This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Handbook of Chinese Mythology (2008) is a top-selling Chinese mythology book on Amazon, and part of series on world mythology by Oxford University Press. So we can treat it both as a scholarly reference and as a model. 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)[reply]
