Template talk:Orphan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Orphan is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases. Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

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? 9 Edit request 10 Fixing the "link to this one" link 11 Fix categories 12 Edit request 13 <small> 14 Spacing error 15 Documentation 16 redirects 17 Extra }} 18 Wording change 19 A little extra 20 simpler google link 21 internet death penalty 22 Category

[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).

{{editprotected}} These tags need to accept Date with a capital D for the date. Capitalization is not a lost art, but it will become so if there is further neglect of it by programmers who write templates. It is just habit for me and others to use an initial capital letter, since we do a lot of writing. Sloppily written templates than don't have good input checking (one of the first rules every programmer is expected to learn) just makes more work all round when a person easily and naturally puts an initial letter. Hu 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

N Not done; see my comments on Template talk:Notability. --ais523 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[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)

I'm against putting this at the top of an article. It is not a warning to readers it is merely an invitation to add content and should go at the bottom like the stub notices. If no one has strong feelings about this then we should change the guidelines for this template. Is there a general guideline on positioning these templates? Filceolaire 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fil; I think that the template should go at the bottom, say under a 'see also' or 'external links' section. We don't need to make this template the most important part of the page it's on. —ScouterSig 16:11, 19 November 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)

{{editprotected}}

It's now possible to change that link to {{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 9 June 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).

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} Hello, I would like an admin to add URL address here so it makes the bit was says Related topics not have the external links icon in the corner and makes it look tidier. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 11:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since that is an external link, it should have an external link icon. CMummert · talk 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should not be an external link; it should link to a Wikipedia search. Althepal 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing the "link to this one" link

{{editprotected}}

The "link to this one" link does not work; instead of [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}|link to this one]], it should be [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|link to this one]] Dtrebbien 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

done. CMummert · talk 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix categories

{{editprotected}}

The categories included in this template should have {{{category| }}} around them so that they don't categorize pages that simply link to them.

Origional:

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|[[Category:Orphaned articles from {{{1}}}]]|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Orphaned articles from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Orphaned articles]]}}}}[[Category:All orphaned articles]]</includeonly>

Requested change:

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned careories from {{1}}}]]}}}|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned categories from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned categories]]}}}}}}}{{{category|[[Category:All orphaned categories]]}}}</includeonly>

-- Gudeldar 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done but not exactly the same as your requested change, since I found a few typos. Thanks for making the request! Tra (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Any chance someone can adjust the width of this template so that the "one" doesn't wrap onto another line. Cheers! PC78 18:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps adjust the text, replacing "since" with "as"? PC78 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't wrap on my screen, but would removing the word "very" solve your issue? I'd say that is the least important word in the template, and should probably be removed regardless. I'd recommend "This article is considered orphaned, since there are few or no other articles linked to this one." It removes "very" and "that". - auburnpilot talk 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine. PC78 19:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this template read "This article is orphaned since there are few or no other articles link to it." Poor grammar otherwise. Civil Engineer III (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] <small>

{{editprotected}}

Please add ones around the second line, as it's done in other article message boxes. — Kalan ? 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that the font of the second line should be smaller? (sorry, a bit confused) Gracenotes^T § 17:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have disabled the editprotected request for now because it's unclear what the change is to be (and because there's CAT:PER backlog). Please re-enable it with a description of the change to be made. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gracenotes is right. — Kalan ? 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^(t.l) 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spacing error

This template seems to be missing a space in between "related topics." and the date in parentheses. On the article Correspondence rules it is showing up without a space and is also introducing two }} brackets randomly after it. If anyone knows why this is, and wants to look in to fixing the template or the article, that would be great. Bonus Onus 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (edit: Just checked-- both of these problems seem to come up on every page this template is used on) -Bonus Onus 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct template text should be (edit this to see formatting):

This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics.

-Bonus Onus 19:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra }}

This template produces the characters }} directly after it. Octane ^{[improve me]} 13.10.07 1911 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed. An extra set of braces must have been introduced in the last edit. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This is caused by the line {{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned articles from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned articles]]}}}}}}}, which should be {{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned articles from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Orphaned articles]]}}}}}. Please update the template. –Ms2ger 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording change

Hi there,

Recently, the de-orphaning team was turned into a WikiProject, WikiProject Orphanage. As part of this, we might be adding a new category, "lonely" articles, with few links to them. This would make orphans articles with very few or no other articles linking to them. Please give your opinion on this change either here or on the project talk page.

Thanks, Davidovic 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little extra

You have an extra /noinclude tag that is showing up on the page Rgoodermote(Talk Page) 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] simpler google link

I propose changing the url in "related topics" from

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22{{PAGENAMEU}}%22

to

• http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&q=%22{{PAGENAMEU}}%22

I also propose unprotecting this template. Is it such a target for vandalism? Waldir ^talk 14:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please look into this? An admin preferentially... Waldir ^talk 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose unprotection, since this template is transcluded on over 10,000 pages. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates. However, I do like the related topics link change, and I don't see anyone objecting to it. So: {{editprotected}} Please edit the url linked to by "related topics" in the template from

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22{{PAGENAMEU}}%22

to

• http://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=en.wikipedia.org&q=%22{{PAGENAMEU}}%22

Thank you.--Aervanath's signature is boring 08:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

N Not done for now - what's wrong with some variation on Special:Search?? As for unprotection, don't even think about it (29,270 links) Happy‑melon 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the original reasoning was, but for me it just makes it easier to go through the 2nd step of the de-orphaning process: first, you search wikipedia to see if there are any related articles that already mention the subject of the article, but aren't wikilinked in. Then you do a net-wide google search to see if there are any related topics that might tie into the article, but haven't yet been added. The change suggested above means that step 2 is just one click away. Very convenient for de-orphaners.--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] internet death penalty

Is there a problem with this template? There's unnecessary space below this template at internet death penalty. Please fix this problem.68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article, but I can't see any unnecessary space. It may be a problem with the way your browser is formatting the articles.--Aervanath's signature is boring 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

{{editprotected}} Please add the following line:
<noinclude>[[Category:Templates for orphaned articles]]</noinclude>
Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, please add the same line to the templates that redirect here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done for this one. However, categories should go in the template documentation and not on the template itself. Anyone can edit the documentation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)