< April 12
April 14 >

April 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2015.

EyePhone

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#EyePhone

Barracks Obomba

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: non-neutral redirects that are not established terms are unlikely to be useful. This compares Barack Obama to barracks and a bomb. There are only ~200 Ghits and nothing worth noting. Tavix |  Talk  19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TBA (Janet Jackson album)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it implies that Janet Jackson has an album called "TBA." See also: WP:HAMMER. Tavix |  Talk  19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:ARC

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct venue for this, but I'd like to propose changing this redirect to a redirect to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case. (this was discussed slightly on the mail:clerks-l list.) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Waadi Animations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#Waadi Animations

WWE 2K (Mobile Game)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary disambiguation which serves no useful purpose. In addition, the recent AfD on an article which used to be here was closed as Delete, not Redirect (despite Redirect being a considered alternative). RichardOSmith (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Article Views  %-Mobi  %-Zero
167 WWE 2K (Mobile Game) 1,658 43.24% 0.00%
This statistics suggested that humans (as opposed to some automated process) were looking for an article regarding WWE 2K (Mobile Game). As for the AfD results, that the original article (created some time ago, as I recall - I was uninvolved but did look at the results) being Delete, that doesn't preclude creating a redirect now. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether it is harmful but whether it is useful. I see no harm in this and it gets hits as described above. Weak Keep, but the link above actually takes you to the game, which is a bit WP.PROMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 April 2015
A WWE 2K mobile game has just been released [ https://wwe.2k.com/index.php/news/single/wwe-2k-now-available-for-download-on-ios-and-android-devices] so there should be enough info about it to place on the series page making the redirect useful enough to be kept.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would be too difficult to add enough to the series page about the mobile release to make a redirect useful considering that the game is now commercially released (it was not when the redirect was created).--67.68.209.200 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Baron Strasburger of Langridge

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. See also the following section. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"of Langridge" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how we "lack redirects" for the Honours System. Also, your last sentence is - no offence, please - slightly ignorant and I fail to take it seriously.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you call someone ignorant without them taking offence at it? Ambrose Bierce defines in the Devil's Dictionary ignorance that is which reveals to the wise, and disguises rom the foolish, their lack of understanding. Now I can recall that off the top of my head. How ignorant am I? Just because I have a different opinion from you does not make me ignorant. I regard that as a personal attack, frankly, and WP.NPA comes in here. We had a long and hard discussion below, both intelligently, and then you say I am ignorant? You can't turn round and then say no offence: it was offensive. Si Trew (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: If you check the hours, you will see that I had made this comment before our discussion below had started and I am very sorry for it. However, I still believe that your assertion that one's title is decided on the basis of "how posh one is" is slightly unorthodox and rather indefensible.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Baron Sugar of Clapton

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Thryduulf is correct—ultimately, whether or not this is a proper way of referring to the subject matters very, very little. What matters is its plausibility as a search term and its potential ambiguity. It has been demonstrated that this term has been used, and there's been no indication that it could refer to any other subject.
As for categorization, "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not "Alan Sugar" with a difference in punctuation, so ((R from modification)) is out. ((R from alternative name)) is possible, but if this is an incorrect form, it's inadvisable. For now, I'm just adding ((R unprintworthy)). We wouldn't need this in a printed index, for example. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Which Baronetcy are you referring to?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that his title is "Baron Sugar". "of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. --The Theosophist (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. His title is "Baron Sugar of Clapton" to distinguish him from (made up) "Baron Sugar of Mortlake". It is, is it not, part of his title? Even if not it is a useful search term, so it does no harm to keep it. The fact that I think he is an arsehole is irrelevant, that is his ennobled title. I appreciate we don't list people by their titles here, but this is a redirect and a useful one, the article does not say "Sir Alan Sugar" and never has, even before he was ennobled or knighted. Do you want to delete Sir Alan Sugar as well? Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No, you did not understand. His title is not "Baron Sugar of Clapton". His title is "Baron Sugar". As much as Quentin Davies' title is Baron Davies of Stamford and not "Baron Davies", Alan Sugar's title is "Baron Sugar". Note that the first person of the surname "Davies" who was created a Baron, David Davies, took the title "Baron Davies", without an "of". When the second person called Davies was created a Baron he took an "of" for distinguishment, and so did the third and the fourth and all others afterwards. By the very same logic, the first person whose surname was Sugar, took the title "Baron Sugar", without an "of". If another Sugar becomes a Baron, then there will be an "of".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: See also the Sainsbury's. The first Sainsbury who became a peer, Alan Sainsbury, took the simple title "Baron Sainsbury", without an "of", while the two others, John and David Sainsbury took "of's". Also, the Wolfson's: Leonard Wolfson, was just "Baron Wolfson", no "of" because he was the first of his surname to become a Baron. David and Simon Wolfson, on the other hand, took titles with "of's".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "of" actually is an important part of the title. If you are "Lord Finchley" you can pass it on to your son, if you are "Lord of Finchley" you cannot. It's the difference between an honorary title and a hereditary title. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: (I just noticed this one) It seems to me that you have an unclear view of the subject. What you mean by "honorary title" is what we actually call a life peerage, to begin with. The "of" plays absolutely no role concerning whether a title is a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. For example both Baron Widdrington (no "of") and Baron Willoughby of Parham (with "of") are hereditary peerages and both Baron Warner (no "of") and Baron Wilson of Rievaulx (with "of") are life peerages. The "of" is a bit irrelevant.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patently it is an Honorary title and he does not own all of Clapton. He essentially chose his ownn title and being a "common bloke" called himself that. Nevertheless he is the Baron of Clapton and therefore Clapton is his Baronetcy. It is not even a borough let alone a baronetcy, but useful and correct are different things. Our raison d'etre here is to make things useful, not correct. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: First of all, it is not a "Baronetcy" it is a Barony, because we talk of a Baron, not a Baronet. Secondly, I do not know what is the purpose of all these feudal references. I do not see how it is relevant to our discussion either whether Alan Sugar owns Clapton or whether Clapton is a borough. And still you have not addressed my main argument. I am going to say it again: "of Clapton" is NOT part of the title.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not do titles anyway, so in a sense it is irrelevant. Sir John Major for example is a redirect to John Major. I don't call myself Simon Trew PhD and not just because I don't have one. But it is reasonable, I think, for redirects to direct in that matter. So the question is whether it's the correct title. If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any way to get Burke's Peerage online to check? 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
@SimonTrew: Yes, but it requires subscription. Would the site of the House of Lords be as fine as Burke's?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the slightest thought concerning how is this helpful in our discussion. "Sugar" is just his surname and even if it had to do with actual sugar, that was generations ago and there is no real connection.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well it was just a thought, Sugar baron is a fairly common phrase. It might be on Wikt, I check. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Bizarelly, we actually have Category:Sugar barons but no article on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Again, would the site of the House of Lords be (as a source) as fine as Burke's Peerage?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: So, what is a better source, the House of Lords (no "of"), Leigh Rayment (no "of"), the Letters Patent themselves (no "of") or the Telegraph (with "of"). Answer that, please.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here at parliament.uk Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I consider this one the best source, too. Do you see any "of Clapton" there?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: Leigh Rayment, Letters Patent (from Hansard), Darryl Lundy, Debrett's --The Theosophist (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His official title is The Lord Sugar. We have to check how he was ennobled I guess, cos this could simply be wrong. A lord beats a baron any time, especially at poker. Baron is the lowest rank really so we better check that. It could be simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No, Baron and Lord are a bit synonymous. We never say "the Baron Smith" when he is a Baron. We say "the Lord Smith".--The Theűosophist (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)ű[reply]
He is actually Baron Sugar of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney.
What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Oh my God, have you ever read Letters Patent before? The title is what comes before the comma. What comes after the comma is the territorial designation. Look here for example. If the title has an "of", the title's "of" comes before the comma and there are TWO "of's" in the Letters Patent, that of the title and that of the territorial designation. If the title does not have an "of", then there is only one "of" in the Letters Patent, that of the territorial designation, as the comma comes after the name.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..thanks. in the Hansard ref you gave it is "Baron Sugar, of Clapton" (I am not sure how important the comma is, but I think it is the sticking point on this one).

@SimonTrew: Indeed, it is. As you see, in the example I posted above it says: "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara, of Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire" which means that his title is "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara" and he is from Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire. On the other hand, "Baron Shipley, of Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear" means that the title is "Baron Shipley" and he is from Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear. So, in our case, his title is "Baron Sugar" and he is from Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. Also, look here: "Baron Green of Deddington, of Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire". In this case, Deddington is referred to twice because it is part of both the title and the territorial designation. Thus, the title is "Baron Green of Deddington" and he is from Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire.
Don't insult me, of course I have read legal documents, how do you think I own my own house outright and have half a million quid in a pension fund without ever reading a legal document? The fact of the matter is not what is correct but what is useful. I have done my best research to make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for any offence.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Still, although it is not my custom, I would bet that it was the first time you read Letters Patent for creations of Peerages.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on that one but I have read many legal documents in English, French and Hungarian: I usually speak at least three languages a day, so please don't insult my intelligence. I take it as an apology, although sorry is the usual word in English, je me trompe in French or bocsanat in Hungarian. I still don't know what to do with this, tending to keep, is the comma important or not? If the comma makes a difference we should delete it, but if it is not, we should keep it. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I certainly did not want to insult your intelligence and I said I am sorry at the Strasburger section. By the way, what I said about Lord Sugar and the comma also applies to Lord Strasburger (the comma is before Langridge).--The Theosophist (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All this arguing is irrelevant here and were I not involved I would hat it as such. All that matters is whether "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I am sorry, but I would not call it irrelevant, at all. I believe that it was a healthy discussion and it will largely contribute to the eventual consensus.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: it doesn't matter what his title is, what other people's titles are, why he has a title, whether his surname is relevant, what type of title it is, etc, for the purposes of determining whether this is a good redirect or not. These might be relevant questions elsewhere, but we are concerned here only with whether this specific redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Well, I have to agree. Still, I believe that this dicussion had to take place, whether this was the right place or not. And I believe that had I suggested to take the discussion somewhere else, it would have died out.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Hmm, I would not call it "alternate punctuation" but I do not think that it would look bad.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate punctuation because of the missing comma. But maybe ((R from alternate title)) is better. Also, redirects don't have to be categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I believe that redirects that are even mildly controversial do have to be categorised. And you can certainly say that for this redirect.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jacqueline Collen (Phil Collen's spouse)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Vhann. The rationale was: "The actress and the spouse are the same person. Jacqueline Collen should be enough. Plus, nothing links here anymore." Tavix |  Talk  05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that and struck my delete above. Keep all. Seems unlikely but does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lead crystal battery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this redirect here to get another look at it. Lead crystal batteries exist, however I'm not seeing anything about them in the targeted article. Unless there's a better solution, it might be best to make it a WP:REDLINK. Tavix |  Talk  04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll check that. I think "Lead Crystal" is also used in the UK to mean a cheap form of costume jewellery and also as a general term to mean glass crystal though I doubt there is actually any lead in them these days. We do have Lead crystal. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm well aware of lead crystals. This is about lead crystal BATTERIES, which is something completely different. Tavix |  Talk  05:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and Lead-acid battery would seem somewhat misleading. All lead-acid batteries crystalize their contents, at least the kind impurities in them tend to crystalise, as we all know from seing the crap on a leaky Duracell. But just because that is correct does not make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete per Lenticel and Tavix, WP:PROMO. It's at leadcrystalbatteries dot com (deliberately not linking). I checked the history and it was created on 28 November 2014 by @Biscuittin:, nothing else until Tavix listed it here. I am going to look into what other creations this user has made... 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a Wikipedian point of view would someone be looking for a crystal in the chemical sense or in the jewellery sense? I presume they are using it in kinda the cosmetic, jewellery sense as crystal being something valuable, rather than the chemical sense of a particular organisation of atoms. Crystal actually has a hatnote to lead glass. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this has nothing to do with lead crystals... Tavix |  Talk  05:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. seems like a blatant promo, but I am searching around in case there is some technical term that we could usefuly retarget it to. I doubt my search shall succeed, but that gives us kinda more evidence for the delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at their website, I am leaning towards a retarget to lead-acid battery. But not so sure about that. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator, @Biscuittin:, judging by their contribution history does a lot of work on engineering and power articles, so I don't think this is any doubt it is a good-faith contribution and not by the organisation itself. So I think we can rule this out as self-promotion, but is therefore WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is what I should have said, per WP:PROMO, per our usual treatment of redirects from non-notable brand names. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was in the 28 Nov 2014 version of Rechargeable battery but somebody removed it. I put it in for information, not promotion. Does the fact that "Lead crystal" is a trademark automatically condemn it? We have a page entitled Sellotape and that is a registered trademark. Biscuittin (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not automatically. We have articles on many trademarks like Sellotape which have become genericized, i.e. the name has entered general English usage to refer to any similar product (e.g. Kleenex for facial tissue), or those which are very well known or notable for other reasons (e.g. Duracell), or if they represent a fairly unique (and notable) product/technology then we might keep an appropriate redirect. You are probably in a better spot to comment on this than I am, but it seems to me that Lead Crystal is not significantly different from a generic lead-acid battery. By significant, I mean that while there are some enhancements and design differences, the battery itself is essentially lead electrodes with a sulfuric acid electrolyte, and thus not all that different from a typical lead-acid battery. If it were significantly different, then I think there would be technical reviews or analysis in reliable third-party sources, and then we could write an article about it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the electrolyte may be silicic acid rather than sulfuric acid. The web page [1] refers vaguely to "a variety of inorganic salts and organic substances" but I think the formulation is a commercial secret. Biscuittin (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some form of silica is used as a gelling agent in a gel battery. Whether the lead crystal battery is significantly different, I do not know. Biscuittin (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more technical information but I have found a couple more websites [2][3]. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Youth Lacrosse

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article does not specifically discuss youth lacrosse, and it appears we don't have one that does, it's best not to mislead our readers into thinking we have something we don't. A red link is better in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I never said how many months, I just said "some". If it's seventy, so be it, but you can't get me on tha facts with that one. :) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but my measurement is more precise. I could have said "some centuries ago" and been as accurate. Ivanvector (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but deletion is not a mirror of creation. Once it stands, more harm can be done by deleting it (with incoming external links etc) than by letting it stand. In this case though I think we are better off without it. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More