Talk:Shopping in China
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ground Zero in topic Orphan tag
Orphan tag
[edit]@ARR8: this article is linked from China and Shopping, which are the only two articles from which links are logical. What other articles do you think should link here? I don't think her want to create links that don't make sense just for the sake of removing that tag. Ground Zero (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Ground Zero: I'm not very familiar with China, but aren't there destinations highly visited for their shopping? Shenzhen springs to mind. Also, this article links several destinations that are relevant enough to mention by name, so I think a reciprocal link could be added to those if appropriate. Like many of our topics, some related topics could also have links to and from this page at the end. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because of the links from China and Shopping, there was no issue with people finding their way here. So you don't know much about China but think that Shopping in China should be linked more based on what? Whatever, I've added links to the article and will remove the tag. Not a good use of my time. Ground Zero (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're taking this personally, but it's underlinked compared to our other articles, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a traveler to feel familiar enough with China in general not to look at our China article, but still read our article on Shenzhen for more specific info, and this would be a good article for them to find. Plus, nobody reads the Shopping article - it had a hundred pageviews last month while Shenzhen had ten times that and China had 7000, though certainly not all of them read every section. Sorry for trying to expand the readership of this article? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't take it personally, but I don't think that adding maintenance tags accomplishes much. It is a way of saying, "I can't be bothered to do this work, but I think someone else should." And creating the links did not create any specialized knowledge of China or of shopping. It only took a cursory read of the article. Maintenance tags should not be placed at the top of articles if we are putting the traveller first. They can go at the bottom of articles -- our housekeeping matters are not the first thing a reader should see in an article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Adding a maintenance tag puts a page into a tracking maintenance category for when I or others do have time to work on it. And I would keep the tag there; there is more linking to be done, and having plenty of proper links is one of the best things we can do to improve readership of an article, potentially increasing contributions, etc. Re: placement, keep in mind that we're a wiki, etc., and our readers are also our editors. Prominent maintenance tags definitely seem not to have hurt Wikipedia. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wiikivoyage is not Wikipedia in any way. Template:Merge says that that tag should be placed at the bottom of an article, and that is a much more important tag than the orphan tag. If you think more links should be added, please go ahead and do so. You can always create a worklist on your used page if you want to keep track of things, as I and other editors do. Wikivoyage is a small enough community that you pretty much have to do something yourself if you want it done. Trying to direct the work of others doesn't work very well here. Ground Zero (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will do the work at some point, but there are over a hundred articles tagged as orphans. I am not "directing the work of others" - I know that there are editors who do a great job of maintenance by picking a maintenance category and going through its pages, applying fixes as needed. I do the same thing. This approach only works, though, if all of the pages that need work are appropriately categorized. The maintenance tag is for completeness' sake. Re: placement again, merging is a long and difficult process requiring consensus, Adding links is something any passing reader can do if they are reading a few related articles. If you feel that strongly about it, put the tag on the bottom, but top placement is just as valid as bottom placement. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wiikivoyage is not Wikipedia in any way. Template:Merge says that that tag should be placed at the bottom of an article, and that is a much more important tag than the orphan tag. If you think more links should be added, please go ahead and do so. You can always create a worklist on your used page if you want to keep track of things, as I and other editors do. Wikivoyage is a small enough community that you pretty much have to do something yourself if you want it done. Trying to direct the work of others doesn't work very well here. Ground Zero (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Adding a maintenance tag puts a page into a tracking maintenance category for when I or others do have time to work on it. And I would keep the tag there; there is more linking to be done, and having plenty of proper links is one of the best things we can do to improve readership of an article, potentially increasing contributions, etc. Re: placement, keep in mind that we're a wiki, etc., and our readers are also our editors. Prominent maintenance tags definitely seem not to have hurt Wikipedia. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't take it personally, but I don't think that adding maintenance tags accomplishes much. It is a way of saying, "I can't be bothered to do this work, but I think someone else should." And creating the links did not create any specialized knowledge of China or of shopping. It only took a cursory read of the article. Maintenance tags should not be placed at the top of articles if we are putting the traveller first. They can go at the bottom of articles -- our housekeeping matters are not the first thing a reader should see in an article. Ground Zero (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're taking this personally, but it's underlinked compared to our other articles, and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a traveler to feel familiar enough with China in general not to look at our China article, but still read our article on Shenzhen for more specific info, and this would be a good article for them to find. Plus, nobody reads the Shopping article - it had a hundred pageviews last month while Shenzhen had ten times that and China had 7000, though certainly not all of them read every section. Sorry for trying to expand the readership of this article? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Because of the links from China and Shopping, there was no issue with people finding their way here. So you don't know much about China but think that Shopping in China should be linked more based on what? Whatever, I've added links to the article and will remove the tag. Not a good use of my time. Ground Zero (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is now linked from 9 other articles. It does not meet any reasonable definition not "orphaned" or "few links". I appreciate that you have now added a couple of links. If you want to add more links, go ahead. But adding an orphan tag because you alone think someone else should do some work is not warranted.
The precedent of merge and translate tags, and the consensus of other editors shows that putting the tag at the top is not equally valid. Ground Zero (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing me of assigning work to others. I have already explained my motives in adding these tags.
- I edited the phrasing of the tag to make it more general.
- Citing precedent and consensus seems premature to me since there are other tags which do get placed at the tops of articles and the discussion is still ongoing, but note that I replaced the tag at the bottom. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Unilaterally changing the text of the tag to suit yourself is not appropriate. Please get consensus before making a change like that. Ground Zero (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)