Template:Orphan is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orphan template.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Orphanage — You can help!.OrphanageWikipedia:WikiProject OrphanageTemplate:WikiProject OrphanageOrphanage
This template is stupid
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]
This seems like a concern about tagging templates in general. For me, as someone who has de-orphaned quite a bit of articles, I don't mind the template one bit, as it disappears from visibility rather quickly anyway and for each WikiProject, the CleanupWorklistBot keeps a list of orphans to correct because of this tag. Placing the tag isn't always "lazy" as sometimes it's placed when going through long lists of semi-automated cleanups where the editor may think it unproductive to break out of their cleanup work and de-orphan. Also, some cases are not straightforward to fix. In many cases, you won't find the exact text of the title to link, but an oblique reference to it, like here. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk20:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 14 May 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
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]
The purpose of {{orphan}} is to make sure that all info is interlinked in wikipedia. But it does not serve this spirit if the template is removed when the atricle Iwan Qeer is merely listed in pages Iwan (disambiguation) and Queer (surname). Formally the page is "de-orphaned", but de facto it remains isolated from the rest of wikipedia. Therefore I am suggesting the template {{marooned}}, {{disconnected}}, {{weakly connected}}, {{near-orphan}}, or whatever good title, to mark pages that are not linked from "real" articles, which are not lists, dab/name/surname pages. Opinions? --Or do I need to suggest this in some other venue? Altenmann>talk04:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. It does still exist, but it hasn't worked well since the advent of Visual Editor. If and when Betts upgrades his code, then it can be added back. It's been many years, so I doubt that Betts has it on his list of priorities. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the talk page, this tool has been shaky for seemingly at least a year, and the latest three reports haven't been answered by the developer, so I can't see the point of piling on. I speculate that linking from the Orphan tag dragged down the tool webpage's performance, as it is now loading, still a bit slowly, but within reason. The developer's web server is not able to handle much of a load. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1!Gab • Gruntwerk18:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
