Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11



Category:Industry in space

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Industry in space to Category:Space industry
 * Nominator's rationale: New category that more or less duplicates a well-populated cat that's been around for 5 years Le Deluge (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 *  Merge  but the other way round. Based on the names I would understand the first to be based in space; the second I take to be based on earth and supporting activities in space. But the contents of Category:Space industry are all to do with industry IN space. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and main article Space industry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is a very clear distinction between activities in space, and activities on earth in support of activities in space. Merging these would be like merging Category:Fishing industry and Category:Shipbuilding. Ibadibam (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Oppose. I have just read the Space industry article and it is as the name suggests - activities on earth in support of activities in space. BUT the contents of the category are all(?) to do with Activities in space. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Most of the content is about industrial activities that have been (or more usually, might be) carried on IN outer space. Space industry is about constructing satellites and rockets with things done to keep them there.  They are not the same thing, or should not be.  Category:Space industry needs purging of things like Asteroid mining and space colonisation, which are almost in the realm of science fiction today.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2016 (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:Television series by Cookie Jar Entertainment

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Cookie Jar Entertainment to Category:Television series by DHX Media
 * Nominator's rationale: DHX category has changed, merging two categories improves the DHX category. 47.54.199.235 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Cookie Jar Entertainment appears to be part of DHX Media and so Category:Television series by Cookie Jar Entertainment is a perfectly valid (and substantial) subcat of Category:Television series by DHX Media. Oculi (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above; also, nominator appears to be same user as and WCVB98swell. Trivialist (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No real rationale given for the suggested merge. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per above. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2016 (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:Television series by DIC Entertainment

 * 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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by DIC Entertainment to Category:Television series by DHX Media
 * Nominator's rationale: DHX category has to have all shows from the library, so this merger will work. 47.54.199.235 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – DIC Entertainment appears to be part of DHX Media and so Category:Television series by DIC Entertainment is a perfectly valid (and substantial) subcat of Category:Television series by DHX Media. Oculi (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above; also, nominator appears to be same user as and WCVB98swell. Trivialist (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No real rationale given for the suggested merge. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per above. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2016 (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:Macedonian cuisine

 * 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: reverse merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Macedonian cuisine to Category:Republic of Macedonia cuisine
 * Nominator's rationale: Despite the shared name, common cultural features between the Republic of Macedonia and Greek Macedonia are rather limited, as the one was dominated by Slavic influences, the other by Greek and Ottoman ones. Therefore there are two "Macedonian cuisines", a Slavic one and a Greek one. In fact, dishes listed here all seem to refer to the cuisine of the Republic of Macedonia. PanchoS (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, we can't – and shouldn't – solve this problem at this particular category, particularly as English-language WP:RS seem to favor the totum pro parte form. I'm therefore okay with a reverse merge at this point, though generally unsure if we shouldn't rediscuss the whole category tree per main article Republic of Macedonia. --PanchoS (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Rightly or wrongly, "Macedonian" in WP categories almost always refers to something "of the Republic of Macedonia": eg,, , , etc. Maybe this is an situation similar to using "American", where the adjective is ambiguous in a literal sense but everyone agrees to understand that it refers to a particular country within the wider region of that name, because that country has chosen to co-opt it as its own. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the end, that's what the Macedonia naming dispute is all about. A majority of Greeks don't accept this totum pro parte appropriation of "Macedonia" by the RoM government, particularly as they consider Greek Macedonia the more proper Macedonia – though part of today's Greece –, with a history reaching back to Ancient Macedonia.
 * Comment Which category tree? Category:Macedonian cuisine is a subcategory of Category:Macedonian culture, which is a subcategory of Category:Macedonian society, which is a subcategory of Category:Republic of Macedonia. Category:Republic of Macedonia is itself a subcategory of Category:Macedonia which also covers the Greek and Bulgarian areas of the region, and their shared history. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely the tree you described. --PanchoS (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the naming dispute and the objection of the Greeks. I personally don't think it's an issue worth worrying too much about when it comes to using the "Macedonian" adjective, any more than it's problematic to use "American" to mean "of the United States" over the objections of the other residents of North and South America. The words we use to refer to things don't always make sense, nor do they necessarily exclude other potential meanings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the USA is a historically proper and substantial part of America. Maybe a better comparison: imagine Ireland would reunify and call itself "Britain". --PanchoS (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now you're just adopting the extreme form of the Greek POV. Macedonians (those from the country) would see it differently. Neutral observers agree that at least part of the Republic of Macedonia is included in ancient Macedonia. The same cannot be said of Ireland/Britain. (In fact, I would bet that the original 13 colonies, the residents of which began calling themselves "Americans", account for about the same percentage of America that the Republic of Macedonia accounts for of ancient Macedonia.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least Ptolemy who referred to today's Ireland as "mikra Brettania" would disagree, and earlier Latin "Britanniae" often referred to both British Isles, see Britain (place name). But let's put the comparison aside. I think you're brushing away the Greek concerns a bit too easily. It's not like these were altogether ridiculous, even though I acknowledge the customary right of the (FY)RoM, too. We usually don't brush away such concerns, see the discussions about "Northern Irish people" . --PanchoS (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true—I generally prefer to analogize using real-world examples, not concocted hypotheticals. I don't think I've brushed the Greek concerns away without consideration, I just have come to the conclusion that it's not something we need to change in categorization. It is certainly not a ridiculous concern, just as Canadians' and Brazilians' annoyances about the unquestioning use of "American" are not ridiculous. But there are lots of proper names that we use that can mean multiple things, and sometimes certain usages come to predominate, as has the meaning of "American" which is "of the United States". In Wikipedia, we kind of make the effort to do this and to see if there is a primary usage at work. In my opinion, in 2016, the overwhelming primary meaning of "Macedonian" in a "by nationality" context is "of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia" (to be neutral in a UN-esque sort of way—or, as the nationals of that place have formally named it, "of the Republic of Macedonia"). So I don't have a problem with WP using it to mean this, which it does relatively consistently in the category tree. We could decide by consensus to switch to using "Republic of Macedonia" instead of "Macedonian" (I'm fine with either), but I think it would need to be proposed with a broad nomination across all affected categories. I guess what I'm !voting for is—either reverse merge, or merge with the understanding that there will be a broader nomination to change them all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This is the old Name Problem again. My question is how specific either is to the boundaries of the present republic.  Much Greek cooking is very similar to Turkish; and I suspect to many other former Ottoman territories.  My inclination is either to leave well alone or reverse merge to cover both Greek and Slavic Macedonia.  I hear stories that Macedonian the Slavic language is a surviving minority language in northern Greece, though the government will not acknowledge that it is not a Greek dialect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge Macedonian's inprecisness works with cuisine. This is not a law category where things actually stop at international boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2016 (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:Photographers from Tehran

 * 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: merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Photographers from Tehran to Category:People from Tehran
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge to different cat - would have thought was a more suitable destination? Le Deluge (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to both suggested targets. An obvious broader upmerge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2016 (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:User love

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user love


 * Propose deleting user lov-5


 * Propose deleting user peace-n


 * Nominator's rationale: I feel so mean proposing to delete love - but if we're being picky, "love" is not an ISO language code.... Le Deluge (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete; this isn't at all what this system is meant to do. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a helpful category. Per nom. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  20:11, 12 July 2016 (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:Lovers of General Qasem Soleimani & Category:Lovers of The Shadow Commander

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lovers of general qasem soleimani


 * Propose deleting lovers of the shadow commander


 * Nominator's rationale: No encyclopedic value. At best it would need to be remained to clarify it is about Wikipedians, but even than not sure that it serves a purpose. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  14:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- If kept, it should be renamed as a user category, but I do not belive they serve any useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2016 (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:Wikipedia project page shortcuts named for animals

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia project page shortcuts named for animals


 * Nominator's rationale: Utterly trivial. Le Deluge (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably delete per nom. Otherwise, it should be renamed, as not all such project pages are there - e.g WP:CAT (Categorization), WP:RAT (Non-free use rationale guideline). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can tell me that this has some useful purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2016 (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 from Kenya by occupation

 * 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: convert to category redirect. Note that the category was empty when closing the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people from kenya by occupation


 * Nominator's rationale: duplicate category Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, duplicate of Category:Kenyan people by occupation. Brandmeistertalk  12:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – empty category. Oculi (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Convert to a category redirect, to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2016 (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:Recreation Parks of South Australia

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Recreation Parks of South Australia to Category:Parks in South Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with all the similar categories. Rathfelder (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's a subcategory of Category:Protected areas of South Australia, for areas designated as being IUCN category III (natural monument or feature), while at the moment most of the entries in Category:Parks in South Australia relate to municipal parks and gardens. These are very different levels of significance - for example, Para Wirra Recreation Park was upgraded earlier this year to Conservation Park status. Bahudhara (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The category does “abides with the categorization guidelines” as follows. Firstly, the subject of the category is quite specific, i.e. ‘recreation parks’ which is a class of protected area used in the Australian state of South Australia (SA) and which is supported by reliable sources published by both the Government of South Australia (SAG) and the Australian Government.   Also, the 13 articles contained within the category are exclusively about recreation parks gazetted by the SAG.  Secondly, the existence of the category is appropriate because it groups the 13 articles away from other articles about protected areas in SA and does so along with nine other sub-categories within Category:Protected areas of South Australia.  This is consistent with WP policies such as WP:DIFFUSE.  Also, there is no need to move the 13 ‘recreation park’ articles to Category:Parks in South Australia because the Category:Protected areas of South Australia has Category:Parks in South Australia as one of its parent categories. Cowdy001 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I accept these arguments. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2016 (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:Higher Education Research Consortium Philippines member

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting higher education research consortium philippines member


 * Nominator's rationale: Categorizing universities/colleges by what consortiums they are (currently) a member of is not good categorization - for one things it's often/always WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. Marikina Polytechnic College doesn't even mention this consortium). In this case there's no actual article about the consortium and the category has been created without any parent categories (indicating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia categorization).  This could be listified, but it would be better to create any list directly from a WP:RS. DexDor(talk) 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This category was created as a result of this TFD. As a TFD helper I created the category, but I have no personal opinion on its future status. Primefac (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for Now I'm willing to reconsider this if/when a main article appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Any new category would have a different name (e.g. using "members"). DexDor(talk) 06:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We have stood against categories for association memberships of universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2016 (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:Matrimonial law

 * 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 to Category:Matrimonial canon law. There is consensus that a rename should occur and that the renamed category shouldn't contain a parenthetical disambiguator, as it's unnecessarily wordy. There is no consensus for or against changing "matrimony" to "marriage" in the category name. Rather than relisting a discussion that's already been open over a month, I'm going with the spirit of favoring the stable version in a situation where no consensus emerges in a discussion and going with the option that makes the smallest change away from the current name. No prejudice against a speedy renomination to more fully consider the "matrimony" vs. "marriage" issue. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Matrimonial law to Category:Matrimonial law (canon law)
 * Nominator's rationale: Matrimonial law redirects to marriage law and an undisambiguated category using this name is likely to be confused with Category:Marriage law. I suggest adding the disambiguator "(canon law)", since this is a subcategory topic of Category:Canon law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt Rename Category:Matrimonial canon law sounds less wordy. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with that too. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Matrimonial canon law or Category:Canon law on matrimony or Category:Canon law on marriage. Any of these would do, but the last might be best as a subcat of the secular Category:Marriage law.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "marriage" in canon law is always referred to as "matrimony", though, since that's the name of the sacrament. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename anyway, but I think the best rename would be Category:Marriage in canon law because afaics there is no such thing as "matrimonial law" within canon law, there are just certain canons referring to marriage, see e.g. . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That could well be true. I am not an expert on the subject, and am not wedded (har har) to keeping the word "matrimonial" in the category name, so I would be OK with that rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2016 (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.

Rivers

 * 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: Option B (using "Rivers" for all such categories). While people disagree over which consistent alternative we should go with, there is overwhelming consensus here that consistency is worthwhile in this category tree. As such, it would be profoundly against the consensus to close this with no action, which makes this difficult. Weighing the strength of arguments, the WP:ENGVAR arguments for dodging the "streams" nomenclature give Option B's arguments the edge. WP:ENGVAR is a strong rationale for not consistently applying "streams" to the entire tree. A couple editors advanced the idea of using "creeks" in the few locales where "streams" would run afoul of ENGVAR, but that suggestion conflicts with the overwhelming consensus for consistency here. Due to the large scale of the nominated categories, I'll be holding off for roughly a week before listing these at WP:CFD/W. If anyone has issues with this close, they should bring them to my attention within the week. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose renaming by one of the following options
 * Option A: "Rivers" to "Rivers and streams" - see Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11/rivers/A for full list of nominated categories. (warning - page is about 156 K long.)
 * Option B: "Rivers and streams" to "Rivers" - see Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11/rivers/B for full list of nominated categories. (warning - page is about 57.5 K long)
 * Rationale: I see no reason why the US, Croatia, Denmark, and the Pakistani city of Karachi should be different from the rest of the world in this regard. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments I still say rivers and streams should have separate categories, but I'm okay with Rivers and Streams being a parent category of both. And I don't think this necessarily has to be exclusive to the US, or any other country. -User:DanTD (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you come up with precise definitions for what would belong in each category tree? And would you go through 2000+ categories to make sure nothing is miscategorized? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd just go through the ones I already know are miscategorized. Anything else I'd leave to someone else. -User:DanTD (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I've started ther tagging, but certainly won't finish all 2000+ categories immediately. I've notified the participents in 2 related discussions from the end of 2015, and put it up at WP:CENT. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just finished tagging all of them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We shold have one category for rivers and streams. There 8s a whole range of different terms for these things in English. The use of various names is not at all consistent and things get dubbeb rivers in Nevada that are barely w9rth calling creeks in Michigan. We know and use the word stream in Michigan but I can't think of any local waterways so designated. It helps navigation of articles to group all rivers and streams together and not try to seperate tjfm out especially sine there is not a universally agreed on way to separate them.
 * Option A since the division between a river and a stream is often arbitrary and categories have to be inclusive. Dimadick (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The discussions that led to the U.S./Croatia/Denmark "Rivers and streams of..." construction can be read here: October 2015 and December 2015 --TimK MSI (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the links, this renaming is a logical extension of those discussions...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: I got here from an alert on the Wikiproject Malaysia list. In Malaysia and Singapore, the word "Sungei" is generally used for both rivers and streams. So it is actually hard to differentiate between rivers and streams. Having a common category helps. Just one question, are canals included in this category as well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, canals are in a different category tree. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In English, Canals are man-made, not natural, so that's a clear line. In English Rivers are larger and Streams are smaller and I think the question here is whether that's a clear line. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the line between canals and rivers is quite blurry when you get to things like the Aire and Calder Navigation, but I'll let that one pass.... <g> Le Deluge (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A Grouping both of these makes sense together, especially since it's hard to draw a cutoff with medium sized streams/rivers. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Option A is better. Both words are used in different places and in different times.  The River Thames is sometimes referred to as a stream in poetry. Rathfelder (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A a logical progression of previous 2015 discussions and renaming's...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A I created and populated in 2013. Since then, another editor has expanded many of the articles in the cat, including references from the government authority here that is responsible for maintaining the register on which the rivers are recorded. Most of the register entries show the designation as "river" but describe the subject as a stream. As is the case with the Thames, rivers can also be streams (although they don't have to be) so it seems smarter to have one cat for both. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I support the principle of a single category per courntry regardless of size of watercourse, but in Australia, we have rivers and creeks, not rivers and streams.Just to inject some stats, here in Qld we have 14408 gazetted watercourses (obviously not all notable for Wikipedia purposes). 353 are named as rivers, 13959 are named as creeks, the rest are a motley collection of springs, gullies, waterholes, burns, brooks, channels, glens as well as some which don't have any "water course" word in their name, e.g. The Big Warnambool. However, we do not have a single Stream in Queensland. So, I think for Australia, it should be Rivers and Creeks and not Rivers and Streams. I can see the benefit of saying "let's put them all together in the first level category in each country, but don't see why it needs to be standardised naming worldwide; it needs to be meaningful to local people and that's going to depend on geography and (as mentioned above) linguistic distinctions. 11:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC) User:Kerry Raymond
 * in Australia, we have rivers and creeks, not rivers and streams - That should be "in Queensland", not "in Australia". NSW most definitely has streams, as explained above. Creeks should probably have their own cat. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Kerry Raymond, we categorize things by what they are, not by characteristics of their name. So, for example, to be in Category:Mountains an article doesn't need to have "Mountain" in its name. DexDor(talk) 22:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:DexDor, but how do we know what they "are"? In Queensland we gazette rivers, creeks, waterholes etc under a single category without saying what they "are", all you have is the name which allows you to make a guess at what they "are". Our climate, particularly in the west, is long droughts punctuated by floods; this means that there aren't any easy metrics which one might use to make these distinctions. One day a flooding river, six months later a waterhole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerry Raymond (talk • contribs)
 * A Wikipedia article should consist of more than just a name. DexDor(talk) 04:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rationale: "X and Y" categories (such as Option A) are regularly a pain, only arising from mediocre compromises, and should only be a last resort if there's no other option. "Rivers" (Option B) isn't sufficiently generic, clearly excluding small creeks. Furthermore, not only are cutoff criteria problematic, but the relation between "streams" and "rivers" as a whole varies, not only due to WP:ENGVAR, but also between scientific and popular use. For this reason, the third option of using "streams" only, should be ruled out, though correct per scientific nomenclature – it would also be too ambiguous, as it may refer to everything that "streams", not just waterways. Proposal: Effectively, the only sensible solution to that problem is using "watercourses" as the top category. Large, natural watercourses should be consistently subcategorized as "Rivers", smaller ones may be subcategorized per local usage. --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC) However, there's no point in having Fauna and flora categories holding a "Fauna" and a "Flora" category each. Rivers and streams is a borderline case, where at least rivers can (and should be) uniformly subcategorized – in spite of some borderline demarcation issues, this is widely accepted as a universial concept. Smaller ones may be further categorized according to local customs. If there are Rivers subcategories, there are no good reasons for the parent category being named Rivers and streams. Watercourses, which – not being limited to natural ones – would also embrace, seems the better choice IMO. --PanchoS (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Option B. The word "rivers" is often used generically to mean all types of natural watercourse including, streams, creeks, bournes, becks, brooks, etc. For example, the UK environment agency publishes flood information on "river levels" and they clearly include streams in that. "Rivers of Foo" is also shorter, neater and avoids the need to worry about regional terms - the point sensibly raised by AussieLegend. Bermicourt (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * According to your reasoning, it looks like you actually support Option B,m which would mean that all categories get renamed to "Rivers". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes you're right and I've changed it to be clearer. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B Use "Rivers" for everything. As above, river is often used generically and stream, creek, brook and whatnot are often arbitrary and larger in size than water bodies named river, and vice versa. Either way, I support the combining, separate rivers and streams cats are not necessary and counterproductive. Gjs238 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The term Rivers can be used as a generic coverall but not everyone gets it. Using Rivers and streams together, helps readers and editors appreciate that the categories contain more than just the obvious big rivers. It’s an attempt of trying to transcend the regional naming differences and reduce the confusion of only using a single term...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B. In Philippine English, creek is more widely used than stream, so Id go for the neutral term that covers both.--RioHondo (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A. Grouping makes sense here, where the cutoff is not clear. Neutralitytalk 21:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A, although "watercourses" probably is the inclusive being sought, although not of general use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A, but if there are countries where (WP:ENGVAR) the noun "creek" is used instead of "stream" then consider using "Rivers and creeks" for those countries. DexDor(talk) 22:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems to me we are debating at least three different things. First, we have the issue of category membership. I think most people in this discussion are saying that we want any geographic features where water flows along a relatively predictable course to be included, regardless of the volume of water. Second, we have the issue of what to call the category. The concern seems to be that if the shorter name "Rivers" is used, some people will think that the smaller watercourses are not permitted. Hence the desire to use the longer but more inclusive "Rivers and [less than rivers]". Three, we are arguing over the name of what we call the "less than rivers" which seems to be a regional language issue and whether or not there needs to be international standardisation of this word. Nobody seems to be mentioning the category description; if the description makes it clear that both rivers and [less than rivers] are members of the category, perhaps it matters less then what we call the category. But maybe we should resolve the question about membership first, then move onto issue of naming and describing rather than try to debate them all together. Kerry (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Ah but you overlook one set of editors (not me): those who use the Stream article instead of the River article, among other things, to argue that all moving bodies of water (regardless of size) should be in 'Streams' categories and never anything else. This was how the category structure 'Rivers and streams of foo' came into existence: a pure compromise with no judgment. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B. It avoids the ENGVAR issue, since "river" is used everywhere in the world by English-speakers, and we can always add a note atop each category saying basically "this covers everything from the Amazon to little brooks 10cm wide".  And as Bermicourt notes, it's simpler: category names should be simple whenever possible, and "Rivers" is simpler than "Rivers and streams".  Together with the note, the simpler name will be just as understandable as the longer name.  Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative. I was reading through the comments and some people mentioned "watercourse". I think "natural watercourses in..." is better than either option A or B. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B Simplicity, predictability and ENGVAR-free-ness are all highly desirable in category names. "Rivers" is a universal concept, and it keeps it simple, "Rivers and streams/creeks/bournes" fails on all three counts.Le Deluge (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment For lists and stubs, "rivers" seems to work fine: Category:Lists of rivers of the United States by state, Category:Pennsylvania river stubs Gjs238 (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If we end up going with option A, we could nominate these separately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A A stream near its source is sometimes a river near its mouth. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B - simplicity. First thought was that A provides inclusiveness, but if I was to search for the category I would go simply with "rivers" and I would never think to add "streams". I might go with creek or rivulet. Renata (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B: According to Wiktionary, a "river" is "a large stream"; looking at "stream" we find it is defined as "a small river". So we could call the category either Category:Large and small rivers or Category:Large and small streams. Or, for short, just Category:Rivers or Category:Streams, and let's go with "Rivers" since a person looking for watercourses anywhere in the English-speaking world is going to look there first. Some people are going to look under "creek" or "brook" or "Gut" or "burn" or whatever I guess. But honestly the most read and most searched-for articles are going to be about rivers. Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B per Herostratus rationale Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ...rivers and streams... - While I understand wanting to use only "rivers" in the name, if we do, we'll be right back here in the near future doing this again and again. By including 2 applied names, it more clearly shows the cat is all-inclusive (and not merely narrowly focused only to those merely named "river"). - jc37 17:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B "Rivers and streams" feels like an awkward workaround to the issue of where the cutoff between a river and a stream or creek lies. "Rivers" alone is simple and easily understandable, avoids the ENGVAR issues with stream and creek, and keeps us from having to consider brooks/runs/etc. since we're not explicitly calling out different categories of free-flowing water bodies. It isn't worth sacrificing all that to avoid the squishiness of calling the smaller ones rivers. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A For clarity (dividing line between the two is not clear, this solves that problem); correctness (in different parts of the world, the meaning of 'stream' and 'river' is quite varied, this solves that problem). First Light (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B, per WP:CONCISE, as a single, inclusive category. "River" is commonly used as a generic name, see also the article River: "A river is a natural flowing watercourse, usually freshwater [...] Small rivers can be referred to using names such as stream, creek, brook, rivulet, and rill." "Rivers of XY" also avoids the WP:ENGVAR issue of how to name the "small rivers", as others have already mentioned. --Novarupta (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B Concise, neutral, natural, and inclusive. But while I would be very keen on consistency, I'm not sure that the effort invol ved in changing so many categories is worthwhile.PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The effort involved with fixing these categories, one way or the other, is mostly a bot which already exists. A seperate task will be involved with fixing the categorization of the stub categories, but that would be a simple AWB run. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A because option B has WP:ENGVAR problems. In my dialect, "Rivers" is never generic, "Streams" is sometimes generic, and "Rivers and streams" is clearly generic and includes creeks, forks and the rest.
 * "Stream" in isolation is generally a natural watercourse that is small
 * "Stream" in some contexts can be used for natural watercourses small or large
 * "River" in isolation is always a natural watercourse that is (or becomes) large
 * "River" can never refer be used generically
 * Whatever the outcome, the descriptions of all of these categories should include a clear indication that the category is intended to include all natural flowing bodies of water of whatever size. YBG (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A -- The question is when is a stream too small to be a river: there is no robust answer to that. In England, it would then be a brook or a beck (according to region).  In US and Canada, the question might be river/creek/??.  This format covers them all, without raising POV issues on size.  We had a similar issue over city/town/village some years ago and ended by merging them all as populated places.  We need a similar solution here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B -- per WP:CONCISE and Herostratus rationale. If we went for A, I'd prefer Rivers and creeks, and, clearly, there's no consensus for that. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure -- partly procedurally because the discussion of 9 December 2015 should never have been US-specific, and yet is rather persuasive. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename all to Watercourses -- this succinctly covers both of my previous views. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A for the reasons outlined by YBG above. Not all streams are rivers where I'm from (eastern US) and I would initially think many articles about smaller watercourses (creeks, kills, washes, runs, whatever) were mis-categorized if I saw them in a category for "rivers". Agree that whatever outcome is decided, a clear note describing the cat's overall purpose is needed since it is clear that there is no universal understanding of these terms. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should note that those bodies of water names you all are mentioning, like creek, redirect to stream. So it's currently the preferred term. So if the only reason you oppose "Rivers and streams" is that you don't think "streams" should be the choice for the second word, then start an RM discussion. Otherwise, per CSD C2D, a category of "rivers and creeks" would likely be speedily renamed to "rivers and streams" anyway. - jc37 01:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Option A per this previous outcome and my reasoning for my !vote there. This is a reasonable, inclusive approach. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both, because there are rivers and streams and creeks and brooks and rills and probably quite a few other types I haven't thought of. I am firmly on board with the notion of one category per geographical area, but I would prefer a term like "natural watercourse", which might not sound entirely natural, but should cover all of these things.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Watercourses. Avoids English variant issue. Avoids issues of streams/brooks/creeks not being rivers. Principle of least astonishment in these two regards. czar  10:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename all to Watercourses.
 * Comment 'Watercourses' may provide good coverage, but I wonder if this appears in anyone's common vernacular. I don't think I have ever heard anyone utter this word in my nearly 50 years of life, and only in discussions on this site have I seen it. It may be seen by readers as highfalutin. "Rivers and streams" is very common language.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment as seen from an Italian mothertongue editor, watercourses seems not bad. But of course it could be an odd point of view. --Pampuco (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it should be bodies of water on land>Es0884 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_11&diff=prev&oldid=731811489 diff])&#32;by Es0884 (talk⋅contribs)&#32;17:38 July 27, 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
 * "Watercourses" is both an unusual word, and it would seem to imply that they can be navigated by boat; "bodies of water on land" would include lakes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The new title Rivers and Streams is acceptable to me because it is normal every day language giving a little extra piece of information - (includes named streams) many stream have no name so a named stream means it has an importance in some historic way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmans (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Watercourses. Unambiguous, comprehensive, and avoids regional variations and problems with classification. Tevildo (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Watercourses. A short and general term that avoids the question of size. Courses followed by water, with no implication of navigability. In the Brazilian Amazon, which has plenty of them, there are rios, ribeiros, igarapés, furos, etc. Any of these could be wider than the Thames, e.g. the Pará River, which Google calls the Furo Santa Maria, connecting the Amazon and Tocantins rivers. The Niger delta has the same effect, with large and small channels that connect one river or stream to another. Man-made canals can be a subcategory of watercourses. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that there is a Category:Watercourses of Western Australia, which has a single subcategory, Category:Rivers of Western Australia. YBG (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Is there another example of a category - or better yet, a set of geographic categories - that use a less-familiar name? YBG (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above question was modivated by 's concern that "watercourses" may not appear in "anyone's common vernacular". On the other side we find 's concern that "X and Y" categories are "regularly a pain". So I undertook a bit of research for both of these issues by glancing through Category:Categories by continent, and this is what I found:
 * re common vernacular, I found these "by continent" categories: Flora (not "plants"), Fauna (not"animals"), and Biota (not "Plants and animals", or "Flora and fauna", or "Flora, fauna and fungi").
 * re X and Y categories, I found these "X and Y by continent" categories: Buildings+structures, Ports+harbours, Science+technology, Squares+plazas, and Universities+colleges.
 * These are by no means exhaustive (I'm not sure how to go about that), but I hope they might inspire others to do more searching and (more importantly) more thinking and discussing with these examples in mind, and that the resulting discussion might help me make up my mind. YBG (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fauna is a less commonly used word than animal, but is unambiguous. I do not think of fish or insects as animals, but agree they are fauna. Watercourse is similar: less commonly used but unambiguous. The editor does not have to decide whether the Bayou Bartholomew or Bow Creek (England) are rivers, streams or something else. Clearly they are watercourses. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Flora, fauna, fungi are more commonly used or at least understood by anyone who took high school biology. 'Watercourse' seems much less common.  I'm talking about common use, not complexity of the term.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer 's question: There is, but as far as I know, that's the only one using an unusual name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fort Knox is not, as one might expect, a protected area but is a census-designated place in Kentucky. When the army personnel are off duty they may have a beverage at one of the local drinking establishments. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * X and Y categories are generally acceptable if substantial overlaps and/or widely diverging definitions don't allow separating out either of X or Y as a universal, distinct subtopic. Science and technology have a substantial overlap, so in many cases can't be meaningfully differentiated. Also, the distinction (if any) between Universities and colleges depends on jurisdiction.
 * That sort of points to Watercourses of Brazil containing Rivers of Brazil, Ribeiros of Brazil, Igarapés of Brazil, Furos of Brazil and Canals of Brazil. There would be no ambiguity about the right category. Igarapé Juçara is an igarapé of Brazil, because that is what it is called. (Google translates igarapé as bayou, stream or creek. It is slow moving and shallow but may be quite wide. An igarapé may leave one river and meander over to join another.) Aymatth2 (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. A watercourse is a river (or stream) with a college education. A lot of our readers don't have college educations. Let's not burden the reader with difficult words to solve our internal problems. (And if you don't realize that "watercourse" is a much more difficult and unusual word than "river" (or "stream"), then you need to put down that textbook and get out more.) Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those readers that choose to browse the category structure may be interested to learn that the river they were reading about is a type of watercourse. They already know it is a river. The advantage of category:watercourses is that it includes made-made canals, anabranches, distributaries like the Casiquiare canal, tidal creeks and other stretches of flowing water that are not obviously rivers or streams. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They might be interested, but they might not, and it's not our remit to force people to learn stuff. We are a reference work not a school. They already know it is a river which is an excellent reason for using the name "river" for the category since this is a term they are familiar with and this familiar term will aid them in seeking out similar articles (if they want). Confusing readers with unfamiliar terms because we have decided that is they should learn next is not our mission. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither I propose that these categories be named to "Streams in X". At least in the US, "stream" is the official term for any linear body of water floating on the surface (including "anabranch, awawa, bayou, branch, brook, creek, distributary, fork, kill, pup, rio, river, run, slough"). Either way, the vast majority of linear, flowing bodies of water on Earth (whatever you would like to call them) are far too small to be considered a river, so calling them such as flat out misleading (who would consider this to be a "river"?). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Stream" is short and supported by the United States Geological Survey. A minor drawback is it excludes man-made canals. More serious is that in common usage it means a small watercourse. It is like "animals" versus "fauna". People tend to think a fish is not an animal and the Mississippi is far too big to be called a stream. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Category:Watercourses already exists as the parent category to Category:Water streams, which is a parent category to the existing Category:Rivers. Both rivers and streams are somewhat ambiguous in common usage. The project name for all of the pages in the 3 categories is currently at WP:RIVER. I think the discussions at Talk:River are relevant to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandraedha (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B. It's either that or "branches, brooks, becks, burns, creeks, cricks, ghylls, gills, kills, licks, mill races, races, rills, rivers, sykes, bayous, rivulets, streamages, streams, washes, runs, and runnels in X". (As I was once reminded, there is no need to make category names any more complicated than absolutely necessary.)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2016 ; 13:06 (UTC)
 * Either option A or B but please don't close this as a "no consensus". It's pointless to keep the inconsistency that we have at the moment. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus, there's no consensus. A new nomination with a more compelling rationale may be successful though. In the meantime, the inconsistency may be deplorable, but it does reflect the actual content. "Rivers and streams" categories include smaller watercourses, while "Rivers" categories usually don't and otherwise need to be purged, as by any definition, a creek is no river. --PanchoS (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more strongly with your assertion that "by any definition, a creek is no river." In Library of Congress Subject Headings, creeks are indeed defined as rivers, to cite one classification scheme. There is no formal distinction between the two that would support a purge; there are only personal understandings of largeness and smallness. And the nomenclature of formal stream names ("X Creek" vs "Y River") is not a useful guide either: I'll re-post here a table I posted at this discussion that was prompted by a similar purge of "creeks" from a "rivers" category:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Name ! Length ! Drainage area ! Category
 * Little Sandy River (Kentucky)
 * 85.4 mi
 * 724.2 sqmi
 * Rivers
 * Elkhorn Creek (Kentucky)
 * 18.3 mi, with a north fork (75.4 mi) and south fork (52.8 mi)
 * 499.5 sqmi
 * Streams
 * Tygarts Creek
 * 88 mi
 * 339.6 sqmi
 * Streams
 * Red Bird River
 * 34.3 mi
 * 195.7 sqmi
 * Rivers
 * }
 * I would recommend against any "purges" of categories driven by the nomenclature of "river" vs "creek" or similar distinctions, and I don't think there is anything in this discussion that would suggest there is consensus to do so. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 195.7 sqmi
 * Rivers
 * }
 * I would recommend against any "purges" of categories driven by the nomenclature of "river" vs "creek" or similar distinctions, and I don't think there is anything in this discussion that would suggest there is consensus to do so. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would recommend against any "purges" of categories driven by the nomenclature of "river" vs "creek" or similar distinctions, and I don't think there is anything in this discussion that would suggest there is consensus to do so. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Option B. Agathoclea (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Option B According to the article on river, "Small rivers can be referred to using names such as stream, creek, brook, rivulet, and rill." Thus, simply using river avoids WP:ENGVAR which can vary even within a national subdivision (e.g. Bull Run and Potomac Creek are both tributaries of the Potomac River and both are located in the U.S. state of Virginia). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:10, 16 August 2016 (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:UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1974-79
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.

It is a bad idea because it will significantly increase the verbosity of the categories applied to each article. The current categories period of service (e.g. Category:UK MPs 1974–79) have been carefully refined to have very brief titles, but the intersection is significantly more verbose. For the many MPs who served for long periods in the House of Commons, this will massively increase category clutter e.g. Dafydd Elis-Thomas is in 5 categories starting with Category:UK MPs 1974, and this would significantly clutter his article. It would be much better to capture the intersection of constituent country and time periods by creating more lists, such as List of MPs for constituencies in Wales 2010–15, List of MPs for constituencies in Wales 2015–20 etc. (That series currently goes back only to 2001). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1974-79 to Category:UK MPs 1974–79 and Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies
 * Nominator's rationale: UK Members of Parliament are categorised under 3 main attributes: party, constituency location and period of service. This category is an intersection of the last two attributes, and AFAIK it is the only such intersection so far.


 * Dual Upmerge Regardless of how wordy the categories are, collapsing two of the attributed into a combination seems more likely to muddle navigation than to immprove it. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a very strong view on this, and the suggestion re. lists of MPS for Welsh constituencies is a perfectly valid option.Macs15 (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and create a lot more of these categories to use such a system overall. I understand your concern about individuals with long tenures having lots of date-and-place categories, but if they're properly categorised already, they'll already have lots of date categories and a place category.  This idea provides a good way to subdivide the "UK MPs by [period of service]" categories; even with 36 Welshmen split out, Category:UK MPs 1974–79 has 670 member articles, and dividing them up into Englishmen, Scotsmen, Northern Irishmen, and the Welshmen-who-got-forgotten, you'd reduce the size of the parent category significantly.  Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have some sympathy for that idea, but it really would be horribly cluttersome. Take the example I mentioned above, of Dafydd Elis-Thomas. He is currently in:
 * Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies, UK MPs 1983–87, UK MPs 1974, UK MPs 1974–79, UK MPs 1979–83, UK MPs 1987–92
 * but if all those "UK MPs 19xx" categories were divided as you suggest, he'd be in
 * UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1983–87, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1974, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1974–79, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1979–83, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1987–92
 * And it'd be a real horror-show for ppl like Winston Churchill and T. P. O'Connor. Even David Lloyd George would go from the current:
 * Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies, UK MPs 1886–92, UK MPs 1892–95, UK MPs 1895–1900, UK MPs 1900–06, UK MPs 1906–10, UK MPs 1910, UK MPs 1910–18, UK MPs 1918–22, UK MPs 1922–23, UK MPs 1923–24, UK MPs 1924–29, UK MPs 1929–31, UK MPs 1931–35, UK MPs 1935–45
 * to
 * Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1886–92, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1892–95, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1895–1900, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1900–06, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1906–10, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1910, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1910–18, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1918–22, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1922–23, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1923–24, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1924–29, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1929–31, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1931–35, UK MPs for Welsh constituencies 1935–45
 * That's horrible. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS It's even uglier in Norrniron, which has a verbose demonym.
 * Here's Ian Paisley, as of now:
 * Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Northern Irish constituencies, UK MPs 1974, UK MPs 1974–79, UK MPs 1979–83, UK MPs 1983–87, UK MPs 1987–92, UK MPs 1992–97, UK MPs 1997–2001, UK MPs 2001–05, UK MPs 2005–10.
 * But here he is if this type of categ was applied to Norrniron:
 * UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1974, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1974–79, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1979–83, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1983–87, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1987–92, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1992–97, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 1997–2001, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 2001–05, UK MPs for Northern Irish constituencies 2005–10.
 * That wall of text is even more horrible. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge - the trouble is that a)the nation isn't defining for constituencies (pending a solution to the West Lothian question) and b)on a practical level, cleaving off the Celts doesn't really help reduce the numbers from 650 - the split is 533 in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. The only way to further cut it down would be to go down to NUTS1 regions (which didn't apply before joining the EU, are still not well known and are even less defining), or counties (again, non-defining, and perhaps too small, you only get 10-15 MPs in most counties).Le Deluge (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- Since we allow one category per Parliament, we already have a lot of category clutter for MPs. We should not allow any more.  I have some sympathy with objective by MPs vote en masse in the Commons, not by country.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2016 (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.