Article in the Signpost: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans]]. But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
Charles
In the most literal sense, an article with one parent is not an orphan. Just remember that a statistician was looking at graphs when she said two or less. True orphans hav no incoming links. Outgoing links are more desirable when the topic is jeneral, like Arts or Enjineering.
"Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote in message news:498C01BA.9040409@ntlworld.com...
Article in the Signpost: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans]]. But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You know, there's a letter called G...
-- Alvaro
On 06-02-2009, at 12:17, "Jay Litwyn" brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
In the most literal sense, an article with one parent is not an orphan. Just remember that a statistician was looking at graphs when she said two or less. True orphans hav no incoming links. Outgoing links are more desirable when the topic is jeneral, like Arts or Enjineering.
"Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote in message news:498C01BA.9040409@ntlworld.com...
Article in the Signpost: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans]]. But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I call it "guu" in honour of the mess that is English spelling. (actually, that is happenstance with a pattern I followed and repeated backward and forwards in a song). Jee is a dumb name for a letter. Jermans call it "gay", and that is not politically correct in English :-; Someone called me a spelling reformer on a limited budget, and it fits. _______ "That was the stun setting! This is not." Lt. Cmdr. Data The alphabet you know is in random order. This is not: http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/font/Saffron_LR.wmv
"Alvaro García" alvareo@gmail.com wrote in message news:DD4E53D7-3D98-4300-8855-5CCA71E2CEAF@gmail.com...
You know, there's a letter called G...
-- Alvaro
On 06-02-2009, at 12:17, "Jay Litwyn" brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
In the most literal sense, an article with one parent is not an orphan. Just remember that a statistician was looking at graphs when she said two or less. True orphans hav no incoming links. Outgoing links are more desirable when the topic is jeneral, like Arts or Enjineering.
"Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote in message news:498C01BA.9040409@ntlworld.com...
Article in the Signpost: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans]]. But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
I think the word is used subjectively for any article deemed to need more incoming links because the article's presence is for whatever reason under-represented among the remainder of article-space.
Perhaps a different word should be adopted such as (I don't know) "lonely". But alas one term redirects to the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages
—C.W.
I'm curious, is that your name?
-- Alvaro
On 07-02-2009, at 10:08, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
I think the word is used subjectively for any article deemed to need more incoming links because the article's presence is for whatever reason under-represented among the remainder of article-space.
Perhaps a different word should be adopted such as (I don't know) "lonely". But alas one term redirects to the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Lonelypages
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charlotte Webb wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
But in my view calling an article with two respectable incoming links an "orphan" is quite misleading.
I think the word is used subjectively for any article deemed to need more incoming links because the article's presence is for whatever reason under-represented among the remainder of article-space.
Perhaps a different word should be adopted such as (I don't know) "lonely". But alas one term redirects to the other.
This came up because WikiProject Orphanage has (a) adopted "fewer than three" good incoming links as the standard for orphans, and (b) apparently thinks no one should take down {{orphan}} now unless there are those three links. The Signpost story says half a million articles qualify as "orphan" in this new sense. Therefore, while I'm someone concerned about hypertext issues in general and orphans in particular, I reckon some serious mission creep has been going on. I have found articles that have the couple of good links you'd expect, and yet they are going to be adding to the "backlog" for the foreseeable future. I certainly think there should be one than one template addressing this issue, and preferably a "one or two links" template that only adds a category.
Charles
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I certainly think there should be one than one template addressing this issue, and preferably a "one or two links" template that only adds a category.
Don't need multiple templates necessarily. Just something like: {{#ifexpr:{{{links|0}}} > 0 | {{ambox|...| visible banner part |...}} [[Category:Orphaned articles]] | [[Category:Articles which aren't really orphaned but need more incoming links]] }}
Of course you'd have to run a bot to count whatlinkshere (&namespace=0) and change the code from {{orphan|date=July 2002}} to {{orphan|date=July 2002|links=3}} based on the number of the counting.
Some kind of magic word for {{NUMBEROFINBOUNDLINKS|0}} (last bit being the namespace) would make this immeasurably easier.
But even though you'll find disagreement about how many links are "enough" for a certain article. Five is right out. After a couple hundred you'll find people fighting the other way with their auto-delinking scripts/bots.
—C.W.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
But even though you'll find disagreement about how many links are "enough" for a certain article. Five is right out. After a couple hundred you'll find people fighting the other way with their auto-delinking scripts/bots.
—C.W.
What I took from distribution of links (with a whole lot of highly-linked articles) is that the shape of that curve seems to fit with other patterns that happen, e.g., in scientific literature, and that this is in some sense natural. In writing that article, I tried to emphasize the different numbers for certain classes of under-linked articles without dwelling on any particular definition of "orphan". WikiProject Orphanage's definition seems useful for drawing attention to the fact that proper linkage is more complex than just "does anything link here, yes or no?".
But it seems like there may naturally be a significant number of articles that ought to have only one incoming link, just based on the nature of topics and their relationships to each other and on the notion of "preferential attachment", which seems to describe the natural structure of knowledge.
-Sage
2009/2/7 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
But it seems like there may naturally be a significant number of articles that ought to have only one incoming link, just based on the nature of topics and their relationships to each other and on the notion of "preferential attachment", which seems to describe the natural structure of knowledge.
The obvious examples would, I suppose, be daughter articles - "History of widgets" or "Widgets in popular culture" is probably only ever going to get a direct link from "Widgets"...
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/2/7 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com:
But it seems like there may naturally be a significant number of articles that ought to have only one incoming link, just based on the nature of topics and their relationships to each other and on the notion of "preferential attachment", which seems to describe the natural structure of knowledge.
The obvious examples would, I suppose, be daughter articles - "History of widgets" or "Widgets in popular culture" is probably only ever going to get a direct link from "Widgets"...
It is certainly somewhat discouraging for someone correctly applying summary style, one of our main pillars in the Manual, to be told they are "creating an orphan".
So I think this usage should not be adopted: let's not send out these mixed signals.
Charles