MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown

Shorten again, please

Can we shorten this again please. I hate having to scroll down. I propose: I put the RFD related ones together at the bottom, but alphabetical would also make sense. Conrad.Irwin 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

list

• Attack page or other personally identifiable info
• Bad entry title
• Bad redirect
• Copyright violation
• Creative invention or protologism (use WT:LOP)
• Fatuous entry
• Misspelling of
• Name of a person, please see WT:CFI
• Not dictionary material, please see WT:CFI
• No usable content given
• Orphaned talk page
• Promotional material/spam
• Random formatting, please use the Sandbox
• Vandalism
• Failed RFD; do not re-enter
• Failed RFD; do not re-enter [semi-pointless?]
• Failed RFV; do not re-enter without valid citations
• Previously deleted/failed RFD or RFV

*Common delete reasons Pointless *RFD Pointless *Talk pages Pointless ** Improper use of talk page [Normally advertising/ Random Formatting/ No usable content/ Fatuous] ** Vacating for move/merge [normally added by software] ** Gibberish/nonsense Either "Random Formatting/ No usable content/ Fatuous/Vandalism"

I think the list is just fine. It is good to have a variety of reasons. Even if some are somewhat similar they don't mean quite the same, and it is easy to select a relatively specific reason for each deletion. Perhaps the section headers Common delete reasons, RFD, Talk pages are debatable.

Instead of scrolling you can probably hit on your keyboard the first letter of the reason you have in mind. Besides, scrolling isn't a big issue at all. Also, the list hasn't been much below 20 items for almost a year (≥18 since january, currently 21), and it worked perfectly well, so why start disputing it now? -- Gauss 01:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm probably the exception rather then the rule, but I do about 90% of my editing using only a trackball... (this note was typed on an on-screen keyboard using said trackball). I'm fond of short lists, as they require less scrolling.. I added the section headers so ppl would know they were no longer alphabetical. --Versageek 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"bad category"

What do you say we add "Bad category" for all those categories that really shouldn't exist? I have to delete these quite often. Any objections to me adding it? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we already have "Empty category". Do you often delete bad categories that aren't empty? (Though I think it might make sense to change "Empty category" to "Bad, empty category" or "Bad/empty category" or something.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they usually have two or so entries the creator put in before they got bored. A "Bad/empty category" merger is a really good idea. Do we need consensus or what-have-you to edit the page? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "they usually have two or so entries the creator put in before they got bored": And that you haven't removed? —Ruakh_TALK 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I usually delete the category as soon as I see it and then empty it; I suppose I could empty it first. It's a matter of personal preference, but it doesn't actually make a difference. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

List of delete reasons as of 8 May 2017

updated, following my changes made today, from this list - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Attack page or other personally identifiable info

  Merge with vandalism. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Bad entry title

  Merge with technical. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Copyright violation
• Created in error
• Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP
• Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox
• Misspelling of

  Remove. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• No usable content given (please see WT:CFI, WT:EL)
• Non-idiomatic sum-of-parts term: please see WT:SOP
• Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI
• Promotional material
• Technical deletion and/or vacating for move/merge
• Unwanted redirect or transwiki

  Merge with technical. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Vandalism

RFD/RFV/RFM

• Deleted per RFD, RFDO; do not re-enter
• Deleted per RFV; do not re-enter without valid citations
• Inflection or subpage of deleted entry
• Previously deleted/failed RFD or RFV

Other namespaces

• Improper use of talk or citations page; compare Citations:hydrogen
• Obsolete and orphaned template, documentation or subpage
• Inappropriate user page; please see WT:USER
• Permanently blocked user's page

  Remove. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Userspace page deleted on owner's request
• Empty category
• Citations moved to entry

  Remove. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Deleted by precedent"

@Svartava what is your intent here? Deletion reasons should be at least somewhat informative - but this reason doesn't tell anyone what precedent is being referred to. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I intended it to be a reason like Misspelling of and the precedent being referred to be entered manually. – Svārtava (tɕ) 12:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)