Talk:Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park

vfd nom

Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park

While yes this is a real national park it doesn't help tourists as we have individual for all three components, Mt. Fuji, Hakone and the Izu Islands. It could be turned into an extra hierarchal region and have links to all 3 other articles or be deleted Tai123.123 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also all sleep sections are listed in the fuji 5 lakes article. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep there's no way we're deleting that much info. It could be merged, but I don't really like doing that for park articles though since I think all national parks should get their own article. (except for those like Cataract National Park) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  but like I mentioned all that info is already listed at Mt. Fuji and Fuji 5 lakes. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  True, but information can be mentioned twice if needed. (an example is Thredbo also being mentioned in Kosciuszko National Park) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't really get the argument for deletion: the article should give an overview, and then you can look up the more detailed information in the three other articles, kind of how regions work. That could be an argument of it being classified as extra-hierarchical region – but where is the information on the park expected to be if not here? As extraregion, no advice is given on what to include. Izu Peninsula says nothing about the national park although parts are included. Hakone says it is a popular destination, but nothing about where it is or how to get around there. Izu Islands doesn't even say that. I don't know how national parks work in Japan; do you User:Tai123.123 think national parks are an irrelevant concept there? –LPfi (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  @LPfi Could I make it an extra hierarchal region with just a understand section and links to the other 4 articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe @Pashley: who'd know better than myself with Asian destinations might have a better solution, but... I'm not too sure. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok thank you Tai123.123 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Extraregions don't have standard templates and status criteria, so there is little support for expanding such an article, and most information should be kept out of it. On the other hand, a park article can be referenced for everything that is relevant for visiting the park, such as fees and permits. I'd say a national park should have a park article, unless the concept is irrelevant for the traveller (which might be the case in e.g. Norway). Now, it seems many visitors to specific destinations in this park don't care about the national park as such. Whether nobody should care is an open question – we need some local expertise to answer it. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I cannot help much here; I've travelled in Asia, but alas I haven't visited Japan yet.

Since is a national park, I'm inclined to think this should have a park article if possible. On the other hand, we do have extraregion articles with quite a bit of text, e.g Lake Tai or Himalayas. Pashley (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I understand what Tai123.123 is saying. I also feel that the Japanese "National Parks" are useless. Some points about them:

1. Most are not coherent destinations. No one says they are going to "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park". Ever. Or "Daisen-Oki National Park"/"Ise-Shima National Park"/etc. Saying that would be nonsensical. You would say you went to Mount Fuji. Or Hakone. Or the Izu Peninsula. Or just Shizuoka. They are not like Yellowstone, which is a distinct destination that you can actually pinpoint on a map and if you tell people you're going to Yellowstone, people will know exactly where you're going.

2. Many are so expansive to the point of being meaningless. "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" is a good example of this. It spans over half of Shizuoka (prefecture) and Yamanashi (prefecture) plus part of Kanagawa, along with a bunch of islands.

3. Going along with point 2, they encompass many cities, so there aren't any destinations in "Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park" that wouldn't be covered more sensibly in another article. Even in Japanese tourism ads, they are placed with the other destinations in the city and may or may not even mention that they are part of the park at all.

4. Again, going along with the above, there are no clear ways to "enjoy" a lot of these "park". Sure, you can plan a trip to Hakone, but it's not as if nature is even important (or at least is not always the most prominent attraction) in much of the "park" area. A lot of the "park" consists of "In this town, there's this one place, and in that town there's that place". Most end up just mish-mashes of random natural features in a region. For example, Rakujuen Garden in Mishima is part of this exact "national park". This garden is almost directly outside of Mishima Station in the middle of the city. It's a garden (man-made), so of course it has natural features, but to say you were in a National Park after visiting the garden? It's technically true, but it's also ridiculous. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus, Thank you for articulating my points much better than I could've, could I make it an extra region with a lede paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park, as I feel a conventional park template wouldn't work here. Also @LPfi, @SHB2000, I feel you should read ChubbyWimbus's as it explains my points better than I did. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to vote keep, as a park article. Yesterday, I started a Wyrrabalong National Park article. For the most part, its just an urban park which doesn't get much visitors in the first place and it only has an area of 6.2km² (by comparison, the parks these size I've been to in the US and Canada are only usually a municipal park). But yet I still think it should have its own article.

Even more, a few months ago, I started a Sydney Harbour National Park. It's only got an area of around 3km², and it can easily be merged into Sydney/Harbour Islands. But obviously not, because it's a star article. No one usually says "I'm going to Sydney Harbour National Park". Usually, most say where they're going in the park (such as North Head or Middle Head/Gubbuh Gubbuh or whatever), or just say "Sydney Harbour" which isn't the same as the park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

These articles (I mean most of our Japanese national park articles) never should have been created to begin with, but now that we have them, I don't think our policy permits deleting them. They are "real" places in terms of being real designated national parks. We could put them all together in a National Parks of Japan article where they can be named and described. Then if someone is interested in them, they can add destinations. If the destinations become too numerous and/or a user takes genuine interest in a specific park, they can create an article for it. This article, for example, was created in 2004 and nearly 20 years later still has no real content. Places to sleep between Yamanashi, Shizuoka, and Hakone is not really content about Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park. Someone could easily copy-paste the "Sleep" listing in Hakone to create more false content. These kinds of articles should be focused around the "Sees" and "Dos" first and foremost, and this one has zero listings. Others have the same or just a couple. An article for Japan's National Parks with all of them listed would be a good incubator article and a nice way to see them all together. If we do that, this and most others, should be merged into the new article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

TTCF, we can delete useless articles. But I suppose some travellers will find the name of the national park somewhere, so it is a useful search term. As the park has parts in several regions, a redirect isn't particularly useful. Instead we can have "a lead paragraph and links to the four primary destinations that make up the park" as Tai123.123 puts it. I don't see any problem with having the page formatted as a park article. A guide park article requires "different choices for which parts of the park to visit, and information on multiple attractions and things to do", which is the primary intent with this article (and these can be Mount Fuji, Izu Islands etc. and not listings from those articles). Then it should tell about how to get in and around, and have accommodation listings. Most of the transportation and accommodation can be handled by references to the linked destinations, but some isn't covered by these, and some of what isn't covered suits the park article better. The page banner and Go next are hardly problems. So I think we can have quite good a park article without unduly doubling information or removing it from from the proper destinations.

I support the creation of a National Parks of Japan article, but I think the national park articles should be kept anyway. If they have pointers to the real destinations they are usable (in the common sense of the word), The understand of the main article should explain that the parks as such are not very interesting, and should probably link the real destinations in addition to the park articles. The only problem I see is that somebody might start copying listings from the destination articles to the park articles, but we can probably make it very clear (in the Understands?) that listings are found at the real destinations rather than in the park article.

–LPfi (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

We sort of already do that with Kosciuszko National Park (although it's not complete yet). Don't see why we can't do it for this one. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Another note. We do have Pyhä-Luosto National Park, so if necessary, we can turn this article into this exact format, but I still think all parks should have their own articles except for some random parks with no POIs in Australia or Israel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The current Pyhä-Luosto disambiguation page is not a good example, as the national park article should be written – there is nothing special preventing it. Some of the destinations in the park are easily reached from the adjacent ski resorts, so listed there, but they should instead refer to the national park article proper, as soon as it exists. However, it is not high priority for me and I don't think anybody else intends to write it. –LPfi (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus @LPfi @SHB2000, I rewrote the article to be an extra region on one of my user pages, could you please check it. It's found here, User:Tai123.123/Fuji Tai123.123 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If this were to be an extraregion, I'd prefer to keep some of the text though, somewhat like the examples Pashley suggested above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the solution I outlined above, regardless of whether it is called a park or extraregion. The current setup is close to a disambiguation page. If doing it that way, I think the cultural importance of Mount Fuji should be emphasised: travellers should primarily be approaching a holy mountain. This applies to all holy sights, more importantly the stranger one finds the holiness. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer that too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the solution you outlined, do you mean creating a NP of Japan page and not focusing on individual articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Also you can edit the template I sent above if you want to further much Fuji’s Importance (yes I know you shouldn’t edit other people’s user page but I give consent). Tai123.123 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As a "national park", I think the cultural aspects of the mountain are actually better deemphasized in favor of the natural aspects. Its cultural/spiritual significance got it registered as a World Heritage Site, but it is the nature that got it registered as part of a national park. What is said about Mount Fuji should be focused on enjoying it for its flora, fauna, lakes, etc. The park has nothing to do with "holiness" and should definitely not be framed as such. Mount Fuji is also just one part of this "park", so it should not be depicted as the sole or even main feature of the park. You cannot even see the mountain from most of the Izu Peninsula and maybe also the islands. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. But what this park is about should be explained in that article, and what national parks in Japan are about in general should also be explained somewhere. I have only just learnt they are different from those I know about. –LPfi (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi I can't find the reason all these different destinations were shoved together in one park. Like @ChubbyWimbus mentioned it's a were hodgepodge of places both natural and man made. Tai123.123 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Same as LPfi here. While national parks that I'm familiar with can include 1.7km² parks like Malabar Headland National Park, and I too have just learned that Nat Parks aren't the same everywhere. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• I created the National Parks of Japan article. I didn't add to Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park, because I think Tai123.123 should add what he wrote for attribution purposes. I didn't link to any of the current park articles, either. I figured we should work out the vision here first. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep since it is an official national park & possible search term. Reduce it to something like an extra-hierarchical region or disambig page. Pashley (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done! Going to archive soon if we have no comments as we’ve reached a conclusion Tai123.123 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Pashley (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Same. LGTM. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Outcome: Made an extraregion by Tai123.123 and ChubbyWimbus has started the National Parks of Japan article. Any further comments about this should probably go in the relevant talk page, as there's pretty clear consensus not to delete. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)