Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete. The fact that the author describes this as an "essay" as opposed to a potential article is telling. The issue is not whether or not the contents would be in violation of WP:OR if it were an article. It does not seem to be a draft article at all on the topic of the number of episodes of Jeopardy (i.e. looking for multiple non-trivial sources, etc.); that would be a correct use of userspace (or to be incorporated at Jeopardy! broadcast information). However, this page is an essay but unlike most essays, this page is not a particular editor's general view about Wikipedia, policy view, or even a humorous satire of policy but instead, meant to showcase the editor's particular view regarding the inclusion of particular content on a particular page. It could possibly be an essay criticizing or disputing some point about the WP:CALC policy within this context but that's clearly not its intent. This is essentially evidence for a dispute about what to include on a page (namely, at No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_32) and would be more appropriate at the talk page of where the content could be included, at WP:DRN, or even at an RFC on the topic but here it's just not appropriate. WP:UP allows for expansive or detailed backup for points you have because the actual points should go into the talk page or noticeboard or wherever not sit in a user's subpage as an "essay" for them to continue forever. The contents could have been posted within the No original research/Noticeboard discussion and following the archiving of that discussion, it would remain there for future reference. If the author wants, I think it's possible to grant very limited leeway to permit the author to post the contents here at Talk:Jeopardy!, collapse the section and let it go into the archives so that the information is not lost and can be referred to in the future as the evidence for his view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count


WP:OR/WP:SYN essay describing method to count episodes of Jeopardy! that have aired since 1984.

Author argues that calculating episode numbers is routine, but calculation method within essay fails to meet WP:CALC since method is not obvious. Calculation method is based upon out-dated and contradictory sources and uses manual counting to determine number of episodes that have aired during a given period. Essay argues that some sources should be taken literally while other parts in the same source should be ignored, and that separate sources containing information about television production from 20 years prior are still accurate today.

Lengthy discussion with third party opinion of why this article falls under WP:OR/WP:SYN at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 32.

Because essay is WP:OR/WP:SYN, user page content falls under WP:NOTESSAY and likely WP:NOTBLOG, and should be removed. AldezD (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with admiration. The essential premise of the page is to find a SYTH way to provide a number that can be sourced from a recentish reliable source. As the output shouldn't be used in our articles anyway, whether hosted here or anywhere else in cyberspace, it should be hosted anywhere else in cyberspace. But, as someone fairly addicted to cricket statistics, I do admire the dedication and craftsmanship. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:OR/WP:SYN are not valid bases for deletion of a user essay that accurately describes a problem on the encyclopedia and suggests a solution based in factual sources and routine calculation.  AldezD argues that my essay, which explains why derivation of episode counts from a few simple sources does not constitute original research, should be deleted because the method of calculation is not obvious.  However, this is not a valid reason for deletion of an essay.  First of all, routineness, not obviousness, is the standard for whether calculations do not constitute original research.  WP:CALC.  AldezD next argues that the calculation is based on "out-dated and contradictory sources."  Arguing "outdatedness" is preposterous--a printed source that shows that Jeopardy! switched from a 39-week to a 46-week schedule after its second season does not become false simply because it was published years ago.  Arguing that the sources are "contradictory" because Alex Trebek casually used the word "always" to describe how long a show with a 31-season history has had a 46-week schedule stretches the truth in service of what seems to have become AldezD's personal campaign against me, which has included false accusations of 3RR violations.  Apparently not content that his obviously incorrect episode count remains on the Jeopardy! Wikipedia article, AldezD further seeks to stifle all contrary fact and opinion on the encyclopedia.  I find this new step of his to be outrageous.  Will he next seek to delete my user page? Will he seek to delete the essay What SYNTH is not based on his disagreement with that essay? Robert K S (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment—The reasons for deletion of this userpage content are WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTBLOG. Within the earlier no WP:OR discussion, the user's actions of sourcing contradictory content and using content that does not meet WP:V to support his WP:OR/WP:SYN essay were pointed out by multiple editors as "picking and choosing parts of a source to support an argument while discounting other parts of it because they don't fit in with your conclusions". This userpage content is WP:OR/WP:SYN, which is corroborated by the third-party opinions provided in the earlier no WP:OR discussion, and the content falls under the "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" guideline of WP:NOTESSAY. AldezD (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An essay describing a problem on the encyclopedia and factually demonstrating the solution with citation to sources is not the original thought, personal inventions, etc. that WP:NOTESSAY refers to. If it was, then every user essay on the encyclopedia would be subject to deletion on this basis.  "Sourcing contradictory content" is your opinion.  The content is not, in fact, contradictory, except by your strained interpretation that the word "always" means "since Season 1" rather than "for a very long time".  Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this deletion nomination seems to be part of personal campaign you are waging.  Robert K S (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment—The result of the earlier no WP:OR discussion is that the userpage content is WP:OR/WP:SYN calculation and uses sources that do not meet WP:V. The userpage content therefore does not meet WP:CALC falls under WP:NOTESSAY #1 and #3. AldezD (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no such "result" in that discussion, in which no one else participated besides you, me, and AndytheGrump. You're both mischaracterizing the facts and mixing up your standards because you really, really don't want this page to continue to exist.  Anyone who votes "delete" should look carefully into this and hope to understand the truth of the matter here. Robert K S (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment—From the earlier discussion: "Picking and choosing parts of a source to support an argument while discounting other parts of it because they don't fit in with your conclusions is WP:OR. And having to cite multiple sources for a single statement which can be found in none of them is synthesis." WP:OR and WP:SYN fall under WP:NOTESSAY #1. AldezD (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's review, shall we? I cited to ex-Jeopardy! writer Harry Eisenberg's authoritative memoir for the basic factual proposition that the show switched from a 39-week season to a 46-week season in its third season.  You argued that, because Eisenberg's book was published years ago, it might be possible that Jeopardy! no longer had a 46-week season and, therefore, any episode count based on this information would not actually be reliably sourced.   While I pointed out that your contention that the show could have changed its season length in the years since Eisenberg's publication was not based on any documentation or verifiable factual source, but instead was entirely the product of your own speculation, and that the burden was therefore on you to show that Jeopardy! had changed season length since Eisenberg, I additionally offered the Nerdist podcast interview of Alex Trebek in which he said that Jeopardy! still had a 46-week season.   I could have cited to any number of other recent sources for the same proposition, like this AV Club interview with Jeopardy! head writer Billy Wisse ("we tape five shows in a day, so we basically approach the games in those units—pools, we call them. So there are five-game pools. And we tape 230 shows in a year, so 46 pools, so 46 round tables.").  Either way, the evidence is indisputable that Eisenberg is not "outdated" on the point that you contend, without any evidence, that Eisenberg is outdated on, namely, that the Jeopardy! season length is different today than it was at Eisenberg's publication.  Now, you accuse me of "picking and choosing," and thus, "original research".  Your sole grounds for this is Alex Trebek's statement in the Nerdist podcast interview that the show had "always" been 46 weeks.  You apparently contend that an interpretation of an offhand use of "always" as figurative rather than literal is original research, and that Alex's offhand remark negates the reliability of several paragraphs of Eisenberg that explain the season length adjustment in explicit terms.  It isn't, and it doesn't.  But more importantly, while you're not now arguing that the show had always been 46 weeks, you're also not arguing that the show isn't 46 weeks.  While your position is riddled with insoluble contradictions, my position is consistent.  While you're unable to show how the numbers you propose as accurate can possibly work out under any counting method, the numbers work out based on all the different data points we have under my counting method.  And that's the reason for the essay.  The essay explains the correct counting method concisely, and with resort to just a few basic reliable sources.  Now, your position is that because of your opinion on how a remark by Alex Trebek should be interpreted, there is no dispute and even my essay explaining the dispute may not be permitted to exist.  I don't see that as right. Robert K S (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignoring the dispute above, the nitty gritty of this in policy and guideline appears to come down to interpretation of WP:UP:
 * Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
 * I do still tend toward deletion, as this isn't directly useful to the project in my humble opinion, as we can't use it in article space. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your pointing to a guideline more relevant than those on which the deletion nomination is based. However, I can't see how you can reach the conclusion you reach based on the wording of the guideline.  The essay is directly related to a content dispute, and it explains the content dispute, and a position thereon, with reference to sources that are cited in the article.  It seems that you believe that an essay is "unrelated" to the encyclopedia if the content of the essay cannot at some later point be wholesale incorporated into the article space, but I do not believe that that is the correct standard.  Because the essay directly relates to the encyclopedia content by explaining a persisting factual error in an article and offering the solution to that error backed by reliable sources and simple counting, the essay is within the guideline and should not be deleted.  Robert K S (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff. I appreciate what you're trying to do and how frustrating it must be if you perceive that an error is being perpetuated, but I'd say that "reliable sources and simple counting" is the very essence of SYNTH. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I don't think that's correct. What we call "SYNTH" on Wikipedia is not merely any synthesis: it's original research by way of synthesis.  If the alleged synthesis is not original research, then it is not "SYNTH", either, and routine calculations do not constitute original research.  If we have a source that numbers a Monday with the number 1, and we know that days are numbered successively, is it "original research" to synthesize that the following Friday is number 5?  No; counting is routine calculation.  If we know that a season of Jeopardy! started on a certain date, and a certain number of episodes preceded it, is calculating the number of episodes produced at any arbitrary date thereafter original research, if such can be done by counting calendar weekdays?  Again, I think the answer is no.  If counting from a starting point that comes from a documentary source is impermissible "SYNTH", then there is no computation that is not also "SYNTH" and thus WP:CALC has no meaning.  We have to be careful with what we mean by "original research".  Summarization and extrapolation of information are the proper function of the encyclopedia and its editors.  But even if an editor ultimately disputes the validity of the sources relied upon, as seems to be the case here with AldezD arguing that Eisenberg is "outdated", that does not make the dispute one to be "wiped off the map," so to speak, by silencing the explanations of others. Robert K S (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The userspace essay does not detail a routine calculation. It describes how to manually count calendar days based upon contradicting sources that have been used to create original research and synthesis. The user selects information from specific sources but ignores contradictory information from those same sources because he feels the contradictions are not true, calling into question the validity and accuracy of the OR/SYN calcs as well as the WP:V of sources being used. This information has been used to create SYN manual calculations that are not routine. The user continues to make the same WP:IDHT arguments based upon his own OR/SYN, despite existence multiple WP guidelines that detail why this method should not be used and why this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If your beef is that the essay "ignores contradictory information from ... sources," then that is a content dispute regarding userspace content, not a reason for deletion of the essay. You are welcome to post to the essay's talk page and point out any perceived problems with the essay, and I will be happy to edit the essay accordingly to note and address any perceived inconsistencies.  But I think the basic position that you seem to be advancing is untenable: you seem to be arguing that whenever sources are even arguably in disagreement, then the sources cannot be used for the facts they contain--even if there is no reasonable disagreement among editors as to those facts.  Here, you are not actually arguing that Jeopardy! has "always" had 46-week seasons.  Such is contradicted by the weight of sources, including both Eisenberg and Richmond.  Instead, you are arguing that because you perceive an inconsistency in sources, those sources cannot be relied upon, and thus even an essay discussing those sources cannot be permitted in the userspace.  In other words, you're trying to stifle a debate about article-related issues.  Meanwhile, you have added to the article, and refuse to remove from the article, episode count information that you know to a reasonable certainty to be incorrect (based on the fact that your count ends in 9 whereas it would have to end in a 5 or a 0 since Jeopardy! is a daily program) and which is wholly unsupported by the source you offer for it, which never once states that the number it gives is a number of episodes aired or produced. Robert K S (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay is a tool the user has created to explain why he believes his WP:OR and WP:SYN method should be used calculate an episode count for a television shows.
 * Additionally, The user references three main sources within the essay, two of which contradict a third.
 * Inside "Jeopardy!": What Really Goes on at TV's Top Quiz Show, by Harry Eisenberg, is dated 1993 and does not account for nor verify any changes to production of the show (specifically, episode count) following the publication of that book.
 * This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show, by Ray Richmond, is also used in the userspace article as a source, but this source is dated 2004 and does not account for any changes to production following the book's publication.
 * The user essay purports the two sources above verify that "Jeopardy! started its run with a 39-week season, i.e., 195 shows per season", and that "During its 1986-87 season, i.e., Season 3, the decision was made to extend the Jeopardy! regular season 'from 39 weeks of shows to 46 weeks, leaving only six weeks of reruns instead of the previous 13'". (see User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count).
 * These two publications do not account for changes to production procedures after 1993/2004. The user presents a third source in the essay, A Nerdist podcast featuring an interview with Alex Trebek, which he claims verifies that 46 weeks of production have continued after 1993/2004. However, Trebek states at 25:26 in the podcast that "We've always done 46", and this refutes the claim within the userspace content that seasons 1 and 2 had lower episode counts, and also contradicts the other two sources (Richmond and Eisenberg) in the essay, calling into question both the accuracy of the two earlier sources as well as Trebek's recollection of details from 29 years earlier.
 * Ignoring the contradictions above, the user then suggests counting days in a calendar to determine a "correct episode count".
 * It is impossible to verify the number from any of the sources given since they are contradictory, and this again does not meet WP:V. The user "picking and choosing" what content within a source should be used, as well as the manual counting method, means the essay itself is OR and SYN, which does not fall under the earlier referenced WP:NOT guidelines, nor under WP:UP#GOALS bullet #4. AldezD (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing "OR" or "SYN" about counting. Since the "method" proposed in the essay involves only addition and counting, it is not the method you disagree with. At best, you're only arguing that the sourcing that underlies the implementation of the method is incompletely sourced. I don't agree; I think Eisenberg is sufficient to support the proposition that Jeopardy! switched from 39 weeks to 46 weeks in its third season and remains so today, absent evidence that another change took place sometime later (you are unable to offer any such evidence, and you have never even disputed that Jeopardy! is still 46 weeks long each year). But whether someone agrees with AldezD or with me on the principle of the sufficiency of the factual sourcing, that does not make this essay "excessive unrelated content" as it would have to be to justify deletion. Best, Robert K S (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The user essay is original research and synthesis based upon selective referencing from contradicting sources. It is not routine calculation. This essay is OR and SYN. Within this deletion discussion, the user continues to make the argument of selective referencing and to ignore contradicting information as well as WP:V issues, which is a further example of the SYN and OR basis of this userspace content. Whether or not the show still produces 46 weeks of new shows, switched at some point or a combination of those items is not the issue. The issue is that this userspace content details non-routine calculations based upon OR and SYN, and that type of content does not belong on Wikipedia per the earlier mentioned guidelines of WP:NOTESSAY #1 and WP:UP#GOALS #4. AldezD (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That the sources are contradictory is solely a matter of your opinion. I do not find an offhand "always" in the context of an oral interview to mean more than "for a long time", and do not find it to contradict two other written sources.  But even if the Trebek interview is ignored and not relied upon, we still have the AV Club interview to support the fact that Jeopardy! remains a 46-week-season show and has not, contrary to your unsupported speculation, changed its season length since 2004.  The issue is solely that you, AldezD, want to "win" what you irrationally perceive as a "war" over this minor factual issue, and since I refuse to be baited into an edit war with you over the article proper, the remaining way available to you to win the "war" is to have my essay deleted.  Since the essay relates directly to article content, and cites to sources used by the article, it is not "pure original research, [or] in complete disregard of reliable sources, or ... clearly unencyclopedic" and thus is proper userspace content under WP:UP#GOALS #4. Robert K S (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Manually calculating days on a calendar based upon contradictory references which don't give an exact episode number nor an episode count—only the purported number of production weeks within a season—is SYN. The userspace content details an OR/SYN method to calculate an episode count based upon a specific date, and this userspace content does not belong on Wikipedia based upon the earlier mentioned guidelines. AldezD (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if the basis of your arguments has been your misunderstanding about what the sources attest to. The sources do not give the number of production weeks.  The sources give the number airing weeks in the season of produced episodes.  46 weeks times fives shows per week (Monday-Friday) equals 230 episodes per season.  For a growing collection of sources attesting to this, see here.  The number of weeks out of the year that Jeopardy! is produced is actually not important to the episode count, but given that Jeopardy! tapes 5 shows a day, two days a week, it would take 23 weeks during the year to tape the show, because 230/10 = 23. Robert K S (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:IDHT. You are manually calculating an episode count based upon an OR and SYN essay in a userspace article, which itself uses sources that contradict each other. The sources do not provide the number of new episodes in a season. You are using SYN to arrive at this calculation result, which is not routine. The essay details OR and SYN and does not belong on WP, neither as basis for information contained within an article, nor within userspace. AldezD (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The basis of your deletion nomination is that the contents of the essay are "original research". But first, the whole point of the essay is to show concisely how episode counts involve no original research.  You can repeat "OR, OR, OR" all you want, but you haven't shown where there's any OR.  I've cited to numerous sources that render your contentions that Eisenberg is "outdated" incredible.  And second, even if you were completely correct, and there was some "original research" in the essay, that isn't a valid basis for deletion of a userspace essay directed to resolving a point of contention in an encyclopedia-related matter.  Read WP:UP.  Under "what may I have in my user space," one of the explicitly allowed types of content is "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki."  This essay qualifies.  Furthermore, it's not "unrelated content".  The essay relates directly to information that you seek to include in the article and refuse to remove, despite the fact that I have demonstrated again and again that the information you seek to include is mathematically impossible.  Jeopardy! airs daily on weekdays.  Thus, any episode count as of a Friday would have to end in a 0 or a 5.  You have included information indicated an episode count, as of a Friday, that ends in a 9.  My essay addresses that.  It's a related matter, not unrelated content, as you would seem to insist. Robert K S (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside—and this does not relate to this specific deletion discussion—you continue to make the argument here (as you did in the earlier no WP:OR discussion) that I seek to include information in the article and "refuse to remove" information. I have repeatedly commented that if you as an editor do not agree with a sourced episode count currently in the article, remove it and remove the linked source . AldezD (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The basis of the deletion nomination is that this userspace content details non-routine calculations based upon OR and SYN, and that type of content does not belong on Wikipedia per the earlier mentioned guidelines of WP:NOTESSAY #1 and WP:UP#GOALS #4. AldezD (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Counting is a routine calculation. Addition is a routine calculation.  I don't think you have ever argued otherwise, although you have been fairly good at masking that fact in the volume of text you've posted.  The only thing you seem to dispute is the bases for the numbers being added together.  I think the reasons for your disagreement are feeble and dishonest, and each time I bring more evidence into the discussion, your argument morphs into something new.  First, it was "there might not still be 230 episodes per season after 2004" (when This Is Jeopardy! was published).  Now with a voluminous and growing set of references debunking that speculative contention, your argument has become "Alex said 'always' and 'always' must mean 'always'.  Therefore, one source contradicts others, and none of them are valid!"  Even such argument, combining a stubborn literalism with an unreasonable approach to reconciling differences in the record, does not result in a conclusion that there has been original research.  Every point has some published evidence behind it, and even you are not disputing that. Robert K S (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This specific userspace deletion discussion is based upon the WP guidelines that an editor's userspace should not be used as a host for OR or SYN content. The essay which discusses manually counting days on a calendar and using numbers of weeks to arrive at a calculation result is not routine and falls under SYN and OR. The sources within the essay do not provide a specific count of episodes by season for all seasons airing since 1984. You are manually arriving at this calculation result by multiplying the number of days in a week and the number of weeks of new episodes in a season. That is SYN. AldezD (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you now arguing that counting calendar days is not a routine calculation? Robert K S (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A 3,500+ word essay that describes a method of manually counting days is not a routine calculation. It is SYN, and does not belong in userspace content per the guidelines mentioned earlier. AldezD (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just going in circles. You know very well it doesn't take 3,500 words to describe the routine calculation, because we've covered that point many times before.  It can be done in a single sentence: add up the number of episodes from previous seasons and count calendar days from the beginning of the current season.  Addition and counting are routine, and even now, when the question is put to you pointedly, you cannot summon any argument as to why they are not.  Given that your entire argument for deletion is that the essay is original research, but the whole point of the essay is to show why the routine calculations involve no original research, there is no basis for deletion of the essay which directly addresses a point of contention between you and I on article content.  You just can't stand the fact that there is any dissent and you wish to stifle it through this wholly improper deletion nomination. Robert K S (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Are you both looking for a starring role in one of Wikipedia's most interesting pages? You're heading that way. Both of your positions are abundantly clear, neither of you is going to persuade the other. Just stop arguing and wait for third party editors' opinions. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Dweller said, with admiration. The essay relies on the definitions in its earlier sections, which come under WP:OR, as it is neither sourced nor common sense. (The fact that the essay had to define these terms explicitly shows that the definitions are not common sense.) This essay is not useful to the casual reader (who, at most, just wants to know how many episodes there are and is not remotely interested in how one comes to that answer) or the more interested reader (who is probably expecting a short citation, not a redirect to an essay detailing how a Wikipedia user, or optimistically, a Wikiproject counts Jeopardy! episodes). At first, I wondered if this could somehow serve as a set of guidelines for the associated Wikiproject, but seeing as this deletion discussion alone is probably going to give the poor closing admin a headache, I don't see an entire Wikiproject agreeing to that anytime soon. The user is free to host this under whatever license in another part of cyberspace, but I don't see how or where it would fit in Wikipedia. (I wrote a longer than usual explanation since Word Wall happened up there.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So now there's yet a new "reason" for deletion--the definitions which merely serve to frame the discussion? I could easily rewrite the essay to make no mention of show numbers and thus omit the definitions section.  Would the essay then become allowable under Rotideypoc's theory?  The point is being missed here: "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki" are explicitly allowed in the userspace under WP:UP.  Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay has been trimmed up and the definitions section removed. This ought to cure the objection. Robert K S (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.