User talk:Thincat/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnson Beharry

Thanks for the kind words about this. Just happened to see the article in BBC so I figured I would start the article. Burgundavia 13:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Extreme points of the UK

My apologies - it was my mistake. I misread the article as saying it was a hillock slight to the east of Ardnamurchan point, when in fact the opposite was the case. I've now undone my revert. Warofdreams 14:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Heptadecagon

I just got your message (8/3/05) about posting the heptadecagon, and wanted to tell you that I'm about to do that. (I don't log on too often.) Jonathan48 01:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I just got your kind words about the animation, thank you! This site moves too fast for me :). Jonathan48 00:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas the Tank Engine articles

Thanks for the message. I take the point about the title, but I can't think of anything better at the moment as (The Railway Series) seems less obvious and equally wrong - particuarly for some of the characters introduced in Calling All Engines. If you have some suggestions, perhaps you could comment at talk:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends#merge proposal. Thryduulf 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Years

It's not so much that he's creating a great deal of cleaning up to do than that he's making such a massive mess that he can't be cleaned up after. I'd have to spend a good hour or two (and this is with rollback) to do that, and I'd rather spend that time checking edits for vandalism and writing new articles. His work with units is fine, IMHO, it's just that this time, he's using a bot to push his beliefs and disgregarding the opinions of everyone else. Ambi 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter

Thincat - Thanks a million for the citation link for the article on Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter located at URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitsky-Golay_Smoothing_Filter I knew this paper was oft cited! Thanks again, --Colm Rice 11:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Body Mass Index

Just wanted to tell you your edits to the article are accurate and very much appreciated. You've got my full support and backing! I also think it would be wise to use some open-source software to create a visual chart of BMI Numbers. Cheers, and thanks.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Good work on your edits to physiology related articles. I'm getting impressed! The magical Spum-dandy 12:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should send you a thank-you card for sending me a thank you card due to my initial thank you card. :-P The magical Spum-dandy 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you want to do a spoken version of Body Mass Index ?

Come on... have a go! :-) J.Spudeman 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

I see that Jayjg has taken to calling you "unintelligible", too.[1] But he will only do in in edit summaries as he revert-wars on the project page, not in response to your well-reasoned comments on the talk page. Gene Nygaard 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's good that someone other than me reverted Jayjg. If two or three people are willing to do that, it might serve as a wake-up call to him that it is something that needs to be discussed and ironed out. But I wouldn't bet about him having gotten that wake-up call yet. Gene Nygaard 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider. I learned over 25,000 edits ago not to let the fact that someone had more edits than I did or was a sysop or whatever be an inhibiting factor in trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I'm not about to change now. Of course, a revert isn't really in order; as I've suggested on the talk page, we have a consensus on the proposed wording and you should run with it on that basis. Gene Nygaard 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Western Avenue, etc.

I think I now understand!

Are you saying that if two different references A and B say:

A: Western Avenue starts at Old Oak Common Lane and goes to Denham Roundabout along the line of the A40.

B: The distance along the A40 from Old Oak Common Lane at its junction with the A40 to Denham Roundabout on the A40 is xyz miles.

Then the article would infringe WP:NOR if it said Western Avenue is xyz miles long and giving these two references?

I agree with this as a very fine point (and so wonder whether this might not be a "point"). I think many people might allow it, even the High Priests of the sacred pillars of Wikipedia.

I thought you were criticising the lack of reference for "A" coupled with a claim that such a reference is impossible.

And I thought other people on Talk were critising that the Multimap reference did not provide "B" to WP standards.

Well, I have three thoughts:

1) Provide Multimap graphical map references that show "Western Avenue" (as text) extending between the stated points (within the accuracy of the claim of length). Only one source is then involved.

or 2) Split the Western Avenue entry in the article into the two separate claims "A" and "B" above. I'm increasingly thinking that the bulleted list should be dispensed with and (unordered) paragraphs inserted instead. But I'm not doing all this if the article is going to be deleted.

or 3) Give us a break and let's just get on. I know you (and many others) hated the article in its original form and this has plagued it ever since. I thought it was salvagable but the reversions and nit-picking has put me off from doing very much.

I know it's no excuse but even Featured Articles will have this tiny abount of synthesis. Let me also quote WP:NOR: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.".

I'd be delighted to get your thoughts, either here or on my talk page. Let me know what you think. We might be able to salvage something! Best wishes! Thincat 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is copied from the edit I made to MartinRe's talk page. It continueed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longest_streets_in_London_(2nd_nomination) which was reviewed at [2]. Thincat 13:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again :)

Putting together two sources to create a third can be original research in some cases, but not in others, and this is probably borderline. Not Or would be two sources saying that "Tony blair is labour leader", and "labour leader is at no 10", saying that "Mr blair is at no 10" would be fine, as it's clear that A=B, B=C that the two B's in this case are the same. With road references, it's possible that they are referring to subtely different things, where on the Denham Roundabout does the western avenue stop, and where on the roundbout was it measured to? Are they referring to the same point?

I wouldn't say I "hated" the original, but there were severe problems with it, namely it was very clear OR. People were measuring the roads themselves, and updating the list based on their answers. Interesting, yes, but not encloypedic - if you go to a enclyopeda and see a list of 1-10 under longest streets in London, you would assume that those are the longest, and not just the longest so far that a group of unnamed people have measured.

The current one has problems with expansion. Without doing original research it appears very unlikely that it can be significantly added to, considering how few references were found in the three months since the last afd. (It also kept getting reverted to the complete unsourced version, but that's a different issue). Even with sources, with multiple people adding details, what are the chances that they use different maps/driving software and come up with different answers? What would happen then? Include all different answers (with the respective sources) or give approximate answers, e.g. 11-12?. Neither are particularly appealing, imagine a page full of Axx 1.2m/1.25m/1.2, or Ayy (1-2 miles).

Hopefully that makes it clearer what my objections to the article are, contributions like your addition on Harrow road (Would you believe I was born there? :) are interesting, and sourced, but I personally think they're more appropiate added to the road article.

Regards, MartinRe 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

white peak of the three spiritual brothers

Hi, I'm attempting to translate Gangkhar Puensum into latin, whose orthographical, phonological, and semantic properties strongly discourage just simply transliterating the name. Now I know very little about tibetan, dzongkha, chinese or anything else, really, from that part of the world, but it seems to me much is being said in 4 syllables. I found an alternate translation online (the only other I could find) that rendered it as "3 mountain siblings". Taking Occam's razor, I tend to believe this alternate translation, as it says much less semantically than "white peak of the three spiritual brothers". At the same time, I don't want to doubt your translation, I would just like to know what, and where your source was. Just trying to make a better translation into latin, is all. Please help.--Josh Rocchio 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Thincat—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your memorable words of support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From the drain

Thanks for rescuing the phrase "other founders" from Patrick Moore. I was wondering where to put those words, when I copy-edited that paragraph and worried about their omission. Two heads are better than one. --Uncle Ed 10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not use SEDS.org as a reference

Do not use the SEDS.org website as a reference. The website contains too much out-of-date, unreferenced, or incorrect information. Their website simply cannot be relied upon. (However, this does not discredit your comments at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper

Thanks for the heads up about the Sgt Pepper cover. I updated the source (thebeatles.com). Snow1215 12:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Category comment

Hi. i saw your note on Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. just want to let you know, it was not my intention at all to create an unbalanced category. this all seems kind of ironic, as my whole point was to provide a category which would lay out the issues clearly, neutrally and helpfully. Guess I didn't succeed. is there any way that i could please ask you to reconsider? please feel free to write anytime. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm sure you weren't (and didn't) create an unbalanced category. We are somehow misunderstanding each other. See again my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_issues. Regarding the subcategories of this category, I thought there was an imbalance in the articles included but I am not at all sure that one should criticise a category for what has been included unless the category itself encouraged a lack of balance. Thincat (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks re heads-up re BHG. As horrible a time as that had been, I have to give her props for the earnest effort to enunciate the policy theory motivating their group, which still illudes me. I'm reminded of the soldier in Dr. Strangelove who didn't want to shoot the Coca Cola machine. Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i think that when you placed the coordinates in your location finder you missed out the - as when i put 51.051644, 1.171072 into google earth which is supposed to bring up Cheriton, Hampshire when actually it brought up somewhere in the English channel which is strange as that is what you say happened to you when you placed 51.051644, -1.171072 into your location finder. I think that one of us has gone wrong somewhere! Cheers Dewster^{_^*'_} 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ye, if you study the two carefully then you can see that once you click on the coordinates in the top right hand corner of the page that the coordinate for W has changed to - if you left it xxx.xx and to xxx.xx if you gave it a -. This makes no sense to me at all but hay. I will go around and revert all my old coordinates so that they are correct. I know it is great to see such variety. =D Many Thanks Dewster^{_^*'_} 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gawain

Thanks for the message. I thought your edit was better, because you placed the mention of the British Library after the manuscript had come into the possession of Robert Cotton. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To demise

An editors lack of a good dictionary is not generally a good reason to revert other editors changes [3] [4]. However changing an uncommon and slightly archaic wording for a more readily coimprehensible one is. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When I get home I'll look in my Oxford English Dictionary for demise as a verb (and I expect I shall indeed find it!). Thincat (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED (1971 edition) does indeed have "demise" as a verb, mainly with the legal meaning "convey" but also meaning "die", the latter marked rare but not marked with an † so not known to be obsolete. The examples given of the meaning "die" are dated 1727 and 1787. It is not clear to me whether 1787 is intended as a latest date. Thincat (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also not heard the verb used in actual speech. It did stand out as an archaism in the Neilston article, and I did agree with your edit. But for example the not uncommon use of "demised" to mean deceased, does suggest that it was originally used as a verb, and the edit summary provoked me. Continued happy editing. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan map

Bhutan location map

Hi Thincat, just to let you know I've created a new Bhutan location map. The national borders are based on this map[5] (from the CIA World Book) overlaid with internal boundaries taken from here[6]. I'm reluctant to replace the image used in Template:Location_map_Bhutan because it seems to link to a large number of pages, most of which are not articles about the northern borders and the CIA map's national borders aren't very precise. What do you think about do you think about using it for Gangkhar Puensum though? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this. Your map looks much better (I've eyeballed it against my Times Atlas). I've also checked the lat/long given for GP and it really isn't up there in China (Tibet)! There is indeed a border dispute (generally conducted in a fairly gentlemanly way on both sides) but even China doesn't seem to claim the summit is wholly within China. Like you, I'd favour proceeding cautiously. I agree it would be best to try just the GP article first a before dealing with all the Bhutan articles. The trouble is the Infobox Mountain seems to invoke rather a fixed image name. Have you dealt with all this before? I have found Template:Infobox Mountain, Template:Location map and I posted at Template talk:Location map Bhutan. I haven't yet found what must be some technically strict rules about the requirements of the map image. Was there a wikiproject about this, do you know? I can't find talk, let alone documentation. Thincat (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's a very complicated template. The code is too long to be entered straight into the page (I've been playing about with it here) so in order to use it, it'd be necessary to create a second Bhutan map and add it to the list at the bottom of this page. However I'm fairly sure I saw a mountain article recently that simply had the image RedMountain.svg[7] overlaid. I don't know how to do it but I'll try to find it tomorrow. Best wishes --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Here[8] seems to be where it started, then moving to the mountains at[9]and User:RedWolf also seems to know about these things. Thincat (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll see what I can do. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's done - very messy code I'm afraid. I hope it won't annoy anyone. Anyway thanks for your help. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A problem: in Firefox (3.0.4), which I normally use, the marker is at the proper latitude but on the left hand edge of the map. In IE (7.0) it is fine. I can't follow any of your or the other code but I'm interested enough to take a careful look though it wouldn't be for a few days (I started off life as a computer programmer). Anyway, you obviously understand these templates and the coding so I'm glad of that! I imagine you have access to Firefox but if not I can look at other pushpin location maps. As a spot check, in Phuntsholing the marker displays in the right place on the old location map for both browsers. Thincat (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm not at all competent with this code either (all I really did was borrow from the template) but I know enough to take another look. If not, it'll have to go. Can't really see a way round that.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed - apparently the image in Firefox was left aligned and in Internet Explorer it was cetrend, so the position of the red triangle was relative to a different point in each image.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have fixed it. Brilliant! Thincat (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Thincat on zh-wp is free

Hello Thincat, I just want to inform you that you can occupy that user name now. Sorry for the long delay.--Wing (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wing. Yes, I've tried it and it works! Thincat (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Toba Catastrophe graphic

I agreed with you and others graphic needs lightening and asked Why Can't We Just do it ourselves? And as a .jpg which lightens up better. See talk here. This is the wikicommons page where someone else made same comment. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

clicks

Actually, it was accurate to say that the Doke symbols were never much used. Wells' argument is that they were widely taught, but that's tangential: there are very few publications that actually use them, if you don't count mere tables of the IPA. He admits as much with his statement, "I would estimate that at least 25,000 people were taught them, many more than ever worked with Khoisan languages." I agree with Wells that they are better than the pipe symbols, and I would support a shift, but Khoisan and Bantu linguistics overwhelmingly uses the pipe symbols. (I am glad, however, that what if I remember right was my "contemptuous" remark appears to have sparked Wells into defending the Doke symbols. kwami (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I know nothing of phonetics but have recently found it fascinating to read about the subject and even more recently discovered John Wells' blog. Please revert my deletion if you so think: you have my full confidence! Thincat (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

TS Leda

Nice article! I've had a go at rewriting the infobox for the ship, which can be seen in my sandbox. What was her use between 1979 and 1985, was it still as an accommodation ship or was she back in service by then? Once this is sorted out the infobox can be placed in the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I know little about ships and nothing about the template so it was a newbie's effort. I sailed on the ship as a kid (1957) and, disappointed to find nothing about it on WP, did some browsing and found she went on the have a very unusual career. I'll see what I can find for early 1980s. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It took me a while to find a way to get all the info in yet not have a mile long infobox! I'm so glad <br> works here, don't know what I'd do without it. I've added a few cats to the article, but hidden them as I'm not 100% sure they are correct. If they are correct unhide them. the two Kuwait cats will need creating but that's not a big job. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at Talk:TS_Leda#History in case others want to pick up on this also. I think the question is what to put in the article text, what in the infobox and what to leave out! Some references are blog-like and even seemingly reliable sources have slight differences. I will not edit any of this into the article right now but will wait to see what you do. Your infobox looks good to me. BTW I spotted your Great Ellingham Windmill article at the top of your sandbox. I used to live at Little Ellingham 25 years ago. I don't actually remember this mill but there was one quite nearby, at Deopham, if I remember right. Thincat (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! and now I've found it on your Norfolk Mills website Thincat (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the infobox to the talk page too. Looks like it needs a bit more work than I thought. BTW, the Great Ellingham Windmill article is up and running. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "Commissioned 1940" bit. I don't remember adding that bit myself. Was Leda ordered in 1940? I'll remove it from the infobox for now, if a source is found it can be re-added. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of TS Leda

Hello! Your submission of TS Leda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I have never had a shot at DYK before so had not realised how much work is involved for other people in keeping the show on the road. I have suggested an alternative hook. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for TS Leda

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TS Leda, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Thincat, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Psychonautics

Your keep reason worded my own sentiments in a very succinct and clear way. Thank you for that.--~TPW 14:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Structure of Oscar Wilde

Hi Thincat,

I reverted your removal of the "main" template link to De Profundis (letter) in Oscar Wilde. I'd like to explain more fully than the edit summary allowed. I see your point about De Profundis not exactly being an article about Wilde's time in prison, but I still think it gives, or should supply, a good account of Wilde's imprisonment. Articles on literary works should describe the composition and publication of their subject, where there is interesting information to relate. De Profundis was one of the most notable outcomes of Wilde's imprisonment, and the article hopefully will describe how Wilde's warders bent the rules to accomodate him, what he read before and during publcation, and the physical conditions he was living in at the time.

Secondly, more than half of the imprisonment section is devoted to the work, reasonable for an article on an author. I'd like to solicit your views on the structure of the article more generally, and if you think it adqueately covers the subject? Also the images, I think it is well illustrated, but some of them are too large or small, or wrap awkwardly around the text. Do you know where we might request an image clean-up? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Of course I think that De Profundis is very relevant to Wilde's imprisonment which is why I added (yet another) link to the article from the current section. However, from the standpoint of the description of Wilde's incarceration the De Profundis article is more "see also" than "main article". As for the adequacy of article's treatment, I don't know. I am interested in what you say about the warders bending the rules to help him because neither of the articles really brings that out. I stumbled here from Penal servitude because I wondered exactly what the term meant and the discussion referred to Wilde. Perhaps he was deliberately (and "correctly"?) treated harshly in Wandsworth and comparatively well in Reading.

I see what you mean about the pictures. They do bob around a lot, seemingly at random! I hadn't noticed though and it doesn't bother me personally. I do know how to change sizes and locations but I wouldn't trust my own judgement in improving matters. Thincat (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Cold Neptune and Jupiter

Hi, the reason I nominated these is because the usage of the terms seems to be little more than an adjective+noun combination and thus trivial. The terms are also poorly-defined, where for example do you draw a line between "warm Jupiters" and the "cold Jupiters"? This contrasts with the hot Jupiters which represent a distinct population of objects, as evidenced by the mass/period diagram for radial-velocity exoplanets which shows a cluster of giant planets at roughly 3-days orbital period and masses typically around 1 Jupiter mass.(The other major population of giant planets identifiable in the mass/period diagram appears to be orbital periods longer than ~100 days, and a wide range of eccentricities, i.e. the eccentric Jupiters.) If you regard these terms as an atmospheric category, we already have the Sudarsky extrasolar planet classification. In short, I do not think these classifications are independently notable. Icalanise (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all this. I'll ponder things. I had never come across the terms at all and don't have the relevant astrophysical background. My astrophysical knowledge was from forty years ago(!) when there were no exoplanets (and professional astronomers weren't interested in planets of any sort anyway). Anyway, in the light of your remarks I am glad I did not just plunge in. Thincat (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hot Neptunes are definitely on firmer ground, seems to be quite a well-attested category of extrasolar planets. Time will tell whether they represent a distinct population though, at the moment we are in the realm of small-number statistics, unlike in the case of Jupiter-type planets. Icalanise (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)

I think you're misinterpreting something. Part of the problem is that the older charts, from 2004–2009, are also unverifiable and therefore shouldn't have chart positions listed. 2010 is the only year that has an individual Number Ones list in its own article, and the reason for deletion is that the 2010 list is more than half-unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But the discussion is about whether or not we should delete the 2010 article and a good deal of it is verifiable and, indeed, verified. Unverified items should be deleted removed and I agree this leaves a rather unsatisfactory article. However it should not be deleted on grounds of OR or V but more on the lines of lacking notability as a whole. I am not sure what should happen if involved editors have consensus that an article would be best abandoned. Probably it should be merged. What do you think? Have the earlier lists already been deleted? I can't see what has happened. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The other lists have been deleted by Nowyouseeme and me because they lack verifiability. Verifiability seems to be the foremost concern with this chart, as there's no way to assure that the peaks listed are accurate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I quite understand. It is a pity when online references "vanish". This will become a major problem when more news sites go behind pay-walls if their older material disappears completely. By the way, we "met" recently when we both !voted keep for Spraint! I couldn't help but notice your signature. We once saw an otter walking along the road in front of our house (Scotland). It must have got lost. Thincat (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)