Charlotte Webb wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> 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 > > 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
