Talk:Purchasing a kimono

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Other-subject links to Wikipedia[edit]

I argued for inline links to Wikipedia of the type User:Jpatokal inserted into this article, and the suggestion was completely shot down. I reject User:118.93nzp's assertion that "the traveller comes first" supersedes consensus on this site. We can't act as individuals to violate consensus whenever we as individuals decide that violating consensus is useful for readers, because then consensus will mean nothing and chaos will result. Explain why the things you want to link to Wikipedia for (a) can't be briefly explained in prose here and (b) are of such great importance that they should be exceptions, when there are hundreds and hundreds of things that could be similarly linked in other articles (local articles of clothing, local flora and fauna, local cuisine and architecture, local geographic features and points of interest, etc., etc., etc.). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I was under the vague impression that our policy on this had changed, but since it apparently hasn't this discussion properly belongs on Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia.
But the reason I put those there was because I tried to come up with a pithy description of what a "happi coat" is and failed, and because this article is emphatically not about happi coats, it makes no sense to add a "Related" link. Sigh. Jpatokal (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Not being able to provide the links does make it harder for editors, which is a good reason to argue for the links, but I understood the arguments User:Texugo and others made against such "laziness" in that thread. In any case, that's the way it is and probably will remain for some time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The alternative to unthinking regimentation is not necessarily chaos.

Rules are good for avoiding thought and mature judgement, but when someone has the time to reflect on what is best for a particular article, then we need to act as editors rather than automatons. In this case, long articles on particular items of Japanese clothing is out of scope for a travel guide and external explanations are appropriate - as long as they are well signalled. By removing them we weaken our guide unnecessarily since, in this particular case, nobody (lazy or not) should be writing lengthy dissertations on Japanese traditional clothing here! --118.93nzp (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the argument that, as you know, was shot down in the policy thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator tools[edit]

This edit (ironically with an edit summary of "Don't edit war") removed the useful links to Wikipedia (which I had not introduced in the first place)! As I understand it, this is the second time that the administrator in question had removed those links so if anyone was edit warring it was actually the administrator in question.

However, this was not the abuse, since any editor can use the "undo" button.

The abuse was in using the rollback tool since this also did collateral damage such as restoring formats not consistent with our clear policy (or, if Ikan Kekek prefers, "consensus") about wv:$, wv:radix; and also shortened "happi coats worn in festivals and garish yukata with sumo wrestlers" to "happi coats and garish yukata with sumo", "slightly coquettish" to "slighly coquettish", removed the "Hard Off" external link, changed risaikuru to risaikaru (sic) and reintroduced the unnecessary latin of per se.

None of that is either collegiate or appropriate in my personal view, and I can only think that this sort of sloppy behaviour is what happens when admins become obsessed by roolz and "playing the player rather the ball" and thinking about individual edits. It needs to stop. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

New article name?[edit]

The title Kimono buying guide looks awkwardly self-referential. The article could instead be named Kimono purchase or Kimono shopping (compare bead shopping). /Yvwv (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Compare Talk:Chicago skyline guide. /Yvwv (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how it's self-referential? Which self are you referring to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
It is the word "guide" that refers to the article itself. For comparison, the Tokyo article is not named Tokyo guide, and the Roman Empire is not named Roman Empire guide. /Yvwv (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand. If you don't like the word "Guide", I would support "Purchasing a kimono" or "Shopping for a kimono", both of which are much more elegant than "Kimono purchase" or "Kimono shopping". Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)