This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Orphanage This template is within the scope of WikiProject Orphanage — You can help!.OrphanageWikipedia:WikiProject OrphanageTemplate:WikiProject OrphanageOrphanage

Hi, In my wonderings at Commons, I found this icon.

Can this one be used instead of the "puzzle W" out there now? I think it's more visually descriptive of the de-orphan process. Discussion please. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ω Awaiting - JoeNMLC (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the puzzle is pretty descriptive and is less ambiguous than the icon you've found. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is not watched by a lot of editors. If you want to pursue this, I'd suggest posting something at Wikipedia talk:Orphan or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about this icon?

A loose necktie (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A loose necktie: That icon might fit in better with Wikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement. GoingBatty (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it] with [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere|target={{PAGENAMEE}}&namespace=0}} link to it]. The official capitalization of that special page is Special:WhatLinksHere. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Need to edit this template, because this template can't add any categories. So I suggest to following code for add to template:
<includeonly>[[Category:Orphan articles]]</includeonly>
Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laziz Baxtiyorov:  Not done: As things stand, the article is always placed into Category:All orphaned articles plus one other category. The name of that second category depends upon two parameters: if |att= is set (to a month and year), e.g. |att=May 2023, the article is categorised into Category:Attempted de-orphan from May 2023 (or similar); otherwise if |date= is set (to a month and year), e.g. |date=May 2023, the article is categorised into Category:Orphaned articles from May 2023 (or similar); if neither of these is set, the article is categorised into Category:Orphaned articles and a bot will add a valid |date= within a few hours. So there's nothing to do here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when tagged it doesn’t show up. I am very concerned. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGreatestLuvofAll: You don't give any examples, those are essential if we are to check this out. But please also read Template:Orphan#Visibility, that might answer your question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 @TheGreatestLuvofAll I've noticed this issue myself lately. Ex. I don't see it in Izaak of Spain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Template:Orphan#Visibility says The template message is visible on all pages where the date parameter is set to either the current month or the previous month (currently December 2024 or November 2024). ... Older-dated orphan templates used outside of the {{multiple issues}} template are invisible by default. The {{orphan}} tag at Izaak of Spain has |date=April 2024. So it's  Not a bug. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 Not a bug but seems like bad design. I don't think this is how it worked in the past - and what's the rationale for making it invisible in those cases? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is how it worked in the past It's worked this way for more than ten years, ever since this edit. As for the rationale - it's a compromise between those who wanted it permanently visible (as it had been before 2014) and those who wanted it hidden entirely. There is plenty in the archives of this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t really use an example and now you found this comment, I’m going back to minding my business TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When using the official dark mode, the "link to it" and "related articles" links appear black and are therefore near-invisible on a dark background. Could someone familiar with templates take a look? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]