Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 8

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 to IUCN Red List endangered species (Plantae). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endangered species of flora → Endangered species  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is overly precise, and the target does not contain the specific information that is stated in the redirect. The title of the redirect could potential make the reader believe that they are being led to a list of endangered species of flora. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for spotting this deficiency - it seems like we need an article on this topic. It is definitely a worthy subject. Let's see if we can get one together. I have posted a request to this effect at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Endangered plants. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:REDLINK to avoid giving the impression an article on this exists, until the article has been created. If the article is created first then never mind. --Rubbish computer 01:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but let's hope that the article does get created. bd2412 T 01:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Per my comment on the above mentioned WikiProject's talk page ... Retarget to IUCN Red List endangered species (Plantae)? Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentRetarget per Steel1943. We haven't Endangered species of fauna but we do have IUCN Red List endangered species essentially to enumerate the various kingdoms, I don't know if you would call that a set index or a DAB or whatnot, but it serves the turn whatever it is. Flora and fauna → Organism. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to create Endangered species of fauna to target IUCN Red List endangered species (Animalia) as a result of this conversation. They should be companion redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redir to IUCN Red List endangered species (Plantae)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per SMcCandlish, which is the more "on point" article. WilyD 09:18, 11 August 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.

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 to Template:ESp. (All transclusions of the redirect were resolved prior to making this change.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Esp → Template:E-sp  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with the semi-protected edit request response template, {{ESp}}. I suggest per WP:XY that the existing transclusions (there are 76) be corrected and this redirect be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct transclusions and then retarget to Template:ESp because people are way more likely to make an edit request than make scientific notation numbers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That solution works for me too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete multiple different templates with similar names {{ESP}} , {{ESp}}, {{E-sp}}, {{ISO 3166 name ES-P}} , {{Country IOC alias ESP}} , {{Country flag IOC alias ESP}} , {{uw-esp}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:eSP Template:ESp per Tavix's point. --Rubbish computer 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would that be more likely than {{ESP}} -- Spain? (Or the Spanish language, or the Spanish peso (per ESP)) I would think it would be much less likely than Spain. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How often do people make flag icons, specifically of Spain? I'd bet that people make edit requests a whole lot more than they use Spain's flag icon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much less misspell the flagicon template.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple CAPSLOCK error will get you {{esp}} which is this template redirect, so yes, quite likely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to {{ESp}} per Tavix.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone wants to start replacing the uses of this, that would be helpful and would expedite a close. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Working... Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. I might as well close this while I'm at it... Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 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.

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) 02:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Killingholme High lighthouse → South Killingholme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Killingholme North Low lighthouse → South Killingholme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Killingholme South Low lighthouse → South Killingholme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, misleading redirect as it redirects not to a light house but to a place that has hardly any info about the lighthouse The Banner talk 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Manually added due to Twinkle glitch[reply]

• Keep all three, modifying to point to South_Killingholme#History, which has their location, dates, references, including their listed building records. Worth a redirect in each case. Possibly needs a distinct section "Lighthouses" and expansion (eg the fact that they are listed buildings). PamD 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the disambiguation pages Killingholme Lighthouse and Killingholme Low Lights will be absolutely pointless as all subjects point to the same page. The Banner talk 18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect those disambiguation pages to that same target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above - there is a full set of basic information, and references leading to more. The redirects serve a useful purpose within the lighthouse categorization scheme, and can be linked to in case a separate article is every written.Xiiophen (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but leading to South Killingholme#History per above points --Rubbish computer 18:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and point all of these to South Killingholme#History. bd2412 T 02:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Refine to History, sure. WilyD 16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to South Killingholme#History per above. Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 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.

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 (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• PU2RC → Multi-user MIMO  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Per-user unitary and rate control → Multi-user MIMO  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] ^{added by Si Trew (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)} [reply]

This looks like promotion by some author of their own technique. Sanpitch (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: More than a few sources show that it isn't any kind of personal promotion: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The associated wording (recently deleted by Sanpitch) in the Multi-user MIMO article could be improved, though. Moreover, whatever we decide on PU2RC should be also applied to the Per-user unitary and rate control redirect. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dsimic's point. --Rubbish computer 18:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't make a Wikipedia article for every technique that gets at least four references in the literature. Sanpitch (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't an article, it's a redirect. As we know, there are many differences between a redirect and an article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I have had many discussions on whether a redirect is an article, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style wanders and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, because they don't do technical writing like I do and make sure that the terms match up. Consensus is redirects are not articles.

  So I shouldn't take that tack if I were you, that is just to wikt:argue the toss. Consensus seems to be that WP:TITLE applies to all pages, not just articles. See the recent discussion at WT:RFD and that at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects?. They are essentially the same argument: noboidy searching externally knows if a title is a redirect or an article proper, therefore we should apply WP:TITLE to redirects too. There are obvious exceptions for {{R from typo}}, {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from incorrect name}} and so on: But this isn't one of them. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a very good point, SimonTrew! I admit, that's something I've overlooked, but it shouldn't be something to worry about if all articles (as a category of pages, beside redirects as another category) were properly sourced. Otherwise, even making a link such as [[Multi-user MIMO|PU<sup>2</sup>RC]] in some article (a redirect does exactly that, among other things) would be misleading and a violation of the notability guideline, wouldn't it? Sanpitch, regarding how many sources are available, a Google search for "PU2RC" returns about 14,000 results with good stuff even on the tenth page (didn't check further), so "PU²RC" as a term passes the notability requirements with flying colors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's impossible for WP:TITLE to apply to redirects, because aside from genuine synonyms and subtopics, and the main function of redirects to provide non-redlinks and guessable/searchable pathways to the real article from names that fail WP:TITLE, like plurals, misspellings, attested but long-winded names, abbreviations, frequent misspellings, stylizations, etc., etc. PS: It's not MOS editors' fault that MOS has some inconsistent wording; it's the nature of long palmipsestuous documents, and it happens all over WP. It's the entire process and community's fault. It does need to get cleaned up, but blame is not required. Some MOS regulars are professional technical writers, like me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It has RS. Yes, we make articles for things that have a few references; and Dsimic did say "More than a few sources" so I took the ones given as being just a sample. Declaration of interest (or non-interest): I used to worked on this kind of stuff for Aeroflex a few years ago. Si Trew (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment'. I've added the full name R that Dsimic suggested R to this listing. Si Trew (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliably sourced subtopic, but probably not quite notable. This is one of the main things that redirs are for - getting people looking for encyclopedic but not quite notable things to the broader articles that cover them. But, of course, it should actually be covered at that article, with these sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 10 August 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.

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 to bed size (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Queen sized bed → Bed  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Perhaps bed size(??), can't find anywhere else. - TheChampionMan1234 10:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to bed size per nom. --Rubbish computer 11:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to bed size. Good call. bd2412 T 01:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget to bed size per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:40, 10 August 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.

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 Just Chilling (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bart Brinckman → Draining law (Belgium)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't find any connection between this name and this doctrine. Probably delete. bd2412 T 01:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 01:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and possibly WP:REDLINK. He has his own (unsourced) article on Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Bart Brinckman. The extent of the connection between him and the law appears to be that he wrote some articles on it (he's a journalist) [5]. Someone translated one of those articles and put it at Bart Brinckman, and then that got moved to Draining law (Belgium) and rewritten. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. It could vaguely go to Cornelius Vermuyden, but Dutch: niet zonder arbeit, nothing without work. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 12 August 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.

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) 02:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Shelton, WA μSA → Mason County, Washington  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not necessary. Renwique (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible typo, per WP:RFD#D8. --Rubbish computer 00:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with Rubbish computer, and since we have Shelton, Washington (which to nobody's surprise I found from the DAB page at Shelton) then at the very best we should retarget there. But I can't see why using one of the all at List of U.S. state abbreviations and a μ → Mu (letter) would do anything but hinder a search. WA is a DAB page at which Washington (state) is the first entry: but this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, and I am not sure quite how but have a leaning towards WP:WORLDWIDE: See List of countries that are not the United States. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From the article: "Mason County comprises the Shelton, WA Micropolitan Statistical Area" and the abbreviation of which is "µSA." Hence the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the RFD on Batavia, NY μSA a couple of weeks ago. As explained there & here, μSA is not a typo for "USA". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above reasons: did not realise this. --Rubbish computer 11:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous RfD and above comments. This is a very niche redirect, but it is useful to some people and does make sense in the context Tavix provided. ~ Rob^Talk 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This particular redirect uses the Greek letter mu. Another editor began a project that I have recently inherited. That other editor moved all these types of redirects to titles that look exactly the same, yet they use the micron sign instead of mu. Here is the list from which I'm working. I've already checked this redirect. and it is ready to be deleted. – Paine  03:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. That's, a good point, about the "micron" versus "mu". But still, the "WA" is rather the bit that bothers me. I've struck my delete since it was following RC's and that's been struck so I haven't a leg to stand on. But we don't tend to title US places with their state abbreviations, do we? WP:USPLACE I suppose is the final arbiter. But I imagine numerous redirects of that form exist, and can only be helpful. This just seems a bit odd to me but I can't really put my finger on it. I read the previous discussion and had I not been asleep would have said the same there. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: We have over 42,000 redirects that use US postal abbreviations, see Category:Redirects from US postal abbreviations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this isn't one of them. Probabably should add that cat, but hesitant to do so while we're discussing it, although seems to be WP:SNOWBALLing to a keep. Si Trew (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Been thinking about it, and perhaps both the mus and the microns should be kept? Never know what someone might paste into a search field. – Paine  04:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please see Micropolitan Statistical Area (µSA). Yours aye,  Buaidh  19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (For all) – Hence why the symbol should be "micro" rather than the Greek letter "mu". What some people miss is that despite its appearance, "µSA" is not a stylized initialism for "United States of America". It is instead the initialism for "Micropolitan Statistical Area". – Paine  14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per myself at the Batavia Rfd. Tavix and 58.176 have already pointed out my rationale, I'm just jumping on the snow pile. I did not realize that there was a separate symbol for micron, but for the purposes of redirection I don't think that it matters: they are very difficult to distinguish visually and so it's a highly plausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 13 August 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.

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) 02:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Meaning of death → Death  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTDIC. Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: in addition to the above this sounds like some kind of philosophical question, which isn't mentioned anywhere: if this is a genuine philosophical question then per WP:REDLINK as well. --Rubbish computer 00:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDIC per nom. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have three conflicting arguments about this redirect (top is my preference though):
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to pave way for the thanatology book entitled The Meaning of Death
  • Retarget to Thanatology which is the study of death
  • Retarget to meaning of life as antonym

--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Thanatology, although post mortem → autopsy might also do; the distinction I suppose is between studying one dead'un and all of us. I can see Lenticel's quandary, but since we don't have an article on the book, for now we serve readers better to link it to something: anyone can overwrite the R with an article, and we encourage that at the very top of RfD. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAB it. Come to think of it, if Lenticel and I are in quandaries then others will be, so that seems a good reason to create a disambiguation page with the entries Lenticel and I gave. As Lenticel says, the (presumably philosophy) book is "The" meaning, not just "Meaning", but at a DAB that should be OK...

• Feifel, Herman, ed. (1965). The Meaning of Death. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0070203471.

but that can then be a redlink on the DAB page (I think). Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, a dab is a good idea Si Trew. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a Draft:Meaning of death for y'all's consideration. Needs a polish. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay Si Trew --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a disambiguation page - This can very plausibly relate to the 'cause of death' in a specific sense (so someone is looking for the autopsy article) or for other, more philosophical things; so, a new page makes sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close, please, as converted to DAB page. I have listed the draft at CSD for WP:G6, WP:G7, I made a copy-pasted move over the redirect because the only history on the page was my several typos, but no other editor contributed to the draft, so the history is not worth keeping. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I hadn't thought of the bleeding obvious cause of death which is an article in its own right. Will add that to the new DAB. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Thanatology. The other potential dab entries don't pass WP:DABMENTION and shouldn't be included. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 15 August 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.

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 Just Chilling (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The state of being no longer alive → Death  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Since the word "alive" is several different meanings (see wikt:alive), this redirect is rather ambiguous, and too ambiguous to be useful. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it seems that would most probably be what was meant by searching this. --Rubbish computer 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per WP:CONCISE. Death is not a state, anyway (that's being dead), it is a process or transition: WP:XY, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. State theory is a DAB (and a very bad one: one red link and another with two blue links). Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, I WP:BOLDly made it an R to Solid-state physics; at the DAB it went via the R at Solid state physics. I hatnoted at its new target. Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Potentially ambiguous, as one could search this in relation to depression as well. Additionally, this is a highly unlikely search target. ~ Rob^Talk 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 'No longer being alive' can refer to being really depressed and all other kinds of things regularly that aren't the same as being 'dead' (and, as is pointed out above, 'death' is a transition rather than a state, since something that is undergoing death isn't dead yet). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is short panegyric, "The think I like about Clive/ Is that he's no longer alive/ There's a great deal to be said/ For being dead." Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 12 August 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.