From Wikitravel

[edit] This is Spam so please revert it immediately

A spambot really likes to edit 1st sections of certain pages on our wiki including this one.

That's cracking me up. Way to set up a honeypot, Colin! --Evan 22:14, 26 Jan 2006 (EST)

Actual it's Mark's idea [1]. :-) -- Colin 23:01, 26 Jan 2006 (EST)

[edit] General Discussion

So, to start off, I just wanted to put up a page here to capture the fact that categories aren't working on Wikitravel sites yet. As with most new features in MediaWiki, I'd prefer to think them over first as a group before enabling them. What's good for Wikipedia isn't necessarily good for Wikitravel.

My main problem is that I think there is too much metadata to be put into Wikitravel pages to be shoehorned into the Mediawiki category framework. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few things:

1. Type of article (destination guide, itinerary, travel topic, other...)
2. Type of destination (continent, country, region, city, district, ...)
3. Parent destination (for making breadcrumb lists; by saying Sydney is in New South Wales, we can make something like "Australasia -> Australia -> New South Wales -> Sydney")
4. Status of article (stub, to be deleted, copyvio, destination of the month candidate, needs attention, ...)
5. Copyright and license info (original author(s), source, license, ...)
6. Geographical location (latitude and longitude; great for something like http://geourl.org/)

I guess I just don't think that saying Phoenix is in category "Stub" and that it's also in category Arizona is really useful. I'd rather have two different ways of saying those two different things.

I have some preferred ways of doing this -- my main one is to use Turtle to embed metadata information into a page. I think this makes things infinitely flexible while retaining some understandability. I plan on implementing this for MediaWiki 1.X, where X is the version after 1.4.

But I'm wondering if anyone has good ideas for what we can use MediaWiki categories for. Where would they work? Should we just use them for all the information above? Or a certain subset? Or not at all? My feeling is not at all; we've gotten this far without them, and I'm not sure implementing them now is worth the effort. --Evan 17:39, 10 Oct 2004 (EDT)

[edit] Parent Destination

I've never used Categories, as this is the only wiki I've done any work on, but when I first heard of their existance, I thought this might be a way of improving navigation by being able to move up the geographic hierarchy (as you've suggested in #3.) Having looked over the meta-wiki page on categories now, they don't seem to be the greatest way of implementing this, but it may well be the only way (without customizing the software, which then makes it an even bigger hassle to upgrade).

It is an ability that I think is sorely lacking at the moment, and if categories is the only way to implement it, I'd kind of like to see it done. I see no reason to use categories for any other purpose, though.

-- Neil 01:01, 11 Oct 2004 (EDT)

How about Templates as an alternative to categories for the purpose of navigating? Like this example that could be on each of the Paris arrondisement articles: {{Navbox| subject_name=5th Paris arrondisement| previous=Paris/4th arrondissement| next=Paris/6th arrondissement}}

Other templates could simply list all the (major/interesting) cities in a state, the countries in Europe? I have used Categories on Wikipedia, but I also don't think they would fit here and they tend to get over complex and too hierarchical. Although it would be nice to click on something that shows all the related articles. -Wikibob | Talk 20:01, 2004 Oct 13 (EDT)

That's an idea, but instead of different articles at the same level, I'd much prefer something simple like:

Europe | Ireland | County Galway | Galway

But that doesn't work nicely as a template, because it changes significantly depending on exactly what page your looking at. Maybe there's some fancy template design method that might work, but I'd need to be directed to some instructions on how to make such things happen, and I'm not really sure how it could be set up.

Maybe what I want just can't really be done simply with a wiki, but if there is a way, it the first thing that I felt was missing when I started working on articles here.

--Neil 03:05, 14 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Categories would be ideal for your example, but let's see what's possible with templates; here is what one would type into an article: {{Navlevel|subject_name=Galway|county=County Galway|country_state=Northern Ireland|continent=Europe}} Which should produce this: {{Navlevel|subject_name=Galway|county=County Galway|country_state=Northern Ireland|continent=Europe}} This is awkward to copy-and-paste into articles, but it might be possible to use Template:Nav_lincolnshire which holds another Template, Nav_england, nested inside: {{Nav_lincolnshire|a=Lincoln}} produces this: {{Nav_lincolnshire|a=Lincoln}} Rather messy, unless someone can see a way to cleanup the layout and syntax. -Wikibob | Talk 12:17, 2004 Oct 14 (EDT)

• Categories. This was developed for Wikipedia, and it's not clear that it's useful for a travel guide. I'd rather see some discussion about what we'd use categories for than leave them enabled and just have the idea develop willy-nilly. --Evan 15:48, 7 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I think "categories" would be a great idea, but not in their current form. Is there any way to adapt them so that we could use them like breadcrumb navigation? This could be done with subcategories, even though, like you, categories were developed for Wikipedia (and I don't particularly like them there either) and it would seem strange for a travel guide. With subcategories, we could have, for example, a category for Romania, a subcategory for Transilvania and then the article Cluj-Napoca. But then how would this show up in the article? Currently, it would show up at the bottom, which is not convenient! Ronline 10:21, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Yes, I agree that additional metadata on articles (what region is this city in? What is the lat./long.?) would be useful. But the really creaky categories feature in MediaWiki isn't the way to do that. --Evan 12:32, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

[edit] Categories are Metadata

From their use on other Wiki's, my impression of Categories is that they are used to enable people to classify wiki articles in ways that are not stated in the text of the article. That is Categories are Metadata, not data or content. WikiTravel has probably not needed categories so far because the template format that most articles follow makes their classification relatively easy as all the necessary data is in the article.

In an encyclopedia, the Categories feature would be very useful because an article can be linked to its master index and thus be found easily through a what links here page. Explaining this categorisation in the article text may be difficult and possibly disruptive to the flow of knowledge.

In WikiTravel, most categorisation information should be mentioned in the article. Consequently, there is going to be relatively little metadata associated with articles as it is mostly included in the data already. A few wikifying links of a few (added) names will normally add value and improve an article. Unless Categories can add real value to articles above and beyond improving the article, I suspect they will be more trouble than they are worth. -- Huttite 17:30, 26 Dec 2004 (EST)

[edit] Type of article

(destination guide, itinerary, travel topic, other...)

WikiTravel articles fall into only a few different categories:

• Places - The vast majority of articles are destination guides.
• Itineries - A few favourites.
• General topics - Some advice.
• Project articles - WikiTravel: and User: namespaces, etc.

[edit] Type of destination

(continent, country, region, city, district, ...)

WikiTravel articles should have an appropriate template. Template layouts will indicate the type of destination.

[edit] Parent destination

(for making breadcrumb lists; by saying Sydney is in New South Wales, we can make something like "Australasia -> Australia -> New South Wales -> Sydney")

WikiTravel articles should mention which country, city or region an article is associated with. In particular the parent region should be given, so that one can get out etc. I do not think that breadcrumb navigation is necessary, and if it is then there are other ways to do this.

I'm strongly for using categories in order to build destination hierarchy trees. First of all they makes it easier not only to navigate but to efficiently access the correct information. When preparing a trip to a particular region I could simply go to the right category and have easy access to all the information on that area presented in a structured manner. Currently there is no mechanism for this and some information can be easily missed. Secondly, the wikimedia categorisation mechanisms allows to build hierarchies automatically. Face it: WikiTravel does not currently have any hierarchy that would scale up well. Above all: it allows for alternative hierarchies to coexist at the same time. This gives the travellers more flexibility in their browsing the information. Seriously, I don't see many cons here and the sooner we start the better (and easier) it's going to be. Wojsyl 13:34, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)

[edit] Status of article

(stub, to be deleted, copyvio, destination of the month candidate, needs attention, ...)

All these articles should have an appropriate notice added to them.

[edit] Copyright and license info

(original author(s), source, license, ...)

Surely this is adequately handled by the copyright notice at the bottopm of each page.

[edit] Geographical location

Are we talking about a map reference? If so, then that should be given in the article too.

[edit] Categories for books

As discussed here, I think it's time to start seriously looking at enabling categories for creating books. This way (for example) every article about Italy would be in Category:Italy, every destination in Sicily would be in Category:Sicily, etc. Then you could just create your Italy book by fetching every article linked to the Category:Italy page. Opinions? Jpatokal 09:38, 5 Sep 2005 (EDT)

The only downside I can see to categories would be that they should be implemented with very clear guidelines on how they are created and used, otherwise we will end up with a really messy hierarchy that could potentially include a lot of cruft. I can't imagine that there would be too much benefit in breaking things down to a "Category:San Francisco/Mission District" level, so perhaps an initial rule could be that geographic categories would be limited to a continent → country level, with a further level for state / province in large countries like the USA, Canada and China (and other selected countries, as defined by the category guidelines). Border areas could be handled by using a rule that only the smallest category that completely contains a region should be used, thus addressing places like the Rocky Mountains (North America).

Provided the geographic hierarchy works well we can later look at how to create hierarchies for travel topics, itineraries, and other items that don't easily fit into a geographic hierarchy. Thoughts? -- Wrh2

I agree completely. Jpatokal 09:04, 6 Sep 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Further Arguments For Enabling Categories

• Some countries and regions have deep hierarchies; travelers who are not so familiar with the subdivisions of a region have difficulties to find the site of interest.
• There are several writings for a lot of sites especialy in countries with non-latin languages. Maybe travellers do not know which transliteration was used. An index will help to find it. A very simple example is Cairo (English writing): Kairo (German), Le Caire (French), al-Qāhira, al-Ḳāhira (scientific transliterations). Other cases become more complicated, for instance if a source uses older (historical) writings.
• It is not always usefull to add categories to the text.
• Authors who edit a lot of sites must use otherwise the "Watch this page" option or http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=ARegion function to get an overview of articles already written.
• The index lists will be automatically generated, often authors do not know if a special "hand-made" list is already existent or not. These lists must be edited by hand at any time.

Restrictions:

• Categories should be restricted to regions, countries and sub-country regions.
• Categories should be inserted as links of the home page of that region.
• Maybe Categories should be added as link below th toolbox window.

Because a lot of countries and regions consist already of a lot of articles all types of categories (not only geographic) should be allowed to prevent multiple addition of Categories. I do not know if a breadcrumb trail hierarchy is necessary (in all cases).

But please start to enable it... Unger 10:31, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Categories

Swept in from Wikitravel:Travelers' pub:

According to me, there should be some new categories. Like a "theme park" category and a "capitals" category.

[edit] Turtle

Hello Evan, can you give me some examples how Turtle could work? Thanks --Roland2 16:14, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

Can you be more specific? Do you want to know how the feature works, or what it is useful for? Or are you particularly interested in how Turtle could be used to define categories of articles? --Evan 16:24, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

First I'd be interested in examples how the code within the articles could look like. Maybe sort of this?

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix wt: <http://wikitravel.org/turtle/> .

<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar>
  wt:title    "Vienna" ;
  wt:type     "city" ;
  wt:parent   "Austria" ;
  wt:currency "EUR" ;

--Roland2 16:56, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

Oh! There's a couple of examples here: Wikitravel:15 November 2005. I should probably get started on Wikitravel:RDF soon. --Evan 19:06, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

Oh, strange title for that topic ;-) For example, how can I get a list of stubs? Can I combine several RDF attributes in a query? For example: A list of Austrian cities which are stubs? --Roland2 20:00, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

I don't have it set up yet to allow user queries of the Rdf data. We'd probably have to use something like SPARQL to make that work. What I was planning to do was build special pages for each kind of query, but I agree that a general-purpose query page would be really interesting and useful. --Evan 23:34, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)

On review: the RDF library I'm using, RAP, uses RDQL rather than SPARQL (at least for now). Right now the RDF is on a per-page basis, but with a few tweaks that'd be fairly easy to change. As for your original question: we haven't actually defined how to say that something is a stub, nor really how to say that something is "in Austria". But, yes, that's a query that's not only possible but quite useful. Also: I've started a page on Wikitravel:RDF that's probably worth your time. --Evan 19:30, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

Thanks for your efforts. I've been missing categories, however, RDF is more powerful. --Roland2 11:09, 18 Nov 2005 (EST)

[edit] Categories extension wanted

Swept in from the Pub:

I was looking for the extension some of you wrote for showing the sub-categories in the begining of every article. We couldn't find it on the site. Will love to have it!

Thanks-

F16 11:02, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

See breadcrumb navigation. It's not using categories but RDF. The RDF code is in the extensions module in CVS; I haven't packaged up the breadcrumbs module but I could if you really needed it. --Evan 11:11, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

Started reading about RDF, can't say I really understand it's wide capabilities at the moment. Anyway, I'de love to get the breedcrumb Navagation module. F16 12:03, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

[edit] Categories re-enabled in 1.6 -- ok to use on ja:?

So categories were (unintentionally?) re-enabled in 1.6 and over on ja: Shoestring promptly used it to create a category of hot springs. Is this acceptable or not, and if the answer is "no, use RDF", how can destinations-that-are-hot-springs be tagged? Jpatokal 22:57, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

{{tag|hot springs}} . See Template:Tag, Wikitravel:RDF_Expedition/Tags. Yes, that was unintentional, and apparently the flag that turns on categories has been hard-wired on.

Categories are a feature that I've never turned on, since most folks wanted them for geographical hierarchies, and I thought we could do better. I'm not going to go to a lot of trouble to disable them, but I hope that people have the good sense not to use them when we have more targetted features in the RDF toolset (e.g. breadcrumb navigation, geo-tagging, etc.).

The only thing I'd ask is that if ja: folks want to dive into categories, they do it thoughtfully and carefully. Using a feature just because it's there is a bad idea. Make sure it meets a real need.

Also, I'd recommend wrapping categories in a more semantic template to future-proof changes. We've done that on Shared:, for example. Like, say, for specialties of a destination, make a Template:Specialty that contains '[[Category:{{{1}}}]]', and link to it with {{specialty|hot springs}}. That'll make sure that if there's a more specific markup for specialties of a destination. --Evan 23:36, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

Hmm. How loudly would you object to sticking [[{Category:{{{1}}}]] into the Template:Tag code? That way the tags would be easily visible now, but the categories can be easily deprecated in the future if you add more behind-the-scenes magic. Jpatokal 00:05, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

Can we constrain categories to things that "tags" are for: adding little bits of subject information for destinations? I'd rather not see categories bleed out into other metadata (see Wikitravel:RDF Expedition for details -- I'm thinking article type, article status, licensing, geographical hierarchy, etc.), since I don't think they work well there. I think that if we have other ways of marking articles that are more specific, we should use them.

Tags also tend to be short and small, and have meaning in combination -- like glbt, bar, karaoke, cheap. Wikipedia, at least, has really deep hierarchies, and long category names like "Wikipedia:Category:Educational institutions established in the 1850s" that sum up all their parent categories. I'd rather see "taggy" stuff in tags than long hierarchical categories.

Lastly, can you paint a picture of how this would work? I'd love to know that this is going somewhere useful. I've always been underwhelmed with categories on Wikipedia. There's an immense amount of effort that goes into implementing, organizing and maintaining them, and I don't find the navigational advantages all that useful. I think the main reason people add them is because they can, but the second reason people add them is to capture some semantic data ("The subject of this article is a university; it was started in 1850; it is in France"). I think that there are other, better ways of doing that. --Evan 09:16, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

I think it better to use RDF (such as “bread crumb navigation”) when we want to navigate some topics hierarchically, because it is suitable to categorize them “vertically”. On the other hand, I think we have some wikitravelers or visitors who want to navigate the topics “horizontally”, by using the key words such as “hot springs”, “world heritage”, “natural parks in Japan”, and so on. And when we want to do it, the category is one of the best and most useful ways to describe them, because the category is one of the suitable ways to grouping some pages “horizontally”. In addition, if we can use such horizontal ways as one of our device, we can make Wikitravel more useful, and I believe it will meet our policy to make “complete” “reliable” guidebook, and it will also meet the demands of readers as well.

I fully agree with the idea that we should not duplicate navigation system, and should not put wordy category, but I think we can be segregated those “vertical” and “horizontal” system, and handle them well. If you worry about the chaotic situation by bringing category methods into our site, how about the idea that we make “Wikitravel:policy for using categories” at first, and pluck the inappropriate categories away from the pages?Shoestring 22:24, 14 April 2006 (EDT)

I agree that we should probably do that; I think Wikitravel:Categories is probably a good place to do that!

For national parks in Japan, I'd say we'd use a travel topic page like National parks in Japan, rather than a category. I think also having separate tags, like {{tag|national park}}, {{tag|mountains}}, {{tag|hiking}}, plus more accurate geographical info like geocoding and the hierarchy info in Breadcrumb navigation, gives us a more flexible faceted classification than [[Category:National parks in Japan that are good for hiking in the mountains]], which would have to be built into some kind of hierarchy to be useful. --Evan 12:24, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

Thank you for your response. Well, I have no intention to stick to the specific measures as “Category” at all, actually I don’t care which method we chose, only if we can achieve what we are aiming on this site (although I have not yet fully understand the difference between [[Category:hot springs]] and {{tag|hot springs}} (^_^;)…).

Speaking of List of the National Parks in Japan, Umm… I think it is a little bit inconvenient to describe the “horizontal groping”, because it will work only when the readers can notice that page. On the other hand, We can put categories and tags (probably) on every related page, so it is much easier for everyone to notice that function. Probably the “tag” you’ve mentioned is the best solution so far. If you are preparing it, go ahead, please. Then, when will it work on wikitravel-ja? Hmm,…may be Jpatocal-san will tell us when…Shoestring 08:30, 17 April 2006 (EDT)

[edit] let's use categories for Babel tagging of users

Presently, there's no way to find users who live in specific area or city for considerable time--so now we can't easily find people to recruit for collaboration (or discussion) on specific area--like we need in Saint Petersburg#Stay Safe, for example. Let's allow people to easily specify what areas they can give really expert opinion on (or at least can check something on request)--and encourage them to tell that when they register. To start with, can we just allow categories for Babel so we can use language knowledge as a rough criteria for finding people who live in specific country? This is another 10 cents into retaining users. --DenisYurkin 12:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

I think the "expert advice" bit is being done pretty decently by Wikitravel:Docents. And we also have a list of Wikitravellers by location that anyone is free to sign up. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 13:31, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Then, we should promote the listing and adding themselves there--like we need to promote Docents idea to the community. On the list-by-location, I've added a short note to Wikitravel:Tips for new contributors, Wikitravel:Welcome, newcomers and Wikitravel:Help; I also created a Wikitravel:How to tell about yourself, but that doesn't seem enough. Where else can we encourage people to add them to the list? --DenisYurkin 23:53, 28 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] categories already used?

I just found that categories are enabled and in use already, for example in Template:Usable and Template:Stub. Is it intentionally? Can we encourage contributors to use it wider already? --DenisYurkin 18:15, 29 November 2006 (EST)

[edit] Current Status?

I recently tried to implement a Template for use in countries which have visa/entry restrictions based on country of origin/visited country history, and it was kind of shot down with one WikiTraveller stating that Categories are not in use within Wikitravel. Whilst I understand that categories may be somewhat overused in some implementations of MediaWiki, I believe that there are some factes of WikiTravel which could be improved through their use. These extend not only to grouping articles for specific regions (whether within a country or consisting of a number of countries), but also countries which may have common characteristics/limitations/etc.

I see that alot of discussion has been made above, but alot of it is rather old (2004 in some instances) and there is no clear statement on the current decision regarding use of Categories - when they should and should not be used, etc.

In the "Plunge forward" and "Be bold" spirits shared by most Wikis, I would suggest that their use be encouraged wherever any contributors believe that they may add value, and then, if necessary and after a reasonable trial has been made, make a clear, measured and reasoned decision at that time (with a review a reasonable time further down the track to ensure that decision is inline with the developing community and usage). -- Lucanos 09:33, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Provided someone can come up with some broad guidelines as to when categories are appropriate / inappropriate I'd be in favor of allowing them on Wikitravel. They are a useful tool to grouping together articles and would (I think) be helpful. Before getting too deep into how this could be done, is there interest from others in making use of categories on Wikitravel? -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I would like to hear more about what these should be used for. A lot of the discussion above occured before we had breadcrumb navigation, gps tags, etc. What do we still need that categories can offer? By the way, I don't see how the visa restricted categories could be useful. Texugo 11:25, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I'd like to see the "related" tag updated to add a category, as most people miss the tiny left nav link (examples: UNESCO sites, United States National Parks, etc). You're right that it wouldn't make sense for geographical groupings, and I'm not sure about using categories for things like "visa restricted countries" as it's tough to imagine a traveler wanting to know all countries which they could visit to enjoy visa problems. I definitely don't think we want a Wikipedia-style mess of categories, but at the same time I do think that they can make sense on a case-by-case basis and should not be completely discouraged. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:42, 15 December 2008 (EST)

With reference to your enquiry about the "visa restricted countries", I raised that category not because I wanted to visit countries where I would have problems, but instead to avoid them (a list of warning telling a user what not to do is often more useful than a massive list detailing everything they can do). Personally, I would rather not experience the difficulties of exiting one country to try and enter the next only to be turned around and stuck in no-man's land. For instance, knowing whether a specific country will refuse me entry if I go there after visiting another country is useful information, at least to me. And trying to find that information quickly and easily was my goal. But, then again, my travelling ideas and style may not be shared by everyone. -- Lucanos 11:37, 13 February 2009 (EST)

[edit] Revisited - when are categories OK?

At present we don't really have a policy about categories - we use them for article status and a few other instances, but strongly discourage their use otherwise. Users from Wikipedia and other sites expect to be able to use categories, so it seems time that we create some guidelines. I'd like to propose the following:

• We create a Wikitravel:Category nominations page. Before creating a new category it should be nominated and discussed for three days and a consensus reached to create the category before using the category on the site.
• Categories should NEVER be used for organizing articles geographically. "Category:Africa", "Category:English towns", etc are not appropriate.
• Categories should NEVER be used for grouping information that is encyclopedic rather than travel-related. "Category:Islands", "Category:Socialist countries", "Category:Indonesian volcanoes", etc are not appropriate. Note that while a traveler might be interested in visiting islands, socialist countries or Indonesian volcanoes, those groupings are not common enough to warrant categories.
• Categories MIGHT be useful in grouping articles by type when that "type" is a common travel subject. "Category:Amusement parks" might be helpful for Disney World, Cedar Point, etc. "Category:Phrasebooks" might be helpful for phrasebooks. "Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites" might be useful for UNESCO sites.
• We should err on the side of having fewer, broader categories. Having too many categories makes them less effective, so it should be a goal never to have more than 1-3 categories on any article, and to never have categories with fewer than 15 articles.

Thoughts? Categories appear regularly throughout the site, so it would be nice to finally standardize how they are used and what our policies are in relation to using them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:11, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Why not "can be used for grouping information that is encyclopedic rather than travel-related"? --DenisYurkin 12:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)

The criteria I came up with were aimed at limiting category usage and keeping them relevant to making articles more useful, rather than more cluttered. "Non-encyclopedic" seems like a way to eliminate a vast array of potential categories that are of limited use to travelers - it's hard to see how a list of every island in the world would be particularly useful, or how a grouping of all socialist countries would be relevant to a significant number of travelers. If there are other suggestions for better criteria for more clearly spelling out when categories should be used then it would be great to get that input - the list above was merely my attempt. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:41, 28 February 2009 (EST)

After giving it a second thought, I thing it's a good point to start--and practice will bring exceptions/corrections if needed. --DenisYurkin 17:46, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Could we work up a short list of acceptable categories as examples? Texugo 18:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Personally I'd like to see most of the "Wikitravel:" namespace organized into categories - something like "Category:Wikitravel policies" and "Category:Wikitravel help pages". "Category:Travel topics" would also be helpful for organizing travel topics, and similarly for "Category:Phrasebooks". Additionally, some of the articles linked to from our various "List of ..." pages could benefit from category tagging, such as "Category:UNESCO", "Category:United States National Parks", etc. I'm sure others will have additional suggestions, but the basic idea would be to improve site organization by giving users additional ways of finding topics that they expect to logically be grouped together. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:38, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Plus: Airports [2], nearly every section in the Travel topics; destination X with children; winter sports in destination X?

--DenisYurkin 18:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)

What would be the value-added in adding categories to travel topics and phrasebooks, since they already should link back to List of phrasebooks and Travel topics. Those pages not only collect all the relevant articles in one place, they also provide useful information about them—something a category does not do. --Peter ^Talk 03:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I think there are two issues: one, many editors here expect to be able to use categories, so it would be good to create some guidelines for when they are (or are not) OK. And two, provided we keep the implementation limited, categories are useful in providing an additional way to navigate to a topic, and they do so in a way that is familiar to people who use other Mediawiki sites. For example, while United States National Parks is more useful than a category given that it shows maps and organizes parks by state, adding a category for national parks adds one more path to park articles for users trying to find national parks, and we can then add a pointer on the category page to the list page to guide people to the more useful index. I think we want to keep any implementation limited, but at the same time I think we are reducing Wikitravel's usefulness by forbidding them entirely. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

There hasn't been a ton of discussion either way on this topic - I'm not sure if the nomination process is overbearing, categories are simply not popular, or people have simply missed this discussion. If anyone else has further comments it would be great to hear them, otherwise in the spirit of Wikitravel:Plunge forward I'd like to propose tagging articles in the Wikitravel: namespace with one of these three categories, as appropriate (and based on Wikipedia's structure):

• Category:Wikitravel Policies and Guidelines - for pages such as Wikitravel:The traveler comes first, Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals, the article templates, and other policies & guidelines.
• Category:Wikitravel Administration - for pages such as Wikitravel:Votes for deletion, Wikitravel:User ban nominations and other pages used to handle administrative tasks.
• Category:Wikitravel Help - for help pages such as Wikitravel:How to edit a page.

Any thoughts, suggestions, or objections? I'll wait a couple days, and if the deafening silence continues I'll take it as tacit approval. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:13, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

For reasons I cannot identify, categories on Wikitravel (especially if used on destination guides) rub me the wrong way. Nonetheless, I think any additional organization we can add to our messy namespace would be welcome. --Peter ^Talk 03:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I support implementing the namespace categories. Even after a couple of years working on the site, I still struggle to find some of our policy pages (been there once, but then can't find it when I need to go back months later).

I also support rolling it out in a limited fashion to destination articles. Our hierarchy is good if you're looking to travel a region, but if the point of a trip is say, common activities, our hierarchy isn't so useful. The National Parks is one example, another thing I was thinking of would be "Ski resorts in Western Canada" since its quite normal for people to fly out to Calgary or Vancouver and then hit several of the resorts in the region. Right now, if someone didn't know where the resorts were, they'd have to read through many articles to find them; the category would make is much faster to find them. It probably should be done as an itinerary or travel topic to complement the category, but I don't think everyone needs that level of detail and it takes time to create a good one (plus, I agree with however above said people don't always notice the related articles). Shaund 11:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi I just pop in, because i wanted to check which are all places we have in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is when I saw theres no categories, and i came in this discussion, which is actually still on! So I think it would be usefull to have categories, not to detailed, or maybe even dynamical? Like when a category becomes with more then 300 items (or so) should be subcategorized, like for all towns in Bosnia, that might be it, but if it become more, we have to make a geographical subdivision.

Ah, I see a minefield coming (no pun intended), like what to do with all the almost empty pages? But with having categories with only classified pages - like "a usable page", and put al non-usable pages in a junk category, itll become quite a hassle to take care of all that.... i wish us good luck here! -- Eiland 10:06, 9 April 2009 (EDT)