I second, etc this.  I’ve wanted this for a long time.  When deleting options, simply give the option of what to do with the values that are present.  Set to “NONE” or map to another picklist value same as SFDC.

Adding my plus-one to at least being able to hide the Inactive options.

Or use a similar functionality when deleting mappings as stated above. Allow us options for what to do with the current values, or a warning stating current values will be nulled.

74 votes and 4 years old.  What does it actually take to get something on the roadmap anymore?

Setting the operational impacts of this aside, how is Gainsight not embarrassed by end users/execs seeing this mess when filtering?

Also, if I add a dropdown list field to a CTA or Timeline, for example, I don’t see any of the inactive values when selecting.  I only see those inactive values when filtering in dashboard/reports.

Why can’t you just carry over the same mechanism? 

I understand that deleting values opens up referential integrity problems, but it seems like making the existing “Inactive” switch hide the Inactive values from filters would be pretty low-impact and I know it would improve both the user and admin experience. 

As an anecdote, our SVP of CS (who pays the Gainsight bill) was sharing a Dashboard on a call with our C*O group and other senior leaders and was at a loss as to what the lighter-gray values were doing there in a dropdown.  Thankfully, nobody who knew the actual answer was on the call and had to share it.

If just hiding the values happens to involve lower development effort and if (as I expect) every user and admin wishes that could happen, this seems like it ought to bubble up to the top of the backlog.

Related: 

I too am curious why this is still parked when there are so many votes and so many additional example use cases and potential other solutions than a complete rework.  It’s still an issue, and it’s still causing quite a bit of ugliness is reporting, rules, and dashboards.