Hello, I posted your Megas XLR calculations in the calc evaluation thread since someone else and I are planning to make a page for him. Do you know by any chance if Megas XLR used to have a page before and if so what happened to it?
Would you be willing to calc the Fire Phoenix feat if it hasn’t been calced before? I think the best view of Ringworld is at 01:34 and the feat is at 19:40 (not the actual destruction of Ringworld since that was a chain reaction).
Since it seems like you still have a problem with me based on serious misunderstandings of my mindset, I would appreciate if we could politely, calmly, and rationally talk things out in private, rather than engage in any public drama. I do not think that I have ever treated you badly personally, so I hope that we can straighten things out in a civilised manner. You can ask questions if you wish.
The mythology profiles on VBW are all unreliable garbage without exception. To fix this, we need:
1. Citations for every supposed feat, description, or ability in mythology, from reputable sources on ancient or modern mythologies (primary sources, of course, being the best). If we're quoting primary mythological texts (such as the Iliad) directly, then the specific translator of the text should be noted as well. The citations should obviously have links.
2. Detailed explanations for the cosmology of each mythology. I don't want to have to hear about 4-B Norns or the High 1-B Hindu-Buddhist multiverse without a proper explanation as to why.
3. The separation of "normal" and "abnormal" conceptions of various mythological figures into multiple keys (e.g. no conflating Hellenistic Dionysus with Orphic Dionysus and Dionysiaca Dionysus, as the character profile does)
4. A standard of dealing with the various names, titles, and epithets of mythological figures. In ancient cultures, such names, titles, and epithets were extremely important theologically speaking.
5. A standard of dealing with various "high-concept" descriptions of deities (I.e. descriptions of them being "exalted beyond the heavens" or "infinite and eternal" or "spaceless and timeless"). Should we take them at face-value (as the ancient cultures most likely did, for the most part), or should we consider them as mostly hyperbole, or should be try to "contextualize" them in a modern philosophical context?
6. A standard of dealing with ancient theologies, especially for mythologies without a specific "canon" (like classical mythology). I don't understand why we should have to consider Amaterasu as equal to Amenominakanushi based on an unnamed and unsourced old Japanese religious text that doesn't even seem to exist.