Wikipedia talk:Orphan

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

WP:Orphan vs WP:ORPHAN[edit]

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

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

tagging redirects as orphans[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

@Dwergenpaartje: Per User:Magioladitis/AWB and orphans, "Articles that are themselves redirects, soft redirects, dabs, set index articles aren't considered orphans."
Can you set these up as set index articles?
Do that by putting a template on them, like Template:Plant common name.
See Category:Set index article templates Maybe you can create a new set index article template for this purpose, if one doesn't exist yet. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, this is helpful. I have done so. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to user talk page[edit]

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

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

Criteria clarifications...[edit]

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

This arises from the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What is the correct orphan criteria? In short, the project page defines an article whose links are only through a walled garden as being an orphan, but then in the criteria, states that only articles with zero links may be marked as an orphan, with x, y, z exceptions, but does not include walled garden among the exceptions. This leads to the inconsistent result that 1) an article with incoming links only only through walled garden is an orphan, but at the same time, 1) that you cannot mark a page as an orphan if it has an incoming link only through a walled garden. This can be clarified in a few ways. Simply adding walled gardens to the criteria exceptions, or explaining why even though an article with such links is an orphan, it should not be marked as one for [some reason]. Either way, or another, the inconsistency should be addressed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into Wikipedia:Orphan#What_is_an_orphan.3F which I see as an introduction/overview. What's important is Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria and I see no inconsistency there. I don't think we can effectively address walled gardens in this project, especially not when a script is doing it. We're also not concerned with orphaned project pages or orphaned images. ~KvnG 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes an article an orphan?[edit]

Both the orphan template and this page say that an orphan is an article with no links to it, but WP:NPP#Collaborate_with_article_creators says that an article with fewer than three links to it should be tagged as an orphan. I've been following the second one and tagging articles with one or two links to them as orphans. This has led to some confusion. One of these conflicting definitions should be changed. KSFT 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I fixed that: diff. Feel free to use the "few" parameter if it has one or two incoming links, at your discretion. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
And disambiguation pages don't count, for determining orphan status: diff. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Help for orphan[edit]

Good evening, what do I do if the required references, but in my case, about school, where Google only details and information about it, there is not anything more interesting. What to do?--L.ukas lt 13 --TalkLukaslt13

Hello! Your question sounds like it might be more about finding reliable sources than about orphans. You might also be referring to a topic that does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. You might want to try asking your question on the Wikiepdia Teahouse. Knope7 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"No" or "no or few" incoming links[edit]

Please see Template_talk:Orphan#No, or few.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ORPHAN shortcut target[edit]

The target of the WP:ORPHAN shortcut has an open discussion about it at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage#WP:ORPHAN  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Non orphans[edit]

I'm finding a number of articles that are not actually orphans in Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009. If I remember correctly, there's a tool somewhere that can clear these out. Does anyone remember what I'm thinking about? I'll try and look a little harder later and may answer my own question here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Found it an posted a request ~Kvng (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


Where the Edward Betts tool gives nothing, a method for deorphaning for biographies can be to check they are included on the notable alumni list of their colleges, high schools or universities. Also can check if they are on the list of notable residents of the town/village/ city they grew up in or live in now.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Are categorized articles, even without any other links to it, orphans?Wetit🐷 0 12:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing an article, in and of itself, doesn't remove the article's orphan status. Otherwise, we would only have ~74 orphans, which is the current population of Category:All uncategorized pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)