Orphanage | ||||
|
I'm planning on seperating these by month/year, similar to what is done with the cleanup/wikify categories. See also Template talk:Linkless. -- W.marsh 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of wiki-project associated with de-orphaning articles? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How many mainspace links should there be before an article is considered non-orphan? Geozapf 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
While de-orphaning articles, I find that I do not have the knowledge or ability to properly de-orphan the article. I have started referring these articles to appropriate wiki projects. I have created a template to request this help. {{User:Chrislk02/orphanhelp|article name}} which gives us
" I am currently working on de- orphaning articles. I came across this article on Up0-interface which is not currently listed as being part of your project, but appears as though it might belong here. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will try to find this articles proper location. If this article does belong here, assistance would be greatly appreciated in de-orphaning this article (adding at least 1 link to this article from another related article). I have attempted this but do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to complete this task. If you have any questions on this request, please feel free to contact me on my talk page."
Does anybody have feedback on the use of this template or ideas on how ti improve it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this subcategory of orphaned articles is complete. Is there a special procedure for removing it from the category list? Keesiewonder talk 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to {{ prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday ( talk) 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been working through a lot of the articles in the June 2006 category, adding internal links where I can.
In many cases, they've got stuck with an orphan tag because they are only a few sentences long and so can only have say 4-5 links. In this case, I'm mainly just changing the orphan tag to {{expand}} thisisace 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got the right idea, you're just looking at it the wrong way. Orphaned articles have no incoming links. You can click on "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of each article to see where the incoming links are from. If you see 2-3 link from mainspace pages (articles, not user pages or wikipedia admin pages) then go ahead and take the tag down. See my question above for more explination. Geozapf 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the entry for American Wrestling Association alumni on the lists of orphaned articles, and I'm noticing that there's also a category with exactly the same name. Although I haven't checked yet, I suspect that most of the names in the article would also be included in the category.
Is there a preferred approach to a situation like this? It's likely that the primary way the orphan tag could get removed would be to add a "See Also" section to the pages for each name in the article, with a link to the article. But if those names are already in the category, isn't that redundant? Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure all the names are in the category, and then nominate the article for deletion?
I guess what I'm asking is what's the better way to aggregate related information within Wikipedia - lists or categories?
Mlaffs ( talk) 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see some user pages in this category. I'm pretty sure that user pages really don't need to be de-orphaned. Anybody have any objection to me de-orphaning them all?-- Aervanath ( talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
i am finding literally 100s of orphan-tagged articles that are not oprhans. can someone design a bot to remove all the orphan-tags from non-orphan articles? Kingturtle ( talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone trying to remove the backlog, as it seems no one has posted here for two years. I want to remove the older articles from the list, but I was wondering if anyone else was trying to remove it. Lord Castellan Creed ( talk) 09:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Noticed the general plea for cleanup; just wanted to advocate on behalf of the orphans. My own projects center on building a list page of Housekeeping_genes. Most of the content that I'm linking up is orphaned, and I just don't want anyone deleting these articles prematurely. The field of genetics is expanding at a break-neck speed...so fast that we're all having a tough time staying abreast. One of the problems is that most genes have 5 or more names/abbreviations and Wikipedia is an ideal medium for linking up the different names so that reasearchers can find articles on their gene (that may be referenced under different names.) Wikipedia is also suited for arriving at consensus statements and for rapid access to reference materials. I try to annotate when I can, but I'm compelled to keep my focus wide. As a teacher I implore my colleagues to explore this exciting medium and ASSIGN orphans for class-room work (at all levels). Save the orphans! doctorwolfie ( talk) 13:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c:
should be enabled globally as an
interwiki prefix for links to the
Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of
several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in
the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If an orphaned page is listed here, does that make it no longer orphaned? Retartist ( talk) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What does an orphan article mean? Can one de-orphan an biography by naming the said person in a group - that is also an article on wikipedia? That is, supposing he is an engineer, when you name him (with link) in a group of engineer articles, have you de-orphaned the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince-Ifoh ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Orphanage | ||||
|
I'm planning on seperating these by month/year, similar to what is done with the cleanup/wikify categories. See also Template talk:Linkless. -- W.marsh 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of wiki-project associated with de-orphaning articles? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How many mainspace links should there be before an article is considered non-orphan? Geozapf 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
While de-orphaning articles, I find that I do not have the knowledge or ability to properly de-orphan the article. I have started referring these articles to appropriate wiki projects. I have created a template to request this help. {{User:Chrislk02/orphanhelp|article name}} which gives us
" I am currently working on de- orphaning articles. I came across this article on Up0-interface which is not currently listed as being part of your project, but appears as though it might belong here. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will try to find this articles proper location. If this article does belong here, assistance would be greatly appreciated in de-orphaning this article (adding at least 1 link to this article from another related article). I have attempted this but do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to complete this task. If you have any questions on this request, please feel free to contact me on my talk page."
Does anybody have feedback on the use of this template or ideas on how ti improve it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this subcategory of orphaned articles is complete. Is there a special procedure for removing it from the category list? Keesiewonder talk 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to {{ prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday ( talk) 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been working through a lot of the articles in the June 2006 category, adding internal links where I can.
In many cases, they've got stuck with an orphan tag because they are only a few sentences long and so can only have say 4-5 links. In this case, I'm mainly just changing the orphan tag to {{expand}} thisisace 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got the right idea, you're just looking at it the wrong way. Orphaned articles have no incoming links. You can click on "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of each article to see where the incoming links are from. If you see 2-3 link from mainspace pages (articles, not user pages or wikipedia admin pages) then go ahead and take the tag down. See my question above for more explination. Geozapf 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the entry for American Wrestling Association alumni on the lists of orphaned articles, and I'm noticing that there's also a category with exactly the same name. Although I haven't checked yet, I suspect that most of the names in the article would also be included in the category.
Is there a preferred approach to a situation like this? It's likely that the primary way the orphan tag could get removed would be to add a "See Also" section to the pages for each name in the article, with a link to the article. But if those names are already in the category, isn't that redundant? Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure all the names are in the category, and then nominate the article for deletion?
I guess what I'm asking is what's the better way to aggregate related information within Wikipedia - lists or categories?
Mlaffs ( talk) 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I see some user pages in this category. I'm pretty sure that user pages really don't need to be de-orphaned. Anybody have any objection to me de-orphaning them all?-- Aervanath ( talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
i am finding literally 100s of orphan-tagged articles that are not oprhans. can someone design a bot to remove all the orphan-tags from non-orphan articles? Kingturtle ( talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone trying to remove the backlog, as it seems no one has posted here for two years. I want to remove the older articles from the list, but I was wondering if anyone else was trying to remove it. Lord Castellan Creed ( talk) 09:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Noticed the general plea for cleanup; just wanted to advocate on behalf of the orphans. My own projects center on building a list page of Housekeeping_genes. Most of the content that I'm linking up is orphaned, and I just don't want anyone deleting these articles prematurely. The field of genetics is expanding at a break-neck speed...so fast that we're all having a tough time staying abreast. One of the problems is that most genes have 5 or more names/abbreviations and Wikipedia is an ideal medium for linking up the different names so that reasearchers can find articles on their gene (that may be referenced under different names.) Wikipedia is also suited for arriving at consensus statements and for rapid access to reference materials. I try to annotate when I can, but I'm compelled to keep my focus wide. As a teacher I implore my colleagues to explore this exciting medium and ASSIGN orphans for class-room work (at all levels). Save the orphans! doctorwolfie ( talk) 13:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c:
should be enabled globally as an
interwiki prefix for links to the
Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of
several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in
the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you.
Thryduulf (
talk) 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If an orphaned page is listed here, does that make it no longer orphaned? Retartist ( talk) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What does an orphan article mean? Can one de-orphan an biography by naming the said person in a group - that is also an article on wikipedia? That is, supposing he is an engineer, when you name him (with link) in a group of engineer articles, have you de-orphaned the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince-Ifoh ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)