Talk:Rat (zodiac)

Celebrity lists, again
I'm appalled by the pointless lists that have cropped up in all the Chinese zodiac articles, each listing a random assortment of people who happen to have that birth year. There was a consensus ages ago that these lists constitute cruft, do not serve a useful purpose, are functionally random in content, and are unmaintainable. That discussion is above on this same talk page: Talk:Rat_(zodiac).

Nothing has changed since then, except that apparently people stopped keeping an eye out for the return of these lists. I propose to reaffirm the above consensus and then to remove the lists from all of these articles. I'll be dropping a talk page notice on each one, directing editors here. Please chime in. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you'll get the attention of more editors by posting this as an RFC. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think so too. Upgrading now. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on removing people lists from Chinese zodiac articles
Should the lists of "People born in Year of the [Sign] " be removed from Chinese zodiac articles? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes as nominator. (This is a reprise from above.) Currently all 12 of the Chinese zodiacal sign articles (Rat,Ox,Tiger,Rabbit,Dragon,Snake,Horse,Goat,Monkey,Rooster,Dog,Pig) contain lists with a random assortment of people who happen to have been born in a qualifying year. There was a consensus ages ago that these lists constitute cruft, do not serve a useful purpose, are functionally random in content, and are unmaintainable. That discussion is above on this same talk page: Talk:Rat_(zodiac).
 * Those points still stand. Nothing has changed since then, except that apparently people stopped keeping an eye out for the return of these lists. I propose to reaffirm the above consensus and then to remove the lists from all of the articles. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - Such lists have long since been expunged from the articles in Category:Western astrological signs. William Avery (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - The lists don't add to knowledge of the subject in a meaningful way. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I think that the most important principle here is that unreferenced material can be challenged and deleted; however, referenced material should remain. That said, I can see arguments for keeping or deleting the lists, both pro and con the RfC nomination. There is also a third option: allow the lists, but with a qualifying protocol. I think the lists should be allowed, but with strict limits.
 * Pro. The lists may seem a bit silly and unnecessary to many editors (especially for editors who are somewhat removed from popculture, and haven't a clue as to who most of these personalities are). They are tedious to verify, since the birth dates must be determined and the relevant zodiacal year must be consulted for that date based on the relevant lunar calendar. We might fear that if every person with a birthdate given in a Wikipedia article becomes included in the lists, then they would go beyond a little crufty to being monstrous!
 * Con. Many people seem to be quite enthusiastic about these lists. In fact, consulting a few books on Chinese astrology, they seem rather ubiquitous. Reflecting this in the Chinese zodiac articles is of encyclopedic value, at least done in an exemplary and not exhaustive way: classifying people according to their animal signs is an essential part of the Chinese zodiac tradition. It is possible that some of the people that add names to this list may be making initial forays as editors, and encouraging them would be a way of recruiting people who would go on to make more substantial contributions. It is possible to ignore the lists, and they do not do any great harm. The lists also seem popular for the readers, our end-users, and that is what the encyclopedia is all about, not the editors. They may be difficult to maintain, but maybe not: I checked some of them, and the entries were all accurate, in a small sample. Notability can be assumed by linkage to a Wikipedia article. The argument that western astrology articles lack these lists is irrelevant, it simply begs the question and creates the potential for circular arguments. Another thing is that you can delete the lists, but others may and probably will recreate them.
 * Third way. It would be possible to retain the lists, but not in their currant format. I don't think spinning them off into separate list articles would work. However, a protocol requiring somewhat of a higher standard for including persons in the lists, such as requiring the birthdates alongside the name, would make most of the entries obvious at a glance whether persons were correctly listed or not (December, January, and February don't have the highest birthrates, anyway). Also, a limit to the length of the lists could be implemented, so that once the list reaches its maximum number of entries, if someone wants to add to the list they would have to remove a previous entry, keeping the lists within reasonable bounds. Dcattell (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WP:FRINGE. There is no reason why Wikipedia should support silly beliefs such as astrology by spreading meaningless information about who has been put into which pigeonhole by superstitious people. It should inform the reader about the principles those superstitous people believe in but not go into unnecessary detail. Those who want such lists can start their own astrologypedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:NON-DEFINING. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes per nom. Sdkb (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Seems like trivial information to me. Some1 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as there is a humongous number of people (8.33% of all people) to list in each sign article. Useless.--Hippeus (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving for this talk page
I'd like to set up automated archiving for this page. Per Help:Archiving a talk page, I'm seeking consensus before doing so. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes (Qualified:) I'm not very familiar with automated archiving, but if you think that it would be an improvement, then I would be interested in seeing the implementation. (Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind afterwards!) I'm not sure why you think that bots would do a better job than a manual job; but, if you want to set it up, I'm willing to check out the results! Dcattell (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you'd like to set up a manual archive, please do. I see automated archiving as requiring less editor attention over time. Much of this page is taken up by threads that are more than ten years old, and I think that it's time for an archive, no matter what kind. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it appears that the old talk was from 3 July 2005 UTC through 14 May 2014 UTC, with a break of about six years, and no new talk till 2020. I did a bare bones implementation: down, dirty, not necessarily the ideal job, leaving the 2020 stuff. But anyway... Dcattell (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , something went awry. The link was to your own talk page archive, so I (re-)created one here. I did it manually; as you pointed out, the page isn't that busy, and continuing that way shouldn't take much time or attention. Let me know if there are any problems or if you have questions. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, BlackcurrantTea for being on top of it. I got momentarily distracted, and I guess botched a cut-and-paste. Anyway, I was just going to check on it, but you beat me to it! Now, I've made Rat (zodiac)/Archive 1 into a redirect back to the article, hoping to aid navigation. Maybe we can check back, in six years, or so, when people start adding the lists of people born in the year of the rat, again?! Dcattell (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understandable; I've had a fair few distracted moments myself lately. That redirect had an unexpected (at least to me) side effect: Its talk page is the archive for this page because of the naming. I noticed it because redirects rarely have talk pages. The mysteries of MediaWiki are without number and without end. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Trading celebrities for disasters?
So, instead of lists of more-or-less notable people in Chinese astrology articles, we're going to have compilations of more-or-less notable disasters? Dcattell (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we're not. Thanks for noticing. I just deleted it, and I hope it won't come back. Some people keep mistaking Wikipedia for a platform for spreading superstition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Of course it will come back. Or something very much like it will. These articles are like public transport, they need regular cleaning.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

= Color, direction =

Article states the color black and direction north among five points associate with the sign.

More precisely the northwest of eight points from twelve as stars and fate tie luck symbolism. Its color is deep blue or indigo as a mouse appears yielded from a pleasing Pig giving a black toiling ox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.138.89 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)