This category is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Waterways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
various canal subcategories for countries are subcategories of rivers of the country category. Is this right? Should canals just be subcats of geography cats or what? Hmains19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entering a minefield! Canals are (mostly) man-made waterways, rivers are natural ones, and both are geographical features. Some rivers are navigable, some rivers have been made navigable by the addition of canal-type infrastructure, and some canals (like the Kennet and Avon Canal) have stretches of river between lengths of canal... With all this in mind, do you have any particular examples that you are concerned about? EdJogg00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But there's no harm in them residing in multiple categories:
Rivers/Canals -- canals are navigable waterways
Geography -- canals make up part of the country landscape
Buildings & Structures -- canals are man-made
Water transport, etc
Personally I find the geographical categories the least helpful for canals, with buildings & structures probably the best, and rivers additional. Different users will be looking from different directions...
I can see Geography, Buildings/structures, Transport as being OK and useful. The problem I have is with the river categories, as rivers are Landforms. Landforms are nature-made without exception that I know of. Hmains17:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. So a canal cat should not be in a river subcat, and vice versa, although there will be cases where individual canals/rivers may be appropriate in the opposite cats (eg Kennet & Avon, again). I am still concerned that there may be some users who will come from a 'river' direction, looking for canals, so perhaps it would be appropriate to include cross-linking text – maybe something like:
This category is for rivers in XXXX. For other navigable waterways, see Category:Canals in XXXX
...although I'm not too fussed what the exact wording might be. Any help?
I would write: This category is for rivers in XXXX; for canals, see Category:Canals in XXXX WHY: there are other navigable waterways than just rivers and canals. Example: the US eastern coast waterway between the barrier islands and the North American continent. Hmains21:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
