Wikipedia talk:Orphan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

WP:Orphan vs WP:ORPHAN[edit]

It is confusing that WP:Orphan directs to Wikipedia:Orphan, while WP:ORPHAN directs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage . Why can't they both direct to the same page? --Jameboy (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the definition of an orphan needs to be linked to, the only remaining redirect the wikiproject could have was ORPHAN. Other wikiprojects have it easy e.g. Wikipedia:Uncat goes to the uncat wikiproject as the issue is Wikipedia:Categorisation·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

tagging redirects as orphans[edit]

Another editor introduced a policy that "Neither soft nor hard redirects should normally be tagged as orphans."

Before making this into policy, I'd like to get a consensus about whether this even makes sense. I believe it's moot, because an orphan redirect page should be... deleted, shouldn't it? What's the point of a redirect that nothing leads to? --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but you have seriously pissed me off) Oh, honestly, will you do your homework? WP:REDIRECT#Purposes of redirects makes it clear that redirects are intended to be created (among other motivations) in anticipation of reasonable variations in ways editors might link to the primary article, whether or not anyone is using that link now, or ever does. You seem intent on justifying your increasing silliness here. Can't you just say, "Yeah, I made a mistake"? EEng (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not at all: an orphan redirect may be a likely alternative spelling or naming, which will allow a future editor to link to the article and another future editor to avoid re-creating the article. There's no reason at all to delete orphan redirects. So no point in tagging redirects as orphans. PamD 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
very good. thanks for the response! --Lockley (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
From your continued behavior elsewhere, you do not seem to have got the point: Do not tag redirects as orphams. You've now involved four or five editors in this, to no purpose. EEng (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You are factually incorrect. I tagged three redirects as orphans, in good faith, once. Since the above confirmation of policy, I haven't touched them since. I haven't touched any other redirects since. Yes, I've involved other editors, to deal with the insulting and gratuitous personal attacks you've made on me elsewhere, which are off topic here. --Lockley (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No, other editors were drawn in their efforts to explain to you that which you should have understood much earlier. I'm linking here [1] what you call my insulting and gratuitous personal attack -- I have no doubt others will have no trouble discerning the truth of the situation. It's worth noting the block warning to you there from an admin. EEng (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphan status of pages in category "Disused trilobite generic names"[edit]

I have created several pages in the category "Disused trilobite generic names": Arionellus, Conocephalites, Entomolithus, Entomostracites, Trilobites (genus), and Trilobus. Although there is some information there (on why it is no longer used), the pages are meant to shuttle visitors away to the article with the currently accepted name. I intended these pages to function like a combined disambiguation and redirect page. I know an orphan tag bothers me, and I always try to make an edit so that I can take it away. But I also think in this case these pages should actually remain orphans as the natural thing to do is linking back from the very pages these "Disused trilobite generic names" link to. Any views on this? -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Per User:Magioladitis/AWB and orphans, "Articles that are themselves redirects, soft redirects, dabs, set index articles aren't considered orphans."
Can you set these up as set index articles?
Do that by putting a template on them, like Template:Plant common name.
See Category:Set index article templates Maybe you can create a new set index article template for this purpose, if one doesn't exist yet. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to user talk page[edit]

If an article only links to user page/s or user talk page/s, does it count as an orphan? -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles in main space generally should not link to user pages. Orphans are not determined by what an article links to; they are determined by what links to the article. There should be at least one mainspace link to the article to consider it not an orphan. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the full criteria for determining whether an article is an orphan. ~KvnG 13:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria clarifications...[edit]

I need your help in setting the criteria for the script to make it as useful as possible, please see Criteria clarifications... on the WikiProject talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)