Jump to content

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Places to go, National Park Service

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Places to go, National Park Service

[edit]

What is the intent of this category and its subcategories? I tried asking User:Chris Light on his talk page (when there were still far fewer subcats), but got no response. Seems entirely subjective to me, and unless there is a good explanation, I think all of these should be removed and their contents upmerged to the respective national parks. Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not a full-time editor/contributor, thus I don't check every day. Actually, 2 days is good for me. Also, it may be time for a sit down and discussion about Jmabel's design - organizational methods. I've spent 30 yrs. organizing data, images, information, etc. and everyone does it differently, so I'll accept another style if I know what the intent of the design is and the end users preferences.

  • If our only audience is the community of researchers and writers, then, yes, these categories are useless and a waste of time. He comes the but -> If wikimedia is meant for the use of individuals for personal reasons, seeking more information and media about topics, then this is a viable category.
  1. I take from the links placed in Wikipedia to lead readers from Wikipedia to Wikimedia, that the commons.Wikimedia is a support feature for those readers of wikipedia seeking information.
  2. If the open-source system of creating Wikipedia is meant to encourage the creation of viable information for the general public,
  3. The audience for Wikipedia is our audience in Wikimedia.
  4. Andrew Carnegie believed in giving to the "industrious and ambitious; not those who need everything done for them, but those who, being most anxious and able to help themselves, deserve and will be benefited by help from others."(Carnegie library#History), so he endowed public libraries.
  • Thus, our audience, I presume, is that individual.
  • My experience tracking changes and growth in the use of Wikipedia sites about National Parks is that as the number of articles related to a park increase, the volume of use increases exponentially. Not scientific, but anecdotally. i.e., I tracked a dozen parks wiki articles and the linked articles related to topics only in the identified park.
  • Thus, users of Wikipedia are looking for information about the park, as the visitor (tourist) see the park.
  • The visitor isn't looking for Geography, Mountains, nor Structures, buildings. They are looking for overlooks, Bridalveil falls, Rock Harbor, etc.
  • The standard categories in wikimedia are confusing and misleading to the average person seeking Paradise Meadow on Mt. Rainier.
    • Example, try and find the Armco-Ferro House at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore! Structures, Buildings, Historic, Century of Progress, Armco-Ferro.
    • I was there for 30 years, nobody thinks that way. They ask about the 'Steel House'. They recognized Armco-Ferro once they hear or see it.
  • As an experienced park visitor and posting to wikimedia, I've often been unable to find existing categories in park entries, and that includes using a common name for a location or item, which isn't the name chosen by an earlier poster or in the standardized format, which may have been logical for another park area, but is counter intuitive at this location.
  • You've commented before about my categories, and many of them were created, in error, because the visitor approach wasn't used and I couldn't find the 'standard' name for the place.

Thus, this is my attempt at creating a simple way, at the top level of a park category for visitors to find the places they are seeking.

Provide an outline of the organizational standardize you wish me to use, and I'll try to comply. Otherwise, it's a difference of opinion, which I await the input from other contributors. Chris Light (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll make one (probably last) comment here and then make as neutral a post as I can to the Village pump to try to bring in more people to discuss this:
    • "Places to go" is subjective. We do our best not to use subjective categories. It is absolutely counterproductive to split up a category based on whether some Commons user considers a place worth a visit or not. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. This isn't Wikivoyage and these types of subjective categories just don't work. That's not to say I think the motivations of their creator was wrong or anything. I think a similar thing could be done based on official "points of interests" in national parks though. For instance, if you look at the official NPS map of Category:Bryce Canyon National Park it contains various "points" that you could probably put into a category called Category:Points of interest at Bryce Canyon National Park or something. Although, again, it would have to be based on the official NPS' maps or information for each park since they aren't subjective. What you can't do is create a category structure called "points of interest" that bases what goes in it on the personal preferences of whomever is doing the categorizing at the time. Otherwise you'd just be using Commons like it's Wikivoyage. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the primary problem with these categories is that they're poorly named. "Places to go" suggests that Commons is advising people where they should go, which is not Commons' purpose. It's like naming Category:Food of the United Kingdom "Things to eat, United Kingdom". Renaming these categories as "Tourist attractions in park" would be less obviously wrong. I don't know whether that means the same thing, though, and it might not be objective enough. --bjh21 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these, such as campsites, are natural first-level subcategories of the park articles. For some parks, the amount of first-level subcategories is overwhelming. I don't think an intermediate "places to go" category is the solution, rather a recommended subcategory structure for national parks should be thought out, making it easier to navigate one park when you are used to some others. I agree that using Wikivoyage for suggestions on where to go makes sense, but if you want to see what a sight looks like, it is good to have the images of that sight in one category, which can be linked from Wikivoyage (via Wikidata, but adding links to the Commons category should be easy, via a template edit). –LPfi (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with this comment by @LPfi: . For some parks there are idiosyncratic categories that are not intuitive for the user; some parks have an overwhelming number of categories and the user must click through a number of categories to figure out where and what the images are, and even then the category may not make sense to all users. I also agree that there be a recommended subcategory structure for national parks. Krok6kola (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be entirely in favor of a recommended subcategory structure for U.S. National Parks. With luck, it could extend even more broadly, to other nature parks. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree:
  1. We do need creating simple ways for visitors to find the places (in National Parks and all over the world) they are seeking. Perhaps a recommended subcategory structure that focusses on this goal, could indeed be helpful.
  2. No subjective category names, no recommendations/advertising; category names should be neutral. So no "Places to go".
  3. Instead we can use: Points of interest or, my favorite: Visitor attractions (redirects from Tourist attractions), a category established long ago.
JopkeB (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: It wouldn't take much, and it's not a templating issue (I don't think Wikimedia templates would necessarily be involved at all); just a matter of laying out a paradigm, getting something like consensus (probably that's hardest), and having people follow it. We don't do a lot of that on Commons. We have something like that for ships, and I know there's some very rigorous stuff for the people who manage components of railroad diagrams, and I think for some types of traffic signs, but I can't think of a lot of other cases where there is much elaboration beyond de facto parallels. But I'd be entirely in favor of it. Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Do you know a better name for this category than "Visitor attractions"? JopkeB (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What improvement is needed? "Visitor attractions" is commonly used here already. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6, I agree, but Krok6kola disagrees, so perhaps (s)he know a better name. JopkeB (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB I withdrawn any object I may have made to "Visitor attractions". Everyone else uses it; other countries regularly use it. There is not a better term and definitely better than "Places to go" since other countries do not use it. I support "Visitor attractions"! Krok6kola (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the objective basis to determine what photos/subcats belong in a "Vistor attractions" category? - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I would think that a National Park as a whole would be a visitor attraction. I'm not sure we need to point out specific things inside them as being individual visitor attractions. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original problem was to get a replacement for Category:Places to go, National Park Service. This category was created because some categories about National Parks are so large and complex that an incidental visitor who is not familiar with the category structure, can not easily find what (s)he is looking for. We came up with Category:Visitor attractions within National Parks. Though a National Park usually is a visitor attraction on its own, such a Park may be large, and not all places would be of interest for tourists.
Subcategories that belong there would be, just as for other visitor attractions, the places of interest that tourists visit (like viewpoints) and things they can do there (like trails); criteria might be that they have an article on Wikipedia, are mentioned in Wikivoyage and/or in travel guides for National Parks. This would be a category for end users, so that they can directly go to the things they are looking for, without having to find their way through a labyrinth of subcategories. JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people are searching for anything other than the files kept on Commons -- that is, if they're searching for something as subjective and non-encyclopedic as where they should go -- they should look at Wikivoyage or a travel guide. Commons just catalogs media. It doesn't categorize based on the worthiness of the media. If we have a category called "places to go", that should include everywhere that a person can get to in the indicated place. To do any differently would be to recommend, which is not appropriate here. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The current "places to go" included at least campsites and sights, and I assume you could "go" to any individual feature or service in the park. What it won't include are e.g. history, maps and administration. I don't know whether the latter are many enough to hinder navigation. I think the main problem is subcategory trees like landforms, where you often have to click through several layers before getting to the arches, waterfalls and peaks. Somebody should analyse a well implemented structure which still doesn't work for "visitors" and point out where it is confusing or convoluted. A partly parallel structure might help, but parallel structures for different users make does not in general make things clearer. It might be that the original problem just is a bad structure full of loops and unneeded intermediate layers (in some parks or more commonly). –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmabel: I was wrong to say I disagreed with "Visitor attractions" as usually each park has certain attractions specific to that park. For example Category:Yosemite National Park has Category:Tuolumne Meadows and Category:Yosemite Valley, etc. that could be called "Visitor attractions". Category:Arches National Park has Category:Natural arches in Arches National Park, but these were found only under Category:Erosion landforms in Arches National Park and Category:Rock formations in Arches National Park. Now I have added "Natural arches in Arches National Park" to the main category as well, since I do not think the two other categories are ones that users would typically look for the specific arches. So "Visitor attractions" would be a way of categorizing where users/editors could look for well-known features of a park. Krok6kola (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions and proposal

[edit]

Since the last comment was a month ago, I guess there will be no further comments and we can go on to implement solutions. Conclusions:

  1. We do need to create simple ways for visitors to find the places (in National Parks and all over the world) they are seeking images of.
  2. A recommended subcategory structure that focusses on this goal, could be helpful.
  3. No subjective category names, no recommendations/advertising; category names should be neutral. So no "Places to go".
  4. Instead of "Places to go" we can use: "Visitor attractions" (redirects from Tourist attractions), a category established long ago.
  5. People can also search their places of interest in Wikivoyage and then click on the link to the corresponding Commons categories (in the left column) for images.
  6. When there is an important category down the hierarchy, it is often better solved with a note than with over-categorization.

Proposals

  • Rename categories that have "Places to go," in the category name to "Visitor attractions in ...".
  • Think out and set up a recommended subcategory structure for national parks, that makes it easier to navigate in categories of a national park.
  • Add a suggestion to eligible categories, that people can also search in Wikivoyage for places of interest and then click on the link to the corresponding Commons categories (in the left column) for images.

Chris Light, Jmabel, Abzeronow, From Hill To Shore, Adamant1, bjh21, LPfi, Krok6kola, Auntof6, I have two questions for you:

  • Do you agree with the conclusions and proposals?
  • What part(s) of the proposals do you want to take on to implement?

--JopkeB (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikivoyage, no individual sights have articles of their own and only some of the points of interest have listings in the park articles. Also, currently, these listings do not link Commons directly. They often have a link to the Wikipedia article (if there is one) and to Wikidata, through which the Commons category can be found, but that is awkward for anybody but seasoned Wikimedians. I have suggested changing the templates to include the Commons link, but some coding needs to be done and details aren't sorted out. I will try to comment on the rest later. –LPfi (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I started this discussion and am willing to revise the 'Places to go,' to "Visitor attractions in National Parks". This title should leave it open for other countries 'national parks'. FYI: A quick check of Category:National parks of England, Category:National parks of China and Category:National parks of France show that the other countries use fewer consolidated titles and mostly it's in western Europe where the number of images matches the U.S. parks. For example, for the French Pyrenees National Park, every mountain peak is in the primary category. None of the U.S. 'science type headings'.
  • I'll use the National Park Service (NPS) website suggestions for each park unit in the agencies listing under the 'Plan Your Trip' sections -> 'Places to go-' and 'Things to do-'. I'll correct everything from the Category:Places to go, National Park Service downward through the existing categories (22 it appears), revising the links to add missing image groups for each park per the NPS sites and then link the top category to the Category:Visitor attractions.
Note: The Category:Visitor attractions in the United States has subcategories for 'by states', and 'by cities'. I will not use these, and each state already has a "Parks in ..." and/or "National parks in ..." Chris Light (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the conclusions and proposals. I would support all three of the proposals. Abzeronow (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. "Visitor attractions" instead of "tourist attractions" is kind of clunky, but whatever, it is what it is. The other details will probably have to be worked out after the Wikivoyage templates support links to Commons. The proposal sounds good outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like these categories at all. While I agree that "visitor attractions" is less inappropriate than "places to go", I still fail to see the objective criteria on which it can be determined what belongs in these categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most valuable proposal here is that someone propose a recommended subcategory structure for national parks, hopefully one that can be extended to natural parks throughout the world. Is someone interested in taking that on? - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not a fan of "visitor attractions" either for the same reasons I don't like these categories. But the fact that there's already an exiting category structure for them means other people think they are fine. Otherwise I guess we could start a CfD for Category:Visitor attractions. I doubt it would go anywhere though. In absence of that I'm at least hopping people will stick to official attractions. I don't think categories for "attractions" would be that subjective if they are based on official information though. Really, I don't see why we shouldn't call something an "attraction" if the National Parks Service calls it that in their official literature. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See trial corrections at: Category:Visitor attractions in Mount Rainier National Park and Category:Visitor attractions in the National Park System. If these are acceptable, I'll begin the process of moving everything from the old to the new categories and correcting the categories to be included, using the National Park Service website. Chris Lightl June 10, 2023

@Chris Light: Your recent edits certainly all go in the right direction compared to where we were, but I'm still missing what are the criteria to make something a "visitor attraction." And may I assume that you are, indeed agreeing to empty out and get rid of the "places to go" categories? Is there a difference in intended content between the new "visitor attractions" and your prior "places to go"? If this just amounts to a category renaming, then the Delinker will do it a lot quicker than a bunch of manual edits. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the intent is to eliminate the 'places to go' and to rewrite them as 'visitor attractions'. I'll look up the references to Delinker, but it may not be adequate as without a set standard, I was using the park maps and the identified 'places' on them. Since, the conscientious is to use an outside source, i.e., the NPS website or the Wikitravel, which I haven't been to, as the defining source. As such, much of what's been previously included needs to be purged. See Category:Visitor attractions in Mount Rainier National Park, which has been revised using the NPS website and what has been left behind in the Category:Places to go, Mount Rainier National Park. Each 'Places to go:' needs to be cleared out of the related categories. I checked the Category:Places to go, Olympic National Park and 6 of the 10 stay. If Delinker would get the bulk done, I'll give it a try.
Chris Light (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris Light: The Delinker will effectively move the categories (leaving a redirect behind, which can be deleted later) and change everything in it to the new category. If you line up the relevant commands at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category_moves and let me know, as an admin I can queue them up to be acted on. - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Possible National Park category matric

[edit]
  • My mistake, putting this into this discussion thread. I like what I'm seeing and it's a great start, but it is a different concern over the 'Places to go' discussion. It is possible to pull all the comments below for a new thread and then we can possible close the original thread? I'd like to address some of the topics below and this is getting too extended. Thanks. Chris Lightl June 10, 2023

Some National Park

  • Nature of NP
    • Flora of NP
    • Animals (or Wildlife) of NP
    • Natural Areas of NP
  • Geology of NP
    • Mountains in NP
    • Mountain Ranges in NP
    • Rivers in NP
    • Glaciers in NP
  • Geography of NP
    • Trails in NP
    • Beaches in NP
    • Forests of NP
    • Islands of (/in?) NP
    • Waterfalls in NP
    • Maps of NP
  • History in NP
    • Historic Area (Sites) in NP
    • People of NP
  • Structures in NP
    • National Register of Historic Places in NP
    • Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) in NP
    • Historic American Engineering Report (HAER) in NP
  • Transport in NP
    • Scenic Overlooks of NP
    • Roads in NP
  • Visitor Areas on NP
  • People visiting (recreating?) in NP

I've been looking at this problem for 2-3 years. Here's a starting place. This format, i.e., wiki discussion page seems a bit cumbersome for looking at possible organizational forms. There are lots of issues about how to add many of the categories used in the specific park categories. Even looking at cross linking categories, which appears common in the Landscape, Geology, Geography, groups. I'm willing to work towards a preferred organizational structure, but I need to know how to best put forward specific issues that need to be addressed by a wider group.Chris Light (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's tangentially related, but I have serious doubts about "Natural Areas of" since it's kind of implied that the area is natural by being a child category of "Nature of." Plus there's only six categories with that name from I can tell to begin with. So that might be something worth looking into and dealing with. The reason I bring it is because if it were me I'd try to simplify the categories structures before implementing any kind of "attraction" scheme. Otherwise it's just going to be needlessly confusing and create some redundancy, if not a lot of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/suggestions:
  • Waterfalls are a subcategory of rivers, which goes under geography.
  • Mountains and mountain ranges also go under geography.
  • Do we want to subcategorize geography by landforms and bodies of water? Landforms include mountains, mountain ranges, beaches, and islands. Bodies of water include rivers (with the waterfall subcategory) and glaciers. Those subcats could also be individually under other areas as appropriate.
  • My understanding is that geology is the study of land, not bodies of water, which would exclude rivers and glaciers. Is that not so?
  • Maps are usually under geography.
  • I would move trails under transport.
  • Not everything in NRHP is a structure, so move the NRHP category under history.
I'm open to comments on this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NRHP isn't necessarily structures, although it usually is. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid editing Chris Light's signed comment above, I am placing the following here as a working area that can be edited to improve this proposal. Note that some subcats appear more than once, because they have multiple parents. I've placed marked those with an asterisk on repeated occurrences. I suspect my draft here still needs a lot more work around geology/geomorphology. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some National Park

  • Nature of NP
    • Flora of NP
    • Animals (or Wildlife) of NP
    • Natural areas of NP (I'm not sure I understand all of what this would cover, can someone clarify? - Jmabel ! talk)
      • Natural features on the National Register of Historic Places in NP
  • Geology of NP
    • Mountains in NP
    • Mountain ranges in NP
    • Bodies of water in NP
      • Rivers in NP
        • Waterfalls in NP
      • Lakes in NP
    • Glaciers in NP
  • Geography of NP
    • Trails in NP
    • Beaches in NP
    • Forests of NP
    • Islands of NP
    • Maps of NP
    • Mountains in NP*
    • Mountain ranges in NP*
  • History of [the region of] NP
    • (Designated) historic areas (/sites) in NP (skip over this level if NRHP is the only designations)
      • National Register of Historic Places in NP
        • Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in NP
        • Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in NP
        • Natural features on the National Register of Historic Places in NP*
    • Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) images of NP
    • Historic American Engineering Report (HAER) images of NP
    • NARA images of NP
  • People associated with NP (this could include cats for individuals strongly associated with the park, including any eponym)
    • People in NP (some of these may also belong under "History of NP")
      • Events in NP
      • Recreation in NP
        • Tourism in NP
        • Hiking in NP
        • Climbing in NP
        • Camping in NP
        • Sports in NP
      • Rangers in NP
      • Volunteers in NP
      • Maintenance in NP
      • Education in NP
      • Archaeology in NP
  • Structures in NP
    • Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in NP*
    • Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) in NP*
    • Historic American Engineering Report (HAER) in NP*
    • Visitor centers in NP (if there is only one, use its category directly here instead of an intervening category with one member)
    • Bridges in MP
  • Transport in NP
    • Trails in NP
    • Scenic overlooks of NP
    • Roads in NP
    • Bridges in MP*
    • Vehicles in NP
  • Visitor areas of NP (what exactly is this meant to be? what would the criteria be?) - Jmabel ! talk
  • Do named districts go at this level, or are they under geography? How about populated places?

Can we better group any of the following?

  • Views of NP
    • Postcards of NP
    • Featured pictures of NP
    • Panoramics in NP
    • Aerial photographs of NP
    • Satellite photographs of NP
  • Videos of NP
  • Brochures of NP

Again, if someone can explain what the criteria would be for "visitor attractions", feel free to add it to the proposed hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk

Criteria for "visitor attractions" might be: having an article on Wikipedia, are mentioned in Wikivoyage and/or in travel guides for National Parks or be otherwise of interest to visitors.
Subjects tourists might be in general interested in when visiting a National Park:
  • Animals in NP
  • Beaches in NP
  • Bodies of water in NP
  • Forests of NP
  • Glaciers in NP
  • Islands in NP
  • Historic sites and/or buildings in NP
  • Media about NP
    • Aerial photographs of NP
    • Brochures of NP
    • Featured pictures of NP
    • Panoramics in NP
    • Postcards of NP
    • Satellite photographs of NP
    • Videos of NP
  • Mountains of NP
  • Plants in NP
  • Recreation in NP
    • Accommodation in NP (Camping, Ho(s)tels, Restaurants)
    • Climbing in NP
    • Events in NP
    • Hiking in NP
    • Maps of NP (and/or in Media about NP)
    • Roads in NP
    • Sports in NP
    • Visitor centers in NP
  • Scenic Overlooks of NP (or viewpoints)
  • Trails in NP
--JopkeB (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially anything and everything, interesting. What kind of a standard is that for determining what is or isn't a visitor attraction? Personally, if it were me I'd just go with "whatever the national park service says is a visitor attraction" and leave it at that. It's at least better criteria then "everything." Not to mention things like "Videos of NP" and "Satellite photographs of NP" don't even make sense. Satellite photographs obviously aren't visitor attractions. Nor do they usually have anything to do with them. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'll be moving "Places to go" categories to "Visitor attractions" categories. We seem closer than before to a consensus of what belongs in those categories, though I won't be surprised if there is still some hashing out, but let's get that done first. It looks like the remaining discussion is probably beyond the scope of this CfD; I've started User:Jmabel/National Parks categories as a place to continue that discussion. Pinging @Chris Light, Abzeronow, From Hill To Shore, Adamant1, Bjh21, LPfi, Krok6kola, JopkeB, Auntof6, all of whom have participated in this discussion. My apologies if I missed anyone. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/04/Category:Places_to_go,_National_Park_Service&oldid=773467929"