering the calc, changing the results. Wouldn't it be best to create a thread for that?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, a calc group forum thread would be much preferable.

 

[KLOL506]

References for Common Feats

Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Under the section "Crushing Carbon to Create Diamond", the specific heat capacity of Anthracite coal is listed as 1.26 J/g K when, comparing it to the same site's listing for Graphite (0.71 J/g^-1 K^-1, or 710 J/g K), should actually be 1260 J/g K.

Also, I think J/g K is mistaken for J/kg K (720 J/g K is actually far higher than Water's 4184 J/kg K) https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Think that can be fixed?

Should that even be calculable to begin with? I visibly remember Antoniofer saying that this cannot be done physically without adding heat from somewhere else, so to truly call it crushing with physical strength alone is disingenuous. I know extreme pressures can indeed create massive amounts of heat, but we can't derive how much hot it will get using our hands alone, so...

 

[Therefir]

Yeah, I thought crushing feats involving diamonds were "debunked".

 

[KLOL506]

Also, the whole "crushing coal to form diamonds" thing has had many threads in the past and pretty much all of them got rejected akin to getting curbstomped. So there's that too.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It seems like that standard feat should probably be removed then.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. It seems like that standard feat should probably be removed then.

IDK how it even got added there to begin with but it definitely should be axed, yes.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

Vivec is still 1A to 1A+ when the rest of the cast got upgraded to High 1A

 

[Antvasima]

References for Common Feats

Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Under the section "Crushing Carbon to Create Diamond", the specific heat capacity of Anthracite coal is listed as 1.26 J/g K when, comparing it to the same site's listing for Graphite (0.71 J/g^-1 K^-1, or 710 J/g K), should actually be 1260 J/g K.

Also, I think J/g K is mistaken for J/kg K (720 J/g K is actually far higher than Water's 4184 J/kg K) https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html

Think that can be fixed?

Should that even be calculable to begin with? I visibly remember Antoniofer saying that this cannot be done physically without adding heat from somewhere else, so to truly call it crushing with physical strength alone is disingenuous. I know extreme pressures can indeed create massive amounts of heat, but we can't derive how much hot it will get using our hands alone, so...

Yeah, I thought crushing feats involving diamonds were "debunked".

Also, the whole "crushing coal to form diamonds" thing has had many threads in the past and pretty much all of them got rejected akin to getting curbstomped. So there's that too.

Okay. It seems like that standard feat should probably be removed then.

IDK how it even got added there to begin with but it definitely should be axed, yes.

It was added by @DemonGodMitchAubin, with the original calc being done by @Hagane_no_Saiyajin.

@DemonGodMitchAubin

Is it fine if we remove that calculation?

 

[Antvasima]

Vivec is still 1A to 1A+ when the rest of the cast got upgraded to High 1A

@Matthew_Schroeder @Ultima_Reality @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Elizhaa @Crabwhale @The_Divine_Phoenix @FinePoint

Is it fine if we update Vivec's statistics accordingly?