Category talk:Orphaned articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] Wiki Project

Is there some sort of wiki-project associated with de-orphaning articles? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Links

How many mainspace links should there be before an article is considered non-orphan? Geozapf 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The month/year categories state that just "one or more good incoming links" are necessary for an article to be considered non-orphan. However, I prefer to have at least 2 or 3 links to an article, if possible. Thaurisil 09:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki project help request

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)

[edit] February 2006

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)

No, you can request speedy deletion in those cases. Just use {{db|fill in reason}} . Garion96 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for verification

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:

This page has been listed in Category:Requests for verification.
It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days. (This message was added: 13 June 2008.)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.


Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

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)


[edit] The oldest orphaned articles

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)

  • I've just realised I've been working on these articles as if they were dead-end ones ! (ie adding internal links) What is the best way to de-orphan articles ? thisisace 20:01, 23 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)

Also, if they are short articles they are stubs. No need to also tag them with the {{expand}} template. Garion96 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, guys. I'll have another go ! thisisace 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists versus categories

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)

Keep both. See WP:CLS. They're both useful, and provide redundancy (which is a good thing in an encyclopedia). In this case, I would say that your proposed solution (adding the see also section to all the wrestlers' articles in the list) would be the best one. Don't forget to make sure that the all the wrestlers' names are wikified to point to their articles. It might also be cool to edit the category and list together so that there aren't any wrestlers on one, but not the other.--Aervanath (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Pages

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)

[edit] robot!

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)

you can put a request in at Wikipedia:Bot requests, although I think what you'll find is that it's hard for a bot to distinguish which articles are truly de-orphaned. Some things need a human eye. Many times the "what links here" page will show several pages linking in, but only one or two actual articles link to them. The rest are just categories, lists, and, of course, the Orphaned Articles page. If you do put in the bot request, i'd also request that the bot place the orphan tag on articles which need it.--Aervanath (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)