Template talk:Orphan

This template is stupid

It is the very definition of lazy. Instead of fixing the problem themselves, people put an ugly cleanup template on the article asking for someone else to fix it. Is there any objection to adding a line to the template documentation that strongly suggests that people fix the problem themselves instead of using this template? This template could potentially still be useful if the topic is confusing or highly technical, and the tagger does not understand it. If the article is about a video game, there really doesn't seem to be any excuse for not adding the title to one of the lists in lists of video games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: - thanks for the feedback. As a long-time "de-orphaner" I do agree about fixing vs. Orphan tag. Today I'm starting to update some of the backlog categories with a "Filter category by topic" so editors can work on their favorite articles. See Category:Orphaned articles from March 2023 for example. Recently I researched, wrote & posted the "Petscan tool" page as another way to filter articles not just by month.

There is a bot that automtically adds the Orphan tag (a lot), and it also removes the tag (imperfect). I'm finding about 10-30 percent of years-old orphan articles have valid wikilink(s) & can be un-tagged. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a concern about tagging templates in general. For me, as someone who has de-orphaned quite a bit of articles, I don't mind the template one bit, as it disappears from visibility rather quickly anyway and for each WikiProject, the CleanupWorklistBot keeps a list of orphans to correct because of this tag. Placing the tag isn't always "lazy" as sometimes it's placed when going through long lists of semi-automated cleanups where the editor may think it unproductive to break out of their cleanup work and de-orphan. Also, some cases are not straightforward to fix. In many cases, you won't find the exact text of the title to link, but an oblique reference to it, like here. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Near-orphan

The purpose of {{orphan}} is to make sure that all info is interlinked in wikipedia. But it does not serve this spirit if the template is removed when the atricle Iwan Qeer is merely listed in pages Iwan (disambiguation) and Queer (surname). Formally the page is "de-orphaned", but de facto it remains isolated from the rest of wikipedia. Therefore I am suggesting the template {{marooned}}, {{disconnected}}, {{weakly connected}}, {{near-orphan}}, or whatever good title, to mark pages that are not linked from "real" articles, which are not lists, dab/name/surname pages. Opinions? --Or do I need to suggest this in some other venue? Altenmann >talk 04:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Altenmann: Per Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria, an article is indeed not formally de-orphaned if only linked from disambiguation pages. If the Orphan tag was removed in the case you describe, and it still fits the definition of an orphan, the tag should be restored. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 13 August 2025

Description of suggested change: Remove the link to the edwardbetts.com tool that apparently no longer exists.

Diff:

−

; try the [https://edwardbetts.com/find_link?q=Orphan Find link tool] for suggestions

+

(nothing; delete it out)

Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. It does still exist, but it hasn't worked well since the advent of Visual Editor. If and when Betts upgrades his code, then it can be added back. It's been many years, so I doubt that Betts has it on his list of priorities. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance on this. I haven't been able to even access the tool for a very long time. Hopefully, it will work again one day. Cheers! Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To editor StefenTower: happy to help! Can you access the tool here, here and here? Those are for the Brett Sutton, Calivigny and Thrift pages respectively. I got to them using the https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/random link. It looks as if the random link is at least one part of the tool that still works. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

All three of those links hang after I click them, and I have reasonably fast Internet access (100 Mbps down and up). Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 08:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I sometimes have to wait for them, too, but they eventually come up. And I also have a fast connection. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that VisualEditor is relevant to the tool's performance issues. I've never attempted to use the tool while running VisualEditor.

The home page for the tool is at Wikipedia:FINDLINK. Report problems at User talk:Edward/Find link#503 Service Unavailable or User talk:Edward#Find Link down?

Edward most recently made an edit (using his tool) on 27 June 2025. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Per the talk page, this tool has been shaky for seemingly at least a year, and the latest three reports haven't been answered by the developer, so I can't see the point of piling on. I speculate that linking from the Orphan tag dragged down the tool webpage's performance, as it is now loading, still a bit slowly, but within reason. The developer's web server is not able to handle much of a load. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I found the connection with VE on his website, and I think it was here on his Projects page, but it appears that he's taken that page down and replaced it. We should hear from Betts before we add his tool back in. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ai cartoons

It is the very definition of lazy. Instead of fixing the problem themselves, people put an ugly cleanup template on the article asking for someone else to fix it. Is there any objection to adding a line to the template documentation that strongly suggests that people fix the problem themselves instead of using this template? This template could potentially still be useful if the topic is confusing or highly technical, and the tagger does not understand it. If the article is about a video game, there really doesn't seem to be any excuse for not adding the title to one of the lists in lists of video games. Fatima Rajpoot (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Umm...

The template isn't rendering properly when noticed in editor it seems. I am NewestPiano (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@NewestPiano: What do you mean by when noticed in editor? Please give examples of pages where you see the problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

In some articles, the orphan template is broken and instead just a plain one with a yellow line in the left and with the template name like "use dmy dates" and "short description". It's probably fixed. I am NewestPiano (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2026

This is not an orphaned article anymore. There is a link to the medieval theatre article. Odettetellsastory (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done This is the wrong place for this request. I think you mean that Mansion stage isn't an orphan anymore. If you did, then you can edit the top section of the page and remove the orphan tag. That page is free for all to edit. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh that's great, thank you! Odettetellsastory (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)