Talk:Chinese mythology

message: Is there anything about turtles?
:It's turtles all the way down. — LlywelynII 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xing Tian 

message: I find the use of the Category Tree in this article very useful both as a Wikipedia User and editor. Please discuss here before deleting the presence of this feature in this article. Chinese Mythology has been difficult in terms of organizing the subject space on Wikipedia. Much work remains to be done, and the Category Tree is both a most useful aid and seems to cause no harm. Dcattell (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently the only Wikipedia article using <categorytree>. (See this search to check current status.) The other 5.8 million articles, whether about difficult-to-organize subjects or not, all have simple links into the category system at the bottom of the page, showing which categories the specific article being viewed has been classified into. The two ways of doing it are redundant, and having redundant navigation elements makes the page harder to use by cluttering it. If readers want to navigate the category tree, we expect them to click into the category system from the bottom-of-the-page link, where they should be looking for it if they are familiar with Wikipedia's navigational conventions. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who the "we" is in "we expect". Am I being excluded from the group of people with expectations? I have used  the tree system in articles before, for example in the area of Chinese poetry. I was not aware that tree system has been deprecated and systematically removed from articles. Frankly, the category system in regards to Chinese poetry is a big mess. And I find the tree system easier to deal with (but maybe I'm old fashioned). There seems to be a movement to move edit-related material to the talk pages (per "This is the talk page for discussing improvements...", and I certainly support that -- especially when it come to multiple scare tags with editorial suggestions that article users are immediately subjected to before any encyclopedic content appears (talking about clutter!). If I am the only one in the Wikipedia universe that benefits from trees, then it is perfectly reasonable that we move the category tree code to the talk page instead, for easy access to humble, hard-working editors? Maybe category trees would be more popular if they were not being removed? Or, how 'bout this? We move the cat tree down to the bottom of the article, then it could not possibly be considered to be "cluttering up" the article? Generally I don't support putting category trees in articles, but it makes a certain amount of sense for certain more top-level articles such as "Chinese mythology", plus its easily accessible in the article, rather than having to navigate to a separate Category page, and then to various subpages (plus the Portal system isn't really a substitute). Instead, with an embedded tree it is all right there in-page! Scroll up and down, compare the tree structure to the article content, and so on (try it! --unfortunately it's a very bad structural mismatch in "Chinese mythology", and that's what really needs to be fixed, one way or the other). Actually, much in the encyclopedic area of Chinese mythology needs to be fixed, and that is where energy should be directed. Dcattell (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "we" I mean the Wikipedia editors who agree with the consensus of how categories are applied to articles. The clickable category trees are indeed useful, but a better version is available on the category page. If you click the link at the bottom of the page to :Category:Chinese mythology, you'll see that you can click on triangles next to subcategories to expand them, if you wish. But what this page has that the categorytree in the article doesn't have, is all the articles in Category:Chinese mythology itself. It seems like that represents a much better reader experience.  I wouldn't want readers to stop looking for categories when they see the categorytree and get a worse experience by not clicking through to the category page - that's why I'd see the categorytree as clutter. Since both the catgegory page and the talk page are one click away from the article, it doesn't make much sense to me to put a copy of the category tree on the talk page. -- Beland (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Category Tree 

message: As we all know the chinese has a symbol the dragon, but i have a question why  dragon why not a god or godess?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.224.14.89 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The more powerful dragons were gods, when they weren't just considered How the World Is. If you mean, why weren't all the Chinese gods human-looking? then the answer is that it's all make-believe and some people/societies are more creative than others. — LlywelynII 00:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese creation myth 

message: * .
This is a fascinating account of how Eid al-Adha rituals led to Muslims/Hui becoming the usual butchers in western China not only for the imperial elite but also for mandatory state sacrifices to the Chinese gods (considered to be meat-eaters if not carnivores) and suspect Commies during the paranoid Nationalist era (since killing cattle could only be a plot to reduce agricultural output and undermine the state). It should probably be introduced here, as well as at religion in China, Chinese cuisine, and similar pages. — LlywelynII 00:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion