Talk:Xiao (mythology)

Regarding "in line" citations

The term "in line citations" in regard to article references seems to generate some confusion. I think that the Wikipedia definition of "in line references" in the case of Wikipedia articles is one made in contrast to mere hyperlink references to related Internet pages or to various nonspecific sources: that is "inline" references are references to original source pages which can be implemented various ways, such as the <ref>...</ref> tags in the Wiki Markup Language hypercode, and footnotes displayed, or parenthetically (and more directly visibly in the display text). Generally, which one is used in a given article seems to mostly depend on authorial preference, with the choice of the original referencing author given the benefit of choice. In this case, the parenthetical references seem to lend a nice, scholarly feel to a somewhat scholarly article. Dcattell (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Inline citation does say you can use either style. But my sense is that as a practical matter, footnoting is standard practice. You can check featured articles in WP:FA to find appropriate models. I doubt you will find many that use parenthetical referencing. I never heard of a scholarly book without footnotes. Parenthetical referencing is more about the technical limitations that journals have than about a "scholarly feel." We have hypertext technology. Why not use it to make the text easier to read? The Viking (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems we need to solve. First, The Viking, thanks for your contributions, but I've reverted them until we reach some consensus. While I respect your personal opinions, I'm assuming you are unfamiliar with WP:CITEVAR:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Perhaps it's just rhetorical exaggeration, but I'm surprised that anyone has actually "never heard of a scholarly book without footnotes"—parenthetical referencing is the standard practice in many academic fields. Here are some examples (presently reachable without getting up from my desk):

• Miller, Roy Andrew (1971), Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages
• Lakoff, George (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind
• Kohn, Livia (1989), Taoist Meditation and Longevity Techniques

Second, the current article is about Chinese mythological xiao, and we should probably add a section on the shanxiao 山魈 "mountain demons", but the imaginary hsiao in Borges's book (apparently misspelled "hsigo" in other sources) is clearly another creature. None of Borges's three elements (hawk/owl resemblance, human head, or dog tail) is found in the Chinese descriptions. We could add a new section on the coincidence/mistake, or perhaps even add Borges into the existing Hsigo article and retitle to something like Hsiao (fiction), but they are different xiaos. Keahapana (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Handbook of Chinese Mythology (2008) is a top-selling Chinese mythology book on Amazon, and part of a series on world mythology put out by Oxford University Press. It gives the citations in footnotes, has hardly any parentheticals, and no Chinese characters in the running text. As for the examples given above, I note that they have a low density of referencing. It makes no sense for us to follow outdated practices that were dictated by technical limitations that do not apply to us.
• I was looking at Wiki's featured articles, and I don't see any of them full of parentheticals and non-English material like this one. If even one in a thousand articles on Wiki used parenthetical referencing, I'd be surprised. At least the lede should consist of English-language running text with regular sentence structure. You don't have to fill out every field in a template just because it's there.
• Borges probably came up with his creature by conflating the mountain ape and the bird with a dog's tail. He certainly got the name from Chinese mythology. So this article is the appropriate place to discuss the issue. The Viking (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally tagged the article as lacking inline citations because I was unaware that WP accepts citations in brackets, but I have since realised this is not the case. I think this method is effective for a short article like this, and there's no need to insist on footnotes (although I personally feel they're preferable for certain articles - I would never have managed Manufacturing of Hong Kong without them). Just because an authoritative book in the field uses footnotes doesn't mean WP has to follow...

"BTW, some featured articles (e.g. Du Fu) do have quite a bit of non-English material. Kayau (talk · contribs) 10:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese in Du Fan is not in the running text, but formatted like a graphic. Moreover, the article uses footnotes, not parenthetical references. We don't have to follow any particular model, but we surely need a better model to follow than other poorly written Wiki articles. The Viking (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we do have a model for China-related topics: the present article follows WP:MOS-ZH conventions, which account for the Chinesey elements in your expected "running text". We can all agree that footnotes work well in printed books with a fixed page size, but in HTML webpages (and similarly in e-books) page display depends on user variables like screen size, font settings, zoom, etc. Wikipedia "footnotes" are actually endnotes. As Note (typography) notes, "Unlike footnotes, endnotes have the advantage of not affecting the layout of the main text, but may cause inconvenience to readers who have to move back and forth between the main text and the endnotes." Keahapana (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that isn't a problem since WP added those tooltips a while ago. :D Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving "Hsigo"

Just for context... Dcattell (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Article reorganization

I found (and will add) the full hsiao quote from The Book of Imaginary Beings, which cites "T'ai[p'ing] Kuang Chi" (Extensive Records of the Taiping Era). Here's a layout idea for the article. We could move all the xiao or ao 嚣 material into a Shanhaijing section, start two new sections for The Book of Imaginary Beings and "Hsigo" mistakes, and later add a xiao or shanxiao 山魈 section. Does this sound workable? Keahapana (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it can be made to work. It sounds like the organization of the article would correspond fairly closely with the sources. Probably the best bet in a case like this, with a kind of ecclectic mix. Are you thinking of a chronological progression from Shanhaijing through Taiping, Borges, and "hsigo", and then section(s) for the shanxiao and Xiao Yang, etc.? Dcattell (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update

OK, I've rewritten the lead, moved the original info into one section, and started three others. I still need to add the ao alternate pronunciation for 囂 and Yuan Ke's commentary about nao into the first section, and a scanned cornucopia of shanxiao details from de Groot's The Religious System of China. This merge is coming together nicely.

Someone may want to follow up on Borges' false attribution of Taiping guangji. Not only "Hsiao" but apparently all the other "Fauna of China" entries are from some other source. The Borges Center at pitt.edu lists both Hsiao and T'ai P'ing Kuang Chi. It also lists Willoughby-Meade's (1928) Chinese Ghouls and Goblins, which I haven't had time to check. Thanks to all, especially to Dcattell. Keahapana (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)