→tagging redirects as orphans: answer |
→tagging redirects as orphans: <sigh> |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::::You are factually incorrect. I tagged three redirects as orphans, in good faith, ''once''. Since the above confirmation of policy, I haven't touched them since. I haven't touched any other redirects since. Yes, I've involved other editors, to deal with the insulting and gratuitous personal attacks you've made on me elsewhere, which are off topic here. --[[User:Lockley|Lockley]] ([[User talk:Lockley|talk]]) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
::::You are factually incorrect. I tagged three redirects as orphans, in good faith, ''once''. Since the above confirmation of policy, I haven't touched them since. I haven't touched any other redirects since. Yes, I've involved other editors, to deal with the insulting and gratuitous personal attacks you've made on me elsewhere, which are off topic here. --[[User:Lockley|Lockley]] ([[User talk:Lockley|talk]]) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::No, other editors were drawn in their efforts to explain to you that which you should have understood much earlier. I'm linking here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALockley&diff=534326181&oldid=534205224] what you call my insulting and gratuitous personal attack -- I have no doubt others will have no trouble discerning the truth of the situation. It's worth noting the block warning to you there from an admin. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:21, 22 January 2013
Wikipedia Help Project‑class | |||||||
|
1.1 Prior to 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
Links from hatnotes
A page may well have a link from another article ... but only from a hatnote saying "This article is about x, for y see z". If there were more articles with similar names there would be a dab page, and links from dab pages are ignored in the definition of an orphan. I suggest that the list of "links to ignore" should include "Links from navigational hatnotes", as these are not links indicating a real connection to the article. PamD 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It is confusing that WP:Orphan directs to Wikipedia:Orphan, while WP:ORPHAN directs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage . Why can't they both direct to the same page? --Jameboy (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the definition of an orphan needs to be linked to, the only remaining redirect the wikiproject could have was ORPHAN. Other wikiprojects have it easy e.g. Wikipedia:Uncat goes to the uncat wikiproject as the issue is Wikipedia:Categorisation·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
tagging redirects as orphans
Another editor introduced a policy that "Neither soft nor hard redirects should normally be tagged as orphans."
Before making this into policy, I'd like to get a consensus about whether this even makes sense. I believe it's moot, because an orphan redirect page should be... deleted, shouldn't it? What's the point of a redirect that nothing leads to? --Lockley (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, but you have seriously pissed me off) Oh, honestly, will you do your homework? WP:REDIRECT#Purposes of redirects makes it clear that redirects are intended to be created (among other motivations) in anticipation of reasonable variations in ways editors might link to the primary article, whether or not anyone is using that link now, or ever does. You seem intent on justifying your increasing silliness here. Can't you just say, "Yeah, I made a mistake"? EEng (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all: an orphan redirect may be a likely alternative spelling or naming, which will allow a future editor to link to the article and another future editor to avoid re-creating the article. There's no reason at all to delete orphan redirects. So no point in tagging redirects as orphans. PamD 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are factually incorrect. I tagged three redirects as orphans, in good faith, once. Since the above confirmation of policy, I haven't touched them since. I haven't touched any other redirects since. Yes, I've involved other editors, to deal with the insulting and gratuitous personal attacks you've made on me elsewhere, which are off topic here. --Lockley (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, other editors were drawn in their efforts to explain to you that which you should have understood much earlier. I'm linking here [1] what you call my insulting and gratuitous personal attack -- I have no doubt others will have no trouble discerning the truth of the situation. It's worth noting the block warning to you there from an admin. EEng (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)