Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Landforms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 20:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

General Category:Landforms tidy-up[edit]

Hmm... a bit more research shows the following categories for different landforms referring to individual countries (continents seem to work differently). The following formats are found (numbers in brackets indicate number of categories) -

  • Canyons (1), Fjords (1), Glaciers (3), Craters (8), Hills (1), Mountain ranges (1), Mountains (9), Peninsulas (3), Rock formations (10), Valleys (1), Volcanoes (64), Waterfalls (4). These use only Feature X of Country Y
  • Islands - Islands of Y (26) of, Y islands (3)
  • Lakes - Lakes of Y (10), Y lakes (7)
  • Forests - Forests of Y (1), Y forests (1)
  • Rivers - Rivers in Y (1), Y rivers (2)
  • Bays - Bays of Y (1), Bays in Y (2)
  • National parks - National parks of Y (32), Y national parks (2)

Unless there's a good reason for this inconsistency, I'd like to suggest making Feature X of Country Y a standard. It would mean moving 18 categories:

What’s more, there’s also -

  • Geography - Geography of Y (34), Y geography (11). Australia, Canada, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United States are the odd ones out here.

Cities, buildings, bridges, towns and communities seem to work the other way, with a distinct minority of Feature X of Y categories - perhaps "in" works better for human-made features?

Features by continent or other country group seem to work in a different, but no less inconsistent, way. More on that later, perhaps...? Grutness talk 23:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above suggestion. Feature X of Y specifically notes where the feature is located, while Nationality Feature can be confusing. Confusion can come both from contested claims: "On Island X they speak language Y, even though it belongs to country Z", and from the fact that there probably are a lot of places called "French Mountain", "Swedish Creek" etc, especially in the US. Also, some nationalities are dissimilar to the name of the nation, e.g. "The Netherlands - Dutch", and are American features part of the North America, South America or just the US?--MaxMad 09:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. This is also a problem for people categories, I think. The 'Thingies of Foo' form is much better than the 'Fooian Thingies' one. grendel|khan 15:12, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
  • Bugger it. Forgot to put CfD notices on any of them until today... this list should stay here a little longer, perhaps. I've also noted a few more: Category: English islands, Category: Scottish islands, Category: Welsh islands. At some point it will be useful to look at the geographic items for subnational entities too, like US states, which seem to be equally haphazard. There are also further subcategories listed within tyhe "Geography of" categories which arent listed in landforms by vountry, which will also need to be looked at. But not now. It's all very messy. Grutness|hello? 10:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. I was just creating some national and state cemetery categories. "Arkansan cemeteries"? "Belarusan cemeteries"? No thanks. -Willmcw 12:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Me again :) Temporarily, I'd like to withdraw my suggestion for changing the "Rivers" categories... it's a real hornets nest. All the other suggestions stand, though. The reason? Feature X of Y works well for individual countries, but for continents the rule seems to be different. Rivers flow across so many borders that many of the river categories follow continental rather than individual country rules. Trying to track all the river categories down could be a full time job for several weeks for a hardened team of wikipedians armed with machetes. Grutness|hello? 12:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to the U.S. National Parks change. This is specifically in this format for consistancy with the other types of national parks listed in the linked parent category Protected areas of the United States. Also I notice that no attempt was made to discuss these changes on the appropriate Wikiproject, where I tried to raise category issues several days ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas.
    • There's a wikiproject? It's clearly not well advertised... Sounds like there must be some more categories in Category:Protected areas of the United States that need changing, too. Note that the parent directory follows the same format as that suggested above, as do all other "National parks of X" categories except one - that makes 32 of 34. Oh, and who wrote that? Grutness|hello?
    • This would be what the CfD notices are for. They're supposed to attract the attention of anyone following the category. Sometimes they are neglected, however. It's very difficult to keep track of all the relevant projects. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A little bit late, I would like to express my gratitude for this initiative ...and to them having energy to carry it out! /Tuomas 17:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure who's doing all the donkey-work on it, but whoever it is, thanks. I certainly can't take any credit for that Grutness|hello?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Category:Landforms&oldid=1138385453"