Template talk:English criminal law navbox
|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Crimes of dishonesty" and etc 
The following offences, currently listed, do not, in express terms, require "dishonesty": taking without consent, forgery, blackmail. Neither do offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (presumably what "computer crime" refers to).
I do not understand the logic of grouping criminal damage with public order offences.
I am going to replace the group "crimes of dishonesty" with a group called "offences against property" as I think this is more typical and straightforward approach. I will put criminal damage into this group.
I will create a new group for "forgery, personation and cheating" as forgery does not fit into any of the existing groups, and is not necessarily an offence against property either. This follows the layout of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice.James500 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Additional templates are needed 
In my view, there are so many offences, and so many related concepts, that we will need additional templates with a narrower focus. There are already a substantial number of offences, that already have articles that are not included, not to mention the ones for which articles have yet to be created. James500 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have fixed several links, so that they will work or "black-out" on their respective transcluded pages. I don't know why you had reverted them. Also, I tend to like the links to be alphabetized, because, in the order that they are now, as a layperson, I don't see a correlation. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The reversion of those particular links was an accident that was due to the fact I started with an earlier revision of the template because I felt it wouldn't be practical to start with the latest revision in order to make the extensive changes that I had in mind.
The correlation is that the classes, defences and offences are related to each other and are grouped together by books on the subject. (So, for example, murder, manslaughter and infanticide are grouped together because they are forms of homicide, and I put child destruction next because it is a bridge between homicide (in the technical sense) and the offence of procuring a miscarriage, and so on. I tried to put them in order of decreasing seriousness.) If you cannot see correlation, a better solution might be further subdivision of the template or the creation of new, more specific templates. Alphabetical order is going to be meaningless to a person who is familiar with the subject. I didn't realise that it was alphabetical. James500 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, sorting by correlation is probably the best. Although, like I said above, that may not be immediately evident to a layperson, such as myself. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)