![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have noticed the activities of Mccapra ( talk · contribs) who has been tagging "att" on orphaned pages and then going back to remove the orphan tag if nobody reacted to it, saying it was a "successful de-orphanage". Personally, I am an inclusionist and do not wish articles deleted, but this individual is circumventing the system and being smug about it. I think it illustrates several issues I glanced at above. Please review. Cheers and happy editing, SVTCobra ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
1. A few weeks ago I was criticised by other editors for tagging so many articles as 'attempted deorphan' when, with more time and effort, I could probably de-orphan a lot of them. After this I went back to the 'attempted deorphan' category and began working systematically through it again, de-orphaning articles from earlier months. Yesterday I reached October 2017, which was when I had started using the 'attempted deorphan' tag very heavily. As other editors advised, I found that with the greater experience I now have, I was able to de-orphan about fifty of them, and I'm sure that as I continue through October and November 2017 I will be able to deorphan many more that I'd previously tagged 'attempted deorphan', thereby clearing the list down to a more normal level and removing the problem that I'd created by over-tagging.
2. The article Bakhuwala is an example of one I had tagged back in October as 'attempted' and came back to yesterday. I have deorphaned many hundreds of articles on villages in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, usually by adding them to the article for the tehsil or other lowest-level administrative district to which they belong. The reason why I had tagged Bakhuwala as 'attempted' back in October is that the article does not indicate which tehsil the village is in, only the district. Yesterday I looked at Muzaffargarh District, reviewed the list of villages in each tehsil, and still could not find Bakhuwala, so decided to add it into the 'See also' section at the end of the Muzaffargarh article. There is no question that Bakhuwala is in Muzaffargargh District, so the link is related, though it would be better to link to the specific tehsil, if I knew what that was. SVTCobra has said that I made not attempt to improve the page. This is correct. I have no information about Bakhuwala and no ability to improve the content. The exercise I am doing is just deorphaning. Occasionally, along the way, I change misdirected links, add categories or correct typos, but for the most part, I am just adding inbound links. One of the purposes of doing this is that it helps bring the previously orphaned article to the attention of other editors, who may be able to improve it. I believe that having the Muzaffargarh article link to Bakhuwala is reasonable but not optimal - ideally another editor with more knowledge than me would see it and be able to put it into its correct tehsil, at which point removing the link from Muzaffargargh would make sense. Anyway, from time to time other editors revert my deorphans as they don't agree that the orphaned article should be linked to the one they are watching, and if this happens I just retag the article in question as an orphan and move on.
3. SVTCobra has objected, I think, to my use of the edit summary 'Successfully deorphaned', which s/he feels is smug. The edit summary is the one recommended on the project page and I understand the purpose of it is to leave a trail of summaries across the encyclopedia to alert other editors to the fact that WIkipedia:WikiProject Orphanage exists and to encourage them to get involved. If I'm overusing this in some way I'm happy to stop using it. I don't mind about it. Mccapra ( talk) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys!
Writ Keeper was kind enough to create a de-orphanizer script for me so I thought I would share it with you all. It adds a tab to the top bar which, with one click, removes the orphan tag from a given article and leaves a nice edit summary. It can be found at
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deorphanizer.js, and invoked on your .js page with mw.loader.load("/?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deorphanizer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");
. It doesn't seem to work on IE, but works on Chrome just fine. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
23:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Just seeking a bit of clarification, are year articles ( 2000 as an example) or date articles ( 1 January as an example) count as incoming links? Obviously to de-orphan a page ideally there should be more than the basic information. Thanks! Nat965 ( talk) 06:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As of today we're officially down to 9000 articles in this category! Every little bit helps :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Project input is requested @ WP:AWB/Tasks#AWB Request 2. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm leaving a note to inform any interested parties that there is an orphan-related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coded set.
Thanks,
StraussInTheHouse ( talk) 15:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Since the de-orphaning criteria is now only a single incoming link rather than many, does anyone have any opposition to deprecating the "few" parameter of {{ orphan}}, and the associated Category:Low linked articles? If there's consensus, I'll figure out how to technically go about that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Done : I've
removed this parameter from the template, per consensus.
Category:Low linked articles may still be manually populated at this time, but better criteria for populating this category should probably be developed. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I accidentally found a wiki page with article name in Basic Cryllic Script via the Random page in this category link for Category:Orphaned_articles_from_February_2009 and the page is up for deletion at WP:AFD, nomination at here.
There might be a lot of similar orphans which could be deleted. Kadane ( talk) ran a query for Cryllic so probably can ask him for a list or for other scripts as well. -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 01:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi I’ve just come across Stepfather-in-law which has an orphan tag from Dec 09 but the talk page shows it was copied to Wiktionary in January 2008. I’m not clear what we do with articles that have been copied to Wiktionary. Do we leave them alone? Try to deorphan them as per usual? PROD them? Something else? Any guidance much appreciated. Mccapra ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Can someone help in requesting AWB to scan all the orphaned pages to see whether are they really orphans? I am going through Orphaned articles from May 2014 from the back and noticed quite a few pages are not orphans as of now.
If it is not possible to scan all, consider the large amount of orphans now, perhaps can we target those categories that have more than 1,000 items inside? Thanks -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 07:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_30#Template:Orphan proposing deletion of the Orphan template, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the 2/09 and 11/18 lists (only 5 articles) and everything I looked at had 3 or more wikilinks. Should I just assume that someone has deorphaned articles like this and delete them from the list? Thanks Aurornisxui ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Just wanted to let everyone know about a new script I made to easily remove orphan tags from articles that have them. Documentation is available at User:DannyS712/deOrphan, as are installation instructions. Feel free to ping me with any questions, or bring them up on my talk page. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
4,999 as of this morning. Mccapra ( talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
3,999 as of this morning. Mccapra ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Noted an editor tagging non-orphaned articles as orphans (mostly footballer articles with names starting with A onwards). I have actually left a note to ask him to adjust his AWB settings (which is set to the old definition of minimum of 3 incoming links) and just asked him to revert the orphan tagging. About 150 articles are affected so AWB might be faster to fix it... -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 02:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage#Active members lists many editors who haven't edited at all for years. I marked a couple for you, but perhaps you'd like to consider moving to Wikipedia:WikiProject X's more automated membership system? I think that User:Harej runs a bot to archive inactive users, and then you'd never have to bother with outdated lists again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The wikiproject may be interested in checking out Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphans with incoming links. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 02:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A day ago there were 574 orphan articles from August 2010. Ten hours ago this had dropped to one. Now it’s back to 574 again. Does anyone know why? Mccapra ( talk) 09:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is listed as an orphan but I do not see an orphan tag on the article. Any idea why is it so? -- Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a new bot, JL-Bot, that automatically removes the orphan tag from articles with three or more incoming links. Mccapra ( talk) 05:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Feast your eyes on this! ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I noted that there is an AFD ongoing for Index of Country-related articles and if the result is to delete the indices, there maybe a huge increase of articles being marked as orphaned if they have a single incoming link from such indices. Note this is not WP:CANVASS but just a heads-up on consequences if the result is to partially or fully delete such indices. -- Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 05:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I have in mind a WikiProject framework, which, if it works out as I hope, may result in reducing some of the enormous backlog here by decentralizing the orphan problem and enlisting WikiProject members to work on it for the subset of orphans that belong to their project. WikiProjects with a particular topic focus tend to be active and motivated to improving backlogs of various kinds in their topic area, usually Category-based, but I don't see them reducing orphan backlogs, perhaps because no framework for it exists at the project itself. A few active projects have very motivated members, who, if a framework existed for it, might start actively working on the orphan backlog. One of the most active, imho, is WP:WikiProject Military history. (Another is WP:MED.) I think introducing those projects, and perhaps a few others, to the orphan problem may result in major improvements reducing overall orphan backlog. I've started by creating a pilot within the WP:MIL project, to see if this generates any interest there. You can follow the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#De-orphaning articles to see how it's going, or join in if interested. If this works out at the MILHIST project, it would be quite straightforward to introduce it to other WikiProjects. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Orphaned articles from March 2022 might have a lot of non-orphaned articles as there are 350+ articles out of 1300+ (roughly a quarter) which has 1 or more incoming link. Noted that the likely 200+ articles are tagged orphans by AWB on the old settings of requiring 3 incoming links. This will be a quick fix to reduce the number of orphaned articles. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 08:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please add me as i don’t know how to. 2006toyotacorrola ( talk) 10:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Today I added a proposal here on the Orphan article talk page. Discussion is welcome there. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 21:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have noticed the activities of Mccapra ( talk · contribs) who has been tagging "att" on orphaned pages and then going back to remove the orphan tag if nobody reacted to it, saying it was a "successful de-orphanage". Personally, I am an inclusionist and do not wish articles deleted, but this individual is circumventing the system and being smug about it. I think it illustrates several issues I glanced at above. Please review. Cheers and happy editing, SVTCobra ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
1. A few weeks ago I was criticised by other editors for tagging so many articles as 'attempted deorphan' when, with more time and effort, I could probably de-orphan a lot of them. After this I went back to the 'attempted deorphan' category and began working systematically through it again, de-orphaning articles from earlier months. Yesterday I reached October 2017, which was when I had started using the 'attempted deorphan' tag very heavily. As other editors advised, I found that with the greater experience I now have, I was able to de-orphan about fifty of them, and I'm sure that as I continue through October and November 2017 I will be able to deorphan many more that I'd previously tagged 'attempted deorphan', thereby clearing the list down to a more normal level and removing the problem that I'd created by over-tagging.
2. The article Bakhuwala is an example of one I had tagged back in October as 'attempted' and came back to yesterday. I have deorphaned many hundreds of articles on villages in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, usually by adding them to the article for the tehsil or other lowest-level administrative district to which they belong. The reason why I had tagged Bakhuwala as 'attempted' back in October is that the article does not indicate which tehsil the village is in, only the district. Yesterday I looked at Muzaffargarh District, reviewed the list of villages in each tehsil, and still could not find Bakhuwala, so decided to add it into the 'See also' section at the end of the Muzaffargarh article. There is no question that Bakhuwala is in Muzaffargargh District, so the link is related, though it would be better to link to the specific tehsil, if I knew what that was. SVTCobra has said that I made not attempt to improve the page. This is correct. I have no information about Bakhuwala and no ability to improve the content. The exercise I am doing is just deorphaning. Occasionally, along the way, I change misdirected links, add categories or correct typos, but for the most part, I am just adding inbound links. One of the purposes of doing this is that it helps bring the previously orphaned article to the attention of other editors, who may be able to improve it. I believe that having the Muzaffargarh article link to Bakhuwala is reasonable but not optimal - ideally another editor with more knowledge than me would see it and be able to put it into its correct tehsil, at which point removing the link from Muzaffargargh would make sense. Anyway, from time to time other editors revert my deorphans as they don't agree that the orphaned article should be linked to the one they are watching, and if this happens I just retag the article in question as an orphan and move on.
3. SVTCobra has objected, I think, to my use of the edit summary 'Successfully deorphaned', which s/he feels is smug. The edit summary is the one recommended on the project page and I understand the purpose of it is to leave a trail of summaries across the encyclopedia to alert other editors to the fact that WIkipedia:WikiProject Orphanage exists and to encourage them to get involved. If I'm overusing this in some way I'm happy to stop using it. I don't mind about it. Mccapra ( talk) 12:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys!
Writ Keeper was kind enough to create a de-orphanizer script for me so I thought I would share it with you all. It adds a tab to the top bar which, with one click, removes the orphan tag from a given article and leaves a nice edit summary. It can be found at
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deorphanizer.js, and invoked on your .js page with mw.loader.load("/?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deorphanizer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");
. It doesn't seem to work on IE, but works on Chrome just fine. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
23:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Just seeking a bit of clarification, are year articles ( 2000 as an example) or date articles ( 1 January as an example) count as incoming links? Obviously to de-orphan a page ideally there should be more than the basic information. Thanks! Nat965 ( talk) 06:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As of today we're officially down to 9000 articles in this category! Every little bit helps :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Project input is requested @ WP:AWB/Tasks#AWB Request 2. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm leaving a note to inform any interested parties that there is an orphan-related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coded set.
Thanks,
StraussInTheHouse ( talk) 15:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Since the de-orphaning criteria is now only a single incoming link rather than many, does anyone have any opposition to deprecating the "few" parameter of {{ orphan}}, and the associated Category:Low linked articles? If there's consensus, I'll figure out how to technically go about that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Done : I've
removed this parameter from the template, per consensus.
Category:Low linked articles may still be manually populated at this time, but better criteria for populating this category should probably be developed. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I accidentally found a wiki page with article name in Basic Cryllic Script via the Random page in this category link for Category:Orphaned_articles_from_February_2009 and the page is up for deletion at WP:AFD, nomination at here.
There might be a lot of similar orphans which could be deleted. Kadane ( talk) ran a query for Cryllic so probably can ask him for a list or for other scripts as well. -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 01:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi I’ve just come across Stepfather-in-law which has an orphan tag from Dec 09 but the talk page shows it was copied to Wiktionary in January 2008. I’m not clear what we do with articles that have been copied to Wiktionary. Do we leave them alone? Try to deorphan them as per usual? PROD them? Something else? Any guidance much appreciated. Mccapra ( talk) 05:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Can someone help in requesting AWB to scan all the orphaned pages to see whether are they really orphans? I am going through Orphaned articles from May 2014 from the back and noticed quite a few pages are not orphans as of now.
If it is not possible to scan all, consider the large amount of orphans now, perhaps can we target those categories that have more than 1,000 items inside? Thanks -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 07:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_30#Template:Orphan proposing deletion of the Orphan template, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the 2/09 and 11/18 lists (only 5 articles) and everything I looked at had 3 or more wikilinks. Should I just assume that someone has deorphaned articles like this and delete them from the list? Thanks Aurornisxui ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Just wanted to let everyone know about a new script I made to easily remove orphan tags from articles that have them. Documentation is available at User:DannyS712/deOrphan, as are installation instructions. Feel free to ping me with any questions, or bring them up on my talk page. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
4,999 as of this morning. Mccapra ( talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
3,999 as of this morning. Mccapra ( talk) 06:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Noted an editor tagging non-orphaned articles as orphans (mostly footballer articles with names starting with A onwards). I have actually left a note to ask him to adjust his AWB settings (which is set to the old definition of minimum of 3 incoming links) and just asked him to revert the orphan tagging. About 150 articles are affected so AWB might be faster to fix it... -- Xaiver0510 ( talk) 02:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage#Active members lists many editors who haven't edited at all for years. I marked a couple for you, but perhaps you'd like to consider moving to Wikipedia:WikiProject X's more automated membership system? I think that User:Harej runs a bot to archive inactive users, and then you'd never have to bother with outdated lists again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The wikiproject may be interested in checking out Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphans with incoming links. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 02:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A day ago there were 574 orphan articles from August 2010. Ten hours ago this had dropped to one. Now it’s back to 574 again. Does anyone know why? Mccapra ( talk) 09:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is listed as an orphan but I do not see an orphan tag on the article. Any idea why is it so? -- Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a new bot, JL-Bot, that automatically removes the orphan tag from articles with three or more incoming links. Mccapra ( talk) 05:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Feast your eyes on this! ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I noted that there is an AFD ongoing for Index of Country-related articles and if the result is to delete the indices, there maybe a huge increase of articles being marked as orphaned if they have a single incoming link from such indices. Note this is not WP:CANVASS but just a heads-up on consequences if the result is to partially or fully delete such indices. -- Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 05:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I have in mind a WikiProject framework, which, if it works out as I hope, may result in reducing some of the enormous backlog here by decentralizing the orphan problem and enlisting WikiProject members to work on it for the subset of orphans that belong to their project. WikiProjects with a particular topic focus tend to be active and motivated to improving backlogs of various kinds in their topic area, usually Category-based, but I don't see them reducing orphan backlogs, perhaps because no framework for it exists at the project itself. A few active projects have very motivated members, who, if a framework existed for it, might start actively working on the orphan backlog. One of the most active, imho, is WP:WikiProject Military history. (Another is WP:MED.) I think introducing those projects, and perhaps a few others, to the orphan problem may result in major improvements reducing overall orphan backlog. I've started by creating a pilot within the WP:MIL project, to see if this generates any interest there. You can follow the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#De-orphaning articles to see how it's going, or join in if interested. If this works out at the MILHIST project, it would be quite straightforward to introduce it to other WikiProjects. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 00:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Orphaned articles from March 2022 might have a lot of non-orphaned articles as there are 350+ articles out of 1300+ (roughly a quarter) which has 1 or more incoming link. Noted that the likely 200+ articles are tagged orphans by AWB on the old settings of requiring 3 incoming links. This will be a quick fix to reduce the number of orphaned articles. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 08:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please add me as i don’t know how to. 2006toyotacorrola ( talk) 10:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Today I added a proposal here on the Orphan article talk page. Discussion is welcome there. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 21:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)