Talk:Consumer behaviour/Archives/2018

Interesting Article
Here's an interesting article that I discovered quite by chance:

Siddiqui, S. and Agarwal, K., "The Consumer's Purchase Decision Process: A Theoretical Framework,” International Journal of Science Technology and Management, Vol. 6, No. 6, 2017, pp 361-367

Link: http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1498205169_IIMT_335_ijstm.pdf

The published article bears more than a passing similarity to the Wikipedia article on Consumer Behaviour - it shows identical prose, identical structure and even the use of identical graphics (figures and tables). The Wikipedia article was completely overhauled in October - November, 2016 but this academic paper was published in June, 2017. These two academics, Sadaf Siddiqui, a research student in the Faculty of Commerce at the Sri Venkateshwara University in Gajraula, India and Dr Kirti Agarwal, a Faculty member of the ITERC College Group, India paid US$100 to have this article published under their names. And, it took two authors to plagiarise the Wikipedia article. It's a shame that neither of the authors actually contributed to the writing of the Wikipedia article on which their publication is based. BronHiggs (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

American English
Every article that's even remotely related and hyperlinked in the intro (e.g. this one) is written in American English. Not sure what's up with this one, but they really ought be standardised. 2601:240:CC08:7780:8D4A:91FD:3A1E:A2A (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:2601:240:CC08:7780:8D4A:91FD:3A1E:A2A Not sure what problem is being alluded to. The article is written in British English - as this was the choice of the editor who started the article. The ONLY words written in American English are in book titles in the references and further reading section and we would not change the names of titles because that would not only create all manner of problems for those who might want to search for the books, but it would also be quite inappropriate to change the spelling of a published title, no matter how strongly we feel about it. As far as I can see, the spelling has been standardised - although from time to time, helpful editors do go into the article and change the spelling of a few words, here and there, but rarely attend to changes across the entire article. So, on occasion, there may be some inconsistent spellings, but hopefully these are reverted within a few days. See: MOS:ENGVAR especially MOS:ARTCON for details.  BronHiggs (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Links
This article had 90+ outgoing links and 1, 141 incoming links. Yet apparently, it is so poorly integrated into the Wikipedia Encyclopedia that it warrants a "Underlinked" tag at the top of the article. I have added an additional 20-30 links so that the total number of outgoing links exceeds 110. (The tool, WMlabs records links from this page as 261 after the new links were added, but my manual count, which excluded ISBNs and Book titles was a lower estimaate.) Normally, I am reluctant to link to sub-standard articles in the marketing area. But since the issue of linking has become an issue, then I have made an exception and linked to some very low level articles simply to get the total number of links up a bit. Does anyone know how many links should be present in an article before it can be considered satisfactory, and at what point does an article run into problems with overlinking? BronHiggs (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag can probably be removed. I saw a typo in the text, then started to do other changes that I should probably not have made in the same edit. If I had known when clicking edit that it would take so long to read through the article, I would have just fixed the paper and remembered to look at the article when I had more time. Sorry for the rushed edit. – Pretended leer (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)