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)
{{BASEPAGENAME}} only works in namespaces that have subpages enabled.
My 23:13, 7 February 2014 edit addressed this issue. The Find link tool is on another website, and is linked to via a URL, thus it requires URL encoded page names. See mw:Manual:PAGENAMEE encoding.
target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0 does the trick. I tested this by finding an orphan that the tool found a useful link for. Then I copied the {{Orphan}} template to the article's talk page, and from Show preview mode, I was easily able to add the link to the article by clicking the link to the tool from the talk page. The tool opened up the article page for editing and showed me the diff.
So this works on talk pages now. However, as has been discussed extensively elsewhere, there are still other technical reasons why moving the {{Orphan}} tags to talk pages remains impractical. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, or few[edit]

The template presently reads that it is for articles with "no" incoming links from others, but the actual usage pattern is to use it for those with no or very few (e.g. 1 or 2) links from other articles. Per the general rule at WP:POLICY that we codify actual best practices, don't try to force new ones, I think this template and any related documentation should be updated to use "no or very few" wording to match actual Wikipedian expectations about this particular labeling. I made an edit in this regard to the template, and someone objected (in user talk), so I've commented out those changes, and opened discussion about the matter here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment If this change is made (and I'm neutral at present), then more careful advice needs to be given as to when it should be used. I'm particularly concerned about articles about biological species. Most WikiProjects under WP:TOL have as their ultimate goal the creation of an article on every known species; it seems to be widely accepted that a species is inherently notable and worth an article, provided there are reliable sources. Species that are currently poorly known often end up with only one incoming link (from the article on the genus) and perhaps one more from the describer of the species or a list of species for a geographical area. It's not helpful to tag such articles with this template.
So we should be clear that the "orphan" tag is useful if, and only if, it's reasonable to expect there to be more articles that should be linking to the given article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Or, we could promote the sandbox code to the live template - see Template:Orphan/testcases#Parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The sandbox code displays "This article may be an orphan, as few other articles link to it", which doesn't make sense to me. Either "orphan" means "no incoming links" or it means "few incoming links"; either way "may be" is wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that, in template Orphan's original conception, articles weren't considered well-integrated into the encyclopedia unless they were well-interconnected with multiple articles linking to them. That was before we had a multi-year maintenance backlog of "orphaned" articles, few editors working on the problem, and many more complaining about the unsightly tags complaining of a non-problem. Plus so many obscure species and BLP articles that are hard to link to from (many) other articles. So, the solution was to tighten up the requirement so that no articles would be tagged by AWB and other tools if they had even one single incoming link – they had to truly be orphans. Also, the message now becomes invisible when the orphan tag is more than a couple of months old, unless the article has {{multiple issues}}. But, as there may still be articles tagged that do have an incoming link or two, maybe that's why the tag might be a little imprecise. I think consensus now is that the tag should be removed if there is even one single incoming link.
We have a parameter few that editors (not automated tools) may use to override that default if, in their judgement, an article really should have multiple incoming links. That parameter populates Category:Low linked articles, but which as you can see, "few" editors actually use that parameter. The parameter doesn't alter the displayed message. A month before he left Wikipedia, user Technical-13 made a sandbox version that did show a different message when few was set. Someone could implement that. As this seems confusing maybe it would be better to make a new, different template populate Category:Low linked articles, instead of this template with a special parameter set. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that while AWB general fixes will tag an article as an orphan if it has zero incoming links, it only removes the tag if the article has more than two incoming links. GoingBatty (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Should we create Template:Low linked, migrate all {{Orphan|few=<date>}} uses to the new template, then remove parameter few from {{Orphan}}? While {{Orphan}} may still be populated by AWB and other (semi-)automated processes, {{Low linked}} should only be populated manually, as that's a judgement call. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Message should match current policy. A single mainspace link (excepting disambiguation pages) allows for removal of the template. See Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I suppose. The current definition of orphaned article is "no incoming links". This has been arrived at over many years of evolving consensus. Originally, we were aiming at a goal of three incoming links per article, but that is clearly not feasible anymore. It wasn't really feasible then, but it seemed like a goal that could be achieved with enough elbow grease. But now it's 2016, CAT:ORPHAN has 130,000 orphaned articles in it, some of which have been there since October 2008. With millions of articles in the encyclopedia, the number of orphaned articles will only grow. If you see people adding {{orphan}} to articles that have one or more incoming links, the correct thing to do is to remove the tag and link them to WP:Orphan so they can read it for themselves.Aervanath (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphan Tool Needs Further Development (before it should be rolled out)[edit]

Hi. This is regarding the use of the Orphan Tool that has been developed. The orphan tool suggested for use (apparently performed on a privately owned URL by Edward Betts) needs some further development before it can be useful or before it should be deployed by Wikipedia. It seems unfinished in both its intent and its technology. At this point in time, it is a simple search - one size fits all broad sweep - that a child could write (I use this metaphor just to remark on its oversimplification, not to disparage anyone), without any ability to narrow the search criteria from the thousands of choices that are listed following the search, or to actually select - assuming you that have found something in the list - what you are searching for. You can't even point it back to the Wikipedia article in question to have it added to the article and solve the Orphan problem. What is the point of automation, if it doesn't really automate anything? At this point, as it stands, it is almost an example of "more is less." Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your characterization of this tool. It seems quite sophisticated to me. The source code is available on GitHub here; I challenge you to improve it, if you find it that easy to write.
What it could use perhaps is a more intuitive interface and more documentation, beyond User:Edward/Find link. A bot that periodically created a list of the most "find-linkable" articles would be nice, too.
But it does, in its current edition, do an excellent job of semi-automating the creation of links to de-orphan articles. For example, try Battle of Merta. You may need to make the template visible, per Template:Orphan#Visibility. The tool brings up this page with three items. Click on "Merta City", the second item. That brings up a preloaded edit, complete with edit summary, ready to either preview or save with a single click. See this semi-automated edit that I made using this tool. That's about as automated as you can get, short of creating a bot to do it entirely automatically and removing human review of each individual edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tool broken?[edit]

Is the tool broken? I don't see a banner on pages containing this. I tried creating a sandbox page in my user space with no inlinks and stuck a {{Orphan}} banner on it, still nothing. (Does it hide itself in User space?) I'm using Chrome in incognito mode on Win 7; would that hide the banner for some reason (it does something with cookies, not sure what.) Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the #Visibility section of the template documentation Pppery (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
So sorry, and thank you very much. Mathglot (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 June 2016[edit]

Split |text = '''is an [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphan]], as no <!--or very few -->other articles [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]'''. Please [[Help:Link|introduce links]] to this page from <span class="plainlinks">[//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>; try the [//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q={{PAGENAMEE}} Find link tool] for suggestions.

into

|issue = '''is an [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphan]], as no <!--or very few -->other articles [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]'''.

and

|fix=Please [[Help:Link|introduce links]] to this page from <span class="plainlinks">[//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>; try the [//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q={{PAGENAMEE}} Find link tool] for suggestions.

Reason for change: so the `Please help linking template doesn't show up in {{multiple issues}} Pppery (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This change was reverted after a brief discussion (see Template talk:Orphan#"Issue" and "fix" separated to different template parameters). Personally I would separate them again but this should probably be discussed in more detail. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And where would such a discussion take place? Pppery (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Here would be a good place ;) We can let TheAMmollusc and wbm1058 know that we are discussing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This would be helpful for low-linked articles, which can also benefit from using these tools to add additional links. Having the links in the sidebar would mitigate the need to have them in the {{Orphan}} template
See mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar. MediaWiki:Sidebar just has a bullet for "TOOLBOX", which is a "special keyword". The toolbox, which appears under the search bar, is a dynamic element and cannot be easily customized without the use of skinning extensions. So adding new items to the toolbox seems a bit complicated. wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Wbm1058, you seem to be confused. This unexpectedly controversial edit request had nothing to do with removing the links to the find link tool or Special:Search. It was just attempting to reducing clutter when the {{orphan}} template shows up inside {{multiple issues}}, which is the purpose of that latter template. Pppery (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I'm confused about what you are asking for. We disagree about what is "clutter". I feel that Betts' tool is already useful in its current form (though it could still be improved). If the links can be added to the sidebar, then that mitigates the need to have them in the {{Orphan}} template, thus allowing that "clutter" to be removed as then there's an alternate location for the tool links. I don't feel that the existing messages are too verbose, but if the message in {{multiple issues}} must be shortened, I suggest this:

|issue = '''is an [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphan]].''' (<span class="plainlinks">[//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>) ([//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q={{PAGENAMEE}} Find link])

and

|fix=No <!--or very few -->other articles [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to this article.] Please [[Help:Link|introduce links]] to this page from <span class="plainlinks">[//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>; try the [//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q={{PAGENAMEE}} Find link tool] for suggestions.

Need to try this in the sandbox to make sure the cosmetics and functionality are good. In this configuration, the fix parameter is somewhat redundant, but I suppose that's OK. wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ideally it would be better if it was possible to do something other than concatenating something when the template is used in {{multiple issues}}. In any case, some duplication could be removed by using

|text=''is an [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphan]], as no <!--or very few --><span class="plainlinks">[//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> [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]([//edwardbetts.com/find_link?q={{PAGENAMEE}} Find links]) Pppery (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)