Invalid A7. The Augustus Holly is not a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. Deleting admin has refused to restore at WT:SHIPS. [1] There is also some discussion there that the article meets the bar for a credible claim of significance, if somehow a ship is one of the items listed in A7. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:A7 indicates the list is exhaustive, and there is plenty there to indicate that it's in fact illustrative (for instance, the numerous exceptions for things that don't fall into the enumerated categories); further, a strict reading of the list flies in the face of WP:BURO. In any event, I don't see a credible claim of significance in the article or submitted by other editors in the talk page discussion. Simply having been bought by the US Navy does not pass that bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. CSD have explicitly and unambiguously defined scope, and the scope of A7 explicitly excludes things not mentioned in the criteria. For that matter, I have no idea what kind of category other than "everything" would be illustrated the list of things that A7 covers. Educational institutions are excluded because they're organizations, "the stuff they made" were explicitly excluded because presumably people frequently assumed otherwise and the same goes for "type of animal". I'm still confused why ships would be assumed to fall into the criteria, maybe it'll be clearer after I sleep on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Of course the list in WP:A7 is exhaustive, by simple English comprehension as well as by long standing practice. Whatever could possibly have given anyone any idea that it is not? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD. I've always assumed the list of applicable things enumerated in WP:A7 to be exhaustive.

side-rant about A7
Personally, I think that's stupid, and A7 should apply to an article about anything that makes no claim of importance. It applies to an article about a YouTube video because that's web content, but not an article about an episode of a TV show, because it's not web content? Absurd. It applies to The dog I had as a kid because that's an animal, but not to The big tree that was in my yard because it's not an animal? It applies to My best friend when I was growing up because that's a real person, but not My pretend friend when I was growing up because that's a made-up person? But, regardless,

side-rant about A7

Personally, I think that's stupid, and A7 should apply to an article about anything that makes no claim of importance. It applies to an article about a YouTube video because that's web content, but not an article about an episode of a TV show, because it's not web content? Absurd. It applies to The dog I had as a kid because that's an animal, but not to The big tree that was in my yard because it's not an animal? It applies to My best friend when I was growing up because that's a real person, but not My pretend friend when I was growing up because that's a made-up person? But, regardless,

strict interpretation of that list has been accepted practice for as long as I've been watching AfD and DRV. I expect the AfD will get closed as Merge to Stone Fleet. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, historically, the bar for a "credible claim of significance", has been pretty low. A reasonable argument could be made that being scuttled as part of a blockade is good enough to avoid A7. I don't think it's enough (by a long shot) to meet WP:N, but that's something to be decided at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was just on my way over to WP:CSD to propose modifying A7 to be more inclusive, when I discovered A7 scope is specifically called out in WP:NOTCSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Due to premature deletion have not seen the article, but if it contained something like the current form of the DANFS article it meets the credible claim of significance as "a vessel purchased by the USN for operational purpose". WP:CCS is clear that, as a consequence, WP:SPEEDY cannot be used, and that the correct process is WP:AFD. Davidships (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 does not apply to ships and the wording of A7 does exclude categories which aren't explicitly listed. If there's any doubt then please see WP:NOTCSD point 6. Even if A7 did apply to ships the article said the subject was a US Navy warship and I think that's an assertion of significance. Note WP:SHIPOUTCOMES says Named warships...are generally treated as presumptively notable. Hut 8.5 20:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple points of fact: this was not a warship, nor was it ever commissioned. Therefore the presumption of notability doesn’t apply. Parsecboy (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability, and notability is suppose to be evaluated through PROD and AfD rather than speedy deletion. Therefore if there's even a possibility that the subject is notable it shouldn't be an A7. If you have to start nitpicking about whether it was commissioned or not in order to justify deleting it then it shouldn't be handled through speedy deletion. And again A7 simply doesn't apply to ships of any kind. Hut 8.5 17:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not splitting hairs - you asserted it was a warship, it wasn't. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The A7 list is absolutely meant to be exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The A7 list is exclusive. If you don't know how to use A7, don't review A7 nominations. If the community had meant for other types of objects, even if they have grammatical gender, to be included, they would have been included. Shinps have grammatical gender, but they are not persons or animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - A7 is inapplicable per those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why the list of things that can be deleted at A7 is so limited is not arbitrary, but rather our accumulated experience, as shown bythe exhaustive archive of the CSD talk page. Speedy is only for unquestionably clear deletions, such as no reasonable person who understands WP would object to. It therefore has to be limited to those cases where the deleting admin can be sure they are not making a mistake. The total lack of importance of people can often be judged by any admin--that many attempted articles will be about people who cannot conceivably merit a WP article is easy to tell. This is also true for many attempted articles on organizations, and individual animals, and by experience this is also true of many attempted articles on web content. By experience , it is not true of such things as buildings or commercial products, or computer software, or films, or books, or groups of animals--the factors for notability here can be complicated and hard to judge--it is too easy to confuse the totally unfamiliar with the totally insignificant. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that particularly compelling; if I were deleting articles on subjects with which I have no familiarity, sure, but I know a thing or two about this particular subject area. And to undelete the article only to then delete it via AfD seems overly bureaucratic and a waste of the community's time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the point of rules like this is that having some definite rules avoids the waste of community time when someone else does something wrong. I'm very good at judging books, but I do not speedy them, because then someone who is a little less knowledgable might do so also. And it's also the reason we don't usually delete via A7 unless there's a nomination by someone else, as I think you did here: even on the basic categories people make errors, and having two people makes the frequency much lower if an ordinary non-admin NPP has a 5% error rate, and I have a 2% error rate, that gives only a 0.1% error rate. Had you followed that general practice, this wouldn't have happenned. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in avoiding a waste of the community's time then why not accept the unanimous opinion that your interpretation of WP:A7 was mistaken and restore the article now, rather than let this discussion continue to its inevitable result in a few days time? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ellipsis

To summarize, my goal is to have a convenient template for rendering Unicode ellipsis using a Latin-script keyboard, and have it available under an easy-to-remember name.

In my original filing of this DRV, I disputed the original deletion discussion, but the actual reason I ended up coming to DRV was that the template was G4 speedy deleted after I recreated it.

I dispute the validity of this G4, because I had no knowledge of the exact original contents of the template, so I am unsure how my version is substantially identical. I did read the TfD, and assumed my version of the template would be different enough (but as a non-admin I cannot see the original template's contents, so I cannot know how different it was). More substantially, I dispute the G4 because it appears to disregard the pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies requirement of G4; the TfD centered on the template's lack of usefulness (read the TfD and see my quotes from it below in the collapsed section), but I created this template to use it for a specific purpose (detailed in my initial reply to Reyk).

In the end, I do not see the purpose of deleting a purely functional template with no credible claim of harm under a CSD. If the template was controversial (e.g. it insulted other editors, or it contained text contradicting existing policy), I would understand, but all this template does is allows Unicode to be rendered from a Latin-script keyboard. This is not to say I consider this template "undeletable" on my mere word, but I consider a TfD after recreation to be a more legitimate deletion mechanism than a CSD in this case.

My verbose request that I initially ended up with; I've now summarized this better above. e^πi (talk \| contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the length of this request and the number of edits I have done here. After some thought, I've realized the previous collapsed structure wastes other editors time, so I've decided to restructure it so all the details of my deletion review can be considered fully. I have two main points I want to make here: 1. I'm here because I attempted to create a new version of Template:Ellipsis without having knowledge of the exact original contents, but it was redeleted shortly after under G4, which requires a "sufficiently identical" page. As I've noted here, I think the speedy redeletion was done on invalid grounds. Since I do not know what the original contents were, I cannot really comment on how close my version was to the original contents, or to the appropriateness of the original version, but I can note that I recreated the template to make use of its technical function. If my arguments against the speedy deletion are unconvincing, then I would like those commenting in the discussion to also consider my use-oriented grounds addressing the original deletion rationale; I've detailed this argument below. 2. The TfD closed in 2013 with a unanimous delete !vote... of three !votes (counting the proposer, and one of which lacked rationale). One strong delete !vote would have shifted the balance, and as I was not there for the original discussion, I would like to make my case here. I strenuously object to the deletion of this template, as I it serves a useful purpose: allowing the typing of unicode characters that are inaccessible on the standard Latin keyboard. But most of all, I would like to make a pragmatic appeal: I have an actual intended use for this template. In the TfD, all of arguments against were based on the template's lack of usefulness: (the nominator's rationale) Seems to be a generally pointless template. Typing "((ellipsis))" generates exactly the same as typing "..." and uses 9 more keystrokes than the method recommended by WP:ELLIPSIS. I don't know if it is really very useful even with its new features Adding features nobody requested to a template nobody uses is not a productive use of editors' time. (the third delete !vote) Do we really need a template for ellipsis and other standard typographical punctuation? Meanwhile, I see the following point I agree with made in comments: typing ⋮ is rather difficult without hunting for the Unicode codepoint. And while ⋯ is used in math, it isn't a standard ellipsis. I think the burden falls on the dissenter to argue what harm this template causes. It can easily be removed if it's used on articles, and my newer version provides instructions discouraging use in articles. MOS:ELLIPSIS is a guideline for one specific type of ellipsis; it does not discuss the use of ellipsis in other contexts. Even if this template never ends up getting used on articles, there's no reason not to have it around. e^πi (talk \| contribs) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (significant edits: 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)) (edited for conciseness 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (3rd edit 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

My verbose request that I initially ended up with; I've now summarized this better above. e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of this request and the number of edits I have done here. After some thought, I've realized the previous collapsed structure wastes other editors time, so I've decided to restructure it so all the details of my deletion review can be considered fully. I have two main points I want to make here:

1. I'm here because I attempted to create a new version of Template:Ellipsis without having knowledge of the exact original contents, but it was redeleted shortly after under G4, which requires a "sufficiently identical" page. As I've noted here, I think the speedy redeletion was done on invalid grounds. Since I do not know what the original contents were, I cannot really comment on how close my version was to the original contents, or to the appropriateness of the original version, but I can note that I recreated the template to make use of its technical function.

If my arguments against the speedy deletion are unconvincing, then I would like those commenting in the discussion to also consider my use-oriented grounds addressing the original deletion rationale; I've detailed this argument below.

2. The TfD closed in 2013 with a unanimous delete !vote... of three !votes (counting the proposer, and one of which lacked rationale). One strong delete !vote would have shifted the balance, and as I was not there for the original discussion, I would like to make my case here. I strenuously object to the deletion of this template, as I it serves a useful purpose: allowing the typing of unicode characters that are inaccessible on the standard Latin keyboard. But most of all, I would like to make a pragmatic appeal: I have an actual intended use for this template. In the TfD, all of arguments against were based on the template's lack of usefulness:

(the nominator's rationale) Seems to be a generally pointless template. Typing "((ellipsis))" generates exactly the same as typing "..." and uses 9 more keystrokes than the method recommended by WP:ELLIPSIS.
I don't know if it is really very useful even with its new features
Adding features nobody requested to a template nobody uses is not a productive use of editors' time.
(the third delete !vote) Do we really need a template for ellipsis and other standard typographical punctuation?

Meanwhile, I see the following point I agree with made in comments: typing ⋮ is rather difficult without hunting for the Unicode codepoint. And while ⋯ is used in math, it isn't a standard ellipsis.

I think the burden falls on the dissenter to argue what harm this template causes. It can easily be removed if it's used on articles, and my newer version provides instructions discouraging use in articles. MOS:ELLIPSIS is a guideline for one specific type of ellipsis; it does not discuss the use of ellipsis in other contexts. Even if this template never ends up getting used on articles, there's no reason not to have it around. e^πi (talk | contribs) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (significant edits: 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)) (edited for conciseness 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (3rd edit 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

First of all, endorse the original deletion just to be clear that nobody's criticising the deleting admin. I'd have no objection to allowing recreation in principle. What do you intend to do with it? Reyk _YO! 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk I'm going to be using it in userspace for some tables soon for demonstrating missing rows in tables as part of a larger project to evaluate the use of tooltips on the wiki. But my main argument above is that even if this template doesn't get used in article space, it doesn't have potential to cause harm in article space. It's a purely functional template, so all deletion is doing is depriving the function of easily typing Unicode ellipsis. e^πi (talk | contribs) 10:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that all seems reasonable to me. Reyk _YO! 10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing my own ineptness in following procedures when creating this DRV. e^πi (talk \| contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Re-reading the deletion review instructions, I'm getting the striking impression that I mistakenly added the deletion review template to the template I'm requesting undeletion for, when the template's only supposed to be added here (see this edit). I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting how to carry out step 5 for a template, as the steps seem to be addressing AfDs for step 5, could you clarify? I assume the page should be redeleted again because I gather I recreated it in error (and I've nominated it for speedy deletion under U1 (it was deleted under G7, which is the proper speedy deletion criteria for non-userspace author-requested deletions)). Is `<noinclude>((Delrevxfd\|date=2024 June 29))</noinclude>` supposed to be added at the original TfD? I was confused because TfD operates as sections, not as subpages, but the deletion review steps only mention subpages. e^πi (talk \| contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (edited 11:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply] Yes, you seem to be right about the TfD organisation, so I wouldn't worry about linking to here from there. As for accidentally re-creating the page that is no big deal either. I'm sure an administrator will fix all that before long. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing my own ineptness in following procedures when creating this DRV. e^πi (talk | contribs) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: Re-reading the deletion review instructions, I'm getting the striking impression that I mistakenly added the deletion review template to the template I'm requesting undeletion for, when the template's only supposed to be added here (see this edit). I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting how to carry out step 5 for a template, as the steps seem to be addressing AfDs for step 5, could you clarify?

I assume the page should be redeleted again because I gather I recreated it in error (and I've nominated it for speedy deletion under U1 (it was deleted under G7, which is the proper speedy deletion criteria for non-userspace author-requested deletions)). Is <noinclude>((Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 29))</noinclude> supposed to be added at the original TfD? I was confused because TfD operates as sections, not as subpages, but the deletion review steps only mention subpages. e^πi (talk | contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (edited 11:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you seem to be right about the TfD organisation, so I wouldn't worry about linking to here from there. As for accidentally re-creating the page that is no big deal either. I'm sure an administrator will fix all that before long. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I've revised this DRV significantly to discuss this on different grounds, so I've collapsed the previous comments. You are welcome to revert if you feel it is appropriate. e^πi (talk | contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have a better organizational idea. e^πi (talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is the appellant requesting? If to allow re-creation, why? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I've just now summarized my current thoughts at the top of the request. Hopefully, that will make for easier reading than my original mess.

I am requesting reversal of the recent G4 speedy deletion. e^πi (talk | contribs) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 02:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn the G4, without prejudice to another TFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS doesn't allow the use of the Unicode ellipses. What use do you intend for the template? --Izno (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I assume you're referring to MOS:ELLIPSIS? I had no specific plans to use the template in mainspace, and actually included a mention of MOS:ELLIPSIS in the docs to discourage using Unicode ellipsis to replace the MOS-approved .... I wanted to use the vertical and diagonal version in some userspace tables to indicate missing rows in the table; the tables will show the context in which tooltips are used (I'm currently strategizing the replacement and organization of tooltips). e^πi (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just user-space things, why not just create your own template in your user space? --Izno (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Mainly name convenience (typing ((User:E to the Pi times i/Ellipsis)) or ((User:((ROOTPAGENAME))/Ellipsis)) would be inideal). But I also think the template's existence is beneficial in general to give people the opportunity to use nonstandard ellipsis in appropriate contexts.

If any misuse in mainspace occurred, it could easily be replaced. I imagine the amount of misuse will be minimal if existent; I don't think many people randomly add templates to articles if they aren't copying them from other articles. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) e^πi (talk | contribs) 19:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: If it were to be recreated, it would need to emit a warning in mainspace instead of ellipses. I think that's non-negotiable. As for your subpages, ((/ellipsis)) will transclude the subpage named "ellipsis". You can set up redirects as necessary if you have multiple pages you want to use it on. --Izno (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2019

USS Augustus Holly

Template:Ellipsis