Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:48, 20 July 2012

July 6

Category:NRHP architects

• Propose renaming Category:NRHP architects to Category:Architects of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places
• Propose renaming Category:NRHP builders to Category:Builders of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places
• Propose renaming Category:NRHP engineers to Category:Engineers of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: The current names are not particularly meaningful, and they misleadingly suggest that "NRHP" is a subcategory of architect, engineer or builder. The proposed new naming pattern accurately describes the category scope. Orlady (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The long proposed names are too long and are inaccurate. What is a "builder of a property", anyhow? The current names are in fact accurate subcategories. --doncram 23:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Builders of properties" is exactly what it says on the tin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To explain, I think of property as in a parcel of real property, i.e. land. It is usually a plot of land with everything on it that is listed on the National Register, rather than a building or object without land. One doesn't build or design or engineer a property; one can build or design buildings, structures, or other objects. The "NRHP architect" category is applied to architects who have gotten credit for designing something in several NRHP-listed properties. For example a landscape architect might get subsidiary credit on a property where the main architectural credit is to another architect for the centerpiece building, and where the property is a 10.4-acre (4.2 ha) parcel. It's not accurate to call any one the architect or the builder of the property. I think all of the suggested terms don't read well; i think it is better to give succinct "NRHP architect" or similar and let it be defined more specifically and accurately at the category page. --doncram 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, for most of us, "property" usually means land -- what lawyers call "real property". However, the National Register of Historic Places uses the word "property" as a general term for every entity listed on the Register, as discussed at National Register of Historic Places property types. --Orlady (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We agree that is specialized jargon; for general readers it seems important to use a general and accurate term or one that at least is not misleading, even if it does not fully define the category all in its name.

One further point: architects who have achieved NRHP listings are not necessarily American architects; there are English and other architects who have one or more NRHP-listed works in America. So I don't think NRHP architect category should be nested within American architect category. --doncram 16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you have removed it from that category, can you find another part of the Category:Architects hierarchy where this fits? --Orlady (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine to place it just within Category:Architects. Did that just now. --doncram 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Acronyms should be spelled out whenever possible, and here, it's possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a worl-wide resource, and these acronyms are not understood worldwide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (voted Oppose above) I don't really care too much; I am not really a fan of categories at all. But categories are useful for those interested in a narrow topic to navigate between articles, and those people know what an acronym means. To reply to the two last !votes above, note that NRHP is spelled out in each article itself, such as a statement that "So-and-so designed numerous buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)" followed by many instances of "NRHP-listed" next to many items in the article. The tag is not appropriate on an article that does not mention and spell out the term. So I think the acronym is understood in the articles. I see the votes adding up in favor of this, however I think the change will hurt every article with a small bit of unnecessary extension at the bottom. --doncram 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't categorise architects etc. based on what they designed or otherwise worked on, unless their work was in their job title. There's also no clear standard for saying who qualifies and who doesn't. Are we going to put Thomas Jefferson in one of these categories, because he's responsible for designing multiple National Register-listed properties? Either we have no standards at all (definitely a bad idea), or we impose an arbitrary "must have done _____" standard that has consistently failed to get consensus for existence at XFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There can be future arguments about inclusion criteria for persons to be included in list-articles about NRHP architects, NRHP builders, and NRHP engineers, but for now it seems most natural for anyone credited by the National Register for an individual NRHP-listed work to be included in these categories. This is very well-defined, very objective. These categories are complementary (per wp:CLT) to list-articles or list-article sections that can be developed in the future. For example, see passage about NRHP architects and builders introduced by me just now in lede of List of RHPs in ND, as an example. It is a specialized list that is appropriate there, and there naturally can be similar lists of architects, builders, engineers in other state-level NRHP articles. --doncram 16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, if consensus support keeping categories for these subjects, I'd support the rename proposed by the nominator. As long as these categories exist, we need to spell out the acronym. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Nyttend. If kept, rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not going to comment on the proposals to delete due to my desire to avoid confrontation with the category creator. --Orlady (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete we do not categorize people in professions by recognition in some organization for their work after their death. While alive these people had no connection to NRHP, most probably dieing before it existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We can, though. We do categorize winners of various awards after their deaths, e.g. List of Medal of Honor recipients and many corresponding categories. We do list architects who have works listed on the NRHP, see lede of List of RHPs in ND for one list of 7 North Dakota NRHP architects, and List of NHLs in NY#Overview for a list of 20 NY architects compiled. --doncram 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We do categorize and list bridges that received NRHP recognition long after they were built, e.g. for one state List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in North Dakota and corresponding category Category: Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in North Dakota. We categorize and list churches that received NRHP recognition, and similarly for many more types of things. Not exactly the same as the architects, who weren't given the NRHP award explicitly, but still. --doncram 03:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I voted Keep above. I would rather that the NRHP be spelled out, if that would satisfy some here. But if the decision is to delete, however, would the administrator please agree to consult with me first, so that i can capture the information that would be lost if/when the categories are simply deleted from articles. Currently there are 428 and growing number of architects, not all recorded in my most recent copy of list. The list is needed for NRHP WikiProject administrative purposes. This proposal by Orlady, though they attempt to suggest non-confrontation with me, does complicate my work. The categories have been serving as good complements to Wikiproject work lists of works in progress. --doncram 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? You simply want to know what's in the categories so that you can save the information offline? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, simply if they are to be deleted, I want a complete copy of contents of each.

There's more going on here that these category deletions proposed would disrupt. Since December 2010 I have been developing articles for NRHP architects, builders, engineers from a working list of the top NRHP ones, with correspondence btwn NRIS spelling vs. wikipedia article names. (For recent weeks the working list has been visible at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Architects2009a where I have been frequently editing.) It is a big task to identify correct correspondence and to fill out the list of architects, etc., further. From November 2011 I have been using the category system to help, and a number of other editors have joined me, in adding Category:NRHP architects, Category:NRHP builders, Category:NRHP engineers to articles; these categories were all hidden categories, and have been quite helpful already in going back and forth. A larger purpose is to end a big, thorny problem in new NRHP articles, that of correctly identifying which type a named person is. That has been a big source of a lot of nasty contention; I have been working to end that nasty contention by making available a big lookup table of what each one of the persons are most likely to be.

A week ago I changed the categories from being hidden, administrative categories, to being visible, which I thought was not too big a change, would provide something useful for readers and would make it easier to use for the development purposes. Orlady instantly pounced upon that to nominate them for deletion here (or rather they started this discussion which could lead to that). I didn't even try to explain or to ask for them to be kept but changed to hidden. With Orlady I assume they would give no consideration to the practical impact of her proposal, or even there is positive intent on their behalf to cause disruption of my and others work (sorry, honestly that is my impression). I perceive that I am dealing with a hateful opponent bent on complicating my work in wikipedia, that's just what it is, there is no rational discussion possible.

But also in some past categories discussion, not involving Orlady, I asked for some other category to be kept as a hidden category I think and that was disregarded/dismissed i don't know why, it seemed like inscrutable bureaucratic reasoning here. Maybe the view was that categories are "supposed to" help readers directly, and administrative/development purposes "are simply not allowed" to be valued? No offense intended to anyone here. So I didn't even try to ask this time, yet. For development purposes, though, if the categories were not kept visible, it would nearly as good for me if they are kept but hidden. If to be deleted, then I at least want copy of the contents identified.

Since I am explaining this much, I would really like to ask if the categories could just be changed back to administrative ones, named exactly as they are, to facilitate the wikipedia development process. I am not optimistic because of what-i-perceive-to-be bureaucratic, non-rational reasonings in the past here. Nyttend, I dunno, can you see what I (and some others) are doing, work-wise, and how deleting the categories is not helpful? Could you at least support hiding and keeping them?

I am pessimistic that you or anyone would actually really try to consider what is going on, from the develpment perspective that I have, though. I am afraid the bureaucratic reaction is that this much is "too much to read", no matter what the consequence of deletion upon ongoing good development work. --doncram 04:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wayne County, Michigan from sub-cats

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: upmerge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge Category:People from Allen Park, Michigan to Category:People from Wayne County, Michigan
• Merge Category:People from Belleville, Michigan to Category:People from Wayne County, Michigan
• Nominator's rationale These are both one entry categories. Neither of these cities are or ever have been very large. There is no reason to have these extremely small sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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:People assasinated by Freemasons

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} 01:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:People assasinated by Freemasons - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Almost unpopulated, and there are very few (if any) legitimate members of this category. William Morgan (anti-Mason) was never established to have actually been killed, Roberto Calvi had too many people gunning for him to be sure who actually murdered him (especially since the only people charged were found not guilty), and so forth. (And it's spelled wrong, too.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't you be declaring an interest here Sarek? Rather bad form for an Admin, no? JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I would not be surprised if Joseph Smith would be a contender for this category. However since no one was ever convincted of his murder, the fact that some of his accused assasins may have been freemasons would not be enough to categorize this. What of the person that Andrew Jackson killed in a duel? Was that an "assasination" and was Mr. Jackson a freemason at the time? Categorizing people by a trait of the person who killed them seems questionable. Do we even have Category:People assasinatied by Serbian nationalists for the well documented case of the assasination of the Austrian Archduke in 1914. Generally we classify people by who they are, not by what type of other people did things to them. There may be a few exceptions, but the freemasons one does not seem to be a good one. Anyway, this category reeks of anti-Masonic bigotry. What next Category:People killed by Mormons to join the Washington Post in trying to make the 150+ year old Mountain Meadows Massacre into a 2012 election issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the lack of actual categories to put this in suggests this is a truly irregular category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment we have two categories of people assasinated by x, and in each case the listed groups are military in some respect, not at all like the freemasons. Even at that, I am not convinced that Category:People assassinated by the Mossad really is worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Emptied out of process because evidently nobody accepted any of the individual categorizations. I would tend to agree with them. THe evidnece at best is speculative. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, and I'd support deleting parallel categories: unlike murder-by-spree-killer or criminal-by-executing-government, assassination-victim-by-assassin-by-social-group isn't a defining characteristic of assassination victims. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete -- unless a murderer was convicted AND he is a self-confessed (or proved to be) a Freemason, the inclusion of any person would be a case of

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:Logic literature

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} 23:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Logic literature to Category:Literature about logic

Nominator's rationale: Improvement to the grammar. Brad7777 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment The rename would have the same form as Category:Literature about literature. Brad7777 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There are about twenty major philosophy categories which each contain a "philosophers" category, a "literature" category, a "concepts" category and a "theories" category. The actual name isn't such a big deal. However, they are all currently consistent with this form. Greg Bard (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

comment The only was to achieve consistency throughout wp, is by this rename, and similar renames for those mentioned, inline with Category:Literature about literature. Brad7777 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Close. Taking a single example from a group and asking for it alone to be renamed isn't helpful. Please either (1) ask for none of them to be renamed, or (2) renominate this one along with all of the others in a group nomination. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry Nyttend Brad7777 (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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:Roman-era philosophers by century

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. PKI's suggestion has merit, but as JPL points out this is a job for /give honeydew 46 1WP:TNT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Roman-era philosophers by century - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: An unhelpful split. The sub-cats contain all ancient philosophers, (not just Roman.) Brad7777 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• delete The problem with the way this is working is that Category:1st-century philosophers can in theory contain philosophers working during that time in China or India. A similar categorization would put all 20th century philosophers into a super category Category:American era philosophers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Intersection of non-necessarily intersecting ideas. Sure Rome was around for a period (not just the period encapsulated in the subcats). Yes, it had philosophers (whether Roman or conquered peoples). But not all of 2nd century philosophers (e.g.) had any connection to Rome. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• REname and repupose all subcategories and this one. A category for Graeco-Roman philosophers, by century would be useful, but this needs to be purged of the Chinese and Indians, who should probably be moved into categories respectively for Chinese and Indian philosopers before (say) 500 AD. I doubt that there are enough of either for a by-century split. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If we are "renaming and repurposing" we might as well delete this and start under the new name entirely new. That is the best way to avoid incorrect hold ons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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:Internal security vehicles of Iraq

• Propose merging Category:Internal security vehicles of the post–Cold War period to Category:Internal security vehicles
• Propose merging Category:Internal security vehicles of Iraq to Category:Internal security vehicles
• Propose merging Category:Internal security vehicles of Pakistan to Category:Internal security vehicles
• Propose merging Category:Internal security vehicles of the United States to Category:Internal security vehicles

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCATs, and 'orphaned' category trees after Category:Internal security vehicles by country and Category:Internal security vehicles by era were merged into Category:Internal security vehicles in these CfDs. There is currently no need to subcategorise ISVs by era or country, given the small population of the cat and the orphan status of these categories. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Upmerge these four categories between them have only three articles. Even when we upmerge Category:Internal security vehicles will have less than 10 articles. Sub-division of that category is clearly pre-mature. Maybe if it ends up growing significantly it will be worth dividing, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Upmerge to all parents - I concur with the above assessments of the current need for subdivision of Category:Internal security vehicles. That being said, however, it is necessary to upmerge to both parents so that the articles are not removed from the corresponding country-level Armoured fighting vehicles of Foo category trees. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've ensured they're all in the appropriate AFV categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Thailand

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: rename. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Thailand to Category:Children of Prime Ministers of Thailand
  • Category:Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada to Category:Children of Prime Ministers of Canada
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of Argentina to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Argentina
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of Austria to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Austria
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of India to Category:Spouses of Presidents of India
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of Israel to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Israel
  • Category:Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Israel to Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of Israel
  • Category:Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Malaysia to Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of Malaysia
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of Peru to Category:Spouses of Presidents of Peru
  • Category:Spouses of the Presidents of the Philippines to Category:Spouses of Presidents of the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Contested speedy. I think grammatically the article "the" shouldn't be in the names of these categories. "Presidents" and "Prime Ministers" here don't refer to any single president or prime minister, nor to all the presidents or prime ministers of any country. The resulting discrepancy with articles (e.g. in the case of Category:Children of Prime Ministers of Canada vs Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada) should be acceptable because the list article discusses all the children of all the Prime Ministers of Canada, while the category describes each individual as a child of any single Prime Minister of Canada. Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Rename, good argument --CMD (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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:Pavements

• Propose renaming Category:Pavements to Category:Pavement

Later addition: Propose merging Category:Pavement engineering – Fayenatic London 20:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Pavements reads a bit odd in American English. Also as currently implemented, it is not restricted to types of pavement, which the title might imply. It includes equipment used to make various pavement, uses, materials and markings, things having to do with pavement. If we want to categorize the types of pavement, then the subcategory Category:Types of pavement should be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments But Pavement is a dab page; Pavement (material) redirects to road surface; and in UK English the whole category looks misplaced. So we need a rename such as Category:Road surfaces or Category:Road surfacing. Oculi (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Hmmm The articles here are very old, dating back to 2003, but to cut to the chase it appears that Pavement and Pavement (roads) were created separately; the first was quickly converted into a disambig and the second stayed the main article until it got caught up in a Brit/Am naming tug-of-war which ended up at Road surface, which isn't an accurate name for the current content of the article. I haven't gotten a clear picture of current British usage, but on the other hand we could just invoke the WP:MOS and put everything back into American usage, in which case I would suggest make the category Category:Paving (civil engineering) (as there is also a mathematical sense of the word). Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • After I did the nomination I looked more closely at the contents and removed some article like garden curbs which clearly are off topic. I started to sense something odd and I think your analysis is a good start to understanding this. I did notice that road surface includes sidewalks! That confused me so maybe this needs an RM to kick start the cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: At any rate let's merge Category:Pavement engineering into the result, as I can't see a separate justification for that. In UK English, "pavement" means pedestrian surfaces as opposed to carriageways, but it appears that in American English it includes any road surface, so it's not helpful to keep the current word. Hard landscape materials or Hardscape are articles that could suggest alternative new names. "Road surfacing" sounds as if it would not include pedestrian surfaces; I think it could be useful to distinguish them, but what would be a good internationally-understood name for the latter? – Fayenatic London 20:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The Road surface article has two brief references to walkways in the lead but the rest of the article is all about roads. I have suggested at Talk:Road surface#Requested move that these should be removed and there should be a seperate article about walkways, which would solve that problem. I don't think there is a common international term that would cover roads and pedestrian surfaces. Richerman (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe this is a result of back-editing to justify the limitation of the topic. Historically the same set of techniques has been used to pave walkways and roads, and in some situations interior floors as well. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The road surface article is up for renaming here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Note: The proposal was rejected on 14 July 2012 Ephebi (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment what about Category:Paving ? Or the previously suggested Category:Paving (civil engineering) ? -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep this is a category to group together multiple types of pavement just like Category:Brids groups together multiple types of birds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Except that as stated above it includes much more then pavement types. If that is all you want to cover, then you should be supporting a rename to Category:Types of pavement or at least creation of this as a subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge then REname to somthing like Category:Road surfacings. As an Englishman, the "pavement" is the sidewalk, but the materials and methods are much the same whether for the main carriageway or the footpath. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with that proposal is that it excludes sidewalks and other stuff because of the UK usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We in the UK have two meanings for the word "Pavement": in lay terms it is often used for what the US knows as the walkway or sideway. (Hence pages that refer to Kerbs, etc are valid members of the category and should not have been removed. That sort of tidying up is frowned upon while the topic is being discussed.) But in civil engineering "pavement/paving" refers to the technical qualities of a roadway and the process of laying it. (See <http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com> ) Like the US term, it may include pedestrian walkways or cyclelanes, etc in that definition. As previous discussions have railed against using even the slightest form of jargon it would be best to avoid pavement entirely. It is also not restricted to the road surface but also encompasses foundations. Ephebi (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge with Category:Road construction as an all-encompassing term, and for reasons outlined above. Ephebi (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda theory

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: upmerge to Category:Propaganda. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Propaganda theory - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Not distinct from Category:Propaganda. Everything in here could happily be moved up. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Propaganda as suggested. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Upmerge whether or not this is distinct I do not know, but it is too small of a cateogry to be worth having it distinct at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge per the others; nominator is right in saying that this shouldn't be a separate category, but getting rid of the category wouldn't really help. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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.