Template talk:Orphan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Orphan has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Contents 1 Date= as an optional parameter 2 Position 3 Request 4 Why have this template? 5 Blue? 6 How many links? 7 Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below 8 Should categories be counted as links?

[edit] Date= as an optional parameter

Would be good if the template accepted |date= as a move towards uniform tagging. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31 27 December 2006 (GMT).

Done. Eli Falk 10:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54 16 March 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Position

I would definitely suggest this template go at the top of the article. Why put it in the references section? If an article needs external references, that's a different tag entirely. --Vossanova ^o< 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

The template contains instructions:

"After links have been created, remove this message."

I think it would be helpful to add a link pointing to [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}]]. This would make it easier for an inexperienced editor to know how to determine that the template is no longer needed, and remove it in such a case. Maybe something like this at the bottom:

"A list of inbound links can be found here".

(Of course this would be much better if it could be filtered to &namespace=0)

I'm not saying it will put a dent in the "11324 transclusions" figure overnight, but it might help slow the increase anyway. On a slightly different note, maybe we could get a bot to check for new incoming links and remove uses of this template that are no longer appropriate.

— CharlotteWebb 08:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I snuck the link into the existing text in the first sentence to avoid lengthening the template. Hope that's ok. --CBD 12:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why have this template?

In the original wiki concept, walled gardens and such were frowned upon.

But this is an encyclopedia. Most people, I suspect, arrive at an article via either the little box to your left, or via a search engine--not by navigating from other articles.

In other words, having an orphan page strikes me as completely harmless. If other pages have reason to link to a particular page, fine. But there shouldn't be any reason to insist that such links be created.

If the page weren't protected, I might have been WP:BOLD and sent it to TFD. As it is, I'll just gripe here :). My preference would be to nuke this template; I'd be happy if it were moved to article talk pages instead.

--EngineerScotty 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just ran into this one myself. I tend to think orphans are undesirable, but only mildly so, and in any case, this is not a warning to our dear readers about a problem with the article that follows. Talk page. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Pages with no links to them are a sign that the subject is somehow detached from our "web of knowledge" - the reasons for no links are usually either that the people writing the other articles didn't know about this one (a site:en.wikipedia.org Google search will find the other pages, and linking is easy), or that the article lacks notability, and should be considered for deletion. Either way, it's a danger sign worth noting. --Alvestrand 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As proved by the two other above users, I am probably in the majority of users who think that the best way to get to an article is to use the search box. This means that Orphan tags are a waste of time in most cases, as you can directly search for what you are looking for rather than having to sift through other articles as your above statement suggests. --Dreamweaverjack 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with their lack of purpose, but on another note where is the guideline page for their usage (ie: how many links should a user see/not see before inserting this tag)? I've seen it on pages with quite a few links, and have been tempted to remove it but would like to know the guidelines. If they exist, they aren't linked from this page. I'll keep looking. If it's a matter of 'common sense' or something, it would quite a subjective one, and I think some loose rules of thumb may be useful. Thx --Keefer4 | Talk 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue?

Shouldn't this template feature a blue background? It looks weird and stands out way too much when it's used at the top of an article, especially with other blue cleanup templates. Of course, I happen to think that this intrusive message might be better on talk pages, which would call for a tan background. In either case, a change in background color is needed. BuddingJournalist 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What color blue would you like it? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Readd the editprotected tag when you've decided. Proto::► 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And obviously he means (as do I) the same colour blue as the other cleanup templates, such as {{cleanup}}. The way to change it, though, is to edit the definition of the "linkless" class in Common.css to match the definition of the "cleanup" class, not to edit the template itself – Qxz 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Qxz. And yes, obviously I meant the same blue as the other templates. However, I tried searching on MediaWiki:Common.css for the "messagebox linkless metadata" class that this template apparently uses, but couldn't find anything. Quoi? BuddingJournalist 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many links?

Is there a consensus on how many links an article should have before removing this tag? Fsamuels 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As many as is appropriate, depending on the article. 2-4 at the very least IMO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below

[edit] Should categories be counted as links?

Would anyone else agree with me that categories should count towards links? --Dreamweaverjack 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Raising this to its own topic, as I think it's important. I disagree - I think categories should NOT be counted towards links. --Alvestrand 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If, as stated above, the purpose of this template is to flag up that Pages with no links to them are a sign that the subject is somehow detached from our "web of knowledge"", then yes, categories should be included surely? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I use Wikipedia, I read articles, and navigate using either search or links. Having categories doesn't help me navigate the web of knowledge. So I'd consider them at best second class links. --Alvestrand 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. An article with categories but no wlinks to it is a different animal than one with wlinks, whether or not the latter has cats. The absence of wlinks to an article is an indicator that related articles either need more wlinks or are older and need updated wlinks. I suppose it's largely a matter of semantics, but if we count cats to eliminate an orphan tag, then we need a new tag for articles with cats but without inbound wlinks. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also say no, because the systematic categorising of things does not mean that the "orphan" problem has been resolved. However I am prepared to consider that there might be pages which don't need incoming links, and that this would not be a problem with the 'pedia. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51 16 March 2007 (GMT).