6 ms·

I feel its worth asking questions about the talk page. Specifically: > Most of the data in this article is sourced from somebody calling himself Intergalactic

I feel its worth asking questions about the talk page. Specifically: > Most of the data in this article is sourced from somebody calling himself Intergalactic Power and Light. Some random guy's personal web page does not constitute a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC) The link is unfortunately broken, but if anyone has more details that would be fascinating.

scanny 3y ago
Last valid Web Archive capture was on August 5th 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110805041437/http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Rivers.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110805041437/http://home.comca... "Page created 2003-08-23 and last revised 2005-07-31." Page also has no sources of its own.
aaron695 3y ago
Checking Mekong (Which I would have thought higher) it's correct by this source - https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/b3463307-en https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?i... Annual - 475 km3 - 475*1000*1000*1000/365/24/3600 = 15062 m3/s Any others seem odd?
- theurerjohn3 3y ago
  oh the talk page comment is old enough that I assume its mostly been fixed, although the Urubamba-Caura length discrepancy noted by someone else on the talk page is still there. I was commenting more at the fascination of 'Intergalactic Power and Light' maintaining for a while a webpage focused on river lengths. It feels like a callback to an earlier era
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
The individual pages for each of the rivers (or atleast the first three I tried) have the discharges with different seemingly more trustworthy sources, if anyone wants to edit the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River

scanny 3y ago

Last valid Web Archive capture was on August 5th 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110805041437/http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Rivers.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110805041437/http://home.comca... "Page created 2003-08-23 and last revised 2005-07-31." Page also has no sources of its own.

aaron695 3y ago

Checking Mekong (Which I would have thought higher) it's correct by this source - https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/b3463307-en https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?i... Annual - 475 km3 - 475*1000*1000*1000/365/24/3600 = 15062 m3/s Any others seem odd?

theurerjohn3 3y ago
oh the talk page comment is old enough that I assume its mostly been fixed, although the Urubamba-Caura length discrepancy noted by someone else on the talk page is still there. I was commenting more at the fascination of 'Intergalactic Power and Light' maintaining for a while a webpage focused on river lengths. It feels like a callback to an earlier era

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

The individual pages for each of the rivers (or atleast the first three I tried) have the discharges with different seemingly more trustworthy sources, if anyone wants to edit the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River