Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Rivers of the world

Rivers of the world

Listed on January 17, 2005 with no clear consensus so marking unresolved at this point. RedWolf 05:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Previous consensus on "LandformFeatureName of CountryName" faltered on rivers, because continents and countries were treated differently. I'd like to fix this once and for all by establishing "Rivers of Foo" as the convention for all continents, countries, provinces, etc. A list of the state of affairs as of 7 Jan 2005 follows. -- Beland 06:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are you listing existing Rivers of Foo that conform to the suggested convention? I would prefer to keep the Foo rivers convention for political subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states) of countries because (1) it grammatically sounds better when referring to them in sentences without having to use piped links all the time; (2) helps set off political subdivisions from the countries (3) I just think it's just less cluttered. RedWolf 06:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
These are Category names not article names. How often will one be using them in sentences? -- RHaworth 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Assuming the above list is complete or completish then 'Rivers in' rather than 'Rivers of' would involve fewer changes. There is nothing to chose between 'of' and 'in'.

'Foo rivers' also gives rise to the problem of adjectival forms: 'Utah rivers' seems all right but 'British rivers' might seem inconsistent, 'Britain rivers' looks ugly, and 'Great British Rivers' looks like someone's list of favourite rivers. Using 'Rivers in Foo' solves these problems.

RHaworth 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Keep. This is a massive and unnecessary change. The time to debate convention has passed. The names of the categories have been made and they are fairly unambiguous. Furthermore, within each nation there is a strong tendency for subdivision categories for political subdivisions to follow the same naming convention. There is no need to re-invent the wheel for all of the categories that do not fit your idea of convention.
--Alexwcovington (talk) 08:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)