Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown you have here. The definition of the word
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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)Reply
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
- 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
** Vacating for move/merge
** 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
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? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 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.) —RuakhTALK 14:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 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? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Re: "they usually have two or so entries the creator put in before they got bored": And that you haven't removed? —RuakhTALK 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
- 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. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
updated, following my changes made today, from this list - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
- 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
@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)Reply
- @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)Reply