Category talk:Apocalypse of Peter

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Category status

[edit]

@Dimadick: This is a fundamentally bad idea and this entire category should be deleted. We've clashed in the past and you've created lots of bad categories, but this is not how categorization works on Wikipedia. A category is not for everything mentioned or relevant to a work; it's for strict subtopics and members. In other words, for things like literature, other writers who mention it (e.g. Macarius Magnes) or other books inspired by it (e.g. Apocalypse of Paul) are not appropriate; that's just a normal wikilink from the article.

If you agree with the above, you can delete the category yourself with Template:Db-author. If you don't agree, I will probably nominate this at WP:CFD. (And please take this advice into account for other categories as well.) SnowFire (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire are you drunk or unfamiliar with Wikipedia? We literally have these kind of categories for every book in the Bible and several in the apocrypha, with categorization working exactly like this. See Category:Wikipedia categories named after religious texts. Are you so desperate to destroy categories? Dimadick (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I rather like categories, but you seem to think that anything vaguely relevant means an article qualifies as a member of a category, but that isn't actually how categories are supposed to work on Wikipedia. Categories contain subtopics not merely related topics, if that makes any sense. If this category was reduced to just the relevant members, it would only have the article Apocalypse of Peter in it and be a violation of WP:SMALLCAT.
I will give an example. You've added Psalm 24 which this work indeed quotes. But Psalms are quoted all over the place. Psalm 22 is famously quoted in all four gospels, but that doesn't mean it should be part of the (legitimate) categories for those gospels. It's just a quote - a reason for a wikilink, but that's not the same as a subtopic. Take a look at what's currently in Category:Gospel of Mark. This is not an invitation to add absolutely every reference to other literature in Mark, but gives an idea of how category inclusion criteria is supposed to work. This isn't just me, this is how everyone else does categories. SnowFire (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unfamiliar with Category:Gospel of Mark. I have both worked on it for the last few years, and created several of its subcategories. Psalm 24 quoted in a major work of apocalyptic literature is very different than a laundry list of quotations in music. Dimadick (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated this for deletion. Please examine how Wikipedia categories are used everywhere else. You are adding them entirely too indiscriminately. At the very least, wait and see what the CFD results are. If it turns out the consensus of Wikipedia community is with you, I'll lay off and let this lie, but I'll be utterly shocked if it is, given that every time I can recall this came to CFD or multiple editors weighed in, nobody agreed with you. SnowFire (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]