Template talk:Orphan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Orphanage
WikiProject icon This template talk is within the scope of WikiProject OrphanageYou can help!.

Propose to replace FULLPAGENAMEE with BASEPAGENAME[edit]

  • I propose to replace {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} with {{BASEPAGENAME}} in the template. This will allow the search in the template to search on the article name if when the template is placed on an article's talk page.
  • "{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}" returns "Template_talk:Orphan"
  • "{{BASEPAGENAME}}" returns "Orphan"

--PBS (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • @PBS and PBS: Did this ever get resolved? The proper magic word to use here would actually be {{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}, but that may have not existed a couple years ago. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Orphaned articles about a place[edit]

I just happened to notice that this template is attempting to place Plaça del Rei into Category:Orphaned articles about a place from June 2012, due to |geo=yes. But since the parent category doesn't exist (it was deleted in 2009), there's not really any place to put this subcategory were it to be created. If this categorization is useful, please create Category:Orphaned articles about a place and place it in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, and AnomieBOT will automatically create the June 2012 subcategory; if it is not useful, let's remove the special case categorization so the template will place Plaça del Rei into Category:Orphaned articles from June 2012 instead. Anomie 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since no one replied at all, I just removed the special case categorization. Anomie 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This deleted category was designed to be populated by the now-deleted template {{Geo-orphan}}, which was for geographical orphans (mostly hundreds of US municipalities) created in a bot run – see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot#Thoughts. I'll remove all remnants of this usage from the current template. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Few links" template?[edit]

Was there ever any decision about the "no links" vs "no or few" wording? Surely if it remains at none, there should also be a separate template for "few links". At present it's far from clear what to do with articles with one or two links: this template isn't applicable, but the advice about removing it is extremely equivocal. (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The task if finding incoming links to a page has been proven very difficult. Orphan originally meant "few links, at most 3" but we had to prioritise to those with no links due to the increasing number of pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The advice about removing the tag seems clear enough. WP:ORPHAN: "Once the article has one or more links that fit the criteria, remove the tag". DoctorKubla (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#additional parameters --Traveler100 (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please copy the sandbox edits to the live template. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Question: There are two lines
| date = {{#if: {{{att|}}} | {{{att|}}} | {{#if: {{{incat|}}} | {{{date|}}} |{{#if: {{{few|}}} | {{{date|}}} | {{{date|}}}
}} }} }}
which are either buggy, or can be simplified. Consider this: the innermost test (on {{{few|}}}) returns {{{date|}}} in both "true" and "false" outcomes, so this becomes
| date = {{#if: {{{att|}}} | {{{att|}}} | {{#if: {{{incat|}}} | {{{date|}}} |{{{date|}}}
}} }}
and we then have the same situation for the test on {{{incat|}}}:
| date = {{#if: {{{att|}}} | {{{att|}}} | {{{date|}}}
Please confirm intended behaviour. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
My intention is the following (I tried #switch but could not get it to work). Could have probably made it simpler but thought this makes it more flexible as can decide to change which date is displayed. Appreciate someone taking a second critical look over this. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If att is set use the date set in that parameter
    • else If incat set use the original value set by the date parameter
      • else If few set use the original value set by the date parameter
        • else If non of these parameters set use the original value set by the date parameter
To me, those four bullets simplify to just one:
  • if |att= is set, use the date set in that parameter, otherwise use the original value set by the |date= parameter
or in wikicode:
| date = {{#if: {{{att|}}} | {{{att|}}} | {{{date|}}} }}
--Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes that is the same logic. Just did it the other way so I could edit it easier if someone requested a different date logic. But as no one else has made requests for change I guess we can go for the simpler to read syntax. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that the consensus for this change did not last, as it was reverted on 16 September 2013. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Reviewed orphan"[edit]

As of this edit, the |att parameter changes the wording of the template to "This article is a reviewed orphan, as no other articles link to it." First off, I don't think it's very clear, to someone unfamiliar with the template, what this means. And secondly, I thought the idea behind the "attempted de-orphan" thing was that some articles will always be orphans (i.e. only linked to from one or two articles), and that this isn't a problem, but the orphan tag can't be removed because AWB users will keep re-adding it; therefore, the tag is simply hidden. That may no longer be a relevant concern, given the new definition of an orphan as an article with zero links, which most AWB users abide by, but if it's no longer necessary to hide the template, I don't think the |att parameter should change the wording at all; it should just put the article in a different maintenence category. If there has to be a visible change in the template, it should be something less confusing – maybe a second line in small text saying "An attempt was made to de-orphan this article on [date]". DoctorKubla (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The att indicates that somebody tried to de-orphan and when but is still indicating it needs links and someone else could attempt to de-orphan or just wait and come back to it a few months later. As you say an orphan is now defined as zero links. Agree could come have better wording, but could we come up with something shorter than an additional sentence.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to change the wording at all? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to identify that it has been reviewed and moved to attempt category. But I see your point it does not have to have different text. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that the consensus for this change did not last, as it was reverted on 16 September 2013. Once again the "reviewed orphan" messsage is hidden and the template is not visible. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the functionality provided in the Toolbox?[edit]

One problem with the Multiple issues template is that the Orphan information is reduced down to just a few words; significantly, the 'related articles' and 'suggestions may be available' links do not appear. I find these extremely useful when attempting to de-orphan articles, and so have to put in an extra edit first to separate out the Orphan tag from the Multiple issues template... only to put it back again on a second edit if the de-orphanage attempt fails,

Would it be possible for these two links simply to be added to the Toolbox in the left-hand pane?

Meanwhile, unrelated to this, can I take this opportunity to note that this page says "and also hides the article message box" for the att tag, which used to be the case, but appears not to be the template's current behaviour. TheAMmollusc (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the documentation to reflect the new functionality of the att parameter (although I still don't understand why it has to change the wording of the template). I'll let someone who knows more about coding answer your other question. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your correction because the change did not stick. It again hides the article message box. Clearly the current consensus is trending in the direction of fewer tags at the top of articles. See also discussions #"Few links" template? and #"Reviewed orphan" above. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Issue" and "fix" separated to different template parameters[edit]

@TheAMmollusc: – Regarding your first question, to which nobody has yet responded: The issue was created by this 25 June 2012 edit, which split the former text parameter into the new issue and fix parameters, as documented in the issue and fix section of the {{Ambox}} documentation. When placed inside {{multiple issues}} only the issue is shown. I agree that this is a problem. Either we revert to using the full message with the text parameter or rework the parameters so that the important links are included in the issue parameter. Or can we specify smalltext for {{multiple issues}}? Perhaps the best solution is to have a verbose issue & fix message for the stand-alone version and a brief issue & fix message for the multiple issues version. I'd have to try that in the sandbox to see if it would work. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I undid that change, and brought back the single text parameter. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


I believe the sentence should read, 'This article is an orphan as no other articles link to it'. 'As' is a subordinating conjunction. Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@Kayau: – Well, yes, I believe there is a subordinating conjunction here, but I don't think any changes need to be made. The current text, "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it", differs from your proposal only by the inclusion of a comma, which I think is appropriate. However I'm not certain of that, and Talk:Conjunction (grammar)#Examples for subordinated conjuncions makes a good point. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2013[edit]

In the text introduced by the incat parameter, please refer to the segment:
link to it] ''',
There is an extra space here between the text and the comma. Please change to:
link to it]''',
Asserted as uncontroversial. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite so; Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on placement[edit]

A discussion that will determine placement of this notice is happening at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page. Please discuss at that location. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that this, and subsequent discussions, were just the latest in a series of discussions on this topic. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 January 5#Template:Orphan placement discussion for a similar January 2013 discussion. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And, an earlier, more sweeping proposal at Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphan tags need to be added to the talk namespace instead of the mainspace following RfC[edit]

Following the outcome of this RfC, orphan tags need to be added to the talk namespace instead of the mainspace. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 23Wbm1058 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the editors at Wikipedia:VPR#Alternate_idea? believe they have consensus to keep the orphan template on the article page, but hide it if it's not within {{multiple issues}}. GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The RfC is now archived Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page. The closing admin was clear on what the consensus is. To start another RfC over this issue is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The consensus produced by an RfC which runs for two months and produces a consensus involving more than two score of editors does not change in less than a month. To try to evade or disrupt the implementation of the consensus of such an RfC is disruptive it is not disruptive to implement the decision that was reached by consensus. -- PBS (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, hold on. It depends on what tools are broken, how they are broken, what's involved in fixing them, and perhaps other matters.

  • According to this, Twinkle can't put templates on talk page, so the Orphan tag has been removed for now from its arsenal, which is probably OK since Orphan is one of the least-important templates. I presume that there are clever people who can presently give Twinkle the ability to write templates to talk pages, so Bob's your uncle there.
  • According to this, the Articles For Creation Helper Script is currently configured to put Orphan tags on the article pages. Whether this is fixable or how hard it is to fix it, how important this script is, how much it's used, whether it would be simple to remove this script's ability to place Orphan tags at all until the problem is studied and how much of a loss that would be -- these are all questions that I don't know the answer too, although other editors might.
  • Ditto concerns re AutoWikiBrowser.

Overall, I think that if some tools, for a short while, must of necessity put orphan tags on article pages, the tool is not broken. It's just not operating optimally. Yobot 23 will clear all this up sooner or later, I would think.

For my part, I actively want the Orphan tag to appear on the talk page, I think. And remember, some non-trivial minority wanted it continue to be visible on the article page. So let's not assume that making it completely invisible to humans is what everyone wants. We need to discuss this. There's no hurry.

I think before we move forward we want to get a feel for how many tens, hundreds, or thousands of man-hours and calendar days we are talking about to fix the tools. There's no need to rush any of this, so why not leave the current RfC result as the operative rule, but continue to discuss this awhile before running Yobot 23 or doing mass moves of the template? Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the original RfC in question, it's clear that very many of the people supporting moving the tag to the talk page were mainly motivated by a desire to get the ugly honkin' thing off the the article page, and few commentors specifically said that the appearance of the tag on talk pages would be a positive good. So this is something worth continuing to discuss I think. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request to fix link to Find link[edit]

When the template is added to the talk page (e.g. Talk:Ornithochilus cacharensis), clicking on "suggestions may be available" asks the Find link tool to look for links to Talk:Ornithochilus cacharensis instead of Ornithochilus cacharensis. Could someone please change {{orphan}} so that Find link looks for links to the article instead of the talk page? I think this could be done by changing the variable from {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} to {{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done for now: I believe this can be more simply accomplished by simply removing "FULL" and using {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{FULLPAGENAMEE}}. I'd be happy to implement this change GB if you can put it in the sandbox to test it and inform the AWB and Twinkle developers of this proposed change per the notices on the template's doc. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I've updated Template:Orphan/sandbox and posted a note about it at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Orphan tags should be moved to the talk namespace following RfC. I didn't post a note at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Orphan tags need to be added to the talk namespace instead of the mainspace following RfC since they're going to remove the template from Twinkle. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Yes check.svg Done, with this 23:13, 7 February 2014 edit. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording change[edit]

This was already suggested in passing by User:Wbm1058 at the recent RFC.

I think the "suggestions may be available" text that currently links to the find links tool should be changed to read something along the lines of "try the Find links tool for suggestions" This should make it more obvious where the link will go and hopefully encourage more people to try it. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Support per Wikipedia:Easter egg. GoingBatty (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, FYI here is the link to the specific section where I commented about the Find link tool. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, with this 00:02, 8 February 2014 edit. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hidden if alone, display as normal if in Multiple issues[edit]

Mr. Stradivarius, I was wondering if I could get you to modify this module. I would like to add a wrapper id of {{lc:{{{name|«messagebox type»}}}}} and I would like it to add a style to that id of display: {{#ifeq:{{yesno|{{{hidden}}}|yes|none|inherit}}; To be able to test this idea and make Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive 109#Alternate_idea.3F a reality since there seems to be unanimous support for this method at this time. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't you just do this with the |style= parameter, like this? I suppose you would still get the error messages if the template was substituted, or if an invalid |type= parameter was specified, but it is probably a good idea to keep those anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


I should have tested earlier, but just confirmed the common.css solution works. Kudos for this idea. We can update the template documentation to explain this.

Just one issue I found. Look at Template:Orphan/testcases. Can someone fix so that the bullet points line up inside {{Multiple issues}}. Confess that I don't fully understand how this magic works, so I don't know what to do to make them line up. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You will need to look at it with your common.css activated to see what I'm talking about. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC) @Mr. Stradivarius:, @Technical 13: - can one of you figure this out? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure about this - I think you might need to ask a real web designer. :) I did take a screenshot so that other people can see the problem without editing their common.css though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius:, @Technical 13: - OK, something's changed, maybe related to the bug I reported at user talk:Technical 13#Lua print. Now both the stand-alone {{orphan}} and the {{Multiple issues}} version are missing "This article " before "is an orphan", and the {{Multiple issues}} message, instead of being just off to the left, is now way out in right field. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is some code in Module:Message box sect = 'This ' .. that displays strings "This article" or "This section" or "This <something>" that is not working in the current Module:Message box/sandbox version. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Something that's gone live broke the hidden-by-default feature of {{orphan/sandbox}} – I'm guessing it's the new Module:Arguments. In testing I always see the orphan template now, even without the special common.css code installed. I'm hesitant to revert to the 18 December 2013‎ version of Module:Arguments to test my theory, not knowing the impact, even for a short test. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's my birthday so I'm not going to look into it today. I'll take a look next week sometime when I'm more clear headed. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe Mr. Stradivarius will take a look while we're sleeping. I see that he's in another time zone, far from the one we're in. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The hidden feature is working now, maybe it was never broken after all. I can't find anything that's changed. When toggling tests, you need to be sure to purge the page or do a null edit for the change to take effect. The bullets not lining up issue is still there. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


I'm confused by parts of the discussion above which seems to assume an outcome different to what I see at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page ("There is consensus to move orphan tags to the talk page") and this template's documentation ("This should be added only to the talk namespace, following an RfC.)" (original emphasis) & passim. Despite that RfC, is this template still to be placed on the article itself (whether an attempt to de-orphan it has been made or not)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive response; I wish hadn't asked. I take it then that, because it "has been deemed technically infeasible", a move to the respective Talk pages is not going to happen. So I'll stop doing that on articles I come across (1 so far: Bernd Purkrabek and Talk:Bernd Purkrabek). If so, it might help to avoid similar confusion by reverting Template:Orphan/doc to its December 12 version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that documentation update with this 15:32, 11 January 2014 edit. Working on a new solution which I hope and believe will meet the spirit of the earlier consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Orphan}} is transcluded on some 58 talk pages. If these two, randomly selected, are any indication, then this doesn't bode well for the idea that these tags would get more attention if they were put on talk pages. Unless, maybe the problem is just that editors don't understand that they're supposed to remove the tag after fixing the issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
We could crate an edit filter to stop addition of the tag on article pages. That should be feasible. After checking the edit filter logs we can find out who is trying to add the tags and issue the correct instructions to them. At this point in time we should not auto/block the tag adders as it may not yet be bad faith addition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is because the consensus formed in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page has been deemed technically infeasible No it has not -- it is trivial to run a bot job to move them all to the talk page this is stalling by people who did not like the outcome of the RfC at the very least the wording in the template should be removed immediately and those that remain in article spaced should be moved to the bottom of the page. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That ain't what I heard. Here's what some people said:
  • User:Technical 13: [The decision to move the template to the talk page] "technically broke multiple tools"
  • User:This, that and the other: "Twinkle isn't capable of adding tags to talk pages at the moment, since we don't have the logic needed to deal with the multitude of talk page header templates that exist"
There was a much longer discussion, which I can't find now - I guess it was not on this here talk page -- where it was detailed in considerable detail how it was beyond our CS skills to make this happen... something along the lines of, it's not possible to have a script open a page and its associated talkpage at the same time, and much else that was beyond me. It is true, I think, that it would be fairly easily to run a bot to move the templates from the article to its talk talk page. What's not possible, I've been given to understand in some detail, is for Twinkle and other tools to be configured such a way that an author comes upon an orphaned page, and then inserts a template onto the corresponding talk page. It's just flat-out not possible to do this under the software we use.
So you could have a scheme (I think) where the template is placed on the article page, and then a robot comes along presently and moves it to the talk page. Or, of course, people could add it to the talk page by hand. Both of these approaches are undesirable for various reasons. Herostratus (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not impossible to add tags to article talk pages: I almost made it work once. But I lack the time to finish off the code and integrate it into Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Using the few= parameter to populate Category:Low linked articles[edit]

This bold 16 September 2013 edit by Kaldari "reverting to previous version, if an article cannot be de-orphaned, there is no point in showing the notice" had as a (perhaps unintended) side effect the depopulating of Category:Low linked articles. I'm going to revert that part of this edit, so that the category may be repopulated. If for no other reason, if may be useful as a means of diffusing the overpopulated orphan categories. I think any potential removal of this category should be discussed here or at WP:Categories for discussion. Let's see how widespread use of the few parameter is. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Didn't mean to affect the category. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, the category will be populated again, and I updated the documentation. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused[edit]

But persuant to the discussion two threads above

  1. It was quite decisively decided remove this template from article pages. The alternative offered and accepted was to have it be on talk pages instead.
  2. But it was vouchsafed that, for complicated technical reasons, this isn't realistically possible. This has not been refuted. The alternative offered was to make it continue to exist on article pages, but be invisible (no text appears).
  3. Although there wasn't a huge discussion with consensus on this, it's quite clear that of the three possibilities that are actually possible -- 1) leave it as is, 2) leave it as it but invisible, or 3) delete it altogether -- number 2 is self-evidently the best, and by far comes closest to being what the community wants, as it addresses the main objection offered in the RfC described in bullet #1 above (avoid ugly and unhelpful text on face of the article), while not adversely affecting the Orphan Wikiproject, which uses the category rather than visual identification to identify orphan pages, and which is apparently the main player in de-orphaning pages.

So OK, Bob's your uncle.

So why hasn't this been done? Just erasing the text is trivial, is there any reason for this not having been done? Absent objection I propose to do this presently. Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One reason is that I kind of took the lead on this, but have been multitasking projects and swapped this one out. A concern I have is the impact that making orphan notices immediately invisible would have on Project Orphan. Ideally I would like to see more analysis of how articles are currently de-orphaned. Perhaps most use the category rather than visual identification, but we don't really know the actual percentage of use each gets. There is also the question of how editors using AWB and Twinkle to tag orphans will react when they don't see the tags that they thought they just added. To get an idea about how well newly identified orphans are de-orphaned, at the end of last month I noted the number of members of Category:Orphaned articles from February 2014. Three weeks, later, the number in that category has been reduced from 2,404 to 2,098 – so 306 or 13 percent have been de-orphaned. Not a very good percentage, but would making the tag invisible make it worse? Maybe we could keep the tag visible for orphans identified (dated) during the current and previous month, and then make the tag go invisible after the next month begins. So orphan tags would be visible for at least one full month, e.g., an article tagged on February 26 would be visible until April 1. This might be done with monthly manual updates to the template. Or maybe date-checking logic can be written, perhaps using a Lua module. We have a {{CURRENTMONTH}} variable, but I'm not aware of a variable for the previous month. The previous Village pump discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 109#On Orphan tags again. In the sub-section Continuation on orphan tags I detailed changes which would hide the orphan message only when it is not part of {{multiple issues}} and allow editors to override that and make it visible with an opt-in gadget. What I would like to do is still keep recently placed tags visible as well as those sandwiched in {{multiple issues}}. Do we need a third round of discussion to approve this, or can I just go ahead and implement? Wbm1058 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
So "Bob's your uncle" eh? I had to look that one up, never heard that before. Wikipedia is wonderful for such things. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't read your whole response here yet, and am not fully awake enough to absorb it, but I can tell you that the code for "last month" is {{#time:m|-1 month}} which returns 10 where {{CURRENTMONTH}} returns 11. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought... I just created {{LASTMONTH}} which is template that returns the same thing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Great. Now that I go looking for it, there's also a Template:LastMonth. It shouldn't be too hard to use one of those so that newly tagged orphans are allowed to stay visible for a minimum of one and a maximum of two months, depending on what day of the month the article was tagged. Do we have a consensus for that? I realize that this is a relatively incremental change, but that's the point. I think it's better to do something less radical here, as more radical changes have more potential to be disruptive to our exisiting de-orphaning systems. But even this change should effectively remove the visible message from tens of thousands of articles. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"There is also the question of how editors using AWB and Twinkle to tag orphans will react when they don't see the tags that they thought they just added." Editors using AWB and Twinkle they ought to respect the outcome of the RfC and ought not to add this template to article space, if they want to include them then they ought to place them on the talk page. As to accessing the category from the talk page: AWB has the ability to deal with this problem: (see in AWB "[dropdown tag List]-->convert from talk pages"; Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#List). -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to make clear everyone understand the problem: (In)Visibility is not a problem for AWB since editors can see the source code of each page and AWB can also search if page has a tag or not. What AWB can not do is to check whether a page is orphan and add a tag to the corresponding talk page. Visibility can be arranged by changing the template's code I presume. Tagging must probably will become impossible if the tags are moved to the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see from your account User:PBS-AWB that you are an experienced and active AWB user. You should realize that most of AWB's orphan tagging is not something that editors are consciously doing, but rather something that AWB is automatically doing when editors opt in to that feature. I updated the {{Orphan}} documentation to show how AWB tags orphans. See also User:Magioladitis/AWB and orphans. Perhaps User:Magioladitis can comment on whether they are willing to technically implement your solution, and whether they feel such a change to tag talk pages would be desirable. Effectively, what I think you are asking for, is that, while editors are using AWB to edit articles, when they click the green "Save" button, they will be saving two pages: both their article changes and an orphan tag to the talk page. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have serious problems with making the tag entirely invisible: having the Edward Betts' findlink tool visible on pages, in my experience, brings non-power users into de-orphaning and creating interwiki links. I too would like to see a test of deorphaning frequencies, but I think you would have a backlog that would grow much quicker (especially with high visibility, easy de-orphan content), than without it being visible, Sadads (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer the question above: AWB will discontinue to auto tag/untag orphan pages if orphan tags move to talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Yes Wbm1058 go ahead and implement.

I think the best way to handle complicated questions like this is to go ahead and implement, then adjust as needed.

I can't really speak for the community, but I'm going to anyway, based on my understanding of the issues discussed over time and so forth. The main task is to implement the decision, as soon as reasonably possible and and close to the spirit of the decision as reasonably possible.

So if the text is visible for only the first couple months of placement, that'd be reasonable. So let's implement if you can implement soon. Dunno about an opt-in for longer-term visibility and I don't see the reason, BUT it's not worth arguing over. Implement. We can discuss down the road if that is working or not.

Ditto {{Multiple issues}}, this is a separate issue and also secondary. Copy the existing Orphan template to (say) Orphan-visible and edit the Multiple issues template to display that, as a kludge for now, or whatever. Everything does not need to be all Sir Garnet at once.

I understand that you'd like to see more analysis of how articles are currently de-orphaned and so on, but this is secondary to getting the tag off the article pages soonest. The needs of the Orphanage project aren't negligible, but they are secondary. If the lack of visible text in the tag impinges on the functionality of the Orphanage project, well, it is what it is. Any reasonable accommodation, provided it is done in the spirit of respect to the community's decision, implement, and we can discuss down the line how it's working.

So let's do this.

Sadads, re "I have serious problems with making the tag entirely invisible", what can I say? There're a large lot of people who don't agree. And this has been a many-years-long discussion where, generally, most people have held that opinion, culminating in well-populated RfC where a considerable majority expressed the belief that it's time to do this. We can have another RfC down the line offering some other option, but we can't stall implementing this one for now, Herostratus (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well then. Sir Bob is working on it ;) I'll give a shout when changes start going live. After this first step is done, I'm hoping the next phase of dealing with orphans will be to better leverage that Find link tool; I have some ideas on how to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done – The changes are now live, and the orphan messages are now disappearing from the specified articles. It may take some time for them all to go invisible, but this seems to be happening rapidly, so a null-edit bot should not be necessary. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Wbm1058 I started adding {{Multiple issues}} where is needed i.e. in all pages with two or more tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Very good, this will help consolidate and condense the ambox clutter at the top of many articles with multiple maintenance tags. I just updated this template's documentation. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Statistics: 117343 pages transcluding {{Orphan}}, 43012 inside {{Multiple issues}} and 74331 without since there the sole tag in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the Rfc the Orphan template should not be in article space. If it has to remain there for a limited period while people come up with piratical tools to implement the RfC then so be it. But it defiantly should not be displaying text in article space. If text is needed then place the text on the talk page. Therefore Option is not an issue that should present text in the template {{Multiple issues}} -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PBS consensus changed after more thorough discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Rfc "Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page" was very large and recent. If you think that a sizeable number those who took part in the RfC would be persuaded to change their minds by any of the post RfC arguments then hold another RfC, but I suspect rightly that would be seen as disruptive given how large the RfC was and how strong the consensus was. -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There was a strong consensus to stop displaying a "big", "ugly", "defacing", "scream at every visitor", "distracting" and "grotesque" message at the top of articles, to "minimize its impact on the article's readability." I believe that by hiding that message on over 70,000 articles we have reasonably fulfilled the spirit of that consensus. There was no clear consensus regarding {{multiple issues}}. There was significant support for removing the orphan tag altogether and effectively abandoning WP:WikiProject Orphanage, but I think we fell short of a consensus for that. I did not see a consensus for displaying a "big", "ugly", "defacing", "distracting" and "grotesque" message at the top of talk pages, nor did I see any significant rationale for how displaying such a message on talk pages would help the project. Moving to the talk page was simply the means proposed for minimizing its impact on the article's readability. I have used an alternative means, hiding the message, to achieve the desired goal. If you still feel strongly that talk pages should have visible messages, then perhaps you should start a new RfC calling for that. I'd recommend supporting your proposal with a positive message about how WP:WikiProject Orphanage would benefit from such a move, rather than the negative message about screaming at every visitor, as that reason for moving the template has been mitigated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Help Needed!![edit]

I frequently used the {{Orphan}} tag in preview editing of an article so I could use the link it provided to check the list of articles that linked to it. It was very useful if I moved an article and wanted to fix the links from the old title to the new title. Now that the orphan article has been changed can anyone tell me an easy way to access that? Thanks for your help! Spidey104 21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There should be no need to "fix" the incoming links, apart from double redirects. Regarding the latter, when you move a page, you get a checklist like this, containing a bullet beginning "Check what links here to see whether the move has created any double redirects, and fix the most serious ones. ..." If you click the "Check what links here" link, you only nee to fix those listed there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Spidey104: If you edit your common.css as documented on the Template:Orphan page, then {{Orphan}} will always be visible in preview and you can continue with your past editing practices if you like, and they are appropriate. Editor judgement is advised when deciding whether redirect links should be fixed or not. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, thank you for assuming I don't know what to do when I've been a file mover for a couple years now.
@Wbm1058:, thank you for assuming I'm doing the correct thing and I was just using a simple example to get some simple help. And thank you for providing that help. Spidey104 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Hi there, I just want to replace

[...]this page from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search={{PAGENAMEU}}&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext={{PAGENAMEU}} related articles]; [...]

this part of the template code by

[...]this page from <span class="plainlink">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search={{PAGENAMEU}}&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext={{PAGENAMEU}} related articles]</span>; [...]

Actually the mentioned link is not an external link, it is within Wikipedia so why should we use [link] format? My proposal is to use

<span class="plainlink"></span>

in this case. Another related thing is that, it increases the server load; Insertlink.gif is used by bit.wikimedia which increases the server load by adding a file after the link. So I wanted to change it since this template is used in more than 100,000 article. Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done{{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 11:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, @Technical 13: just noticed the change now. There is a minor problem can you please change <span class="plainlink"> to
<span class="plainlinks">
this is the correct code. It is my fault sorry. :P Jim Carter (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Typo corrected. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 19:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes by Tool[edit]

I was asked to describe "mistakes" in the tagging of articles with the tool. On 4 June 2014, I discovered a bad link in a list of legendary ancestors of the Irish people to Bile. I created a page Bile (Irish legend), corrected the link in the list of legendary ancestors, and added a link to Bile (disambiguation). Then Bensci54 tagged the article as an orphan. I removed the tag. The history of Bile (Irish legend) will show this. In a subsequent (now archived) discussion at the WP:Help Desk, other Help Desk regulars said that they had seen this from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Ahh... Now I see, it was the Page Curation "tool" that added the tag. Kudpung, since I know you (are/were) one of the more active page curation interested people, can you please bring me up to speed on how that tool helps the editor decide if pages should be tagged as orphans? I'd like to figure out why pages are apparently being tagged as something they are not (if that is in fact what is happening). Where is the source code for that script anyways? Thanks for any insight you can offer. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is really easy to research. Simply go to the new-page feed as indicated on the page curation tool instructions. Therem, for example I saw Subhamiltonian graph that David Eppsttein has just created. It is marked as an Orphan, although David has linked to it from two other articles already. We can make the assumtion, for now at least, that the new-page feed is using the old defn. of "orphan". All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
    • Is it using the old rule-of-three, or is it using cached data whereas the new links are just not registering yet? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If the tool is using the old rule-of-three, then the wording of the template should be changed. Alternatively, if the tool is using cached data, can it be updated so that it automatically refreshes the data? I know in this case that I had moved the article from user space to mainspace and immediately updated the bad link (which had been what alerted me to the need for the article in the first place) and added the link in the disambiguation list. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, tagging an article as an orphan if it has fewer than three links to it is, in my opinion, not a good idea. Many articles that are still worth keeping, but are stubs, may not have three articles that link to them. One stated rationale for the "orphan" template is that any article should be able to be reached by navigation, no matter how long the navigation. An article with two links can be reached by navigation. Should there be a "semi-orphan" template? A semi-orphan, with one or two links, can be reached by navigation. There is another type of article that cannot be reached by navigation, and that is an article that is in a true Wikipedia walled garden. In my opinion, walled gardens are a more serious problem, although less easily solved problem, than semi-orphans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeating a post I made on this page two-and-a-half years ago (just scroll up):
Not every article can be backlinked from others, and it's one of the most misused tags by new page patrollers, some of whom appear to use it when they can't think of any other issues to tag an article for, instead of doing something useful such as adding stub templates or minor MOS clean ups. The template conveys no useful information for a reader.
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding encouragement of junk links[edit]

The current wording added by the Orphan template ("Please introduce links to this page from related articles; ...") encourages people to go find victim articles to degrade by adding junk statements into them to link them to low-quality articles. IMHO, the wording should be made softer to avoid encouraging this. Links should only be added into articles if they will improve the article that is getting the link added into it. Links should not be added into articles merely to ensure that every low-quality article gets promoted by having some victim articles that link to it. Low-quality orphan articles should stay orphans (or be deleted) if they are not helpful to other articles. COI and topic-fan editors shouldn't be encouraged to broadly spread their mess. I suggest changing the quoted wording to "If there are related articles that would be improved by introducing readers to the information in this article, create links in those articles to help people find it; ...". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Four months and no reply. Should we reword as I proposed? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You make an interesting point and propose a good solution, in my opinion. I say go for it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me also. But then I'm pretty "wet" when it comes to articles being orphans: I don't care that much. I think that "Low-quality orphan articles should stay orphans... if [adding links to them in other articles] are not helpful to [the] other articles" is probably a fairly contentious statement: the state of being an orphan is considered in and of itself an error or failure of the article, and rectifying this is worth some degradation of the other other article, maybe. (But neither is being an orphan considered very strong grounds for deletion, by itselt.) We're creating a network of articles here, and the quality of the network has precedence over the quality of individual articles. That'd be the argument and its a reasonable one which is why we have this template and WikiProject Orphanage. It's not an argument I'd tend to agree with (I do agree with it to a point) but it's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there's some value in creating a well cross-linked network of articles, but a few times I have seen some pretty questionable behavior that seemed motivated by the desire to just find something to link to an article – creating statements in articles that seem sort of like "To build its 172nd office building in 1992, MegaHuge Corporation hired Joe's Otherwise-Orphaned Construction Company" (which is perfectly fine to say in the article about the little construction company, but has a seriously WP:UNDUE effect on the article about its much-larger client). I think the template's text should be worded to avoid encouraging that. (I can't edit the template myself, as it is protected from editing by mere Wikimortals such as myself, and that's probably as it should be.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You raise a good point. I went looking for an appropriate article for linking to your theoretical construction company and found this article which had been redirected out of existence. But I feel there is a need to balance this with the desire not to make the template notice too intrusive. More detailed instructions should be given at Wikipedia:Orphan. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Has this template stopped working?[edit]

I just added the "orphan" tag to the new article titled G-measure. But the usual "orphan" notice does not appear at the top of the article. What's going on? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Some people don't like the banner, and wanted it removing from all articles. Others said no; a compromise was reached (see earlier on this page and elsewhere) whereby the banner is only visible if certain conditions are met, see Template:Orphan#Visibility. I dated it which will make it visible until 30 September. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request to fix typo[edit]

Could someone please change the text in this template from "Find links tool" to "Find link tool"? As you can see at https://edwardbetts.com/find_link the name of the tool is "Find link" (with no "s"). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How to check current status?[edit]

How to check current status of an article if it is still orphan? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti check "What links here". If there are no links then it's still orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't remember all of the details about the template or whatever, but I vaguely remember wanting to write a user script that would notify project members using the script what the orphan status of the page was inside the template and offer a one click solution to untag as appropriate. I'll start thinking about that some more.. If you hear nothing from me on it, poke me in a week please. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Technical 13 So what now? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reminder, I've been working on a lot of scripts lately and this one had slipped my mind. I'll start working on it soon. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Bladesmulti, good news! I have a prototype script that helps with article deOrphaning! To try it, add the following code to your custom.js:
importScript('User:Technical 13/Scripts/OrphanStatus.js');// Backlink: [[User:Technical 13/Scripts/OrphanStatus]]
I know the script fails to deOrphan pages if there are no changes, and it has a hard time parsing some of the old {{Multiple issues}} parameters. I'll add better regex to account for those later. In the mean time, it seems to work really well most of the time, and I suggest ALWAYS clicking on the "diff" link when it completes processing to see what it did. Please, report any errors that you find, so I may improve it accordingly. When reporting issues, messages from the error console are always good and it is really handy if you can give me the userAgent string and if it is a layout error, a screen resolution is a good idea too. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues logic broken[edit]

I could edit this myself, but I wouldn't dare. I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're doing.

As I understand from the documentation, the template text box appears when it is inside a {{multiple issues}} tag. As you can see from the article Jitu Patwari, the template isn't appearing.

If you reset the date to November or December 2014, it does appear. However, its appearance in a list of multiple issues should be independent of the date. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's working as intended, see e.g. #I am confused or #Has this template stopped working? above. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, it isn't working as intended, so I have reset the 'answered' status on this request. I read this talk page before posting this request. To address the sections linked in the previous reply:
  • The #I am confused section appears to show (as far as I can tell) an agreement that the template should be visible inside multiple issues tags.
  • The #Has this template stopped working? section is about a stand-alone template and not relevant to this request.
  • Further more, the page documentation clearly states: "It is also visible on all pages where it is used inside the {{multiple issues}} template." This statement is separate and distinct from the statement about November/December 2014 causing it to appear when standing alone.
Either the template needs to be fixed, or the documentation should be clarified. All indications are that this template's presence inside a "multiple issues" tag should cause it to be visible regardless of the date. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I understand that you don't know what kind of changes you need to make in order to "fix" what you perceive is "broken", but the TPER template that you are using here is not intended to encourage discussion on the topic. It's purpose is to only carry out consensus in the form of a "please change the live template with the sandbox version". Feel free to continue discussing it, and when you have a request that is ready to be carried out and enacted, then feel free to reactivate this template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The answer above has no relevance to the request, and fails to address any of the points already made. The documentation is not consistent with the behavior of the {{orphan}} template. Either the documentation is broken, or the template is broken. One of them needs fixing. That's what we are discussing. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss modifications to the documentation, the template seems to be working as intended to me. Show some examples of where it is not doing this. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 05:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I already showed an example, in the Jitu Patwari article. The template fails to appear when placed inside the {{multiple issues}} tag, contrary to the documentation. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have confirmed the issue and am looking into it, as I am the template editor who implemented this functionality. The template logic is a kludge and thus prone to being broken by unrelated changes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wbm1058, it seems to be working fine. The documentation says:
The template message is visible on all pages where the date parameter is set to either December 2014 or November 2014. It is also visible on all pages where it is used inside the {{Multiple issues}} template. Older-dated orphan templates are invisible by default, but are still categorized.
The source on that page is:
{{multiple issues|
{{notability|bio|date=December 2014}}
{{refimprove|date=December 2014}}
{{Orphan|date=February 2014}}
"February 2014" is not "November 2014" or "December 2014". The note about the "Multiple issues" template only says that this functionality is not broken by being stuffed in that wrapper template. Therefor, this seems to be working as documented. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I distinctly recall implenting this as you wanted to (see #Hidden if alone, display as normal if in Multiple issues above). It is wrapped inside {{multiple issues}} and should thus still display regardless of what the date parameter is set to. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Yes, Wbm1058, that is the way that I wanted, but that is not how it is currently implemented OR documented. I do remember you having a large part in working on this project, and would be happy to let you take care of it how you see fit. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Documenting my previous installation[edit]

The following is copied from the Village Pump archives. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have found a technical solution which makes T13's proposal to hide the orphan message only when it is not part of {{multiple issues}} possible. It's not pretty, but I think it works. Implementing a more elegant solution requires another redesign of {{multiple issues}}. That template has already been redesigned once, and the need to continue supporting the legacy design contributes to the complexity of the solution.

  • First, I have cleared the backlog of edit requests for {{orphan}} and brought the template documentation up to date, so, before reading further you may want to review the template:Orphan documentation.
  • To support the old syntax of {{multiple issues}}:
  • To support the new and current syntax of {{multiple issues}}:
    • Further modify {{Multiple issues}} per this diff to support display of orphan messages in {{multiple issues}} when using the new syntax.
  • Review the test cases at Template:Orphan/testcases (I added more test cases to cover all the scenarios)
  • Install this code in your personal common.css file to un-hide the hidden orphan messages.
  • We will probably want to file a request at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals to make this special code a gadget, so that the orphan patrol can simply check a box at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to show the hidden orphan messages.
  • I still see the "cosmetic glitch" in both Chrome and Internet Explorer after I activate the special "gadget code", which misaligns the bullet for the orphan message in {{multiple issues}}. I am mystified about what is causing it. I went so far as to save the html source from a page to compare the differences between the displayed html when the bullets align to when they don't. Here is the diff from that test, which leaves me clueless. But, as this glitch is only cosmetic, and would only effect those editors who opt-in to the gadget, I suppose we can live with this issue.
  • Kudos to Jackmcbarn for pointing me in the right direction when I got stuck.
  • No Lua required; no new CSS class required.

(. . .) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack! I was on the trail, but I'm sure you found it faster than I would have, and saved me some time. I updated the test cases to include use of older dated parameters, confirming the fix. Note that the "Old-style orphan parameter (NOT template)" wasn't broken and still displayed fine with the older date. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. My issue that started this discussion has now been addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gadget for those wishing to deOrphan articles[edit]

  • On the progress of this, I've started creating User:Technical 13/Scripts/OrphanStatus.js to address the idea of having a gadget available for those wishing to deOrphan articles as part of WP:O. I've requested help on figuring outclarifying how the script should react for some use cases on the WikiProject's talk page, and will continue to develop this script once I get some replies. Once I'm comfortable that the script is working properly in all (or at very least, most) cases, and the members of the WikiProject that have helped me beta-test think it does what it is suppose to based on their specifications, I'll make any needed changes to prep it for a request to turn it into a gadget. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, I just went through the "few" links categories and many had three or more incoming links or were unsourced and probably not notable stubs with a sentence. I updated all the "|few=" parameters to May 2015 but none of the articles got moved into that category. I would think that the template would categorize pages into date categories by last activity instead of first activity. Is there any way that anyone can update the template to exhibit this behavior? I think it would be beneficial and reduce working over each other. Thanks. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: TheMesquitobuzz 19:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm wicked backed up with schoolwork and finals. I'll look into it in a couple weeks at best. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. I needed a 15 minute break from exams anyways, so I just did it. Let me know if it isn't what you were hoping for and I'll make further changes as requested. In the future, {{Help me}} is probably not the way to get assistance with such things. {{Edit template-protected}} probably would have been better here... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13, I don't see any benefit in using another parameter instead of "date" for the date; to me this seems more an issue of updating the documentation. I also don't see the purpose of "updating" the date; there's no benefit to not being able to tell for how long a maintenance tag has been on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huon (talkcontribs) 21:59, May 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • @3gg5amp1e, TheMesquito, and Huon: I was just doing as requested. I can see the point made by the OP that there is no sense in six people trying to work together to keep checking the same article multiple times because they can't tell which one has(n't) received any attention recently. That said, I can also see your point of wanting an overall scope of how long the tag has been there. I'm thinking of revising it again so that "date" is always used to put the article in the Orphaned pages since {date} category and then if {att} or {few} exists, using the most recent of the two and also putting the article in do-attempt since {att} or few since {few} respectively. Will that work for everyone? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Will that change how it works now? The fixes you made are exactly what I was hoping for after going through and looking at the few category before I went through the att category so I don't keep checking the same articles over and over. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • [[User:|]]. it doesn't appear to, I worked hard to accomplish your goal while accommodating Huon's concern.
  • Huon, I do believe that Special:Diff/661189761 addresses your concern. The template now always places the pages in "All orphaned articles" and "Orphaned articles from {date}" and if {att} exists it also adds the page to "Attempted de-orphan from {att}" and if {few} exists it also adds the page to "Low linked articles from {few}". The template (when displayed which should be never after the first month unless inside multiple issues or you're using my script/custom css) displays the {date}. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blanked template[edit]

Someone just recoded the template, but now its blank and people may not find out that an article is an orphan unless they look at the categories. --TL22 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Which article is this on? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Its on Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine. --TL22 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. It should be displaying, since although it has |date=March 2013 which is more than two months ago, it's not inside {{multiple issues}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow what the problem is. Because the tag is over two months old and is not inside {{multiple issues}}, it will not display unless the user edits their common.css file as described in the Visibility section of the template documentation. This is by consensus and design. I just checked Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine; with a blank common.css I don't see it, with .ambox-Orphan{display: table !important;}, I do. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
ToonLucas22, you can meet the minimum requirements for de-orphaning by simply adding a link to this article from List of medical journals. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Shows up for me using Technical 13's OrphanStatus script. I see it's a long article with only a "List of..." link, so I tagged it with few=November 2015. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I got it wrong way round. My previous comment should read: It should not be displaying, since it has |date=March 2013 which is more than two months ago, and it's not inside {{multiple issues}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Att= parameter broken[edit]

Articles with |att= parameter should not show up in general orphan categories. For example Agathion should not show up in Category:Orphaned_articles_from_August_2008. This was working until recent changes by Technical 13. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Kvng, this was per request in #Categorizations a couple of sections above this one. So, I'll ask you, are those articles that have been attempted to be deOrphaned no longer orphans? If they're still orphans, then it makes sense for them to be in "Orphaned articles from {date}" (which Huon wanted to maintain the original dates instead of use the {att} date). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Technical 13, Huon, 3gg5amp1e, have a look at Wikipedia:Orphan#Using_the_att_parameter for a description of purpose and expected behavior of the |att= parameter. If you don't like that described behavior we should discuss changing it. For now, I'd like it if we reverted the template changes so that the template behavior matches the documentation. ~Kvng (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Kvng, considering there are over 125,000 transclusion of this template, I'd much rather update the documentation to match the behavior until there is a consensus one way or the other rather than tack that much of a load back on to the job queue considering it's still recovering by trying to process jobs from a month ago when the backlog on the queue hit 28+ million. Would that be reasonable with you, or do we really need to revert, discuss it further, restore and update the documentation adding over a quarter million jobs back to the queue. I will revert if you really think it is imperative to revert it before discussing, but I really think that is a bad idea for something like this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
You apparently did not give job queue issues much consideration when you made the change the same day as the request on this obscure talk page and with little or no discussion. Why are you so concerned about that now? The change has broken the workflow for orphaned articles. Articles that editors have attempted to and failed to de orphan remain in the "Orphaned articles from {date}" categories we are attempting to clear. I'm not sure how I would rewrite the documentation to make it sound like the new behavior is reasonable and intended. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the job queue issues until after the changes made here. An editor requested this, a another user apparently supported the request and pinged me to carry it out, I made the changes requested which only updated the child categories to use their own dates instead of the date the article became an orphan allowing them to not double (or triple) process a page and to reduce overlap to improve the workflow of deOrphaning. Then, Huon (an administrator) suggested that the articles should still be categorized by the original date, so I modified it again for that request. Just so we're clear, which change do you object to, the second one that just includes the parent category since they are all still orphans despite having been attempted to be deOrphaned or all of the changes? I see the few linked orphans category has all been gone through and re-attempted and the attempted deOrphans categories seem to be being worked on as well and there is a lot of improvement there. I'm hesitant to interfere with that progress because one person out of five has an objection. That said, I'll still revert the change if you clarify which change exactly you object to, since there were two changes. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Job Queue, see the discussions here and here. phab:T98621 has been closed. Apparently there is more than one queue, but if the "jobs" statistic at this link is a useful indication, it's apparently shrunk from 15.7 million to something in the ballpark of 283 thousand. Per the phab comment "so we're back to business as usual even though there is still some backlog to recover", I take it that we can take this reason for delay off the table. Per this May 7 edit, you were aware of this job queue problem before your most recent of three Template:Orphan edits this month. We should ensure that there is a consensus for changes before making them live, and as you've already made three edits go live this month, you clearly haven't done that as well as it could have been done. Not that an occasional misreading of consensus should be a big deal. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't mind updating the docs if you rather me do that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Please update the Template:Orphan/sandbox documentation (Template:Orphan/sandbox/doc), so we can discuss the proposed changes to functionality. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • This will also allow template code reviewers to review the template changes to ensure that they conform to the agreed-upon changes to functionality, as documented by the updated /doc. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a new discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage#Orphan_template_behavior to discuss any desired changes to |att= and |few= parameter behavior. @Technical 13: can you please revert your changes while we discuss what we want to do here. I am not a master of templates and the changes are extensive so don't feel comfortable doing the revert myself on such a widely used template. ~Kvng (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not at home or at a computer so I undid all of it to the TfD removal which seems to be the last thing with consensus. I hope to be back home tomorrow night. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 23:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)