Wikipedia talk:Special:LonelyPages and User:AlexNewArtBot/NewMexicoSearchResult: Difference between pages

Revision as of 03:27, 22 February 2007

Revision as of 16:29, 21 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Specialpagestalk}}

'''Special:Lonelypages''' is an automatically created list of orphaned pages. '''Orphan''' and '''Lonely''' are synonymous (they mean the same thing): pages with no parent. That is, pages without ''[[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) | wikilinks]]'' to them.

[[User:AlexNewArtBot/NewMexicoSearchResult/archive|Archives]] of this page

Except for [[disambiguation]] pages (which ideally ''should'' be orphans), this could indicate one of these possibilities:

[[Category:Newpage bot search results|NewMexico]]

* Articles which should link to the orphaned article need expansion.

*[[Terry D. Clark]] by {{User|Lugnuts}} started at 10:07, 21 July 2007

* Parent articles were deleted, or their references (wikilinks) were removed.

*[[Snow Lake, New Mexico]] by {{User|Joesthebomb}} started at 05:36, 21 July 2007

* The article was created in error: perhaps its name is mispelled or not a well known variation of the name.

*[[Dromomeron]] by {{User|J. Spencer}} started at 03:19, 21 July 2007

* The article is not noteworthy.

*[[Western Playland]] by {{User|Smguy101}} started at 18:40, 18 July 2007

*[[Gallina]] by {{User|Rmhermen}} started at 13:40, 19 July 2007

To remove an entry from this list, [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|boldly]] find and edit appropriate parent articles to [[Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links) | reference]] the entry. In the latter two cases (above), the article should be [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion | deleted]].

== What is Orphaned? ==

What's it? Please, someone explain.

--[[User:Riceonroute66|Riceonroute66]] 16:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

:No incoming links from other pages. Click on "What links here" in the right sidebar to see incoming links. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== Links to disambig pages ==

I've noticed that this seems to be including disambiguation pages. Don't we want disambig pages to be orphans? Can we change this to exclude them?

Agreed, this is making clean up difficult[[User:Jschwa1|Jschwa1]].

I'll third that. -- [[User:WOT|WOT]] 18:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many disambig pages on this list, they should be excluded. --[[User:JaredKatyaFan|Jared Buck]] 19:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:You may want to try the following two reports, supplying similar information, but not updated with the same frequency:

:*[[Wikipedia:Orphaned_Articles]]

:*[[Wikipedia:Offline_reports/Nothing_links_to_this_article]]

:-- User:Docu

::"Orphaned articles" is 1.5 years old by now. "not same frequency" indeed. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 08:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Improperly included disambiguation pages

* [[Abiko_Station]]

* [[APSL]]

* [[AM4]]

* [[ADAS]]

* [[ACBL]]

* [[A75]]

* [[A350]]

* [[A&M]]

* [[A-22]]

* [[AMEE]]

== Unorphaned - (Is that a word?) ==

I just unorphaned a page and didn't know if I should put up a notice here or if these things got weeded out by bots... The page was the one on [[antisexualism]]. I put a link on the page for [[hedonism]].

[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]

try ''deorphanized'' :) [[User:Ceyockey|Courtland]]

:No - try "deorphanised", British spellings are always superior, everyone knows that... ;-) [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] 07:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

* [[ABC Computer]]: included reference on the [[ABC]] disambiguation page

* [[Abraham Adan]]: included reference in proper list of persons

* [[AMEX Bank of Canada]]: included reference on [[List of banks]]

* [[ARM7TDMI]]: added link on [[Game Boy Advance]] page --[[User:Cromwellt|Cromwellt]] | [[User talk:Cromwellt|Talk]] 23:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

== Something listed as an orphan really isn't - what will happen? ==

I found something on the list that wasn't actually orphaned. Does it automatically get removed from the list, or what?-[[User:LtNOWIS|LtNOWIS]] 21:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also, if an article's in a category, it's not really quite the same as being unlinked. Anyone who goes to an article in the same category is only 2 clicks away from the article!-[[User:LtNOWIS|LtNOWIS]] 23:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==What does "Lonelypages" mean?==

The page should say clearly what a Lonelypage is. Maybe insiders know but the world does not and there is a link to it on the main page. Also there should be some mechanism to get down the list without downloading everything. "A"'s get all the attention now. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 15:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I agree, I don't know what differs a lonely page from an orphaned page. Is it something that needs to be fixed by finding something to connect to it, or "fixed" by deciding if it needs to be deleted, or what?--[[User:Dustinasby|Dustin Asby]] 16:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

:I come here to know what a "lonelypage" or a "orphaned page" is (i think they are the same thing, right?), so it would be nice if someone could write what it is (i´m very good in reading english, but i can´t write very well... not a mother language :D)--[[imnotregistered]] 3:51, 11 sep 2005 (georgetown time)

:So could someone please explain? Right below this entry would be a good place. Thanks! [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 04:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:It means that nothing links to that page. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] ([[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]) 04:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever it means (I THINK it means "nothing links to it"), I think the definition should be changed. There's zero value in linking disambig pages (they SHOULD be lonely, all the links should go to the disambiguated ones), and I don't find linking stub pages a high priority activity.

It would be more fun to scan the list if the disambiguation and stub pages were omitted. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

==How often does this list refresh? ==

I spent 20 minutes looking for something to fix, except someone else has already done the work. How often does this list update? [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] 07:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

:I think it currently refreshes every Wednesday, sometime in the morning (US Eastern time). I'm not sure that every single orphan article is added even if it would fit alphabetically, and only the first 1,000 seem to be listed now. At least that's what I've observed. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::But it did not refresh this Wednesday morning, apparently. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 16:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

:::If they are only going to run it once a week, it would be nice it the list was longer, like make 20,000 rather than 1000. [[User:Fplay|Fplay]] 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I support this idea, I was trying to jump to some pages starting with something other than A, B or C and obviously got nothing. Cut at No. 1000. --[[User:Ruziklan|Ruziklan]] 22:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I dunno, presumably it takes up a good ammount of server time even to make the list of 1,000 orphans once a week (I say this because sometimes the list doesn't refresh, sometimes it takes until Saturday, etc.) At any rate, while it would be nice to see all orphans in one very long list, what's the point? We don't really remove all 1,000 in a weeks time, so what's it matter if we're removing orphans that start with a B or with a Z? Let's just work on fixing the 1,000 a week the WikiGods give us.

:::::By the way, I'm thinking about creating a project to help coordinate the increasing group of people who seem to be working on the Orphan's list. When I started going through the list in October, it didn't even get to the B's. Now it gets halfway through the C's. We actually are making progress. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 04:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

:It seems to me that they are running it early on Wednesday morning and on late Friday night. I have difficulty believing that 1000 pages takes a long time: Look at how quickly the "What links here" tool can respond when the answer is "none"! Surely doing that 1000 times cannot take that much time. -- [[User:Fplay|Fplay]] 11:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

::You're probably right about the (lack of) server stress, though it probably has to do "What links here" several thousand times, so that's something. And you're right about when it refreshes, at least lately. A month or so ago it sometimes was missing refreshes, now it's pretty regular. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

== Other pages which should remain orphaned ==

Pages such as [[Camp Lazlo Episode Ideas]] which are protected from recreation also create a false positive on here, as do pages whose only content is [[:Template:wi]]. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])^{([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])} 05:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

*Hmm... here's one thought. What if someone created a subpage of their userspace or something just listing all these links which should remain (otherwise) orphaned? Would that get them off this list? Would it be worth it? ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])^{([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])} 05:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

:Funny that you should mention that, I am trying to find out if would be a good idea to change the deletedpage template so it doesn't do that anymore (i.e. it links to itself, or some other solution is devised). It's supposed to be temporary but sometimes it is up for weeks. See discussion here [[Template talk:Deletedpage]] if you're particularly interested.

:As for [[:Template:wi]], as far as I know, it creates a link to pages it's used on, so in other words, pages with it shouldn't be orphans.

:I don't know that any pages should stay orphans. Though the two cases you've mentioned are ones where de-orphaning them doesn't really do much more than take them off the list... so they're not of that much concert (to me, at least). --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Create Category:Intentionally orphaned page? --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 14:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Limited to 1000 entries? ==

I tried to follow Special::Lonelypages to the end.

It stopped after #1000, with almost nothing but the As listed.

Bug or feature? --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Same prob here. Not even out of the A's. What's the deal? [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 11:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's limited here's the complete link for all of them at once:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=1000&offset=0 Lonely Pages]

--[[User:DBEndy|DBEndy]] 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This page doesnt seem to have been updated in weeks, is this normal? [[User:206.11.112.251|206.11.112.251]] 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

== Search links ==

It would be very helpful if the script that generated the page could also place a link beside each entry that initiates a search for the entry within Wikipedia. For example:

[[Abdullah Gegic]] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22Abdullah+Gegic%22&btnG=Google+Search Wikipedia search]

[[Abraham Moss]] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22Abraham+Moss%22&btnG=Google+Search Wikipedia search]

Also, the compilation script doesn't seem to exclude entries that have been deleted, i.e. [[Aaron warters]]

--[[User:Hooperbloob|Hooperbloob]] 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:Not sure if it could be added to the special page, but I'm sure someone could create a page rather easilly with such links, similar to what they do with pages like [[Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics (10)]] etc. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 03:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::If someone wants to do this, I recommend the <nowiki>{{search}}</nowiki> [[Template:search|template]]. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I can do that in 3 minutes... hold on.... I will be useing a [[regex]] statement. so give me time to optimize the statement first. [[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]][[user_talk:Eagle 101| talk]] 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Eeeeck, I forgot it was a special page... let me make the regex, and figure out what to do next. Who or what is updating this page... is there a editable version of this?? [[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]][[user_talk:Eagle 101| talk]] 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

::::::Yeah... I was thinking someone could just output it in their userspace, perhaps. You can use [[WP:AWB|AWB]] to get a list of all the items on this page easilly. There is a list at [[Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles]] but it's highly out of date. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

== Deleted pages? ==

It seems like many of the pages are deleted already. Should I remove them from the list, or strikethrough? Thanks [[User:Fortunecookie289|<font color="#4169E1">cøøkiə</font>]] Ξ _{[[User talk:Fortunecookie289|<font color="#4169E1">(talk)</font>]]} 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wish you could, but it's a special page, not modifiable. It was regenerated on June 14 and June 17, so I was hoping it's on a 3-day cycle, but it's been 4 days now.... --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 06:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== deletedpage tag ==

Is there any way the list could '''not''' include pages with the {{tl|deletedpage}} tag? --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] ^{[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">talk</font>]]} 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:I've started outlinking them the same way as with the disambig pages. If there's just a reference to them SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia, they presumably will disappear at the next twice-weekly regeneration. --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

== Hooray - outlinking the disambig pages helped! ==

The disambiguation pages on the list irritated me, because they didn't seem to belong there - nobody SHOULD link to a disambig page.

So rather than grumbling some more, I created [[User:Alvestrand/Disambig pages with no links]]. This is enough to get them removed from [[Special:Lonelypages]] the next time the list is regenerated - and allows people to work on the REAL orphaned pages.

It helped - for the first time I can remember, the end of the 1000-entry list is now in the B's rather than the A's! --[[User:Alvestrand|Alvestrand]] 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

:It almost made it to the D's when myself and a few others were manually de-orphaning articles a while back (November/December 2005). But it was a bit too much to handle... I've been looking at different approaches ever since. Adding a template to each page requesting links be created seems to distribute the work out a bit, to people who otherwise wouldn't even realize the article was an orphan. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to project devoted to keeping disambig pages off Special:Lonelypages: [[Wikipedia:Links_to_disambiguating_pages]]. [[User:Carolfrog|Carolfrog]] 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== We broke it ==

I'm not quite sure what's wrong with the page, but I've mentioned it to Tim Starling (a developer) so hopefully the page will again list orphan articles before too long. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

== Wikimedia bug: Lonelypages limited to 1,000 ==

A bug is filed [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2415 here]. -- [[User:Shunpiker|Shunpiker]] 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Avoiding Duplication of Effort ==

Due to the fact that this special page apparently refreshes on a weekly (if that) basis, it is entirely possible that two people could be working on the same page at the same time, or that a user could subsequently duplicate another user's efforts. To help avoid that, I propose the following procedure:

* (1) Upon visiting a possibly orphaned page for the first time, check to see if the "discussion" tab is red- or blue-linked. If it is blue-linked, immediately visit the talk page to see if there has been any recent discussion or any recent notes added, that may shed light on the page's orphan status.

* (2) If the discussion tab is red-linked, immediately proceed to the "history" tab. Check the history to see if any other editors have been active on the page within the last couple of days.

:*If anyone has been actively editing, you may want to check their recent contributions to see if they have made any edits that link to the supposedly orphaned page.

:*If no one has been actively editing the page recently, you're probably in the clear to do what you can to remedy its orphan situation.

* (3) Upon succesfully uniting the page with one or more family members, leave a note on the recently de-orphaned page's talk page describing your efforts to de-orphan the page, and whether you believe your efforts have been successful or not.

If anyone has any feedback about this proposal, I welcome it. Thanks. — [[User:Carolfrog|Carolfrog]] 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:Okay, maybe I just needed to write it out to see the flaws in it. :)

:Actually, I didn't realize until just now, when I read a note at the top of the page describing it, that there is a link at the side of every page ("What links here") that you can click to see if a page is really an orphan immediately upon arriving at it. So there is no need for people to go leaving notes on all the talk pages. I wondered if someone would object to creation of talk pages solely for that purpose, and now there would be more reason to. . . . But for beginners at fixing orphans, I still believe some of the steps above would be useful if a page does turn out to still be an orphan upon arrival. {sigh} — [[User:Carolfrog|Carolfrog]] 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)