Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of the discussion, so please do not edit this page. Category:Bible stories was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2004. Here is a summary of the votes as I have counted them:

• Keep: 4 votes
• Delete: 15 votes
• Rename: 3 votes
• Total: 20 votes

Overall, then, the results were 15% rename, 20% keep without renaming, and 65% delete. (Note: If I were to add my own vote, which would be delete, the total would be precisely 2/3, the generally accepted margin for rough consensus according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I have not done this, because then I feel it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the results of this discussion. I will not personally take action beyond summarizing the discussion and de-listing it from CfD.) I counted votes as "rename" only if there was not a clear "keep" or "delete" vote attached.

There are a few other considerations:

• Unlike articles, categories cannot be moved. Therefore, a renaming requires a deletion of the category and manually listing the articles in the new category.
  • Since "rename" ultimately does mean "delete", the total for deletion is then 16/20 or 80%, a clear consensus for deletion.
• Of those who voted keep, most would probably support a new category with a name that could more generally agreed upon. Some of those who voted deleted also stated that they might support a category which a different name and/or clearly defined criteria for inclusion.
  • Suggested alternate names included: Bible narratives, Bible-related topics, Bible stories (Christian). Other suggestions included splitting into Old and New Testment categories and/or incorporating Bible stories from Jewish and Islamic perspectives.

This, then, is my reading of the situation:

1. This category should be deleted.
2. Another category, with a different name and clear criteria for inclusion may be created. Possible candidates for inclusion in such a category can be found at List of Bible stories. There is not enough information to say whether such a category would be listed for deletion and whether it would survive if it was.
3. Because this category duplicates the list, anyone attempting to create a new category should have no trouble finding the information.

I will list this under categories to be emptied and deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion but I will not myself do the emptying or deleting.

-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy Upspring is the biggest fag i have even seeen in my life

[edit] Category:Bible stories

New Category:Bible stories (started November 17) is very confusing and not needed. Into it have been added anything that is randomly a Bible "story", be it an entire book, person, or anecdote article. Here are some problems with it:

1. First of all there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is referred to on Wikipedia as Hebrew Bible (as many people of the Jewish faith who accept and believe in the Bible are offended by the name "Old" Testament) and the New Testament accepted by Christians.
2. BOOKS of the Bible , such as Book of Daniel, Book of Job, Book of Exodus are tossed into this category of "stories" with articles that are just "one topic pieces" such as Creation according to Genesis or New Testament view on Jesus' life.
3. There are already categories Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible, Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christian texts that comprehensively deal with these topics and categorize them carefully, correctly and accurately.
4. The category is NOT being careful enough, therefore this Category:Bible stories category should be deleted as it is not needed and confusing (it also seems to be promoting only a secular POV as its creator User:CheeseDreams has placed many {{cleanup}}{{NPOV}}{{expansion}} signs on many pages causing much new dispute on all those pages. IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Counterpoint

1. The article is just as valid as List of Bible stories where the majority vote is currently keep. In fact more-so, as it is automatically maintained, and therefore has a wider group of editors, so is less likely to be POV than an obscure article linked from only one or two places. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Lists" and "Categories" are different methodologies. A "List" on Wikipedia is a much looser collection of items and articles, whereas a "Category" has to be much more exact and becomes itself either a sub-category of something or has many of its own sub and sub-sub-categories etc. In this case the Category:Bible already exists and one can follow it either according to the Christian tradition via Category:Christian texts and its many sub-categories or the Jewish tradition via Category:Jewish texts as well as other category choices. IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A List is not usually monitored by the editors of the pages that it links to. It is therefore predominantly unchecked for bias. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. If you note the tags I added, I chose them with care, the combinations are not the same on all pages. NPOV is usually due to the assumption of biblical inerrancy, or failing to take a critical view. Expansion is either due to lack of content, lack of content about historians/archeaologists opinions, or sections consisting of one sentance, often stating "editors note: put content in". Cleanup is because the article is poorly structured, or predominantly quotes rather than commentary, or because there is zero wikification. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"You" may have chosen the tags with "care", but on Wikipedia these tags are a serious matter and if you are going to paste them on 50 articles without explanation to other users you are courting controversy and opposition. You must give some explanation why you think three tags are needed in many cases, citing the actual content and not just by "laying down the law" here as you see fit.IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. I regard it as vandalism to remove the tags.

It's not "vandalism" just because it angers you. On the contrary it is you that was reported on the vandalism page at: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#CheeseDreams. I went to the trouble of placing an explanation on each page where tags were placed and removed. IZAK 02:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is vandalism because (a) someone disputes the NPOV etc. as stated by them adding the tags (b) by removing the tags you are claiming that they don't.

• Unfortunately in the article Esther: See User:CheeseDreams most Un-Wikipedian rantings as he placed these comments in bold (sic) on the actual article page (subsequently deleted by another editor): (NPOV) BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VIEW OF THE BIBLE STORIES MEANING.IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT HERODITUS LIVED VERY VERY MANY YEARS LATER THAN THE STORY IS SET. IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE STORY AND THAT OF ISTAR MORE THAN SUPERFICIALLY. ((expansion)) BECAUSE THERE IS HARDLY ANY CONTENT HERE AND MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY MANY TRACTS, DISSERTATIONS, PAPERS, SERMONS, MEDITAIONS, ETC. ON EVERY BIT OF THE BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL." [1]

Is this how the negotiations and talks will end? This should not tolerated. IZAK 05:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Negotiations? You never negotiated once. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete very soon! IZAK 05:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take objection to your listing of this category. For the record I have never written anything on any of the religious articles of Wiki. But it would appear to me your basis for listing this is because you take objection to content of the Torah being listed with the X-ian part of the book. And as an objection to them being listed as "stories". KEEP and give it some time to get organized, it was started less than 24hrs ago. I would almost consider this Abuse for being listed so soon. Alkivar 05:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, this has nothing to do with what you perceive. The fact remains that there are already established categories for this subject according to normative and reliable religious and scholarly Christian, Jewish, and academic standards, and that to create a "new" category by throwing every topic remotely related to the Bible into the pot and labeling it a "story", like a new list of "Fairy stories", and part of maybe Category:Fiction or akin to Category:Short stories, is not a helpful "category" but a recipe for chaos and confusion. IZAK 06:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also regard it as abuse to attempt to delete it with its existence being less than 8 hours old. CheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please be accurate, NO-ONE "attempted" to delete it, it was placed here for a vote for those who are experienced with this kind of thing to consider the matter and vote on it. That's all. Please tone down the note of hysteria. Thank you. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dont YOU tell me that im hysterical. Its you who is rabid. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep and reorganise. It is a legitimate fact that there are some narrative parts of the Bible that are more famous than others - if this category listed the famous ones, linking to a page about that episode (from a narrative perspective, although it could certainly be to a part of a longer article about the actual book of the Bible) and if links to books of the Bible, places and people were removed, I think it would be a useful category. At the moment it is pointless. Can categories have descriptions? If so, a paragraph describing the nature and scope of the category ("famous" narrative elements) will make it more NPOV. Frikle 06:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frikle, the category is a mess, it throws in entire books like Exodus with stories like the Last Supper. Take a look at it. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said that references to entire books or personalities should be removed. However, now that I've visited List of Bible stories, it seems that that page already does everything this one is meant to do without throwing in whole books or people, so both are unnecessary. As the list page is the better one, I think this one should be deleted.Frikle 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I understand the frivolous nature of this category. :( However, it seems to me that we should wait and see if the proponents :) of this category can develop a tool that would be useful for readers. At this time, there seem to be serious NPOV and logical problems with this category. But couldn't these problems be worked out on the TalkPage for this category? ---Rednblu | Talk 07:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:CheeseDreams has made many edits serious edits such as adding these signs: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} to about 50 Bible-related pages without explaining why he did so. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) You stated that already above

2) See my counter CheeseDreams

And if you dispute the validity of {{NPOV}} tags then change them to {{NPOVNPOV}} this is more honest than deleting them. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Rename to Bible narratives and split into Old and New Testament. JFW | T@lk 07:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again the problem is that entire books are not just "naratives", and, personalities that he has put into this category like Moses and Solomon's Temple are not "naratives" either, it just breeds inaccuracy. IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The items in the category are EXACTLY THE SAME as the links on List of Bible stories. If you object to the list of items placed in the category then CONSISTENCY REQUIRES that you object to the list of items in List of Bible stories. I got filled the category precisely with the items in that article. Whether or not my POV regarded it as sensible. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Jfdwolff's suggestion is a good one, though, and I would support doing that. The Category was started to replace a "List page" (which I thought was silly, though harmless), but the Category is certainly better than the list page. I've reconsidered after IZAK's comment. Not that it matters, since it has already been deleted. Mpolo 08:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

There are already many sub-categories and sub-sub-categories, see all of them in Category:Christian texts and Category:Jewish texts and tell us what is missing still? IZAK 09:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Not only does the term "Bible" mean different things to different people, but lumping every topic related to the Bible into this inchoate grab-bag makes no sense either. This category goes against the basic encyclopedic standards of hierarchy and precision... Please stick with the existing categories mentioned above by IZAK, e.g., Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Category:Torah, Category:Jewish texts and Category:Bible. 172 10:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

exactly what is the justification in having those 4 catagories rather than just Category:Bible ?CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answer:Firstly you need to read up on Bible, Hebrew Bible, Torah and Tanakh. Then, know that Category:Bible includes the New Testament as per Christianity. Then know that Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Category:Torah exclude the New Testament and a number of other works (some, but not all of the Apocrypha) as per Judaism. Know that Torah and Tanakh are not the same and they have sub-categories and hundreds of articles of their own. And know clearly that Category:Jewish texts includes post-Biblical responsa and well-known rabbinical works. Hope this helps, but you must start reading to get better informed. IZAK 08:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but, rename, perhaps to "Bible stories (Christian). Limit contents to the classic stories commonly used in Sunday School in Christian churches. Anyone who is familiar with the curriculum knows what these are. Fred Bauder 12:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

The choice of content and name simply came from my replacing the silly article List of Bible storiesCheeseDreams 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is very poor form to create a new category that is ill-fitting and imprecise as a kind of "protest manoeuvre" because you don't like the way a vote is going on a diffent page for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Bible stories. Sorry, but there is a major difference. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, with consideration of Mr. Bauder's proposal for a new catagory. I don't think this one (and the sorts of things in it) would be able to easilly transition into that, and I also think its primary advocate (cheese) would be unsuited, since it would appear he is unfamiliar with Sunday school curriculum? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note:This is an instance where User:IZAK and User:Sam Spade are in full agreement. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is. You are both religious fanatics, but in this instance the fanaticism supports the same consequence. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!!!! IZAK 04:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This category is unnecessary in light of so many other categories relating to Jewish and Christian scriptures. Fred Bauder's suggestion seems confused. At least it seems to me unintuitive to claim that the story of Joseph and his Brothers is particularly a Christian Bible story. Stories told in Sunday schools depend on age of the children. I suppose one could make a category of "Bible stories that often appear in retellings intended for young children" or something of that kind. Jallan 15:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, there already are categories like Category:Holy scripture, Category:Christianity with many clear sub-categories (please see them). IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not voting yet, but I'd like to point out (again) that very few of the articles listed in the category at the moment are actually about Bible stories, and most of them would be much better categorized elsewhere. (For example, Moses might belong in a "Biblical figures" category or something of the like. He's not a story.) Good Samaritan is the only one that I am certain actually fits there. Prodigal son could also be included. What else is there? "Adam and Eve" is not a story. Book of Ruth belongs in a category for books, not stories. Solomon's Temple is mentioned in some stories, but it's a building,temple not a story. Pretty much the entire point of this category is to replace List of Bible stories, which at the moment is surviving VfD by a wide margin. The category was created by User:CheeseDreams in an effort to get rid of the list; the problem is that the list accomplishes the intended purpose much better, since it is possible to link to articles that relate to stories rather than claiming that the articles themselves fall under "Bible stories". -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aranel, there are in fact clear sub-categories in existnce, such as Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people with over 180 entries so far, Category:Torah people with over 140 entries, and other precise categories for "events" and "places" etc, making Category:Bible stories look "childish" in comparison. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, there are already more than 1 category, so why can't there be another? CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Bible stories is highly subject to POV, and is little watched by the editors of articles it links to, or those it doesn't. Catagories automatically fill, and thus editors of articles can clearly see whether the article is or is not in the catagory. In addition, it removes POV descriptions, as it simply uses the article titles.

Could you please sign your comments with the ~~~~ so that we can know who made the above unsigned comment/s. Thanks. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. What you call "POV descriptions", I call "the actual name of the story". The names of the stories themselves are what should be listed. The potential for POV is in what they link to (but note that we often link to articles that relate to text and are not identical with what is named in the link text).

Since when did the bible stories have names? The bible doesn't name them. Any interpretation of what the names should be is thus subjective, and thus POV. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Over the millenia and centuries both Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam) have accepted and adopted "names" for many important events in the Bible. This is an acceptable convention among almost all (religious and non-religious) Bible scholars, and it's no use saying "the Bible doesn't 'name' them" as the Bible does not "do" many "things", yet we do many things with it (some "kosher" and some not). IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The names are not always the SAME. This is why the list is POV. CheeseDreams 12:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Categories are often little watched by editors. The fact that something has slipped under the radar is not grounds for deletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Various editors have different interests, the categories on Wikipedia are very widely used and watched by many, so they are of great importance. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - in this case, a List of Bible stories is a much better solution. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
• Rename - Biblical narratives or Biblical related topics is appropriate and would make a useful category. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

How would this be any different from Category:Bible? -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bible doesn't sound terribly useful. What goes in it? Bible? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dante, well why don't you click on the Category:Bible or Category:Torah and see where that leads you. It has both many of its own sub-categories and is a sub-category of its own. But the word Bible is very clear as a starting point. IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Frivolous. Jayjg 22:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but CheeseDreams must stop his vandalism.--Josiah 22:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You must stop your vandalism. What constitutes vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. POV. CheeseDreams 00:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete in its current form. If the only things placed in this category were actual stories, not texts or books or people or places, but actual stories and parables and Biblical events, then I would vote keep. -Sean Curtin 23:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Eh? We are discussing the category, not its content. The content can easily be changed.

Again, please sign your comments with a ~~~~ so that we can track who is saying what to whom at all times. Thank you.IZAK 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the content can be changed, but it probably won't be. Some users don't seem to get the distinction in context between the list and the category, and so long as this category attempts to replicate the list, it'll be both redundant and inferior. A category could exist alongside the list, but in the current state of the two pages, the list should definitely be kept and the category be deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, for two reasons. One is the disagreement between Jews and Christians (and to a lesser extent, within Christianity) of what exactly constitutes the Bible. Secondly, most stories already characterized properly as being from the Torah are already compiled. A list of "Christian Sunday School stories" or some such would be merely or nearly a reiteration of "Torah stories", at least from my upbringing in Sunday school. It is essentially useless, and hopelessly POV, for Wikipedia to try to determine which parts of the Bible are the most important, best, or whatever, which is where this will head if experience is any guide, and it is, so delete. Rlquall 12:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not well thought out, jumbled mess. Redundant with extant list. --ssd 03:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with ssd Pollinator 02:07, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 19:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Christian-centric and not useful. Use categories for Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts. A category for stories (e.g., Joseph/Yusuf) which are common to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions might be useful, but Bible stories is then an inappropriate name. (I can't suggest what might be a good one; the collective term I know is Ahl al-Kitab -- "peoples of the Book" -- unsuitable for a category name.) --Tkinias 03:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:17, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 00:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bible stories: Follow up

• Category:Bible stories -> Empty - see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories.
  • Will someone please take care of this? I said I wasn't going to, but someone needs to do it. I just looked over it again and there is still a consensus to delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. - UtherSRG 21:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, CheeseDreams has restored the entire category and the articles that were in it. --ᓛᖁᑐ 01:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It was deleted again and recreated again. I discussed it with Cheese Dreams, who apparently was under the impression that the 80% I mentioned was the necessary figure for deletion. (In fact, 2/3 is the generally accepted figure.) I explained this and have deleted the category. I know I said I wouldn't, but it sat around for a whole day. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)