Talk:Jacob Neusner bibliography

VfD
On April 6, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Jacob Neusner bibliography for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It was nominated again, and kept: Votes for deletion/Jacob Neusner bibliography 2. Eugene van der Pijll 21:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"?
Why was the conclusion listed as "keep"? Looking at the most recent discussion page on the proposal to delete the article, shouldn't it be concluded that the consensus was to trim down the bibliography to a more reasonable level, and merge that into the main Jacob Neusner article? I am concerned that Neusner's massive bibliography page is (a) not an encyclopedia article, (b) a vanity page, (c) Totally out of line when compared to the bibliographies of all other people on this entire encyclopedia, and (d) not even in line with Neusner's own college! They don't bother to place all this info on their website. Given the comments on the discussion page, I hope if no one takes offense at me attempting to edit this bibliography down to a more modest level. RK 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Neusner_bibliography_2


 * I think that is the best thing one can do with this page. JFW | T@lk  22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Honsetly, This page is ridiculous. I suggest we place all the translations as one entry, (translations of Talmud and Medrash), and similar editing.Wolf2191 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to cut down on entries but it's to much work. I suggest cutting out all translation entries into one main entry. If no complaints over next few days I'll do it. As it is the page is not useful.Wolf2191 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 25 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

} List of books by Jacob Neusner → Jacob Neusner bibliography – This article is an author bibliography, in other words, it is a list of published works by a particular author. In the Category:Bibliographies by author, there are 244 entries. ~97% of those articles are entitled Author bibliography. Per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA of which ''Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles? Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.'' is policy and the advice given in WikiProject Bibliographies, the proposed title is better from a consistency standpoint. Mike Cline (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose this hobgoblin. Consistency in error is not desirable; and the same link shows that precision is also valued. The present title describes this article and no other; the proposed title would describe this article, a list of works about him, or a mixture. JCScaliger (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment ~97% of the 246 articles in Category:Bibliographies by author are entited Author bibliography. A bibliography About someone is properly entitled Bibliography of author, the author being to topic of the bibliography, not the author of the works listed. Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln is a good example of this. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Around here, however, that level of consistency usually the result of some lone editor riding a hobbyhorse. The distinction is not visible and not helpful to the passing reader. List of works by and Bibliography on would be unambiguous and so preferable. JCScaliger (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC) JCScaliger (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exceedingly ambiguous terminology is being effected by WP Biblio which is extremely unhelpful and overly confusing for grammatically equivalent phrases under English grammar rules. We should not be promoting ambiguous jargon for articles that should be clearly delineated. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support If we follow the new recommendations that we arrived at in this discussion, there will be no confusion:
 * Books by an author: John Doe bibliography
 * Books about an author: Bibliography of works on John Doe
 * I notice, by the way, that no one who has actually contributed to this article is weighing in on this issue. I hope they will voice their opinion. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That only clears up the second case, the naming of the first case still leaves an ambiguous title. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain why they think "X bibliography" is in any way better than "List of books by X", apart from being a little bit shorter? To me as a passing reader, I would far rather be told unequivocally what the page contains, as "List of..." does, and not be made to think about it and then make a guess, as "...bibliography" has me do. --Kotniski (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, naturalness, conciseness and consistency. Claims of ambiguity are unnecessarily pedantic in my view.--MegaSloth (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only barely more concise (it's one letter shorter, but one syllable longer if spoken); I don't see why it's more natural; and if we were to follow the same chosen pattern for all similar articles, there wouldn't be any difference in consistency.--Kotniski (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: why would we change a simple, plain-English title into multigobble Latinate one? Tony   (talk)  13:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This request has been in RM since Nov 20. Clearly there is no consensus to move, and all the support arguments have been refuted, and the WP:PRECISION arguments in opposition remains unassailable.  I tried to close this as no move, twice, but have been reverted each time, for no reason other than I'm not an admin.  So much for trying to help.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.