Forum for Page Delete Requests

"orphans" and "delete requests" should be separate? [#975]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

xela: "orphans" and "delete requests" should be separate? (2007-05-10 11:27) [#3353]

I've just removed the references to ON-reading and KUN-reading, because they are not orphans. However, on a second look, I notice that Page Delete Requests is an alias for Wiki Orphans, so maybe they should be listed anyway. I find this confusing, and wonder if requests for deletion should be on a separate page from orphans.

Bill: Re: "orphans" and "delete requests" should be separate? (2007-05-10 16:12) [#3354]

I agree that the two should be separated. Pages identified as orphans should really be orphans.

If there is a link to a page, presumably the linker thought the page should exist. If someone else thinks the page should not exist, the question can be discussed. OTOH, orphans can arise simply through editing, with no judgement about whether the page should exist or not. They can also arise when created by newbies who do not provide a link, or if they are works under construction. Those are different matters. To save an orphan, simply providing a link should suffice.

Unkx80: Re: "orphans" and "delete requests" should be separate? (2007-05-10 17:12) [#3355]

Not a bad idea at all.

xela: Re: "orphans" and "delete requests" should be separate? -- done! (2008-05-24 09:48) [#4712]

OK, it took a while to get around to it, but this is now done :-)

tapir: ((no subject)) (2009-03-19 21:02) [#5867]

they are separate now, but the orphan tag still threatens deletions. as if page delete requests doesn't exist.

xela: Orphans _should_ be deleted or fixed? (2009-03-20 00:44) [#5870]

I think that's reasonable behaviour. An orphan should automatically be flagged as a candidate for deletion, because we don't want lots of orphaned pages on a wiki. If someone doesn't agree that it should be deleted, they can make a link to it.

Then page delete requests is reserved for pages that aren't orphaned but should nevertheless be deleted for some other reason.

tapir: Why should orphans be deleted or fixed? (2009-03-20 11:23) [#5871]

I know usually it is a request for backlinking the article, but I don't see the point in deleting e.g. orphaned user homepages.

Bill: Re: Why should orphans be deleted or fixed? (2009-03-20 18:54) [#5872]

Particularly as there is a page for homepages. :) Just add orphaned homepages to it.

reply Me being a smart ass... (2009-03-22 00:01) [#5873]

I think we need to notify that the WikiOrphans/OrphansToKeep? entry should be included on itself, due to the fact that it gets tagged because it's on Wiki Orphans. (Don't move it! A subpage makes sense) My statement here is pedantic and silly... but that's why I gave this post the title I did. But I am also unsure if my humour would end up confusing genuine people viewing the subpage if I edited it myself. -C0nfuseki

xela: Re: Me being a smart ass... (2009-03-22 01:21) [#5874]

No, it's a good point. Actually, does "Orphans to keep" need to be a subpage? If it's a subsection of the main page, then the issue is neatly avoided.

Phelan: Re: Me being a smart ass... (2009-03-22 04:04) [#5875]

It could also be linked as before, with the phpwiki syntax. That avoids it getting tagged as an orphan.

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

Forum for Page Delete Requests
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library