< July 23 July 25 >

July 24

Category:Victimless crimes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The whole concept of "victimless crime" is POV and should not be promoted on the neutral Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Too avoid confusion: Night of the Big Wind changed name into The Banner[reply]
Keep: The concept of a victimless crime is not POV. For example, shopping on Sunday in violation of a blue law is undeniably and objectively victimless. On the other hand, murder is objectively a crime which requires a victim. The distinction is objective and neutral - no rational person would argue otherwise.
Victimless crime is just as well defined as violent crime. In fact, it's defined even more clearly. I'll accept that there could conceivably be some debate over some of the entries in victimless crime, however, in the same manner, there is some debate over whether or not vandalism should be considered a violent crime. Nonetheless, vandalism is categorized as a violent crime on Wikipedia. In contrast, victimless crime has been carefully and clearly defined by the dictionary [1] so as to avoid controversy.
If you believe that any of the entries within the victimless crime category do not meet the dictionary standards, feel free to remove them. However, the category itself is sound and should not be deleted unless you're prepared to delete an enormous number of categories by the same standard. -NorsemanII (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep this category has an article with citations, has 23 other articles and has an expanation. There is no justifiable reason to delete. Hmains (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there are two situations where action ought to be taken regarding categories: (1) There are articles in the category which do not meet the definition. (2) It is impossible for any article to unambiguously match the definition. In situation 1, the offending articles ought to be removed, but the category should stay. In situation 2, the category ought to be removed entirely. However, since the dictionary actually provides examples of victimless crimes, situation 2 has been authoritatively ruled out. -NorsemanII (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"really?" Yes, unless you want to claim that the dictionary has a biased point of view. Prostitution is specifically cited as an example of a victimless crime at dictionary.com [2]. Substance abuse is categorically included by the dictionary.com definition which defines victimless crimes as legal offenses to which all participating parties have consented. Substance abuse is specifically cited as an example of a victimless crime at socialsciencedictionary.com [3]. Remember, we're not discussing whether or not these crimes are bad, we are only discussing if they have victims. But if you still think they don't meet the definition of a victimless crime, remove them. If you want, you can leave a note in the category to not add them back because they're controversial.
"The problem is, reasonable people could disagree on any of these crimes whether there are victims or not" If you disagree with any of the articles being in the category, remove them. There are plenty of items in the category which are absolutely, unarguably victimless. Apostasy, civil disobedience, criticism of government, interracial marriage, and violation of blue laws stand out as unarguably victimless. Do you think there should be no category for such crimes? -NorsemanII (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I have seen, it is not a wide spread idea. It is (mostly??) confined to libertarian and right wing politics. Unless you can proof that it is mainstream politics, I stay at my point that the concept is POV.
And you call substance abuse a victimless crime? I doubt if for instance Tom Simpson and Marco Pantani will agree on that. The Banner talk 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the idea that it's confined to libertarian/right wing politics, here's Google scholar[4] with over ten thousand results for scholarly articles which discuss victimless crimes. Included in the results are articles from legal journals [5][6][7][8], scientific and medical journals [9][10][11], journals of ethics [12], 1,500 court cases [13], and several books [14][15][16].
Regarding substance abuse, if you think that it doesn't match the definition for a victimless crime, feel free to remove it from the category. -NorsemanII (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:SMALLCAT objection - there were several articles I've been intending to add to the category since the deletion argument started. Here's a few of them: miscegenation, zina, homosexuality in Muslim countries, thoughtcrime, Jim Crow laws, Nuremberg Laws, Ugly law. In addition, there are tons of other clearly victimless crimes which don't yet have articles, but might in the future. These include illegal proselytism (e.g. unsanctioned Christian proselytism in China and many Muslim countries), illegally accessing foreign information sources (a crime in China and North Korea, possibly elsewhere), censorship of materials supporting political, religious and moral beliefs, etc. There is a lot of potential for this category to grow as Wikipedia grows.
Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF objection, my point is that this category does not inherently have greater POV problems than other categories which are considered acceptable and neutral. It's easy enough for us to find things that we can all agree are victimless crimes, but it's also possible for us to find things which are debatable. That doesn't mean we ought to delete the entire category. One could take any other category and find things that might or might not belong in it, then argue that the category itself ought to be deleted because some items are controversial. That doesn't make sense. If teal is ambiguously a shade of green, it doesn't mean that the entire category for shades of green ought to be deleted. If vandalism is ambiguously a violent crime, it doesn't mean that the entire category for violent crime ought to be deleted. If the category has enough items that everyone can agree on, the agreeable items should be kept and everything else should be removed. -NorsemanII (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify on the talk page of victimless crime with the category page text, for consideration as material for the article, then delete as POV category. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lquilter's arguments are sound IMO. Generally, neither articles, and certainly not categories, should provoke general annoyance. If they do, it's often because of pov violation. This has not resulted in reporting (or categorizing) untruthfully, but rather recording the facts with regard for the highest sense of objectivity. Student7 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-free Star Trek media

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: prune TV images and then rename to Category:Star Trek film images.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; all the images here are already included in Category:Star Trek images or one of its sub-categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after taking a closer look, if this category was removed from those images already containing a sub-category of Category:Star Trek images, all the images left are from Star Trek films. So maybe it would be better to Rename the category to Category:Star Trek film images, and that way the sub-category Category:Star Trek film posters would not need to be moved. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if all the images are already included in one of the Star Trek image categories, why do we need a second one just to show that it is non-free media? All the images already have a non-free tag and fair use rationale, and none of the other franchises included in Category:Science fiction images or Category:Television images need a separate category to show this. I can understand having a category to distinguish the film images from the rest, but naming it "Non-free Star Trek media" is redundant. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it's the Star Trek images category that needs tweaking, then, not this one. As to redundancy, not all Star Trek images are non-free/free, so there's no real duplication. Tags on the image page are for licensing purposes, not for organizational ones. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Back to the Future

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Opposed - jc37 03:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hi, I believe that Category:Back to the Future should be renamed as Category:Back to the Future (franchise), matching the category's article. But I could be wrong.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Number ones compilation albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of a subset of albums just because they are named "Number Ones" or contain a collection of a music artist's songs which may have reached number one on some chart at some time. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stub types for deletion templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No longer required since WP:SFD is gone. All entries under "S" are currently at TFD, and the two others should be recategorised. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Posthumous novels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Category:Books published posthumously, Category:albums published posthumously, etc. This is probably speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Latin music

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Latin American music articles to Category:WikiProject Latin music articles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To reflect on the new name of the WikiProject. Also no longer dependent solely on Latin America. Erick (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Withdrawing at it would create problems with the previous banner. Plus I already requested the bot to replace the old banner with the new one. Erick (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More