User talk:Talpinator2010

Please do not expand the list of national parks in Hokkaido on the Hokkaido page. It is simply a short list and there is no need to add any sort of extensive detail about their contents. Additionally, www.hokkaidonationalparks.com is not an official website and does not need to be linked to. If this is all part of some sort of school project, please notify WP:SUP.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia before, so apologies in advance for not knowing the protocol.
 * With respect, the extra information about Hokkaido's national parks is highly relevant. Tourism is the biggest industry on Hokkaido, and the national parks are the market leader for sustainable tourism. Also, the extra information added reflects other wikipedia sites such as California, which describes "Yosemite Valley, famous for its glacially carved domes, and Sequoia National Park, home to the giant sequoia trees, the largest living organisms on Earth, and the deep freshwater lake, Lake Tahoe, the largest lake in the state by volume." Why is Hokkaido only allowed "a short list"?
 * Regarding www.hokkaidonationalparks.com, this website is part of a research project carried out by Meiji University in Tokyo to assess stakeholders’ preferences for policy priorities of Hokkaido’s national park management. It is a non-profit site set-up to publish research results and raise awareness in sustainable tourism.Talpinator2010 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia Hokkaido page is not meant to be a means to promote tourism to the island. It is simply a page describing Hokkaido as a whole. Comparing it to the article on California is a little lopsided, as California presents the information in prose and as a part of describing other items, rather than in a list of every national park in the prefecture. You have added more information to the Hokkaido page than California to present the information you think is necessary.
 * Again, promotion of tourism is not the goal of Wikipedia. This website is a neutrally written encyclopedia. However, there is a sister project concerning travel and tourism that your additions may be better suited. Take a look at Wikivoyage.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ryulong, Let me respond to your 2 comments regarding i) contents & ii) format

i) Contents: I stressed tourism to emphasize their socio-economic importance, but the national parks are a system to protect natural and cultural resources first and foremost, as the updated descriptions reflect.

ii) Format: The only difference to the California page is that someone has used a box format with Hokkaido, instead of prose. Here are another couple of examples…are they also to be discarded?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales#National_parks
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initao,_Misamis_Oriental

It seems we have a difference of opinions here…so what happens next? Can we call in a Wikipedia Editor or some other 3rd party to make a decision?Talpinator2010 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a site to promote tourism. Therefore the content is not important. New South Wales' page is like California's. Initao's is a terrible page that needs rewriting. Stop adding the link to HokkaidoNationalParks.com. You also changed the kanji for the Quasi-National Parks section which was unnecessary. Give me 10 minutes and I'll include some of what you want to add in a proper method. Everything you've added to the article is not written in a neutral tone as if you are working for some sort of tourism promotional company trying to get people to visit Hokkaido. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise. If this is a fact, you must reveal your conflict of interest and avoid breaching it again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have brought up my concerns with your possible conflict of interest at the conflict of interest noticeboard.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

National parks in Hokkaidō
Perhaps you will give some thought to my edit here at Hokkaido. As you can see, the new headnote links to a related article which gives more specific information about the subject of the "National parks and quasi-national parks" sub-section. Compare below in the "Subprefecture" section. In the same manner, the headnote links to a related article. Please join me in improving the quality of this new article. --Ansei (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Talk:National parks in Hokkaido. You may notice that the wording of the disputed sentences is almost the same as your work here. --Ansei (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ryulong You’ve clearly mistaken me for an undercover tourism promotion operator. OK, I can kind of see why as I tried to link it to the www.hokkaidonationalparks.com page (you glanced at the top page and didn't realize this is a not for-profit research project). But it’s not true and I think you should take another look at the actual content of the edits I included, which describes the parks’ flora and fauna in a manner similar to that found in other encyclopedia/Wikipedia articles.
 * Look forward to seeing your update in the "proper method"...by all means delete what is gratuitous but don’t just remove ALL my hard work!
 * PS the Chinese character you deleted (quasi-national park) is the CORRECT one as used in Japan;