1270:. However, none of these papers offer a definition of the term, and use it interchangeably with such phrases as 'hotter companion,' 'hot dense companion' and 'companion that is hotter.' If someone can find a genuine definition of this term in the literature, it would go a long way in moving this debate along. *Caveat 2: While the term appears to be nothing more than the sum of its parts, there are consequences to this definition. As background, 'companion' has nothing to do with size or mass of the objects in question, but the luminosity (essentially, how bright they are). Generally and approximately, the companion is the dimmer of the two stars as they appear in the visible spectrum. Any star that is both dimmer and hotter than the primary will be smaller. HOWEVER, not all stars that are smaller and hotter will be the companions, and not all stars that are smaller and companions will be hotter.
579:. Although it may not be a well-defined term in the professional astrophysics community, the term is used in published literature on the subject to describe a concept for a lay person. A non-astrophysicist wishing to find more information on the topic would find the article to be valuable introduction to the concept. As Colonel Warden points out, there is no requirement that the article follow the jargon of the field. Knowledge (XXG) is not intended to be used only by specialists in the subjects of its articles; in fact, quite the contrary.
919:- while the term "hot companion" is common in astrophysics, it does not represent a specific class of objects, and has no special meaning beyond that of its component terms "hot" and "companion", just as "red car" has no special meaning beyond that of "red" and "car" (and thus does not warrant its own article, despite the fact that "red car" is not an uncommon term). A quick search of the SAO/NASA ADS shows it has been used to describe a whole variety of objects, such as Wolf-Rayet stars
1147:, unfortunately we don't have the admin's rationale as to why they felt it did not apply. Note that vote counting is not the sole factor that should be considered in a deletion discussion. My apologies if you considered my attempts to provide additional evidence for the "dictionary term" viewpoint to be
1256:
Lot of talk lately. I think unambiguous clarification is in order: from my research on the topic, "Hot
Companion" means exactly what it says: a 'companion' that is 'hotter' than the primary star. Also, I think it is of paramount importance to NOT rely on what the wikipedia article says, because it is
202:
The concept "hot companion" is not a well defined astronomical concept. Rather, it's an adjective - noun pairing in the same way "massive companion" or "cold companion" is, and can be interpreted in several ways. Additionally, the source being relied upon to establish the definition does not actually
969:
want this article gone. Second, there is neither consensus for doing so (Nstock, RJH, and
Icalanise say delete, but Headbomb, Nergaal, Colonel Warden, TJRC, Fotaun, and myself all say no) nor a policy which controls the outcome (if there was, the closing admin in the first nom would have deleted the
732:
where the abstract clearly uses the term "companion" and "secondary" interchangeably. Let's do that as a dictionary definition... "companion (n): in astronomy, used to denote the secondary star of a binary system". There is also the widespread usage of the term "cool companions" as well, guess what
1142:
Well you did vote "keep" before trying to propose early close of the discussion with "keep", so pardon me for seeing you as trying to circumvent the discussion timescale to get your desired result. The closing admin of the previous discussion did not provide any rationale for how they weighted the
1101:
chance that the proponents of deletion will contest, harangue, and hammer away at every single keep !vote tendered, regurgitating the same arguments they have already offered ad nauseum. Given these four points, it's obvious to me where we're heading, and since none of the faff-around between here
846:
And just to clarify here: "primary" and "secondary" can have different definitions depending on how a binary system is observed: there are cases where the visual primary is the spectroscopic secondary, or cases where which star is brighter changes depending on which band you are observing in. In a
831:
and V664 Cassiopeiae is about systems where the hotter star is the primary of the system, and on the first page there is a sentence which reads: "This is a consequence of large temperature differences at the secondary's surface which are caused by the heating of its hemisphere by a hot companion."
1265:
generally considered to be appropriate texts for non-major undergraduate students and 1st year graduate astronomy majors, respectively. Neither addresses the idea of 'hot companion' so a definition cannot be obtained from them. Instead, I have deduced the definition from various papers found on
521:
I strongly encourage you to follow the references and see the context in which the term is used (or in the case of the 4th reference, not used). You will not find 'hot companion' defined or treated as a unique term (presumably because the authors do not consider it a unique term). Indeed, after
1169:
I've been thinking about this for a few days, and sadly it's probably too late to make a difference, but it concerns me that a lot of the discussion and most of the keep votes seem to be based on a misunderstanding about what a hot companion is, possibly stemming from the assumption that the
767:. "Often" probably doesn't cut it. The upshot is that if "companion" is ambiguous between "smaller" and "less bright," but "hot companion" always denotes the smaller, hotter companion, your dicdef argument doesn't work. On the other hand, if it's a close call—i.e. if "companion star"
398:... totally spurious term, just a mash of hot + companion, with no redeeming characteristics. Just like "hot soup" is a soup that is hot, which does not require an article to describe soups that are hot or list chicken soup, tomato soup, etc, because they are hot soups.
655:
But that is exactly what it is. It is "hot" so it must be hotter than the other component. It is a "companion" so it must be the smaller star to the primary. It is hot+companion, and it is still a dictionary definition, and
Knowledge (XXG) is not a Dictionary.
847:
discussion of a binary system, the secondary will often be referred to as the companion of the primary, but it is equally valid to describe the primary as the companion of the secondary (as the paper I linked in the previous comment demonstrates).
1257:
obviously not itself a reliable source. It seems as if the article is being assumed to be unarguably true: it is not, though I appreciate the corrections that are being made to make it more factual. Caveat 1: I have consulted
Pearson's
203:
define it. Instead, the source states that a "hot companion" was responsible for a set of observations. In the wikipedia page, those observations have been assumed to be the defining criteria of a hot companion, which they are not.
622:
smaller than its companion in a binary system. If that is correct, it's a term of art with implications not described within the term itself, quite dissimilar to your examples where an adjective simply modifies a
171:
78:
1288:
is correct that in some cases, 'companion' can be used to refer to the primary star, though I would argue in such cases the term is not being used in a scientific sense so much as a colloquial sense.
694:
of two companions. If that assertion is true, it demolishes your dicdef argument. Accordingly, a threshold requirement for your prevailing here is to establish that the article is wrong on that point.
418:
395:
253:
1262:
900:
Otherwise, this stub article can be made into a dictionary definition. I don't see a list of examples as being particularly helpful here and there is little other useful content.—
337:
appears to advocate for a disambiguation page. More importantly, all three present comments that would apply equally well for wikipedia pages titled 'large galaxy' or 'dim star'.
1086:
chance that the balance of debate will radically change in your favor (remember, there is a presumption against deletion which you must overcome by establishing clear consensus,
981:. May I suggest that it would be a more productive use of everyone's time to close this debate and (as a modification of my proposal above) put merge tags on this article and
132:
1070:
It seems to me that when one looks at the first nom and the talk page debates cited above, there are a few users who are very enthusiastic to delete the nominated article,
1155:
as a "faff-around" that is not productive to the encyclopaedia, why do you participate in the process in the first place? Go do something you consider more productive!
364:
165:
73:
522:
consulting several astronomy textbooks, papers and the
Internet, I have been unable to find any definition that was not obtained from this wikipedia entry itself
819:
article to remove this). In addition, it is not the case that "companion" universally refers to the secondary (contrary to what is stated in the lead of the
1102:
and there is productive to the encyclopedia, we would be better off cutting to the end by closing the deletion process and starting the merge process. (
1196:. There are some specific phenomena (such as mass transfer) occurring in close binary systems, which could justify a separate article. But not
1078:
Meanwhile, editors who haven't been involved with the dispute before this nom seem to break clearly for keeping the article. Accordingly,
1017:
What's your agenda for trying to close the discussion? Deletion is off the table? This hasn't been open for the full seven days yet! See
824:
303:
657:
540:
461:
399:
17:
815:
Wait a minute, why are you getting hung up on the use of "smaller"... I believe this is a mistake in the article (I have edited the
105:
100:
1170:
information presented in the article itself is indisputable fact. As a result, it seems like people are arguing past one another.
1124:
999:
797:
708:
637:
320:
235:
109:
1297:
1279:
1251:
1209:
1179:
1164:
1133:
1030:
1008:
957:
940:
911:
889:
856:
841:
806:
742:
717:
665:
646:
605:
588:
569:
548:
531:
513:
494:
475:
444:
407:
379:
346:
329:
265:
244:
212:
57:
431:
92:
686:
obvious on the face of the term. If a "hot companion" is nothing but the hotter of two companion stars, you might be right (
186:
733:
these are the cool companions to hotter stars, as opposed to hot companions which are the hot companions of cooler stars.
153:
1314:
1097:
given what we have seen in this nomination so far—and in the last one, and in the talk page debates—I think there is a
1058:
for proposing an early close—which is to say, urging User:Nstock to withdraw the nomination, something contemplated by
783:, and redirecting thence to the new section. That's not quite a D&R or M&R, but it might work as a compromise.
36:
1239:
675:
1235:
53:
1313:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1143:
arguments that were made then. Contrary to your assertion that there is no policy that controls this, there is
565:
147:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1258:
471:
453:
661:
544:
465:
403:
143:
1231:
1205:
49:
1059:
1018:
596:. As noted above, this argument would seem to equally justify pages titled 'large galaxy' or 'dim star'
726:
The term "companion" is often used in astronomy to denote the secondary star in a binary system, e.g.
294:. The discussion you mention appears to feature the same users who favored deletion at the first nom (
1120:
995:
793:
704:
633:
316:
231:
193:
1144:
1160:
1026:
936:
852:
837:
738:
561:
490:
279:
179:
1043:? Gee, you got me, I'm part of a secret cabal working for a loose conglomerate of powerful binary
929:
439:
1289:
1271:
1171:
881:
597:
523:
427:
391:
338:
257:
204:
96:
252:
Which comments are you referring to? The previous nom resulted in a no consensus. Discussion at
898:
509:
375:
306:) making the same arguments; they don't become more or less persuasive with a change of venue.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1107:
1090:
1051:
974:
435:
1293:
1275:
1247:
1201:
1175:
1044:
953:
905:
885:
618:
I don't think so. The article asserts that the term denominates a star which is both hotter
601:
527:
342:
261:
208:
1152:
1128:
1003:
978:
801:
712:
641:
324:
239:
159:
1116:
991:
789:
700:
629:
334:
312:
291:
227:
1063:
1285:
1156:
1022:
982:
932:
848:
833:
776:
756:
734:
584:
486:
295:
287:
283:
931:, etc. which merely happen to be located in a binary system with a cooler component.
816:
780:
423:
88:
63:
926:
923:
920:
730:
727:
828:
505:
371:
126:
1243:
1223:
1193:
949:
901:
820:
299:
682:. The article says there is a property of a so-called "hot companion" which is
560:
Article titles are not required to follow the jargon of any particular field.
729:
where it is used in the title of the article as the antonym for "primary", or
504:, the article is referenced and is about an actual term used in astrophysics.
485:
the term "red car" is used in motoring circles, therefore it is notable too?
580:
1093:
no. 4) if the nomination is left open for another four days. By contrast,
965:
Two things are pretty clear here. First, there are a few users who really
880:. I have edited the page so that it is as factually accurate as possible.
1200:
starts which may be denoted as "hot companions" are orbiting so closely.
1047:
who fear their influence will wane if this article is deleted. *eyeroll*
254:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion
690:), but the article asserts that the star so denominated is the hotter
779:
to deal with hot and cold companions, merging any relevant info from
1066:
by reference—is far less conspiratorial. I get there by four steps.
1307:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
755:
means "smaller," then you're in a strong position. Our article
823:
article - which should probably be corrected). For example,
460:
a real term, it is a non-notable intersection of two words.
419:
WT:WikiProject
Astronomical objects/Archive 18#Hot Companion
396:
WT:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion
421:. The term is used in astronomy circles and is notable.
1267:
122:
118:
114:
970:
article on that basis). So deletion is off the table;
775:
mean "less bright," I suggest writing a subsection of
178:
79:
Articles for deletion/Hot companion (2nd nomination)
192:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1317:). No further edits should be made to this page.
759:, however, says that "companion" denotes the
8:
1072:and they have all already had their say here
897:—Well, it is mentioned in an astronomy poem.
678:. Read what I actually wrote and respond to
365:list of Science-related deletion discussions
922:, main sequence stars undergoing accretion
359:
417:per the two previous discussions and per
363:: This debate has been included in the
256:post-nom also leaned towards deletion
71:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
290:'s concession to Ed's comment), and
1263:Introduction to Modern Astrophysics
1151:haranguing. Finally, if you regard
74:Articles for deletion/Hot companion
70:
1091:WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete
221:per comments on the previous nom.
24:
1240:List of terms used in astronomy
1236:Glossary of astronomical terms
539:it's a dictionary definition.
1:
1334:
1180:00:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
58:07:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1298:20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1280:19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1261:and Carroll and Ostlie's
1252:19:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1210:14:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1165:22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1134:22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1031:21:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
1009:21:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
958:17:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
941:13:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
912:22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
890:22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
857:21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
842:21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
807:21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
743:20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
718:19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
666:06:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
647:01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
606:22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
589:21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
570:20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
549:06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
532:05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
514:22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
495:13:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
476:05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
445:04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
408:04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
380:23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
347:20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
330:17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
266:04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
245:15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
213:11:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1310:Please do not modify it.
1242:(we need one I think); -
456:archive says that it is
32:Please do not modify it.
928:, main sequence stars
69:AfDs for this article:
1259:A Cosmic Perspective
948:per its references.
1232:Astronomical jargon
1062:which incorporates
280:User:Colonel Warden
1228:Merge and redirect
1220:Merge and redirect
827:about the systems
771:means smaller but
452:the discussion at
392:Talk:Hot companion
304:User:70.29.212.131
44:The result was
1132:
1082:I think there is
1007:
805:
716:
645:
382:
368:
328:
243:
1325:
1312:
1114:
1113:
989:
988:
787:
786:
763:of two, not the
698:
697:
627:
626:
479:
443:
369:
335:User: S Marshall
310:
309:
225:
224:
197:
196:
182:
130:
112:
34:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1315:deletion review
1308:
1111:
986:
925:, white dwarfs
784:
751:If "companion"
695:
624:
469:
422:
307:
292:User:S Marshall
222:
139:
103:
87:
84:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1331:
1329:
1320:
1319:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1286:User:Icalanise
1254:
1214:Any of these:
1212:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1167:
1137:
1136:
1034:
1033:
1012:
1011:
983:Companion star
960:
943:
914:
892:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
844:
810:
809:
777:Companion_star
757:Companion_star
746:
745:
721:
720:
676:non-responsive
669:
668:
650:
649:
611:
610:
609:
608:
573:
572:
562:Colonel Warden
554:
553:
552:
551:
534:
499:
498:
497:
480:
474:comment added
411:
410:
384:
383:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
296:User:Icalanise
288:User:Icalanise
284:User:Edward321
271:
270:
269:
268:
200:
199:
136:
83:
82:
81:
76:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1330:
1318:
1316:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
984:
980:
976:
973:
968:
964:
961:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
942:
938:
934:
930:
927:
924:
921:
918:
915:
913:
909:
908:
903:
899:
896:
893:
891:
887:
883:
879:
876:
875:
858:
854:
850:
845:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:Hot companion
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
803:
799:
795:
791:
782:
781:Hot companion
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
731:
728:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
663:
659:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
643:
639:
635:
631:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
574:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
555:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
533:
529:
525:
520:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
473:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
420:
416:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
366:
362:
358:
357:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
332:
331:
326:
322:
318:
314:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
247:
246:
241:
237:
233:
229:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:Hot companion
86:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
65:
64:Hot companion
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1309:
1306:
1227:
1219:
1215:
1197:
1192:Redirect to
1148:
1112:- Simon Dodd
1103:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1055:
1048:
1040:
987:- Simon Dodd
971:
966:
962:
945:
916:
906:
894:
877:
829:NN Serpentis
785:- Simon Dodd
772:
768:
764:
760:
752:
696:- Simon Dodd
691:
687:
683:
679:
658:65.95.15.144
625:- Simon Dodd
619:
593:
576:
557:
541:65.95.15.144
536:
518:
501:
482:
462:65.95.15.144
457:
449:
414:
400:65.95.15.144
387:
360:
308:- Simon Dodd
249:
223:- Simon Dodd
218:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1284:Also, user
1224:Binary star
1202:Incnis Mrsi
1194:Binary star
1084:very little
1060:WP:NotEarly
1019:WP:NotEarly
821:binary star
761:less bright
692:and smaller
470:—Preceding
300:User:RJHall
166:free images
1149:ad nauseam
1145:WP:NOTDICT
825:this paper
753:invariably
1268:arxiv.org
1157:Icalanise
1099:very good
1023:Icalanise
933:Icalanise
849:Icalanise
834:Icalanise
735:Icalanise
487:Icalanise
372:• Gene93k
278:Those by
50:T. Canens
454:WT:ASTRO
432:contribs
424:Headbomb
133:View log
1108:WP:SNOW
1052:WP:AOBF
975:WP:DGFA
963:Comment
895:Dictdef
878:Comment
769:usually
765:smaller
674:That's
594:Comment
537:Comment
519:Comment
506:Nergaal
483:Comment
472:undated
450:Comment
436:physics
250:Comment
172:WP refs
160:scholar
106:protect
101:history
1290:Nstock
1272:Nstock
1244:84user
1172:Nstock
1153:WP:AfD
1129:WP:LAW
1056:reason
1041:agenda
1004:WP:LAW
979:WP:CON
967:really
950:Fotaun
917:Delete
882:Nstock
802:WP:LAW
713:WP:LAW
642:WP:LAW
598:Nstock
524:Nstock
388:Delete
339:Nstock
325:WP:LAW
258:Nstock
240:WP:LAW
205:Nstock
144:Google
110:delete
1226:; or
1064:WP:SK
1054:. My
1045:stars
688:might
623:noun.
440:books
286:(and
187:JSTOR
148:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
1294:talk
1276:talk
1248:talk
1216:Keep
1206:talk
1176:talk
1161:talk
1027:talk
954:talk
946:Keep
937:talk
907:talk
886:talk
853:talk
838:talk
739:talk
680:that
662:talk
602:talk
585:talk
581:TJRC
577:Keep
566:talk
558:Keep
545:talk
528:talk
510:talk
502:Keep
491:talk
466:talk
428:talk
415:Keep
404:talk
394:and
390:per
376:talk
361:Note
343:talk
302:and
262:talk
219:Keep
209:talk
180:FENS
154:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
54:talk
1238:or
1230:to
1222:to
1198:all
1095:(4)
1088:see
1080:(3)
1076:(2)
1068:(1)
1049:See
1039:My
972:see
902:RJH
773:can
684:not
620:and
468:)
458:not
370:--
194:TWL
131:– (
1296:)
1278:)
1250:)
1234:,
1218:;
1208:)
1178:)
1163:)
1115:{
1110:.)
1106:.
1104:Cf
1074:.
1029:)
1021:.
990:{
985:?
977:;
956:)
939:)
910:)
888:)
855:)
840:)
788:{
741:)
699:{
664:)
628:{
604:)
587:)
568:)
547:)
530:)
512:)
493:)
438:/
434:/
430:/
406:)
378:)
367:.
345:)
311:{
298:,
282:,
264:)
226:{
211:)
174:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
56:)
48:.
1292:(
1274:(
1246:(
1204:(
1174:(
1159:(
1131:}
1127:·
1125:C
1123:·
1121:T
1119:·
1117:U
1025:(
1006:}
1002:·
1000:C
998:·
996:T
994:·
992:U
952:(
935:(
904:(
884:(
851:(
836:(
804:}
800:·
798:C
796:·
794:T
792:·
790:U
737:(
715:}
711:·
709:C
707:·
705:T
703:·
701:U
660:(
644:}
640:·
638:C
636:·
634:T
632:·
630:U
600:(
583:(
564:(
543:(
526:(
508:(
489:(
478:.
464:(
442:}
426:{
402:(
374:(
341:(
327:}
323:·
321:C
319:·
317:T
315:·
313:U
260:(
242:}
238:·
236:C
234:·
232:T
230:·
228:U
207:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
129:)
91:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.