Talk:Ragpicker

Merge

Seems to be the same thing as a Rag-and-bone man. Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The old version of "Rag and bone man" was more about the modern job, while this article is about the historical job. But now that it's been rewritten, it seems to include both so I don't see why one can't be merged with the other. Though it would be nice if the move was done a little more carefully than the copy/paste of 2011. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless rag-and-bone man is a title used outside the UK, I disagree. Parrot of Doom 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, too. ~~Maybe they should be merged here instead?~~ I don't know what the most common name is. Besides one being modern and one historic, they do seem to be pretty much the same. "Rag man" isn't a totally unknown term in the US, though I don't know about the "bone" part; there's really no modern equivalent as far as I know, but my father remembers one from when he was a kid in the '40s and '50s. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the template on Rag picker says it's proposed to merged into Rag-and-bone man, while the template on Rag-and-bone man says it's proposed to merge into Rag picker. So that's a little confusing, and some of what I wrote above doesn't make sense if you came here from the rag-and-bone article. Anyway, for the record, I wrote the Rag picker one, and I don't care which one goes where. Whatever the most common name seems to be is fine with me. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tags, and at the time had no clear view as to which article should be the target of the merge. There are two issues:

Should these two articles be merged? I think there seems to be some agreement that the two articles largely cover the same topic. The fact that different parts of the world use different terminology does not mean that we should maintain two separate articles on the same topic (e.g. we do not have separate articles for Push-up and Press-up).
What should be the title of the merged article? Are we agreed that this is the main issue to be settled? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rag-and-bone man seems to be more of a British expression, then, should the merged article be named Rag-picker? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection then, if I implement that merge? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay by me. You may want to give Parrot a nudge to make sure. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that there is more reason to merge these two documents, given their overall similarity, than there was to supplant the old revision of Rag and bone man.

Perhaps there should be a move to have the original article reinstated if & when any merge takes place since it gives a better and more apt description of the UK rag and bone man/trade, of living memory and current experience, than the current article does. That would make it entirely reasonable to entitle the merged document as Rag-picker Foxcliff (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged what I can of these two articles into Rag-and-bone man, which is surely the best developed of the two. This one doesn't really explain in much detail what a rag-picker does/did. The Legacy section is an "In popular culture" section in everything but name and should therefore be removed. Parrot of Doom 16:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge but not with removing the legacy section. Call it what you like, but there's no basis in policy for deleting popular culture sections. Besides, this isn't a list of Simpsons and Family Guy references; most of the examples are well over 100 years old, and have therefore obviously stood the test of time. The more recent ones are directly based on the job, not just passing mentions in other works. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a myth at Wikipedia that wikilinks must be reciprocal. Rag-picking may be relevant to Les Miserables but the same cannot be said of the reverse. Popular culture sections are trivia and should be deleted. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >> Waste picker

It seems to be more generic and this article could be one section there. I also have this feeling that waste-picker is a modern, umbrella term, but ragpicking has been around for more long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokedora (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clothes?

How were clothes made out of dog and cat skins? What type of clothes were they? I've never heard of clothing of any type being made out of dog and cat carcasses. In addition, how fresh did the carcass have to be to make said clothing? It seems far-fetched and there's no reference given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How were/are clothes made out of any skin? Someone has obviously never sat through 101 Dalmatians :-) Joking aside dog & cat skins have been, and are still being, used in the production or decoration of clothes and accessories for as long as man has been able to get his hands on them, just as rabbit/coney, fox, ermine etc have been. They have also been used in the manufacture of toys. If you want more information, you only have to do a google search on the subject to find a wealth of information - even examples of modern practise. Whilst other countries have had more difficulty in following suit, it was only as recently as 2002 that the U.S. banned the import of domestic pet fur (though who is to say that none slips under the radar even now). Worldwide sales in 2004 are estimated at $11.7 billion. Foxcliff (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ragpicker and plastic material

Both of work 103.145.169.42 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]