Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
massive anti-red link campaign in many quarters[edit]
Hello. I just read your article on Orphan articles, and wasn't sure whether there was a dedicated place to comment - so I came here in the meantime. Mainly just to thank you for noting that there seems to be a massive anti-red link campaign in many quarters: I've noticed it myself, even to the point of people editing out links I'd deliberately left for bizarrely-overlooked important articles-to-be-written (there are still some glaring omissions on many of the topics I'm interested in). I suspect the trend is symbiotically linked, however, to practices of over-linking. e.g. the contrary tendancy to link every other word in an article whether or not it has any bearing on the subject to hand. (In fact, frequently this seems to become "particularly if not".) There have been specific drives to remove the linking of dates (with some validity - they all-to-often become trivia magnets of dubious relevance in many cases), and related 'unnecessary' links - which has further leaked over into removing very-necessary links because they look similar to those elsewhere deemed unnecessary. I think that the removal of red links, or a drive to stem their creation, can be seen to be hand-in-hand with those types of push. Sometimes. Similarly, on the same/other hand, mass-creation of red links is another common "problem" - it can either (some say) cast doubt on the notability of a subject by stating/implying that there are no obvious references to it anywhere here, or else suggest that the editor is over-zealous in their own interpretation of what might be eventually considered sufficiently notable (i.e. assuming that every "best boy" and "grip" in a film's cast & crew list will ultimately warrant their own separate page). After which slight rambling, all I really wanted to say was "Thank You" for trying to reassert the significant benefits and usefulness of red links, and for highlighting why they are important, necessary and worthwhile. ntnon (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Why "portion" rather than "proportion"?
Would it be possible to have a "random orphan article" link in the navigation column? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Relation between number of links and number accesses?[edit]
Wonder if there is interesting relationship between orphan status/number of links to the article and frequency of access (correcting for stub/etc. status). Zodon (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)