Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages

Change
Any chance of making these wikilinks rather than hyperlinks, its really annoying trying to go through it and finding they all seem to be deleted-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well, the concern is redirects. Sometimes an orphaned talk page will be a redirect to a non-orphaned talk page, which could be confusing. Possible solutions: Talk_page (exists?) (delete) (with exists being a normal link) or keep the same format and just not use &redirect=no or some variant in between. Luckily, you should be able to do this by editing plnr (it appears to only be used in this report, so you shouldn't break anything). :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ plnr has been updated to see if the page exists. If it exists, it's a hyperlink with the noredirect option, if it doesn't, it a wikilink (red). &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List purged
All the items in the list were either redlinks or had an associated talk page. So I removed them. I believe Gogo Dodo had dealt with them all fairly quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Issues
1. The page exceeded the expensive parser function call limit. 2. If the corresponding page is recreated it is not shown.

Suggestion:

Use a different template; something like:


 * 1) PAGE NAME page talk no redirect link

So we'd get a list like (this is a dummy list btw)
 * 1) PAGE NAME1 page talk no redirect link
 * 2) PAGE NAME2 page talk no redirect link
 * 3) PAGE NAME3 page talk no redirect link
 * 4) PAGE NAME4 page talk no redirect link

Now anyone trying to fix can see PAGE NAME 3 is the only one that needs a talk page potentially deleting.

Note that we could get smart with #ifexists and only display pages of type 3, but we would break the page if there were more than 250 entries.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

Go Away
The go away template has been deleted. Avic ennasis @ 08:43, 14 Tishrei 5776 / 08:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this report still wanted?
I see that it hasn't been updated since September last year. This could very easily be run by the Community Tech Bot if that would be desirable. Thparkth (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to see it back. However, there is bot request at Bots/Requests for approval/Josvebot 12 that may or may not replace this report. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't exactly the same format, but if this version of the report is "useful enough" then I can schedule it to update the main report daily. It looks like we have a LOT of orphaned talk pages. Thparkth (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with making this live - figured no harm since the existing data was completely non-useful after such a long time. If anyone objects to the new format or doesn't think Community Tech Bot should be updating this report, please feel free to revert and let me know so I can stop future runs. Thparkth (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Finished it! It worked great.  I did notice that it did not list anything in the File Talk namespace.  Can you add that?  I'm almost afraid to ask how big that list is. The only issues were my own when I made a couple of mistakes with the ones that were redirects.  The only thing I would change is that you can remove the Size column.  Size does not affect the orphan status.  You can remove it unless it is part of a standard template you are using that can't easily be deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are still curious, but it seems there are generally only a few. As of right now, there are no orphaned filetalk pages. Avic ennasis @ 15:20, 19 Kislev 5777 / 15:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Persistent orphaned-but-not pages?
It seems that there are some talkpages that repeatedly seem to come up on the report as orphans but aren't. See above for common culprits. (Note the 447 pages come from own report, but the problem is the same.) No amount of edits/purges to the page or talkpage seems to make a difference. Does anyone know what's going on here? any ideas? Avic ennasis @ 15:15, 19 Kislev 5777 / 15:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous talk archive not reported
Why wasn't Talk:Iss246/Archive 1, which was created in September 2015‎, reported here? wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi wbm1058. Page titles containing a "/" are excluded from this report: . Orphaned talk pages in this context means talk pages in certain namespaces that do not have a corresponding subject-space page. In the case of talk page archives, such as Talk:Dolphin/Archive 1, there is no subject-space page such as Dolphin/Archive 1. However, nobody really wants to consider Talk:Dolphin/Archive 1 to be an orphaned page since both Talk:Dolphin and Dolphin exist. In order to reduce false positives in this report, any page title containing a "/" is automatically removed. This is a hack and you've found a limitation or edge case of using this approach. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But neither Talk:Iss246 nor Iss246 exist, while User talk:Iss246 and User:Iss246 do. wbm1058 (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. If we removed the requirement about the page title not containing a "/", Talk:Iss246/Archive 1 would have almost certainly been included in this report. However, because the page title "Iss246/Archive_1" contains a "/", it was excluded from this report. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right, the report you want is. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)