ayg wrote:

Repurposing to the namespace issue only. Bug 3483 and bug 7546 are best viewed
as separate.

This would be a fairly trivial addition to the query's WHERE clause, I assume,
but do we want it? I would like other opinions. Certainly the meta namespaces
aren't unimportant, and knowing about lonely pages in those has value. Your
example of a portal, well, the same could be said of the main page, couldn't it?
And any such link would presumably disappear sooner or later. I'd be inclined
to WONTFIX.

mashiah.davidson wrote:

You shown a good example with the main page. Both, the news list and the main page are temporary pages!

Ok, you do not know about the usecase scenario for namespaces for particular wiki. And you suppose one can
use them as subspaces for main namespace.

I suggest a parameter value or list enumerating namespaces to be present in the WHERE clause. One can tune
it for it's own wikipedia. Is this a big deal or trivual addition again?

mashiah.davidson wrote:

It looks like if I did not described the problem correctly. Now I have to add a short list of pages
influencing the lonelypages list content. Pages in the list are temporal in a certain sence but indeed they
stay for a long time:

• user pages (users insert bookmarks and their good articles on their pages)
• any pages discussed anyware! (articles being discussed for deletion, articles discussed on user

discussion pages, elected to be a good or a featured article)

• main page of the project or portal (first is really temporal, portal may have being edited rarely or

never edited)

• news for portal pages ("archived" influencing lonelypages)

So, the problem is that lonelypages list does not show the state of orphaned pages problem at all.

mashiah.davidson wrote:

Is it possible to mark an article or its section to ingnore links to be threated as links from Main
namespace? This will be very helpfull to have it to mark news archives and requested articles lists this
way.

(In reply to comment #1)

This would be a fairly trivial addition to the query's WHERE clause, I assume,
but do we want it? I would like other opinions.

I wholeheartedly support this!

Sort of duplicate of bug 4204.