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!.
 

Edit request: change the link of "related articles"[edit]

I suggest changing the link of "related articles" from a search of the article's name to Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 2: Finding related articles:

imo the information contained there is way more useful for people trying to find related articles than a plain search of the article's title.

A Wikipedia search is also recommended and linked to in that section as well plus it seems it's mostly redundant anyways given that Edward Bett's Find Link Tool also checks for articles that mention the name.

--Fixuture (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I use these links to to search for related articles when deorphaning. I would not be happy if I had to manually C-P the article title to do these searches. Wikipedia:Orphan#Step 2: Finding related articles is getting a bit messy BTW. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kvng: So you would say that a link to the article title's search would be more useful than the information contained there? I guess it's a matter of prioritization: for the people who go through Category:Orphaned articles to mass-deorphan articles a link to the search would be more useful, for newcomers (or almost anyone actually) who created an article (or have interest in improving it) the information contained in that section would be more useful. I think it is very likely that the people who mass-deorphan articles are more effective than those who see that template (occasionally) on a page they're interested in. Hence you have a point here. However, the information contained in that section may help people to generally get started with helping out on Wikipedia or at the task of de-orphaning articles - it would increase the number of people editing Wikipedia and increase the number of people mass de-orphaning articles as well as improving the effectiveness of those who do it.
And here's a suggestion: what about having both links in the template? I think it would be better to have "introduce links" link to that section. Actually it doesn't make much sense as it is right now: currently it links to Help:Link but "introducing links" is a task whose how-to can be found at the section I'd like to link to - the Help:Link page just describes what a link is and hence it should just be linked from "links" and not "introducing links". --Fixuture (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether adding another would be helpful. Why don't you propose something specific for us to review. You should also drop a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage; I don't think too many editors watch this page. ~Kvng (talk)

IMMEDIATE removal of "Find links tool"[edit]

I have removed the "Find links tool" link from the template [1], as there are inappropriate Google Ads on the page. Please do not add it back unless the situation is resolved. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Dang. That sucks. Thanks for catching that. Did you write to Edward Betts? Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I just wrote to @Edward: -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I wonder what happened. It looks like a malicious entity wrote code into of that page. I'm surprised this is possible at that site. Well let us know if Mr Betts fixes it -- I hope he's not too busy or uninterested, its a useful tool. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The ads helped to fund the server where the tool is hosted, they've been there since about 2010. I've removed the ads from find link. Thanks for getting in touch. Edward (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove Orphan form article space[edit]

There was an RfC (in 2013) in which there was an overwhelming consensus to remove Orphan templates from article space. So why is it on 130,000+ pages and why are people still adding it? -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there wasn't consensus, as demonstrated by the discussion that you linked above. Instead, when {{orphan}} is used, it goes invisible a few weeks later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, there was a consensus, but it was then vouchsafed that it was technically impossible to move the templates to the talk page -- either it would break certain important things and there was no way to prevent this, or else its not technically possible to write a bot that could do it (I forget the details). So they are kept on the article, but made invisible (after a little while), as the closest thing that could be done. Herostratus (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

few parameter[edit]

I set the few parameter, but the template still says "as no other articles link to it".

I would have thought setting this parameter changes the message to "as few other articles link to it"...? CapnZapp (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: The template is not automatic: it is manually added, and manually removed. To check the current situation, use the "What links here" link in the left sidebar, and in the "Namespace" dropdown menu, select "(Article)", then click Go. If there are one or more articles listed, you may remove the {{orphan}} tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@CapnZapp and Redrose64:See Template:Orphan#few and Template talk:Orphan/Archive 3#No, or few. All the parameter does at the moment is populate Category:Low linked articles, which currently has all of 33 members. I'm open to revisiting this. wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:You seem to reply to a different issue than the one I am asking about. Please re-read my post, and I'll be happy to clarify anything you might need for an on-target response. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 October 2017[edit]

Currently, the template is not displaying on any page, including this one, when used by itself. Please fix this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That behavior is per community demand. See discussion above. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)