Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24[edit]

Category:Victimless crimes[edit]

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]

  • delete The plethora of tags on the main article is testimony to the controversy over categorizing any particular illegal act as "victimless". Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 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]
  • delete hopelessly POV; the header on the category should help explain the problems with this category. Prostitution is a victimless crime, along with substance abuse? really? The problem is, reasonable people could disagree on any of these crimes whether there are victims or not; as the article itself points out, this is not a term of jurisprudence, but rather a term used by politicians and journalists and activists. While certainly the article is useful to have, when we categorize we are making a binary decision - in or out - and in this case making such a decision requires too much POV in my opinion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 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]
  • Delete - if I was to remove every article from this category that I didn't agree with its membership on (as suggested by NorsemanII), then the category would be a very small one and eligible for deletion under WP:SMALLCAT with no prospect of increasing in size. Additionally, doing so while a category is under discussion here is against protocol for CfD. The argument of there being other categories that are as dubious/subjective is covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF.

    I'm not denying that there is a history of discussion of this concept in the legal, medical and ethics literature, however from a meta overview of this literature the only conclusion that has been drawn is that it is subjective. This is borne out in the final paragraph of the explanatory note in the category, which is contradicted by the statement above that there are "absolutely, unarguably victimless" crimes. I go so far as to suggest that the base article belongs in Category:Legal fiction. (By the way, I consider dictionary.com to be an unreliable source.) Additionally, the talk page for the main article for this category gives an good indication of just how slippery and POV this concept really is. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:19, 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]
  • Comment. While victimless crimes may be an accepted term, it does not always ring true. For some of these, they are victimless crimes if neither party chooses to commit another crime under cover of an illegal activity. And for some of these, that happens all too often. So, at best I'm neutral and at worst I would support deletion. No decision at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the very notion that a crime is somehow "victimless" and by implication the chief point of criminal law is to protect victims, is clearly a specific phylosophy that is meant to overturn the laws. In the case of shopping on Sunday, the people who are forced to give up their day of worship to serve those who wish to patronise stores on that day become victims of the crime. Classifying crimes in this way is inherently meant to push a certain point of view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Obi-Wan Kenobi. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Crimes are better classed in other ways -- i.e., crimes against property; crimes against persons; status crimes; etc. Using this kind of categorization can capture the informational content of "victimless crimes" without raising the POV argument problems of this term. "Victimless crime" is a classification that is intended to foster discussion and thought and it's useful that way, but as a type of classification, not so much. --Lquilter (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the person themselves, and society which pays the bills for rehabilitation and hospitalization, drug-resultant crime, muggees, spouses, children. This is simply a "cute" expression that is, for an encyclopedia, pov-pushing.
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[edit]

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]
  • It's designed as a way to categorize non-free media used on Wikipedia; that's a separate sphere from all images in general. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:47, 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]
  • Delete. If there are non-free images, they should be moved to Commons - thus not needing categorisation here - and thus removing the need for distinguishing free/nonfree here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Star Trek film images. It has been a couple weeks since anyone offered an opinion on this category, so I am recasting my vote. All of the images left in this category are from Star Trek films, and it already contains the sub-category Category:Star Trek film posters. Renaming it, would eliminate the need to move those images to a new category, and would put it more in line with all the other sub-categories in Category:Star Trek images. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Keep as creator. A notable category of compilation album that has developed since the first such album, the Beatles' 1, in 2000, which is one of the best-selling albums of all time. By definition, a relatively small number of entries, but no more overcategorization than the many other cats for compilation albums. ProhibitOnions (T) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a rare enough achievement to be able to issue such an album. What about a rename to specify that these are each by a single artist or band, not compilations of various artists? Category:Single artist number ones albums? – Fayenatic London 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then the ones that don't actually have 100% of the songs that were number ones should be removed. Otherwise, it's categorization by title. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the current entries meet these criteria (extremely popular artists who were able to score enough #1 hits to fill a compilation album) - I have removed a various-artists album that had crept in. No albums are included simply because they have "number one" in the title, though some clarification might indeed be a good idea.ProhibitOnions (T) 10:22, 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:Stub types for deletion templates[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Speedy rename as an obvious inconsistency. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 25 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[edit]

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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_24&oldid=1138396482"