Category talk:Yellowstone National Park
Categorization
[edit]The primary category for Yellowstone National Park is fairly large and the can be hard to determine how to find anything specific. I've actually found searching to the Category:xxxx xxxx where the xxx is the common name for things, works a bit faster than trying to work my way through the categories. For example, try and find Artist Point images?
- Do I start with Geography, then to Landforms and it's 8 categories, which are based on geological processes.
- Let try Geology, but again it's 16 categories are based on geologic processes, for which a 'point' is irrelevant.
- Historical Images of Yellowstone National Park, might be a way to work through old photos to a category on Artist Point.
- Landscapes sound promising, except that it's categories are 'rainbows', 'sky', and 'Sunrises'. Possible to get lucky with a sunset at Artist Point.
- I ruled out Structures because, I don't know of any structures associated with Artist Point, except a parking lot or a restroom.
- Tourism in Yellowstone NP sounded good, until I found it was pictures of tourist. -- So, I added categories using the commonly used 'tourist' areas of the park and then started linking topics to their tourism center. Not a great way to get there, but it works, as Artist Point is part of the Canyon Village tourist areas.
I'm not a fan of the way primary categories have been created for the National Park Units. I recognize the problem of several audiences. The scientific or academic, which want's references that reflect their study areas., i.e., Geothermal features in Yellowstone National Park or Nature of Yellowstone National Park. Meanwhile, the largest potential contingent of users are those who have gone to wikipedia and linked into wikimedia when planning a visit to a park. They aren't looking for processes or geology, historical images or even national register of historic places. They are looking for common language which relates to the tourist sites, like "Artist Point".
So to reverse order:
- Searched for 'Artist Point'.
- found 'Category:Artist Point, Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone'
- it has only one category listed 'Category:Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone'
- Artist Point is one of 9 categories here.
- Meanwhile, Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone is linked to 6 higher categories: Category:Canyons in Yellowstone National Park, Category:Canyons in Wyoming, Category:Geology of Yellowstone National Park, Category:Colorful mountains, Category:Things named after grand. Category:Canyon Village (Yellowstone NP).
- Note: only 2 are linked to Yellowstone National Park.
- Geology of Yellowstone National Park and Canyon Village (Yellowstone NP).
- The second category, i.e., Canyon Village is the one I just added.
So the downward search was:
- link from wikipedia to wikimedia into the category:Yellowstone National Park.
- then 'know' that places will be linked through the most significant geologic feature to which they are connected, i.e., Geology of Yellowstone National Park.
- Once in geology, look for the nearest name to what you're seeking, of which you'd need to know that Artist Point is on the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone.
- now it becomes clear, there is a category:Artist Point.
- My problem is that I've been there, I've studies the place, I've read numerous books, maps, geology, and history to be able to 'guess' at the links. But the very first thing to know is that it's geologically based descending categories will stop most average interest.
Don't have a fix, but would ask that a Wiki help on categories specific to Parks or National Parks be considered to establish recommended primary categories and tourist/general interest categories that can be used. While, this is Yellowstone, I've found it nearly every state and national park unit prime categories. Small areas with limited places, topics and emphasis are minimally at issue. It's the ones that most people I've contacted talk about and hope to visit that are convoluted and mind boggling.
I'll keep cross linking and adding categories until I get told that 'I'm over categorizing'. After all, it's my understanding that one of the principles of the wiki system (specifically wikipedia and wikimedia) is to make information freely available to everyone. If you need a PHD to figure out how to find it, then it fails the test of 'freely available', as it appears to be aimed only at those who can afford an education.--Chris Light (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)