UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Special:lonelypages

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

You would not believe how annoying this gets when monitoring the maintenance pages. Anyways, feel free to argue additions, changes, and/or removals. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:01, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Aye, shoot them in the face. Though it'll be sad to see the death of the only 'janitorial' template named after Yon. 02:04, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Agreed, kill them as they are now. That said, I think that orphan notices are fine, so long as they do not include a link to the page, since it's the link that defeats the purpose of Special:Lonelypages, not the notice itself. If folks still want to post notices that have no link, I'm cool with that. —Aichon— 02:39, 18 October 2010 (BST)

How about the current orphan notices? Should we remove them, de-link them, or leave them as is? ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:48, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Leave the comments, remove the link. I can actually go kill a bunch of links now by removing the brackets in Yorphan. 02:50, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Exactly. Just edit the template to remove the links from it is how I'd do it. —Aichon— 02:52, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Done. It appears to have orphaned just half a dozen pages. 02:53, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I'm looking, and it appears a lot of the section headers are linked too. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:57, 18 October 2010 (BST)

If any are mine, you have express permission to remove any and all of them. 02:58, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Sounds good. I've stopped since there's been a complaint, so the only person currently doing it is Dezonus. It may be good to contact him about this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:33, 18 October 2010 (BST)

The problem about this, as RHO has stated, isn't the fact that the idea of notifying people of their lonelypages, it was because that information was misused rather than being dealt with qualitatively. People would get notices of unlinked pages within like 2 minutes of making them- that isn't how this is supposed to work. If it were just for noobs who are at risk of not being able to find their page again and just making the same page somewhere else, then it would have helped. Coming from a guy who knew the importance of uncategorised pages and images when dealing with new and potentially shitty pages, it's definitely best that lonelypages get dealt with on a case by case basis, depending on their situation. -- LEMON #1 07:51, 18 October 2010 (BST)

What if we just made the templates' links external versus internal? Wouldn't that solve the problem of the orphaned page negation when the template is placed on a page. The template isn't all bad, honestly. I was notified once when a link to a rarely used page was deleted from the CORAM talk page and it prompted me to request deletion. I've also created pages before that I forgot to link anywhere and it was nice to have a reminder. I wish the reminder wouldn't be so soon after creating a page but I believe that's already been addressed. --~ 20:45, 18 October 2010 (BST)

It's been addressed by the fact that I'm no longer doing Orphaned pages, and I was the one doing the irritatingly fast ones. :P External links (other than being ugly UUUUUUUGLY) are an interesting idea for this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:52, 18 October 2010 (BST)

<span class="Stealthexternallink"></span> solves that particular issue. 21:01, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Either include the section heading in the template with <span class="Stealthexternallink"></span> or create a policy about linking in the section heading and I thinkyou've got a winner. --~ 21:34, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I love the idea of using stealthexternal link to notify people who we have reason to believe have forgotten to link their pages. It still lets you notify them, while preserving Lonelypages' usefulness. The question then, is whether or not we need to kill the orphan templates at all, since this sounds like a good compromise. Changing the templates so that they no longer help to clear Lonelypages should hopefully get rid of the nuisance factor since no one will have a motivation for spamming them everywhere (and if they do, we can probably just handle it under the spam precedent, honestly). Instead, we'll hopefully see them being used selectively and with people that will likely benefit from the information. So, perhaps killing them outright is an overreaction, and simply requiring (or even just asking?) that they not include internal links is enough. —Aichon— 23:09, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Super victory with stealexternallink! -- LEMON #1 00:07, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Dezonus' View, the only guy currently using it

Orphaned pages are something that we deal with. The principle is that every page should be linked to from somewhere. But just because a page is linked to from a talk page Doesn't mean that should stop it from being deleted.

I think stopping the Orphan Template is foolish, because not everybody links all their pages. I've seen that even certain Sysops don't. We will have a giant list of pages that aren't linked to on that list pretty fast, and then it will become useless. Already there are 14 pages sitting there in the orphanage...I'd really like to deal with them but I will hold off at least until we come to a resolution. -Dezonus- ^(talk) 08:33, 18 October 2010 (BST)

In the newest versions of Mediawiki, these are categorised in Specialpages under "Maintenance reports". That's because they are created for the purpose of maintaining the wiki. Doing what you condone isn't maintaining, it's just dealing with "keep the list empty for its own sake". Dealing with each link individually is the way this should be dealt with, some can be mentioned on the users page if you think it's something they're likely to come back to and need to find, otherwise, some should stay there as indicators that they may one day be deleted if left a long time. Orphaning in the state you, Yon and Mis do doesn't actually solve anything in the interest of the public in most cases, it just hides the pages otherwise unfindeable to those who don't maintain Special:Uncategorizedimages, Special:Uncategorizedpages and other harder to filter pages like Special:Shortpages, and the percentage of users who don't check that is in the >99.5%. -- LEMON #1 09:13, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I pretty much disagree with all of that, but let me highlight this quote: The principle is that every page should be linked to from somewhere. No. The correct principle is that every page should be linked to from places that make sense. The correct way to maintain Special:Lonelypages is not by spamming links on talk pages, but rather by creating quality links in relevant articles. If a page doesn't have a place that it can be linked from that makes sense, then there's a good chance that the page probably shouldn't be on the wiki in the first place (i.e. put it up for deletions if it deserves it). And if it does have a place where a link to it would make sense, the link should go there, not on a talk page. This is common sense.

You seem to have it backwards, and this fascination with trying to empty Special:Lonelypages is unhealthy for the wiki, since it renders it useless for its intended purpose: finding pages that are not meaningfully linked. I'd rather have 500 entries in Special:Lonelypages than 0, since we could actually use it then to find valuable pages that need real links from actual pages or else dig up crap articles that are months old and haven't received any real links yet.

And so what if people don't always link their pages? Sometimes there's a good reason they chose not to link them. I can think of an example earlier this year where I had a good reason and got hit with a series of orphan templates for a project I was working on. To say the least, those links helped me in no way whatsoever (and actually harmed the project, since we were trying to keep it under wraps at the time), and the pages were linked meaningfully at the proper time anyway, no thanks to the orphan messages. —Aichon— 10:44, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I will support any vote which gets rid of the orphan and yorphan templates. I agree with the arguments made here by Aichon and DDR. Furthermore, if Special:Lonelypages becomes a useful tool once more, and if it is filled up with lots of entries that need to be resolved, as a hardcore unmerger I'd be happy to help out with this.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:52, 18 October 2010 (BST)

clause?

I would like to think that telling people about orphaned pages isn't that bad if used correctly. For example, today I moved a page that had one sentence and one edit into the correct namespace and notified the user at User_talk:Radio. The page was initially orphaned, and for all intents and purposes I was doing the exact same thing as what this policy intends to outlaw, but I consider it a necessary part of telling the user where their new page is located, else they may have even more trouble finding it.

Is this just as bad as what we're talking about (not rhetorical)? Should this be outlawed too because it has the same problems? Personally, I'd like to think not, as it may be a crucial part of the user finding the page again to re-edit it (especially if it's a gradual thing like something in the journal namespace like this was). Since this is a niche problem, perhaps make an exception to the rule for page move notifications, or other such concepts as that. -- LEMON #1 09:24, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I don't think it's necessary to add a clause, since the intent is quite clearly different. While both may contain a link to an otherwise unlinked page, in the case of an orphan template, simply posting the link and informing the user of the link (which they ideally and typically would already be aware of) is the point. In the case of a sysop notification, the purpose is to inform the user of a sysop-level action having taken place that they would otherwise not be expecting or aware of. Perhaps more importantly however, that a sysop notification contains a link is incidental and purely for the user's information. That an orphan template contains a link is the whole point of the template. —Aichon— 09:58, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Orphaned Group Pages.

So. We remove the orphaned link on these. Then what? just Leave them as Unlinked? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:52, 18 October 2010 (BST)

We could just link them from the suburb group listing for the relevant suburb. And if there isn't a suburb that makes sense, then I'd suggest just telling them the issue on their talk page, without linking it. Let them handle it from there. —Aichon— 15:43, 18 October 2010 (BST)

But what about all the ones abandoned for years? I personally linked over 100 to their owners pages. They all have content, (otherwise they were sumbitted to deletions) Nowadays its not really an issue, as we specify on suburb pages as part of massacres, but the 2005-2007 groups are an issue. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:46, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Honestly, for those pages that deserve to be on the wiki but don't have a sensible place to link them, I'm okay with them being linked from their talk page. In that case, having them in Lonelypages serves no purpose, so an orphan template actually does make sense in this one, very narrow, instance (and that's what the orphan templates used to be used for, I believe, back before it became common practice to post on user pages), since it does help declutter Lonelypages of a page that we otherwise can't do anything with. —Aichon— 18:57, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Then I'm entirely in support of this proposal. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:31, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Well, to be fair, that's just what I think. This draft policy currently kills all orphan templates, which is something that may not be desirable after all, as per this line of discussion. See my other comment in response to Vapor above. —Aichon— 23:09, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Hold on a sec. You've be linking orphaned group pages to their own talk pages, and not their creators talk pages? Thats weird. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:35, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Mis was doing that back in his +1 phase, and I did it maybe once when the user couldn't be found, or somesuch scenario.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:53, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Its normally easiest to find who uplaoded the group image if its pre purge. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:55, 18 October 2010 (BST)

The case I'm thinking of didn't have one, iirc.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:58, 18 October 2010 (BST)

In my defense, it saves on red links when shitty pages get deleted. 16:16, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Orphaned recruit ads

Is there already a method for dealing with recruit ads that are no longer linked due to being removed from Category:Recruiment? If not, how will those be dealt with? The same as described above with Group Pages? --~ 00:36, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Ooh, just saw that recruit ads will automatically be orphaned because inclusions don't count. Maybe a change to Category:Recruiment process so that the ads are linked? There's gonna be a ton of recruit ads in the orphanage otherwise. Even the active ones. --~ 19:49, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Revision One

Based on the input, I'm considering the following revisions:

1. Orphan notices are now officially discouraging (as opposed to banned). Users who repeatedly post such notices without clear justification may be reported to A/VB.

   Justification would be defined as orphan-noticing a page that is otherwise difficult to link, but does not meet the criteria for deletion.

2. Any usage of an orphan notice must be done with external links, such as by <span class="Stealthexternallink"></span>. If we can get a few volunteers to help clean things up, then this will also apply to the current uses of the template.

I believe this should clear up the concern over the occasional valid use of orphan templates. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red Hawk One (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I like it. Relatively simple, deals with the actual problem without overreacting (as it seems we initially did), and workable in the long-term. Sounds good. —Aichon— 04:18, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I can help clean up. What's the best way to identify pages where it has been used? Also, I made a shorthand template, {{Sel}}, that we can use to kill/convert the links. --~ 06:35, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'd reckon you could just scan the special:whatlinkshere pages for the two orphan templates. 'Course, there's some overlap on them, so it could be a bit messy. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 07:06, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'm using this search string for now. Just wasn't sure if there was a better way. I'm staying away from User Talk pages though. I don't wanna start a spamfest. --~ 07:13, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Have ads link to themselves. 19:52, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Ok I'm just going to keep going an let others figure out what to do about the ads. There are also a ton of NavBars that will show up as they seem to typically be used only as inclusions and not actually linked anywhere. --~ 19:55, 19 October 2010 (BST)

To be fair, both of these probably fit under the exemption clause to point one. 19:57, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I really hate stuff linking to its own talk page. Its just an orphan loop. Recruitment pages should always be linked to the groups talk page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:05, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I actually meant the ad page itself linking to itself. That way the recruitment page would contain both all the inclusions and the links. 20:12, 19 October 2010 (BST)

So we make a change to recruit ad format policy? It doesn't currently state the ads have to be linked. And then what about grandfathering? And what about NavBars? Just leave em' unlinked and untouched due to exemption cluase? --~ 20:33, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not sure, but I don't think that would change things at all. (The pages would still be unlinked).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'm guessing one of us (Yonn?) might just make an ark for links to pages like this. —Aichon— 21:49, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Having previously been majorly against arks, I'm for them since my experience on HRwiki, assuming that it's in a presentable form and isn't just an arbitrary page in somebody's userspace. I'd definitely sort one out though.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:52, 19 October 2010 (BST)

? 21:53, 19 October 2010 (BST)

No. Don't worry about it, it's not really relevant to the conversation.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:57, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Ooh can we call it the Advark? --~ 05:51, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Why is this starting

When we are still discussing it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:03, 20 October 2010 (BST)

what are you talking about.... -- LEMON #1 11:52, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Vapors contribs. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:55, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I thought you meant the voting :( -- LEMON #1 12:10, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Good idea is good? But yeah, jumping the gun a bit. —Aichon— 15:42, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Sorry, I will hold off for now. Just got overzealous. Damage is done I'm afraid, though. I've changed about 200 links to external. If we vote it down I'll revert my edits. --~ 18:24, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Bad Vapor! Especially as so many of these pages are from exactly the kind of group I discussed as an exception (Pre 2009). What do you suggest we do with these pages, other than leave them on the orphans list? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:29, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I like the idea of the ark as discussed above. --~ 18:35, 20 October 2010 (BST)

You want an ark?

You know I listed all the orphaned groups before orphaning them back to their creators yeah? Want the edit history? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 20 October 2010 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Rosslessness/Random_Rambling/Sandbox38&diff=prev&oldid=1626965 Although this is retarded, as the groups won't be deleted. So why remove the orphan template in the first place. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:54, 20 October 2010 (BST)

We shouldn't, probably. Most of the planning here is looking forward with how we'll deal with any future problems, including old groups that become unlinked in the future. Looking backwards, however, for those that already have the orphan template and should have the orphan template, it makes more sense to just leave them there, as you say. —Aichon— 20:07, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Excellent. In fairness there should never be a new group in the category. Those removed by Massacres are noted on suburb pages, and those abandoned before being linked are normally deleted. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:09, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I don't believe any of the pages I've unlinked were group pages. Most were NavBars, recruit ads or actual unused sub-pages. --~ 20:47, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Indeed, unused group sub pages. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:20, 20 October 2010 (BST)

That's a bit different than Orphaned group pages, is it not? Or are they to be treated as group pages and ignored? --~ 22:03, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Personally those of a certain age (like the groups) should be classified in the same way. Not sure about navbars and the like. Inclusions not counting is a real annoyance. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:40, 20 October 2010 (BST)

i never link shit. mostly cause I have no idea how.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 22:51, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Piecing this all together

Ok so there's a lot of discussion here with a lot of different views on how things should be handled. This is my attempt to make sense of it all.

Looking forward

• The new policy would discourage the use of the Orphan Template
  • Cases in which it should be used is when there a pages is otherwise difficult to link but does not meet criteria for deletion
  • All links accompanying the template should be external so as not to remove them from the orphanage. This encourages pages to be linked properly (i.e. by the page author) without negating the usefulness of special:lonelypages
• Orphaned group pages will be ignored or linked to a reasonable suburb page
• Recruit ads and NavBars will need to be added to an ark to work around the inclusion problem

Looking Backward

• Instances of the orphan template will be edited to convert their corresponding links to external
  • User Talk pages will not be edited to avoid spamming users. These will be reviewed
  • Unused group sub-pages that are linked on group talk pages via the orphan template will be left unedited (although reviewed for deletion)
  • Instances of the orphan template used to clear recruit ads and NavBars will edited. These pages will also be linked via an ark.

Does this about sum everything up? --~ 20:55, 21 October 2010 (BST)

In terms of the ark, does anybody know if we can make a sub-page of a special page? I ask because I see the best place for the recuit ads etc as Special:lonelypages/Ark or somesuch.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:01, 21 October 2010 (BST)

Apparently not. 21:12, 21 October 2010 (BST)

You can't create a subpage of the maintenance page. That said, we could try to make an ark page in the UDWiki: namespace.~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:59, 21 October 2010 (BST)

That's the safe second, I reckon. If/when this policy passes, I'll whip it up.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:49, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I still don't understand the problem with the current system. You're just collecting all the links from various pages, onto one page. Why? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:44, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Excellent point.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:51, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I suppose this is where things get complicated. So far as I can tell, the plan for the ark would be to archive adverts and navbars, but nothing else. The other pages that tend to get orphan-noticed, such as failed groups and extraneous subpages, would remain in special:lonelypages until someone comes through and put meaningful links up or deletes them. This restricts the "orphans" to two pages- both of which are readily display the orhaned pages- as opposed to the current system, where one would have to go to the "what links here" for yorhan and orphan, click a talk pages, find the orphan notice, click on the orphan, and check if it is still even orphaned. It cuts down on a lot of work while trying to clear up stubs and whatnot. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:07, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but when I went through all the groups, I did put up all those pages with no content for deletion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:15, 22 October 2010 (BST)

True, but bear in mind that not everyone has been as thurogh as you. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 20:26, 22 October 2010 (BST)

There are still quite a few orphan templated pages that meet deletion criteria. It was bound to happen as I believe at one point before the template began being used there were 1500 orphans. You're good Ross but not super-human. Honestly I think this policy is mostly aimed at misuse of the template (i.e. spamming talk pages and allowing very little time for users to link properly on their own). It got out of hand and negated lonelypages as a useful tool. So yeah, there should be a policy in place I think. The proposed policy seems solid in my eyes. --~ 20:39, 22 October 2010 (BST)

And what is the proposed policy? We need a chance to mull over whatever wording is selected. I'm still unclear on what all is opinion or agreement and what is actually going to be a part of this eventual policy. —Aichon— 21:02, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Seriously, still no idea.

I STILL have no idea about the benefits of unlinking pages from the orphan pages for the following reasons.

Inclusions don't count as links, removing the template adds them to orphan list even though they ARE used.

We don't delete groups any more other than the obviously blank pages. Removing the orphan links from user pages leaves them floating around and the only other suggestion given is "Give them an ark" They already are arked, on their users pages.

Recruitment adverts get removed on a regular basis, the posting of these on group pages is a sure fire way to remind the groups to replace them.

Also, can someone explain to me, WHY we would replace them with external links? I see no credible reason as it removes the only reason the template exists in the first place.

How is this process anything other than ridiculously time consuming? Which was what the original policy supposed to promote?

Before the creation of the template several 1000 pages were orphaned. Now they aren't. Make any process only forward looking if, (and its a huge if) anyone can explain its benefits. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:47, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Also, no one in their right mind would deny a SD request on a blank page only linked via the orphan template. We all realise that. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:49, 22 October 2010 (BST)

That, I think is precisely one of the reasons this policy is being put to vote. Why would someone use the orphan template to link a blank page? That just makes it hard to find and put up for SD.

As for your other concerns, I do agree that we should not unlink past Orphan templates with. The exception is to NavBars and recruit ads, simply because an ark for these pages makes more sense than using an orphan template to link them. I jumped the gun unlinked a bunch of pages. I undid a lot of your work. It was wrong of me especially since this policy was still in discussion. I will undo the damage.

The reason for external links is that it still provides a notice to those pages where it can be reasonably assumed that the author neglected to meaningfully link their page. It's meant to be a compromise between not using the orphan template at all and informing users of an unlinked page. It still leaves the page in a place where it can be easily found should administrative action arise. I think Aichon summed it up best earlier in the discussion

Aichon said:

The correct principle is that every page should be linked to from places that make sense. The correct way to maintain Special:Lonelypages is not by spamming links on talk pages, but rather by creating quality links in relevant articles. If a page doesn't have a place that it can be linked from that makes sense, then there's a good chance that the page probably shouldn't be on the wiki in the first place (i.e. put it up for deletions if it deserves it). And if it does have a place where a link to it would make sense, the link should go there, not on a talk page. This is common sense.

So yes it's a forward looking policy with what I believe to have credible benefits. --~ 22:12, 22 October 2010 (BST)

I meant forward looking in a terms of time frame. No retrospective change. Why would creating a new page for recruitment make more sense than linking recruitment ads to the group they advertise? Go write some wording up and we'll look at the new version of the policy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:20, 22 October 2010 (BST)

It makes sense going forward since it removes a circumstance in which the Orphan template needs to be placed on a group talk page. It makes sense retroactive because we should keep them all in one place. To me it doesn't serve any purpose to link those ads on a group's talk page other than to clear it from lonelypages. In fact it has created confusion in many cases. The person linking the ad often needs to explain why they are doing it. An ark serves the purpose of clearing the ad page from lonelypages while eliminating confusion.

My two suggestion for the wording of the policy:

1. Orphan notices are now officially discouraged. Users who repeatedly post such notices without clear justification may be reported to A/VB.

   Justification is defined as orphan-noticing a page that is otherwise difficult to link, but does not meet the criteria for deletion.

2. Any page links accompanying an orphan notice must be done with external links, such as by use of the {{sel}} template.

I don't know that it needs to be any more complicated than that. Any retroactive changes really shouldn't effect the policy being put forward so most of the discussion here is not even needed. That's the way I would go with it. Since Red Hawk is the author, it's his choice I would guess. --~ 23:54, 22 October 2010 (BST)

On second though I think it needs a full write up. I'm proposing the below. --~ 05:23, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Revision Two (proposed)

Background

Among the wiki's special janitorial pages is Special:Lonelypages, a utility page that displays all unlinked pages. This page has a myriad op uses to the janitorial editor, including, but not limited to:

1. Identifying pages that may need expansion or additional links.
2. Identifying old A/SD criterion 1's that may need deletion.
3. Identifying unused redirects (so far as I know, this is the ONLY utility page that will list them).
4. Identifying unused templates.

For the past year or so, several users have seen fit to empty the page by linking these "orphaned" pages to their creator's talk, usually via Template:Orphan and Template:Yorphan. Its been argued that these templates help convince the authors to link the pages, and that one could simply look at the template's "special:whatlinkshere" page to achieve the same results as Special:Lonelypages. Both of these claims are, to an extent, false.

As to the first "reminder" claim, one can see that a few brief checks of potential SD criteria 1 and 3 candidates turned up several old, unused redirects and C.1's that were only linked by the orphan claims:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

As to the second claim, the "whatlinkshere" approach simply does not work. "whatlinkshere" does not discriminate between the pages that are still orphaned and the ones that have links. Discovering orphaned pages via this method involves clicking on the linked talk pages, scrolling down to the "orphan notice", clicking on the potential orphan, and then checking whatlinkshere to see if the page is even an orphan in the first place. This is ridiculously time consuming compared to the alternative of just typing special:lonelypages and seeing what pops up.

Proposal

1. The usage of orphan notices is now officially discouraged. Users who repeatedly post such notices without clear justification may be reported to A/VB.

   Justification is defined as orphan-noticing a page that is otherwise difficult to link, but does not meet the criteria for deletion.

2. Any usage of an orphan notice must be done with external links, such as by {{sel}}

The orphan and yorphan templates will now be selectively used as informative tools rather than house-keeping tools. When justified, the template may be used to help notify a wiki author that a page they have created is unused on the wiki. The Orphan template will be modified to align with the policy and all accompanying links will be external.

	Orphaned Page
	The following page(s) were orphaned, meaning they weren't linked from any other page on UDWiki.
	Please take a moment to review the page(s) and find an appropriate place on the wiki to link them. The link(s) above do not remove the page from the orphanage.

Furthermore, pages such as recruit ads and NavBars which are typically used as inclusion only pages will be linked at on an ark. This alleviates the need to "orphan template" group pages as a work-around when inclusion only pages are created.

---

I think this more than sums up my view of the subject and hopefully captured the ideas of everyone that has taken part in discussion. --~ 05:23, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Why.

Why retain the template, but use an external link?

Explaining to a group or user why an advert or navbar is placed on their talk page IS a good thing. It helps them understand how the wiki works.

The sole reason to stop using the template is that some people (you know who you both are) are using it on everything to keep orphaned pages empty. This doesn't need a policy. It needs common sense. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:39, 23 October 2010 (BST)

Let's iron out the common sense then to make sure we're all on the same page. Increasingly, I'm thinking a policy may not be necessary either, so long as we all have an understanding of the situation and what is actually best for the wiki. As for retaining the template, as you say, it does have use, but using an internal link gives it an additional "use" that we don't want it to have, since it makes other work harder. —Aichon— 23:09, 23 October 2010 (BST)

So is this discussion off the radar now? Shall I go ahead and revert edits to empty the orphanage again? I'd suggest going through these orphans before I do it. There could be some pages that meet criteria for deletion and this could be a chance to find them easily. ~ 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave them for now. It does look like this discussion fell off the radar, but I also think that everyone made their points. Those in favor of the templates pointed out useful scenarios where the templates do a lot of good, and those against them pointed out a lot of things that are wrong about the way that they've been handled in recent memory. Maybe we can just adopt an informal guideline of simply pointing out bad use of the template to those that are posting it, and encouraging them to only use it in situations that make sense, rather than for every situation? It seems like that would encapsulate all of the issues we've brought up so far, without having to enumerate them all in policy. —Aichon— 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Two column table, these are good examples, these are bad. We can refer people to that. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)