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.
Nominator's rationale: I suppose that most streets named "crescent" are typically shaped more or less like a crescent, rather than a straight line or a meandering trail – so this is not just pure categorization by naming feature. However, in categories we have no overcall scheme for categorizing crescents as distinct from other streets, nor can I see any real utility for doing so. I suggest simply merging the few articles to the parent Category:Streets in Bristol. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first two articles are about the buildings NOT the street so should be in a building category. All three are already in Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol. The third Royal York Crescent ledes about the street so should be in a street category; or rewrite the article so that it is about the crescent of buildings(!). Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. One may well argue that a terrace of houses is one building, but that is not exactly reality. The Crescents may in fact be one side of a street, but it does not harm to merge. It may be different for Bath, where I think there are rather more crescents. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to ever contain more than one template —swpbT 16:26, 2 November 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a bit convoluted, but I don't see any way we can meaningfully distinguish between slogans and catchphrases in this context. Since "slogans" is currently the subcat, I proposed a merge in this direction, but I would support anything that eliminated this artificial distinction, even if it's language like "slogans and catchphrases". By the way, isn't it "catchphrase", one word? Or is that an WP:ENGVAR issue? --BDD (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added the American subcats, which are the only ones that have such a split. "Catch phrases" has subcats for Canada and the UK, and "slogans" has subcats for India, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and South Africa, so one of those two groups will have to be moved if this proposal is successful. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I can't tell the difference either. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: While Category:Fabrics was created as a subcat of Category:Textiles, it is unclear how these categories are supposed to differ in scope, and articles seem arbitrarily placed in either. The Fabrics category has a cat main template linking to Fabrics, which is a redirect to Textile. Paul_012 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Textile is a more general term than fabric; fabrics are textiles, but not vice versa. For instance, carpets are considered textiles, but not fabrics. The same with a woven leather belt; it is a textile, but not a fabric. Fabric is also more closely associated with the end product than the process; one goes to a fabric store to purchase cloth for a dress, but to learn to produce fabrics, one studies textile engineering. Fabric as a subset of textiles seems an appropriate place for the cat. --Mark viking (talk)
Comment. The terms textile, cloth, and fabric have been muddled in Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. I assume this reflects the actual understanding of the terms by editors and readers. Without consensus based on some accepted industry or scholarly hierarchy which we can cite, I doubt the distinction is of value to our readers. (Note I created the category "fabric".) - PKM (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection in principle but the target needs diffusing, between types of cloth, characteristics of cloth, and cloth factories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the distinction is too subtle. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (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.
