Category talk:Bhagavad-gītā

Deletion debate
Tagged but not listed. I will endevour to find out why. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, it's apparently an individual religious poem/text, somewhat like having a Category:Genesis referring to the first book of the Bible. Ergo delete as not dictionary material, should be on Wikipedia or nowhere at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because fundamental religious texts are an important source of linguistic information, there might be a case for this, similar to that for Category:Biblical derivations. There are many languages where the first writings were translations of the Bible. I would expect there to be analogous linguistic significance for the Bhagavad-gita in the languages of India, including English.
 * I don't know what non-religious texts can be shown to have the same linguistic meaning. In English, not even Shakespeare has had as much influence as the Bible, especially KJV. In English the role of the Bible is most visible in multi-word expressions; the need to use simple vocabulary prevented the use of complicated or unusual words, except for proper nouns. The influence of biblical given names is itself an indication of influence. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But how many English words derive from the Bhagavad-gītā? This category is an English language category. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAICT it's not all that fundamental as a religious text, or am I wrong? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. See the first line of Bhagavad-gītā. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But there are likely many words (or lexicographically interesting phrases, proverbs...) that were taken directly from the Gita in various Indian languages, in which case this would merely serve as a super-category for them. Similarly, there are probably many languages in the world which don't have at all Biblical derivations other than personal names. However, at this moment the category hardly deserves to be created, and recategorizing the three entries it contains into the empty supracategory Category:Hindu mythology would suffice IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)