Category talk:Old Testament apocrypha

Ancient Christian texts

@Marcocapelle: Please give an explanation in the edit summary when removing categories. Why this one? [1] – Fayenatic London 21:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's actually very seldom that I don't give an explanation when removing a category. In this case it's not Christian but Jewish. Part of Old Testament, yes; but Christian text, no. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: OK – noted. The Apocrypha are scripture to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but not to Jews; that's why this category was in Category:Ancient Christian texts. I still think it should be in that one. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Fayenatic london: Apparently we interpret the inclusion criteria of the category differently. You've interpreted as "used by" while I've interpreted as "written by". I still think, for what it's worth, that the latter interpretation is more intuitive within the Ancient texts tree. To illustrate, most ancient texts are nowadays only used by specialised academics, but we would never have a subcategory Ancient texts used by academics. Also note that in this case the "used by" characteristic of the Old Testament Apocrypha is already covered because the entire Old Testament is in the Christianity tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll add a "see also" link to this category from Ancient Christian texts instead. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of sub-categories

I found that this category included a lot of pseudepigrapha, and some but not all of the deuterocanonical books and Category:Anagignoskomena.

I split this to a new sub-category Category:Old Testament pseudepigrapha so that we could see what was left directly in it.

I also decided to remove the selection of articles from this one that were (correctly) in the sub-categories Category:Deuterocanonical books and Category:Anagignoskomena, e.g. [2]

@JudeccaXIII: I understand that you have reverted the latter set of edits. Please can we take them out again? – at least for the deuterocanon.

It may be that Category:Anagignoskomena is not very helpful; it could be nominated for merging as suggested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_1#Category:Texts_only_found_in_the_Septuagint. – Fayenatic London 21:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Hello and sorry for the late response, I agree that Category:Anagignoskomena isn't useful but I disagree that Category:Old Testament apocrypha should be hidden as I see it as a NPOV issue. The disputed books which Catholic and Orthodox Christians define as scripture the Protestants and non denominational Christians do not. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: The category has been purged following the above discussion, perhaps by user:Black Falcon. See now Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_12#Category:Anagignoskomena for a further proposal. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, based on the CfD discussion, I purged Category:Texts in the Septuagint of any articles that were in Category:Anagignoskomena or its subcategories—here's the list of edits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: See also Category talk:Deuterocanonical books. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)