Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Overlinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - no consensus

[edit] Overlinking

This page needs to be either deleted or moved to Wikipedia talk:Make only links relevant to the context. It non-encylopedic, it's about the Wikipedia. The author blanked the talk page where there was criticism of the article. I say delete it or move it. Kevin Rector 01:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-encyclopedic: Belongs in a style manual or a how-to. DCEdwards1966 02:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main namespace is not the place to rant about poor editing style. —No-One Jones (m) 03:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm the author, and I'd finished two sentences of the article before Kevin Rector marked it for speedy deletion as 'patent nonsense.' I haven't checked the time elapsed, but it was a matter of minutes.

I blanked the talk page because there was no article posted yet. I had previously posted on Kevin Rector's talk page asking him to please leave the piece alone and judge it when it was finshed. He deleted that message from his page. He restored the article talk page, except for my comment saying that the article wan't finished.

The article frankly isn't of any importance. I have no objection to the current text being deleted, and I have no interest in finishing or editing it.

HOWEVER, there are contributors with good intentions who tend to spend too much time watching for things to delete. Wikipedia isn't a game of 'gotcha,' and it's dispiriting to begin an article (I've written several dozen, one example being Telecaster), only to have someone appear and take an immediate interest in un-doing it.

I don't understand that, and don't think it's in accordance with the principles here.

Auto movil 03:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Good for meta perhaps, but not here. Deletionist 04:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


As I said, about the people with good intentions who spend too much time looking for things to delete. Someone named Deletionist turns up. If you want to go trolling for unfinished articles and knock them down, g'wan ahead. Auto movil 04:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • You have a good article here. However, on technical grounds, it does not belong on this namespace. Deletionist 06:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It would be a fine thing for meta or for the Wikipedia name space. It would even be good on Village Pump. The problem isn't "gotcha." The problem is that it's a style guide article, and it seems like a wise one. It should be said, but article space is not supposed to have meta-wikipedian material. It certainly isn't nonsense, but it should be deleted from article space or transwikid to meta (except that I don't think we can). Geogre 04:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I understand. As I said, I honestly don't mind if the article is moved or nixed. The issue here is with the process. I tend to work articles up slowly with lots of self-corrections. When someone immediately pops in and starts taking things apart, the chance that a good, usable article will result drops to near-zero. Any of a couple dozen of my pieces could have been squelched that way, but instead they've been enduring contributions. We're no longer talking about the article as 'patent nonsense.' With another work-up, we might not be considering it for deletion. But once someone tags an article, this process is hard to stop. It began literally when there was almost nothing on the page. It was beyond half-cocked. Auto movil 05:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Doesn't belong in main namespace. Bensaccount 05:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This is the point at which my paying attention becomes 'taking things too seriously.'

I've been very clear that there is no article. A user named Kevin Rector was monitoring recent changes, and flagged two in-process sentences as 'patent nonsense.' Then flagged it again when it was six sentences, etc. Thus you're voting on something that might have cooked up into a useful article, but now certainly won't be.

I'm going to nicely ask that parties including Kevin Rector, who doesn't seem to actually write anything around here, take a look at this process and ask whether they've added value to Wikipedia today. Auto movil 05:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Im not sure that I got the whole story, but two sentences seems like enough, since this article obviously belongs in the wikipedia:project namespace. See the link there. Bensaccount 06:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The term, 'overlinking,' has 300+ Google hits, and is a real term. What you're judging is an in-progress piece of writing that was not intended to be a self-referential Wikipedia manual page, but that was repeatedly flagged as it was being written, first for one reason, then for another.

Instead of writing the article, I had to spend paragraphs asking people to please leave it alone, first because it was labeled 'patent nonsense,' then because it belonged in 'bad jokes,' and later because it looked like a manual page. If I were to draft another paragraph of the article, somebody could absolutely find another category for deletion based on what that one looked like, and so on. That's not what this process is intended for.

This is not an article. It is an unfinished scrap of writing. It is on a legitimate topic, but has not been written yet.

The portion on Wikipedia is one piece of a greater thesis.

I don't know how to say this any more politely or clearly: A contributor, Kevin Rector, flagged this page in error, and was asked nicely to please hold off judgement. Instead, he refused to communicate, deleted my comment from his talk page, and flagged the page again.

This happened while I was typing. I've spent perhaps 1500 words trying to make Kevin Rector go away until there was an article to judge. I don't know him, and he seems like a decent enough person, but I've written numerous articles here, while his contributions seem mostly to be deleting things and making minor edits -- policing content. There are times in which that's extremely valuable, but also times in which it's a giant pain in the ass to someone who's trying to get work done.

I want it to be clear that I don't care about the page. The issue here is the misuse of the process. I've asked this person to please come back when there's something to read, yet he won't go away or communicate. So I'm not going to finish the article, and you should delete it.

Auto movil 13:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikipedia:overlinking, without a redirect. It's already a good start. The contributor should be encouraged to complete it. But it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Agree that the process has not been perfect, but neither are the rules. The main problem here that I see is a lack of wikilove, which seems to be going out of fashion, to our cost I fear. Andrewa 16:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment. It's not supposed to be an article specifically on Wikipedia practices, though. It was supposed to be a quite minor, three-or-four paragraph thing encompassing the term, or phenomenon, of 'overlinking,' that got caught up in a storm of delete notices because a user fixed on it, and wouldn't let go. Everyone has an opinion on what it is -- those opinions are based on a few sentences I posted while trying to call the dogs off. It became not worth writing.

I am unable to say this any more politely or clearly: What you are voting on is an unfinished scrap of text that somebody repeatedly flagged, which does not represent what a final article would have looked like.

If users are going to scan the recent changes list, or have bots patrolling the list, looking for things to delete, there's a certain responsibility in that. I've discussed this with you because Kevin Rector, for whatever reason, will post deletion notices, but won't enter a discussion. I think this has been a giant waste of time, and I'm sorry for my part in it. Auto movil 17:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I put a {{Nonsense}} tag on an article that was nonsense. It was one sentence about overlinking. User:Auto movil removed the template instead of debating it. The Nonsense template clearly states, "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. Please do not remove this notice." Since the notice should have been debated rather than removed, I added it back in.
As I am not an administrator I didn't delete the page myself but left it for someone who is an administrator to deal with (which is what I do will all the speedy delete candidates I come across on Special:Newpages. I'm pretty sure it was speedy deleted because when I came back the next day article was back up with a different history.
Auto movil made substantial additions to the page, so it no longer qualified for speedy delete, so I added this VFD notice so that the community should decide what to do with the artice. I do not have a problem with the content of the article, I just thought it should be in a different namespace (which is why I suggested it be deleted OR moved).
As far as Auto movil's assertion that, "...I've written numerous articles here, while his contributions seem mostly to be deleting things and making minor edits..." or that I, "apparently don't write anything around here..." it's simply not true. I have over 3700 edits. A bot that I wrote has over 29,000 edits. I work mostly on ice hockey articles which don't get a lot of attention (or generate much controversy). I started the ice hockey wikipedia project. I've never delete a single article because I am not an administrator.
This whole situation has been unfortunate and I'm sorry that it's become what it's become. I hold no ill will towards Auto movil and will not be "policing" his contributions, however I am concerned that he removed a template that should have been discussed and blanked a talk page that should not have been blanked. I never intended to be "mean" or "uncaring". Kevin Rector 18:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:overlinking, as Andrewa says. It seems much of this could have been avoided if the original author didn't save the page until it was in a somewhat complete state. Writing one sentence before saving seems pointless to me, and gives the impression that the article is considered "complete" by its author. -R. fiend 18:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Kevin, it's not personal; it's procedural. My impression was that you assumed I was a troll, and hit the full anti-troll defenses. I understand that. But I asked you nicely not to tag the article for deletion, and had no response but more deletion tags. No hard feelings, but it was inappropriate this time.

If you check my contributions, that's only a small number of the pieces I've written. I wrote anonymously for months before finally signing up for a username. It's a lot of hard work sometimes, and as with all work on Wikipedia, it's often pretty thankless. I don't think we should have to go after each other like this -- we're both on the same side. Auto movil 18:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: See talk:overlinking. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is relevant not only to wikipedia. Mikkalai 23:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as this is a POV comment on Wikipedian editing practices. I would also like to point out to Auto movil that if he does not want to subject an article-in-progress to premature scrutiny, he can begin it as a subpage of his user page and then move it to the main namespace when he feels it is ready. Additionally, adding headers to VfD vote subpages causes problems on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 23:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Redux

I'd hoped to be off this by now, but:

1) I left a speedy delete tag in place, for goodness sake.

2) I left a subsequent delete tag in place, or else we wouldn't be here.

3)The user with whom I've been unfortunately at odds said (above), "I hold no ill will towards Auto movil and will not be "policing" his contributions." He then found an article on my contributions list to edit.

The edit added links, which was useful, and spelling and factual errors, which I'm quite good-humored about. However, this work was accompanied by a long, unfriendly comment on my talk page, saying that that article, and my contributions in general, are of a low quality.

This would be hard to determine, since most were not written under this username. Here's one that's primarily my writing: stratocaster. Here's another: great white shark.

His own articles seem mostly to be lists of things and single paragraphs. I would normally regard that as his business, and none of mine.

Addendum: Apres Mikkalai, I fixed text in the article. It's now a coherent stub, and does not mention Wikipedia.

Auto movil 22:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept and generalized, moved somewhere else, or deleted. All I have is a suggestion for Auto movil. Auto, perhaps you should write articles in progress in your own namespace. User:Auto movil/Overlinking would do just fine, and once you're finished, you can move the completed article to Overlinking. This way, people won't bother you with an unfinished article, and you can get it done before it is judged. I know that this doesn't solve your issues with the Wikipedia procedure, but it will at least help you to work around it. I hope this is helpful. - Vague | Rant 01:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This suggestion repeatedly comes up, and it no doubt solves the problem, but it also defeats much of the convenience of a wiki. Personally I think that an article shouldn't be listed for deletion (speedy or otherwise) purely on the grounds that it still needs work until at least 30 minutes (better four hours) of inactivity, and that if the time is as short as 30 minutes we should publicise this figure as save your work every 30 minutes, incomplete work may be deleted after 30 minutes inactivity or a similar warning. Many newbies make the mistake of saving incomplete work (I certainly did, see the history of Henry Felsen) and this causes unnecessary friction of which this is just the latest example. Andrewa 20:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


That's very helpful, thanks. I'll do that and be more careful in the future. It's not the procedures per se that I have any issue with, though. It's that once this deletion process started, there was nothing to do to stop it. I was waving my arms like, 'Wait, hold on here a minute,' but there's no such vote as, 'Maybe this shouldn't be here; leave it alone and let the guy work on it for awhile.' It's either 'delete,' 'move,' or 'keep.' And I understand that, but this was an extremely fast snatch: when I saw the 'nonsense' tag in the text window, I couldn't imagine someone had actually gotten into the edit process so quickly -- I thought it was a piece of random text from somewhere. But anyway, thanks again. All problems solved, as far as I'm concerned. Auto movil 02:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why? Mikkalai 04:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, I've suffered enough. If you're reiterating the same-old about how there's no need for an article like this one seems like it was aiming towards, you delete the damn thing. I'm going to sit here and eat this sandwich. Copy it someplace and then delete it? No, my job is to avoid getting bits of articles tractor-beamed into here in the future, by not letting people look at them until they're articles. YOUR job is to expedite deletions. Auto movil 05:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete or move. Shouldn't be in the main namespace anyway. --fvw* 06:15, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  • Keep Overlinking deserves an article because it is a common phenomenon on the web, especially in wikis. The current article does a good job of explaining it. The guidelines seem a little too "first hand" for an encylopedia article, but that's minor thing. Kappa 10:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and balance it with a chapter on underlinking --Pgreenfinch 21:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with hyperlink. Remove the section on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that there could be an encyclopedia article on this topic, but this isn't it. The references to Wikipedia are egregious. The claims on what is good practice are POV and lack citations, although I suspect that good authorities could be found making similar claims. Either delete or rewrite mercilessly. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It can easily become a valuable non-Wikipedia-related article with just a little rewriting and adding. Stellertony 09:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.