The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

Battle of Dunbar (1650)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild, GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first major battle in the Third English Civil War, between the New Model Army under Oliver Cromwell, and a Scottish army under the command of David Leslie. Gog the Mild and I rewrote it between May and July of this year, with assistance from Harrias who made the maps of the battle. We have attempted to set out the series of events that led up to the conflict, describe the opposing forces, give an account of the battle itself, and explain what happened in the aftermath of the battle and why it was significant. There is also a brief description of the current condition of the battlefield. Since we published the article, it has been reviewed for GA and DYK; we hope that it's now ready for consideration as a featured article, and humbly present it for review. GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

This might be something of a bits and pieces review, with me dropping in and adding more as I have time. As always, feel free to argue discuss any points: unless I am quoting a specific MOS, it is probably just my personal preference, rather than a requirement. I will probably claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.

Background

Done.
Done; roundhead linked to "English parliamentarian" - to distinguish from the Scottish type.
Done.
Done.
Why? It is referring to a general, non-specific act, not to a specific act which would make it a proper noun.
Both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries capitalise it even in the general usage, "An Act of Parliament", as does the UK Parliament. Harrias talk 12:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Wat matters is MOS:CAPS which I believe requires a lower case a. But I don't much care, so capitalised. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might be misremembering how a dictionary works, but I thought that when they capitalised it, that meant they defined it as a proper noun, which would mean that MOS:CAPS requires it to be capitalised? Anyway, if you've changed it, I guess it is academic. Harrias talk 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why they capitalise it. The Cambridge Dictionary says that a proper noun is "the name of a particular person, place, or object that is spelled with a capital letter". So act of parliament used in a general sense, as it is here, cannot be a proper noun. (It's not a "particular ... object [thing]".) As you say, academic now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the major broadsheets and books sources, and there is a mix. If you want to return it back to lower case, I won't object. I think essentially you could argue this either way, so applying the logic of MOS:RETAIN might be best. Harrias talk 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That section of the MoS has something been something of an area of special interest to me since I first became active here. This does not of course mean that I am necessarily interpreting it correctly, but I believe that the current usages, specifically the two you mention, are MoS compliant.

That's it so far, reviewed to the end of the Background section. Harrias talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Harrias. All good stuff. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude

Opposing forces

Done.
Good idea, do you have a source for this?
Sure, ((sfn|Royle|2005|p=194)). Harrias talk 16:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.
@Approximately@.
Done.
Done.
Wiktionary link added.
Nice OR. I have unpacked my summary style to give the source's numbers and left it for a reader to decide how serious they are.
I know, but it's one sentence and I struggle to see how I can subtract information from either without making them read badly or even incoherently.

Battle

Ah, yes, I can see that. I have moved the "In the foul weather it took the English army all night to reposition in preparation for the planned pre-dawn assault" sentence to the start of this paragraph. Does that remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. The sources don't agree - that always confuses me. (There is even a Holburne!) Fixed. And moved.
Yep. (It's down on the map!) Fixed.

Reviewed to the end of the Preparation section. Harrias talk 07:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done
The name of the regiment is "Lambert's Regiment". Similarly one of the regiments in Monck's brigade was called Monck's Regiment. I could delete "(Lambert's)", which may be easiest. Or add an explanatory footnote. I think that trying to explain inline is going to wreck the flow.
I'd just remove it altogether, it doesn't add much, and is just likely to cause confusion. Harrias talk 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Truly? I have never even heard of that usage. (It reads like a typo to me.) You are aware that this is in British English? Quickly checking six sources I find two 117th's and no "psalm 117's". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Just double checked with my wife, who was an altar server and sang in a church choir for years. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one of those Ngram things that CPA likes: [2]. Harrias talk 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen carefully, you can hear me being dragged into the 20th century. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Charles II was the worldly prince, not Leslie (prince in the broader sense of the word, to encompass kingship). He'd signed the covenants, but they knew he'd been pushed into it and thought they were being punished for getting into bed with someone who wasn't a true believer. I've just changed this to 'Charles II'
Girth Summit: this was mostly your work. What do you think? (Harrias has a tendency in my experience to prefer more succinct backgrounds and aftermaths than me or most other reviewers. This doesn't, of course, make them wrong. Either in general or in this case.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mm - missed this. I think that our article on the Third English Civil War could, and should, be expanded upon, and it's very likely that the ground we cover here would also be covered in such an article - but, I'd suggest that we would need to do it in more depth there. What we provide here is four paragraphs (two of them very brief) covering the immediate effects of the battle on the government and military preparedness of Scotland (i.e. that the cracks between the competing factions were greatly widened, and Leslie's remaining men started deserting to join a different army - divided we fall, etc), and then three paragraphs skimming quickly over the rest of the campaign, which is closely linked to Dunbar in the sources (as exemplified by the Coward quote we provide). So unless Harrias isn't going to put us to the push of pike on this, I would resist any major trimming to this section. GirthSummit (blether) 12:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Gog, I complained that the aftermath section in your last FAC was too short, I think. Simply put, I think the current aftermath violates FACR #4: "going into unnecessary detail". For example, the point at which I really started thinking it had gone too far was when we started going into detail about the sacking of Dundee. In the context of the Battle of Dunbar, "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September; Monck's troops sacked the town, and several hundred civilians, including women and children, were killed. Monck admitted to 500, but the total may have been as high as 1,000. Monck then allowed the army 24 hours for looting and a large amount of booty was seized. Subsequently, strict military discipline was enforced." could have been simply "Dundee, the last significant Scottish stronghold, fell on 1 September." That is just one example, but I think throughout the section, some of the detail could be plucked out, leaving the framework intact. Yes, it is all good information, but this just isn't the place for the detail: that should go elsewhere. Harrias talk 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph - I am here upon an engagement very difficult. I've trimmed Dundee, and also cut a couple of sentences from the end about nature of Scottish government in the years after the defeat. How do you feel about it now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done

That's it from me I think. Harrias talk 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias - I've done most of these, leaving two for Gog the Mild as they concern the bits of the article/sourcing he's more familiar with. GirthSummit (blether) 10:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I have commented on the two outstanding issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Replied, and marked two more that I haven't seen responses to. Harrias talk 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Girth Summit: Why does the article now seem to go back in time at the start of the Outflanking manoeuvre section? After a few hours of fighting, we finish the previous section saying that "The battle hung in the balance". But then, we go right back to "By around 4:00 am.." again? Harrias talk 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was some changes GtM made in the last hour or so to address some of Cassianto's comments - Gog the Mild, do you want to pick back through your last few edits and make it say what it's meant to? GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry, and thanks Harrias. A sentence which I inserted into the middle of Preparation for Cassianto somehow also got pasted to the start of Flank attack and I didn't notice. Fixed. Probably time for me to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, if you have a RS for this I would be happy to see it. Frankly it sounds like a hobbyist's opinion to me. None of the sources I have looked at in putting this together have mentioned this hypothesis, and you wouldn't think that it is the sort of thing eight or ten academics would miss. At near random the National Portrait Gallery, for example, makes no mention of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't have an RS for it. If nothing more, the caption should be expanded a little to provide greater context, and cited. At the moment, the article does not make it clear what the medal is. Harrias talk 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias I'm not sure that I quite agree that that's what we're doing. Cromwell claims 10,000 "killed or captured", but doesn't differentiate how many of each, and since he says he let many of them go the following day I'd argue that they wouldn't fall into the 'prisoners' category. I think that figures in the infobox represent the most specific numbers we can get at for estimates of those actually killed, those wounded, and those actually taken south as prisoners. Does that allay your concern?
"killed near four thousand" vs "300–500 killed"? Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - you're right, I misread (misglanced ought to be a word) that. I'll remind myself tomorrow what Woolrych and Furgol actually say about this and think about how best to address this. GirthSummit (blether) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've checked them both. Furgol states 4,000 killed, Woolrych gives it as over 3,000. To put that into context though - neither of them give the source for those figures, or discuss them in any detail, they each just report the figures as fact in single sentences. These are fairly broad histories of the whole campaign, each giving the battle less than a page - for details like this, I am inclined to put much more weight in studies of the battle itself which discuss their methodologies, rather than a brief mention from someone who probably just needed to find a number to stick in to round off the section.
I wonder whether there would be scope in the infobox for us to be a bit more specific - is it possible/acceptable for us to put three ranges in there along the lines of:
  • Cromwell's report: nearly 4,000
  • Balfour's estimate: 800-900
  • Modern estimate: 300-500
I just don't see how putting in a range as broad as 300-4000 is helpful for the reader - people would probably interpret is as a typo, with either a missing 0 or an extra 0, and scratch their heads! GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that for this reason, I often omit the casualty field from infoboxes completely for battles where it isn't possibly to give relatively precise figures. I should also point out that I get moaned at during reviews for not having it. Possibly, we could just quote the "modern estimates" in the infobox, with a footnote including an explanation that only the modern estimates are given, and providing the other figures? Harrias talk 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, and will do it once I get a moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started to do this, and realised that all I was doing was copying much of the information from the "casualties" section into the note, which seemed pointless. So instead I have added a short note and a link under the Scottish casualties in the infobox specifically directing readers to the "Casualties" section for further information. Will that suffice? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You heard it here first, Girth  ;) ——Serial 16:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it; this is a great article, sorry to have been such a nitpick through this review! Harrias talk 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Stewart - I think it would be odd to omit her entirely, since she's one of the main scholars working on the Scottish government of this period (plus she's actually read over this article a couple of times and given us some feedback) but we're still using her 2016 book - the stuff about Dundee can go into another article about the campaign itself. GirthSummit (blether) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I wasn't suggesting removing the other reference, just that unused one needed to be used or removed, which you've done, so that's all to the good. Harrias talk 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Looks good to me. I have added mine. Would you care to repay the favour? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: there was what looked like a rogue paste, I've fixed, the rest looks good to me. How confident are you on PD US tags - do you think I've added it correctly to the portrait of Cromwell? GirthSummit (blether) 16:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit: Thanks.
Well, I do the occasional, more simple, FAC image review, and IMO yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, there don't appear to have been any changes made? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, apologies. I don't know what went wrong. I remember doing the research and thought that I had seen it on the page. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something equally stupid. Now (re)done and apologies again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria and many thanks for going through the images. I believe that all of youcomments have now been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, did you spot NM's comment above? GirthSummit (blether) 07:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't. Thanks. That is very odd. I remember doing the research. I assume that I forgot to click Publish or something. I can remember where it was and I'll redo the necessary tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

"An English lobster-tailed pot helmet" and "The Dunbar victory medal". FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have enlarged a number of the images. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it fits the adjacent text of each, it should be ok then. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Girth Summit. The First, Second and Third English Civil Wars started and finished within 9 years and 12 days, with no discernable changes in dress or equipment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and comments FunkMonk - I've addressed some of them, and made a few of my own, above. GirthSummit (blether) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The kirk article seems to have it, though with no source: "Whereas church displays Old English palatalisation, kirk is a loanword from Old Norse and thus retains the original mainland Germanic consonants. Compare cognates: Icelandic & Faroese kirkja; Swedish kyrka; Norwegian (Nynorsk) kyrkje; Danish and Norwegian (Bokmål) kirke". FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come across a source which mentions this. My OR guess would be that they bought or otherwise acquired the heaviest horses they could and didn't worry too much about the breed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Imagine writing Four Kilogramme Hammer. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above FunkMonk. I'd like to hear Gog's thoughts before changing the image sizes (he wrote those sections and selected the images). GirthSummit (blether) 15:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. But as we have the information would you wish us to leave it out? (I assume that if it read 'in the 21st century you would ask us to be more precise?)
Not a big deal either way. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
Done.
Possibly. Let me have a search.
Gog the Mild, FunkMonk I found this, which shows a (rather naff) commemorative plaque, and this which shows the view from the top of Doon Hill down onto the battlefield, but if I'm honest I don't think they would really add anything to the article, either in terms of informing the reader, or merely as decorations. GirthSummit (blether) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they'd add some nice flavour to the article, especially the plaque maybe, since it shows the event's significance even today, and reflects the text about the mass grave. But of course, it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with GS, but who are we to argue with a reviewer. I have found a couple of bland landscape shots which could perhaps be worked into the battle section, but I think that the plaque in the last section is our best bet. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I uploaded the image to commons, and have added it to the relevant section - feel free to tinker with size, placement. GirthSummit (blether) 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have trimmed the first paragraph and moved both of these points to the end of the second.
Moved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I've read from top to bottom and enjoyed it very much. A few comments:

Preparation
I am not at all keen on "bad" - although you're the reviewer, so I will use it if pushed. As a poor second, how would you feel about "stormy"?
I am indeed a reviewer, but you are the nominator so the decision to adopt any suggestion I make is entirely down to you - I certainly won't push you to adopt anything you don't feel comfortable using. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware that nominators (even me!) get close to their creations, and that a first response can be defensive. I suspect that that is partially what is happening here. So even when I don't like a suggestion I try to take a reviewer's PoV on board. I suspect that in my response above you could see the cogs going round. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Inclement weather'? 'Typical Scottish summer weather'? More seriously, 'Adverse weather conditions?' GirthSummit (blether) 11:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "typical" is redundant. I like "In the adverse weather conditions". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Let's go for that. CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased as "By around 4:00 am all of the English reached at least approximately their intended positions; none had gone past them in the dark and blundered into and so alerted the Scots."
"all of the English"...what? Sounds clunky. "By around 4:00 am, the English reached, approximately, their intended positions; none [what] had gone past them in the dark and [they] blundered into and so alerted the Scots". -- I can't even reword this last part as I can't make head nor tail of it." CassiantoTalk 12:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say, obviously ineptly, is that in the dark it would be the easiest thing in the world for an English unit to advance a little too far, past its designated jumping off point, blunder into the Scottish outposts or even units, start a firefight and completely remove the "surprise" element of the surprise attack. It would be even easier to simply get lost and not reach their jumping off point in time, or at all. That A) all of them more or less found their positions and B) none did overrun them are two separate minor miracles. An entire army redeploying to attack in the face of the enemy and in the dark! It speaks to very well trained troops and the possibility that God was indeed smiling on Cromwell. It is the sort of thing that the greatest of generals never tried, because they never thought that they could pull it off.
Now, how do I get that into a succinct and comprehensible sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about: By around 4:00 am, the English troops had taken up positions approximately where Cromwell had intended them to be; certainly, none of them had made the mistake in the dark of going too far and alerting the Scots to their manoeuvres. Or something like that? GirthSummit (blether) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I mistook that for Cassianto's comment and have just used it. Any hoo, Cassianto, does that work for you? Possibly I could put some background into a footnote? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- all concerns addressed. This is a very good article. Worthy of FA. CassiantoTalk 15:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assault
IMO yes. One could, and they often did, muster a new regiment consisting entirely of veterans. Recently joined/been around awhile and raw/veteran aren't (necessarily) interchangeable. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outflanking manoeuvre
Fair enough. Changed to "As with other aspects of the battle, the sources differ regarding what happened next." How's that?
Split in two. See if that reads better
"Entirely separately" binned; replaced with "meanwhile".
Scottish response
I've rephrased this a bit, hopefully makes more sense now? I'll be slopey-shouldered and leave GtM to consider the points above, that is his prose and he has the sources. GirthSummit (blether) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CassiantoTalk 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto Apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I think that between us we have addressed all of the points you have raised so far. Any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell's own fist re. Dunbar[edit]

If anyone has—or knows anyone with, perhaps—access to the National Library of Scotland, they could photograph this, a Letter of Oliver Cromwell to the Committee for the Army concerning the medal to commemorate the Battle of Dunbar. ((Db-scan)) would apply for the license and might add something to the aftermath section, mirroring as it does the photo of the medal itself. ——Serial 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people with access to the NLS, and I expect that I could twist one person in particular's arm to get a picture of this for us at some point - not sure when though, I believe the building's open again but term time is starting, not sure when a trip to Edinburgh will be possible. GirthSummit (blether) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 I spoke to a certain someone with access to the NLS - she doesn't think this will fly. Having used images from the NLS for books in the past, she says that they are very cagey about allowing you to take photographs - you have to sign agreements that they are only for private use, or you have to pay them significant whacks of cash if you want to distribute them. So, this isn't looking like something we'll be able to get hold of in the short term. :( GirthSummit (blether) 10:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Who said the age of institutional heritage banditry was done? OK, nevermind. ——Serial 13:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Removed.
I think they're now ordered alphabetically, based on how they're presented to the reader.
Done.
Done.
Gog the Mild - I've looked at this, and I can see what NM is talking about - Hutton and Reeves gets an ampersand, but Ffoulks and Hopkinson don't, for example. I can't see a difference in how we're putting the information into the Cite Book format though - why are they appearing differently? Is it because Ffoulks and Hopkinson have middle names do you think? Or can your eyes see something mine are missing? GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's because Ffoulkes and Hopkinson were missing "|lastauthoramp=y" which I have added. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - good spot, hadn't noticed that field.
Fixed.

Ditto Dow and Young.

Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I think that's all done now, thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 11:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More