I don't see even a slight difference between the first and second definitions. Their examples are interchangeable, demonstrating the lack of necessity for a second definition that is a repeat of the first. However, one person's opinion shouldn't be enough to outright remove it, so I'm just pissing and moaning like usual. 22.214.171.124 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting... I would not consider " to alter" as the same as " to reuse" so I would advocate that there are 2 definitions. Notwithstanding I think it is a horrible ugly word, when alter or reuse is much more efficient way of saying what you want without confusion. —This unsigned comment was added by Buzzbuzz10 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC).