448:
of people editing out links I'd deliberately left for bizarrely-overlooked important articles-to-be-written (there are still some glaring omissions on many of the topics I'm interested in). I suspect the trend is symbiotically linked, however, to practices of over-linking. e.g. the contrary tendancy to link every other word in an article whether or not it has any bearing on the subject to hand. (In fact, frequently this seems to become "particularly if not".) There have been specific drives to remove the linking of dates (with some validity - they all-to-often become trivia magnets of dubious relevance in many cases), and related 'unnecessary' links - which has further leaked over into removing very-necessary links because they look similar to those elsewhere deemed unnecessary. I think that the removal of red links, or a drive to stem their creation, can be seen to be hand-in-hand with those types of push. Sometimes. Similarly, on the same/other hand, mass-creation of red links is another common "problem" - it can either (some say) cast doubt on the notability of a subject by stating/implying that there are no obvious references to it anywhere here, or else suggest that the editor is over-zealous in their own interpretation of what might be eventually considered sufficiently notable (i.e. assuming that every "best boy" and "grip" in a film's cast & crew list will ultimately warrant their own separate page). After which slight rambling, all I really wanted to say was "Thank You" for trying to reassert the significant benefits and usefulness of red links, and for highlighting why they are important, necessary and worthwhile. ntnon (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
161:
73:
93:
340:
53:
83:
103:
63:
113:
447:
Hello. I just read your article on Orphan articles, and wasn't sure whether there was a dedicated place to comment - so I came here in the meantime. Mainly just to thank you for noting that there seems to be a massive anti-red link campaign in many quarters: I've noticed it myself, even to the point
142:
from
January 24, 2009, that includes 133,515 articles with zero links from other articles and another 92,031 linked only from lists or chronology pages. A total of 533,411 articles have links from only one or two articles (excluding lists and chronology pages); these are also classified as orphans
228:
showed that while
Knowledge (XXG) was growing exponentially from 2003 to 2006 there was a stable average rate of 1.8 links to "incomplete" articles (red links and stubs) per non-stub article, but that rate had declined to 1.4 by early 2008. This indicates that linkage patterns became more
244:, red links are frequently being removed for aesthetic reasons. The 2008 linkage study showed that new articles tend to be created soon after the first link pointing to them. Red links thus drive growth and allow new articles to avoid orphan status right from the start.
229:"top-heavy" and articles were relatively less likely to point to undeveloped articles. Orphaned articles tend to be stubs, and because they have few related articles linking to them, they are likely to remain underdeveloped for longer than well-linked stubs.
164:
Distribution of incoming links per article, including links from lists and chronology pages but excluding links from redirects and disambiguation pages. There are 521,323 more articles with 50 or more incoming links (not
204:
The long tail distribution of links is consistent with a 2008 academic study of the network structure of
Knowledge (XXG), which showed that—like networks of scientific publications—Knowledge (XXG) linkage demonstrates
389:
291:
399:
384:
301:
286:
394:
296:
369:
271:
39:
224:
and the creation of new articles, and followup work showed a troubling trend that may also help explain the large magnitude of the orphan problem revealed by JaGa's data. Computer scientist
425:
216:
374:
276:
379:
281:
351:
573:
21:
473:
Wonder if there is interesting relationship between orphan status/number of links to the article and frequency of access (correcting for stub/etc. status).
549:
160:
544:
539:
316:
357:
56:
534:
135:
529:
339:
17:
153:
template. By JaGa's count there are 2,575,308 articles when disambiguation pages are excluded (compared to 2,700,000+ counted by
186:
134:
Almost 30% of
Knowledge (XXG) articles are "orphans", with few or no incoming links from other articles, according to
170:
555:
190:
500:
482:
463:
225:
206:
496:
177:: articles with 50 or more links comprise 20% of all articles, but account for 84% of all links. JaGa's
459:
241:
221:
492:
210:
154:
66:
421:
86:
178:
455:
237:
174:
96:
478:
181:
shows that many of the very top articles are ones commonly linked from templates, such as
147:
116:
454:
Would it be possible to have a "random orphan article" link in the navigation column?
567:
198:
126:
143:
according to WikiProject
Orphanage. Only 42,936 articles have been tagged with the
233:
106:
252:
194:
76:
474:
182:
139:
517:
521:
513:
159:
338:
201:
holds the top spot, with 16% of all articles linking to it.
197:. Major nations are also among the most-linked articles;
169:
The distribution of links per article is a characteristic
437:
430:
410:
469:
Relation between number of links and number accesses?
315:
260:
445:==massive anti-red link campaign in many quarters==
323:
435:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
313:
232:Partly to blame may be a pernicious trend noted by
8:
179:list of the top 5000 articles by link count
574:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2009-01
451:Why "portion" rather than "proportion"?
327:
308:
255:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
438:
414:
33:
34:Large portion of articles are orphans
7:
173:that approximately demonstrates the
28:
420:These comments are automatically
111:
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
501:08:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
431:add the page to your watchlist
1:
483:06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
464:15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
240:and others: contrary to the
187:geographic coordinate system
138:. Based on an analysis by
590:
220:). That study focused on
191:list of sovereign states
207:preferential attachment
428:. To follow comments,
343:
171:long tail distribution
166:
342:
163:
136:WikiProject Orphanage
488:Hi how are you doing
424:from this article's
209:and appears to be a
390:Features and admins
292:Features and admins
242:red links guideline
415:Discuss this story
400:Arbitration report
385:WikiProject report
344:
302:Arbitration report
287:WikiProject report
226:Diomidis Spinellis
211:scale-free network
167:
155:Special:Statistics
439:purging the cache
395:Technology report
332:
331:
297:Technology report
581:
558:
442:
440:
434:
413:
362:
354:
347:
253:
175:Pareto principle
152:
146:
129:
115:
114:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
589:
588:
584:
583:
582:
580:
579:
578:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
554:
552:
547:
542:
537:
532:
525:
505:
504:
490:
471:
444:
436:
429:
418:
417:
411:+ Add a comment
409:
405:
404:
403:
355:
352:31 January 2009
350:
348:
345:
333:
262:Also this week:
150:
144:
131:
130:
124:
123:
122:
121:
112:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
587:
585:
577:
576:
566:
565:
553:
548:
543:
538:
533:
528:
527:
526:
507:
506:
503:
489:
486:
470:
467:
419:
416:
408:
407:
406:
402:
397:
392:
387:
382:
377:
372:
370:News and notes
367:
361:
349:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
329:
328:
325:
324:
322:
314:
311:
310:
309:
306:
305:
304:
299:
294:
289:
284:
279:
274:
272:News and notes
269:
264:
258:
257:
256:
250:
247:
132:
120:
119:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
586:
575:
572:
571:
569:
557:
551:
546:
541:
536:
531:
523:
519:
515:
511:
508:Keep up with
502:
498:
494:
487:
485:
484:
480:
476:
468:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
441:
432:
427:
423:
412:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
359:
353:
346:In this issue
341:
326:
321:
319:
312:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
268:
265:
263:
259:
254:
251:
248:
245:
243:
239:
235:
230:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:earlier story
212:
208:
202:
200:
199:United States
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
162:
158:
156:
149:
141:
137:
128:
118:
110:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
510:The Signpost
509:
472:
453:
450:
446:
364:
358:all comments
317:
266:
261:
249:
246:
234:User:Raul654
231:
214:
203:
168:
133:
57:PDF download
556:Suggestions
456:Jackiespeel
422:transcluded
375:In the news
277:In the news
195:music genre
107:X (Twitter)
380:Dispatches
282:Dispatches
45:Share this
40:Contribute
22:2009-01-31
550:Subscribe
493:Ambreen67
426:talk page
222:red links
183:biography
127:Sage Ross
568:Category
545:Newsroom
540:Archives
522:Mastodon
518:Facebook
491:My Love
320:archives
318:Signpost
238:James F.
97:Facebook
87:LinkedIn
77:Mastodon
20: |
514:Twitter
365:Orphans
267:Orphans
165:shown).
31:Orphans
193:, and
148:orphan
117:Reddit
67:E-mail
535:About
475:Zodon
16:<
530:Home
497:talk
479:talk
460:talk
215:see
140:JaGa
520:or
512:on
157:).
125:By
42:—
570::
516:,
499:)
481:)
462:)
236:,
189:,
185:,
151:}}
145:{{
524:.
495:(
477:(
458:(
443:.
433:.
360:)
356:(
213:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
