First tourism categories prosperous 2009 and happy 🙂 I wikitrabajo slightly modified proposal for tourism categories. You can watch them on Wikipedia: WikiProject Categories / Tourism. Hala … already have a job for the new year … JEJEEJE. Miguel A. Arjona Ortiz (Talk) 21:22 4 Jan 2009 (UTC) I see you are punctual in your lap. -) Well, the categories of tourism. You see, I think the Category: Tourism makes no sense, because according to reference the article itself, everything is a tourist attraction. Just that makes it so used. If you keep that category then have to re-open the range with the same subcategories that are proposed. If you press me, as much can escape the henry fool tourist business category, but if so well have to think of them Catering remove, because you want that certain hotels are themselves tourist attractions (as evidenced by the campaign Paradores of Spain).This leads to another concept that needs to be clarified: the subdivision by country. If maintenance should be a carbon copy of general subdivisions. In this way an Article would go to the relevant subcategory of their country and only the latter. From this it would integrate the equivalent category in general. Not like now is the time in 3 or 4 categories that are repeated. My opinion is that there should be no geographic subdivision. Wikipedia is not a travel agency. The categorization should be conceptual and Spa concept is not where he stands. Also where is the subcategorization geographical ends For just needs to be done within each subcategory country by provinces or autonomous regions or municipalities or counties, or in the case of other countries by cantons or counties or districts … and so bored. Note that under the Natural Parks are there for a sub-continent.! Add to that the concepts may vary between countries.Does the concept is the same province in Argentina than in Spain . It’s like if you create subcategories of drugs depending on which country they were found. Well, you say, you have more experience. Miguel A. Arjona Ortiz (Talk) 04:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I knew that the geographical subcategorization it was difficult but had to try. Now thing to do is decide how far successive accepted subcategories. I am rooting for the least amount of subcategories. That is, leave it there, in the countries and regions or cities do not accept. But I see def cil. Once you open the box the localist argument is insistente.Te add clear: a cruise include what category Do not go into tourist attractions by country (can accommodate several countries), but have very clear geographic locations: Caribbean cruises on the Merranean, Adriatic, Scandinavia, …Similarly there are other activities supranational institutions (the Paris-Dakar rally, competitions ships, or the same road to Santiago) Should we create separate subcategories of other countries themselves And once we have the Caribbean Cruises category what would prevent creating categories Beaches Caribbean, Caribbean Hotels and posts Zoos or the Caribbean The category “Skiing in the Alps is repeated in every country that has a piece of the Alps Would end up creating the category “Restaurants in the Swiss Alps In any case, what makes us so positive On the concept of a tourist attraction tell me more. Brad Powers What I say is that I do not know what else would be in addition Tourism Tourist attractions. All categories that are now tourist attraction could enter. What are the other categories they fall in tourism If you can not think of any (though at the moment is empty) probably means that it is not necessary.I think it’s the same argument you give to tourism by country. If Visitor attractions by country is a subcategory, you yourself say that on Tourism by country. Take away the geographic qualification and have the same argument. In this I agree with you: I would henry fool not know what to include in Tourism by country regardless of what already discussed. What I could do is go in adapting the categories covered by tourism activity, at least in that category we agree, as we mature the rest. Miguel A. Arjona Ortiz (Talk) 20:12 5 Jan 2009 (UTC) Right. Then let it be so. I’ll see if I can take a hand fixing categories. Tell me if you want me to do something specific. Saludos.Miguel A. Arjona Ortiz (Talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Ok. I start to ello.Miguel A. Arjona Ortiz (Talk) 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I am with homework, but I’ve got an idea. Let’s see.Are not treatable by geography subcategories as attachments The categorization is done by concepts, like I said but in each category is added concept List X Placement Whoever makes a conceptual search is what the person making it easy and by geographical location goes to the annex.