Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

message: The first image in "Other issues" section has wrong caption. This type of page is also seen by normal users. Sarangem (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, non-admins will not see the "view X deleted revisions" link. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other issues" section 

message: We shouldn't be so eager to delete stuff, it makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. I've heard this from so many of my friends, too. Benjamin (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a suggestion? Primefac (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Want 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?.  0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) §&nbsp;RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?]]

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations.  HouseBlastertalk 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations]]

message: What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a reason to delete a page. Primefac (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Then you'd ask a WP:MOVE. If "extremely long" means "the software breaks", you head to WP:VPT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It can be reason to delete a redirect.  See, for example, Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom (RFD), or Vladislaus IV of Poland, Sweden, Gothenland and Vandalia, Grand Duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and Moscow (RFD), or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis (RFD) - the last of which, impressively, manages to break the formatting both at the redlink itself and without action=edit.  But yes, if there were content there, it wouldn't be reason to delete that, just the awkward title. —Cryptic 08:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: However, some very long titles can make good redirects, for example When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king what he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring There's no body to batter when your mind is your might and Adelgundes de Jesus Maria Francisca de Assis e de Paula Adelaide Eulália Leopoldina Carlota Micaela Rafaela Gabriela Gonzaga Inês Isabel Avelina Ana Estanislau Sofia Bernardina. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The second-longest title in mainspace (by byte count; tied for third by number of characters), Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles, isn't even a redirect, and is an amusing read. —Cryptic 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about if the page title is extremely long? 

message: In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no....
;Reason: Some people may be confused of the statement, including myself.
102.40.79.94 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: adding "such" there would be grammatically incorrect and confusing, the current "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." is fine Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @Beccaynr @Another Believer Cielquiparle (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like I see comments by blocked editors crossed out often, but maybe that's something I should leave to admins. I didn't mean to overstep, and I gave permission for Beccaynr to remove the strike. Makes no difference to me. I also asked at User_talk:MER-C#AfD_comment, since I saw MER-C comment on the block in other AfD discussions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: According to what appears to be the relevant part of the Talk page guidelines, that I linked to in that discussion,  Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Beccaynr That's what AB did – strike the comment instead of removing it, with a short explanation following. Can you please restore the strike? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication that I can find that the comment was . Perhaps  can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: It's customary to strike people who are using more than one account in the discussion, so they don't get counted twice, and users who are sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, since they are not allowed to edit. A common mistake in this context is to strike users who are subsequently blocked for a reason other than having a prior account. It is a common mistake, but it's still a mistake. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification @Zzuuzz. Perhaps it's enough then to just add a comment after their comment making it clear that they were subsequently blocked? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also customary, perhaps (optionally) explaining why they were blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting on this case - I think this user is a UPE spammer, that's why I blocked them. The problem I described here still exists and probably has become worse. I don't particularly mind whether their comments are struck, but UPE spamming elsewhere does have a negative impact on whether the vote/comment is in good faith. UPE spammers are more likely to be socks too. MER-C 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: If thje user's blocked as a LTA or a sock or a UPE then yes; if they're just a normal user who got blocked for a totally unrelated thing I would say no. jp×g🗯️ 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking blocked users at AfD? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion.  ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Process for requesting revision undeletion|Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion §&nbsp;Process for requesting revision undeletion]]

message: I propose the deletion of most of the Italian comuni. One thing I have never understood about this encyclopaedia is this: what's the point of creating so many pages (over 8,000 pages of Italian comuni) and then leaving them to their own devices? This isn't the way to treat pages. I do my best to improve them, but not even in forty years would I manage to improve 8,000 pages of comuni. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the problem is not specific to Italy.  Many other countries have numerous articles about places with a handful of residents (probably one or two ordinary houses) which are apparently notable. Certes (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Comune|Comuni]]''