The current system of categorisation for rivers and streams has only minimal description Rivers are large flowing bodies of water and Here are streams, creeks, brooks...... The assumption being that the Category:Rivers only includes named rivers (River X), (Y River) etc., and that Category:Streams contains all other creeks, brooks etc.
Discussions regarding UK rivers here and at Wikipedia here, reveals that this distinction between rivers and streams is poorly defined. Using nomenclature only causes issues, as larger streams can be longer, have a greater drainage area or flow than smaller rivers.
Large rivers such as the Nile or Amazon are not in dispute, but any attempt at distinction between smaller rivers and larger streams becomes unworkable very quickly (see here for some US examples).
It is proposed that the Rivers and Streams categories (and their sub-cats) are combined under the Rivers category (which has been the approach on en Wikipedia since 2016), or some other name such as Natural watercourses. Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I concur with the infeasibility of defining at a useful set of distinguishing characteristics for small river categories. I have decades of professional experience working as a field engineer assessing natural runoff features in areas of various geology, precipitation, and snowmelt patterns within the United States. Aside from the local dialects referring to similarly sized drainage feature as either a stream, a creek, a brook, a bayou, a swale, a draw, a gulch, or an arroyo, there is a tendency to name features in accordance with their size relative to other local drainage features. The largest local drainage in an arid region is often called a river, while drainage features carrying greater flow through moist terrain are called brooks or creeks. Catchment basin area cannot be readily determined for drainage features in flat terrain or those fed by lava tubes or limestone caves. If flow criteria were to be a differentiating factor, there would be problems deciding whether average flow, or average surface flow (neglecting subsurface flow), or average rainy season (or meltwater) flow, or peak flow should be used. Average flow is available only for drainages with a long history of measurement and subject to changes through consumptive water use or climate change, while peak flow is largely statistical approximation depending on the frequency of peak flows, and the likelihood they will destroy gaging systems. Thewellman (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging per User:Jokulhlaup and User:Thewellman. There is no clear boundary between a "river" and a "stream", and assigning one based on basin size, flow, stream order, etc., would be both arbitrary and unworkable, while a distinction based on local nomenclature arbitrarily forces images of objectively similar physical features into separate categories. --TimK MSI (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I don't think there is an issue with just calling them all "rivers". I also want to point out that stream order specifically is unworkable. The categories are for the whole length of the river, from source to mouth. The headwaters will often have a stream order of one, but are still part of the major river.
Thanks for the ping, things have just got busy in RL at the moment, but I should have time later next week to see what is involved--Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
::@Themightyquill: given the extent of the changes that this CfD will generate, I think it would be advisable to close the discussion formally. As the nominator I don't think I should do that, are you able to close it yourself, or should I ask at COM:AN instead ?--Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot agree on merging everything into "River" is the right way, but may have weak support if it was "Rivers and streams" with a good explanation on how to ensure we don't end up with a crowded category. Big issue we will see is having Rivers, Creeks, Streams, Brooks etc all in a single category down to the state level for example. Interestingly Geographical Names Board of NSW give a very good description on Creeks, Rivers, Streams etc (sadly can't paste them due to Crown Copyright/CC-BY-ND-3.0) that it names and designates in NSW but would be similar in other Australian states and possibly some other countries. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think sorting them geographically would prevent any unwanted overcrowding. Most creeks and streams can be separated down to the municipal level if necessary. Also, I don't think the descriptions at the link you cited are helpful at all. Stream is defined as "Small river, brook" and Rivulet is described as "Small stream". Those are definitions everyone knows, but they aren't good for categorizing anything since "small" is highly subjective. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To merge stream and river would be an oversimplification I think. It is a bit like deciding which plants are trees and which are shrubs or saplings. All trees start as saplings, but at some point, you cannot say exactly where, it changes from one to the other. One definition of a tree is that it is woody and you can climb it. Similarly one could conceive of a rough definition that distinguishes rivers from creeks. A river can sweep you away, for instance, but a creek usually doesn't. Or you need a bridge supported by pillars to cross a river, but at a creek some covered culverts will do. Most languages I suspect clearly distinguish between the two. In German for instance: Bach and Fluss. And there are some drainage lines that don't fall easily into these two. Desert wadis that have irregular flow: sometimes rivers, sometimes only a dry gully. And rivulets that tumble or trickle down from steep slopes may also be irregular: neither a creek or a river. JMK (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, we need a category that encompasses all "long and narrow flowing bodies of water".
here i offer a non english speaking perspective. in non-english speaking countries you more rarely find such things named "creek" "stream" etc. we just call them all rivers when we have to translate their names.
so i think, any use of those synonyms of river is due more to local and historical reasons, rather than a rigid scientific objective definition. and even if such definitions exist, they often vary across different countries.
my suggestion:
use "rivers" as the overall parent cat.
only in certain countries where the usage of other synonyms are prevalent, there can be "creeks of the united kingdom", etc.
only if their names bear those words "creek"/"stream"/... should they be categorised under those specific cats. we dont make arbitrary definitions based on length/width/volume... but only their english names.
but all those categories with the synonyms in titles should be categorised under for example "rivers of the united kingdom".
@Bidgee: At this moment, the category Category:Creeks has a description: „Here are streams with word Creek in its name.“ Such specific scope make sense only for English-language countries, and the category name should be not confusing (Category:Streams named "creek"?). However, many of contained files and subcategories don't meet the description. Generally, Universality principle of categorization requieres to have category names universal; identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. All non-English countries have to be reconciled with universal English terminology even though their national conceptualization can be different – thus also English-language countries should suppress their local language specifics and yield to universal terms, if possible. Naturally, distinctions between various types of watercourses are soft and blurred and can pervade and overlap. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the discussion with no consensus, keeping both category trees separate. Although many have supported the proposal to include streams under rivers, the arguments against the proposal are hard to refute. So whether a watercourse is a river or a stream is now up to the individual users. Watercourses is an unambiguous term and it may be used instead of rivers or streams. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(13958644412).jpg)
Oppose I cannot agree on merging everything into "River" is the right way, but may have weak support if it was "Rivers and streams" with a good explanation on how to ensure we don't end up with a crowded category. Big issue we will see is having Rivers, Creeks, Streams, Brooks etc all in a single category down to the state level for example. Interestingly Geographical Names Board of NSW give a very good description on Creeks, Rivers, Streams etc (sadly can't paste them due to Crown Copyright/CC-BY-ND-3.0) that it names and designates in NSW but would be similar in other Australian states and possibly some other countries. Bidgee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)