![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
the "see also" section at the end of the article seems cluttered with random items of minor importance. Surely someone could replace it with a list that is more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 ( talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the article mention Sinnoh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.155 ( talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, words are being bunched up.
Thus, "the Seikan Tunnel"
appears as
"theSeikan Tunnel".
Didn't happen yesterday!
Tabletop ( talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't understand why on earth this is it's own subsection, or even merits a mention at all. It's clearly added by someone who either has a vested interest in the product, or is just adding some random fact for no apparent reason. It's impact on the economy (the subsection in which it sits) or local culture is below negligible. Even many Hokkaido residents are fairly unaware of it.
Bilk (the drink mentioned) doesn't even register in terms of importance to the region (it's like singling out one small fairly obscure company's microbrew and giving it the only entry in an article on New York State). Sapporo Beer (huge company, internationally famous and massively important to the region's economy) doesn't even get a mention!
Saiing ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
After a quick check, it turns out it was added by the company that owns the brewery. Blatant advert and no reason for existing. After a few minutes thought, I'm going to take it out.
Saiing ( talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate article should be made for the island itself, and this one discuss the Japanese prefecture? Seems like they would do well apart. The island page can be called Hokkaidō (island), leaving this one as the main article. In particular, details about geography can be removed from this article and be replaced by a short summary. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 10:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article describes these events the following (my emphasis): "During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima peninsula. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu. The disputes eventually developed into a rebellion. Takeda Nobuhiro killed the Ainu leader, Koshamain,[1] and defeated the rebellion in 1457"
I have no konwledge on the Hokkaido history, but since the article does not mention Japanese taking of control over the island before conflict, wouldn't it be more accurately described as Japanese invasion rather than native rebellion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.17.249 ( talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that'd be uncontroversial. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 06:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hokkaidō →
Hokkaido — Per
WP:AT,
WP:EN and
WP:MJ, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore it should be used in the article title.
Jfgslo (
talk)
00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The current consensus is that the macron-less form, Hokkaido, should be used. The consensus can be verified here and here. However, the article is currently located at the macroned form Hokkaidō. I do not know for what reason that move was done since it went against consensus. Per WP:AT, WP:EN, WP:MJ and the last consensus discussion, the article should be located at Hokkaido. But it's been pointed out to me that the former consensus is 4 years old, so a new consensus may be preferable.
I requested the move because I believed it was uncontroversial since it was done in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN and WP:MJ and also followed the previous consensus. This is still my rationale for this proposal. Per the previous guidelines and as I pointed out within this talk page in the previous section, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore the article title should be without the macron.
To show that the macronless form is much more commonly used, here are some examples using some search engine tests:
Also, as I pointed out before, other encyclopedias, like Britannica and The Columbia Encyclopedia, use the macronless form. Additionally, the sources used to reference the article do not use the macron. Hokkaido's government also uses the macronless form. I could also point out to some mainstream media publications but I think I have already shown that "Hokkaido" without the macron is the most commonly used form in reliable English sources.
Therefore, in accordance with the applicable guidelines WP:EN and WP:MJ and the policy WP:AT, I propose to move the article from Hokkaidō to Hokkaido. Please share your comments and thoughts in order to reach a new consensus. Jfgslo ( talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the merger. Ezo has usage beyond the purely geographical. -- Klein zach 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Nanshu is pointing to a discussion that no one else bothered to take part in. The name of this island in the language of its original native people (who are determined to be so by the Japanese government) is Aynu Mosir. It may translate to "Ainu Land" but there is no consensus not to use this name on this article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong added a piece of text on aynu mosir again [2]. It is much better than earlier revisions but is still problematic. The source he cited gives:
“ | The Ainu called their domains Aynu Mosir (the earth/world of humans). | ” |
— Minpaku, http://www.minpaku.ac.jp/english/museum/exhibition/ainu/11.html |
It was incorrectly expanded by Ryulong as follows:
“ | the term Aynu Mosir (アイヌ・モシリ), translating as "Ainu Land" or "The Land Where People Live", has traditionally been applied to the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited; | ” |
Ryulong must prove that the term was traditionally applied and that it referred to all of the lands the Ainu inhabited.
We should keep in mind that the phrase is vague. And accordingly Minpaku gives a vague explanation to it. I suspect Ryulong misinterpreted the map on Minpaku's page. It depicts "the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited." This is a very product of modern researchers, who have full knowledge of geography and ethnography. It is not something shared by the Ainu in the past. I doubt the Ainu ever thought of all of the lands the Ainu inhabited when using the phrase. Were the Ainu in Ishikari aware of their brothers and sisters in Shumshu? And did they manage to develop the concept that they all belonged to the same nation despite lack of a unified polity? Did the phrase have a territorial connotation at all?
The following sentence is unsourced.
“ | this also designated them separate from the Kamuy Mosir, or the land of the Kamuy, and the Sisam Mosir, the land of the Yamato people. | ” |
Ryulong seems to have taken this from ja:アイヌモシリ.
“ | 対となる語にカムイモシリ(神の住むところ)がある。また本州をシサムモシリ(和人の島)、サモロモシリ(隣の島)と呼んだ。 | ” |
Leaving aside the fact that the Japanese article is also unsourced, Ryulong over-interpreted the source again. The Japanese article does not claim that aynu mosir was contrasted with sisam mosir. It explains sisam mosir only as a related phrase of aynu mosir while kamuy mosir is an antonym of aynu mosir. Are there any attested examples? -- Nanshu ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong pushed the nonsense again. [3] He was aware that his unsourced claim was questioned and rejected here, but he did not follow one of Wikipedia's most important policies CITE. He carried out his purpose simply by editting the article more often than users. He looks more like a revert warrior.
Once again, you must cite reliable sources to confirm that aynu mosir is the established alias of Hokkaido. This term belongs to folklore or cosmology but not to geography or politics.
Ryulong is not just rude and dishonest but ignorant. It is astonishing that every time he edits, he inserts errors. This time he stupidly misunderstood John Batchelor's century-old dictionary. [4]
Batchelor did NOT "record" Isho Mosir as the Ainu word for the Japanese place name of "Ezo." Quite the opposite. Batchelor attempted to interpret the Japanese word "Ezo" as Ainu and found isho (iso) as a supposedly good candidate. If Ryulong had spent 10 seconds more to read this page, he would have found that this folk etymology was followed by another folk etymology for Mount Fuji. I think this mistake alone shows that this topic is outside his capability. -- Nanshu ( talk) 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A man without common sense may find it difficult to understand, but the name of an island with a population of more than 5 million cannot be determined by a dozen of activists. 5 web pages, cited (improperly) by Ryulong, all point to a single event: a meeting held by a small group of activists to counter the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit 2008. No serious attempts to change the name of Hokkaido have happened since then. For example, the Ainu Party was founded in 2011 and failed to win any seat in the 2012 House of Representatives election. However, no such policy is proposed by this small political group. [6] Actually, the meeting of 2008 did not aim to propose the name change either. The adoption of the new name was nothing more than a superficial attempt to make the meeting look Ainu-like. After all, this event is too trivial to mention at this big article. It is something like mentioning Emperor Norton at the article of the United States.
Ryulong cited 5 web pages for the following sentence:
So did he manage to make this statement credible? Not at all because these web pages contradict with each other. All he can do is to google "Ainu Mosir" and to add whatever he gets. Unfortunately, he is incapable of understanding the contents. Two web pages just use the name of ainu mosir as the name of the 2008 event. For what purpose were these pages cited? One web page is authored by a photographer (reliable?). This page equates Ainu Mosir with Hokkaido without providing any evidence. However, a Japanfocus article correctly admits:
there is no overarching term in the Ainu language which refers specifically to Hokkaido, because Ainu historically dwelled in Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, Hokkaido, and Northern Honshu, and did not conceptualize their terrain using modernist concepts of territory such as the nation-state.
This statement clearly contradicts with the photographer's claim. But this article may be too long for Ryulong to read. Lastly, a paper from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa does not map ainu mosir to any geographic region. To sum up, among 5 pages, which supports the part of the claim: Ainu Mosir = Hokkaido along with the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and parts of northern Honshu? None. Two against it. One weak oppose. Two claim nothing. That's incredible! If Ryulong is not intellectually dishonest, his reading ability is far below minimum standard.
So what about another part of the claim, ainu mosir as the name taken by "the modern Ainu?" None. This is Ryulong's original research. His style of citation is too innovative to edit Wikipedia. BTW, who ever represent "the modern Ainu?" The group of activists? Is there any evidence for it?
As I said before, you are at the wrong place if you want to say something useful about aynu mosir. It is about folklore or cosmology not about geography or politics. This is too obvious to those who know the basic knowledge of the Ainu. But it is probably too difficult for Ryulong to realize.
I don't see why Ryulong sticks with this article even though his lack of ability is too obvious. Does he just want to demonstrate that anti-intellectualism is a real threat to Wikipedia? -- Nanshu ( talk)
This article has some problems but I do not have enough time to correct them. Maybe I will work on them but for now I only list most serious problems here.
-- Nanshu ( talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why Bilk redirects here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leegee23 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitious.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
The historical use of Ezo, Yezo and Hokkaido can be restated or captured by an algorithm which surveys the array of books uploaded to the internet by Google.
This data gives us an insight into a change which is important enough to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
The Google Ngram link was added to the "external links" section here and removed here with an edit summary which ased "what purpose does that have?"
In my opinion, the link should be restored -- if not at the bottom of the page, then as a note in the 1st sentence of the article here. -- Ansei ( talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just this stupid Chromebook computer, but this page is coming up as two-thirds or more of footer. Well I'm not sure 'footer' is the right term, I mean the part of the frame left at the bottom of the page. Lots of blankness, even if I expand every part of the bottom link-box! Someone might want to look into that, eventually.
KhyranLeander 16:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander ( talk • contribs)
Sika deer and Asian brown bears made it onto Hokkaido, but the tiger didn't. Is the bear the only deer predator? Will ( Talk - contribs) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There are several Jomon sites in Hokkaido proving that before the Ainu, Jomon people lived there. So the original indigenous people of Hokkaido are the Jomon, not Ainu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikedalan ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now, we have way too many names shoved into the lead and they don't even mention other common spellings in earlier English and French sources like Jesso. They should be sourced and dealt with an a Name/Etymology/Toponymy section. The current "Name" section solely deals with Japanese nomenclature and is misplaced as a subsection of the island's history. Treatment of the names themselves should follow the lead, with a fuller history section (without dwelling overmuch on the naming) should follow it. — LlywelynII 16:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
the "see also" section at the end of the article seems cluttered with random items of minor importance. Surely someone could replace it with a list that is more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 ( talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the article mention Sinnoh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.155 ( talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, words are being bunched up.
Thus, "the Seikan Tunnel"
appears as
"theSeikan Tunnel".
Didn't happen yesterday!
Tabletop ( talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't understand why on earth this is it's own subsection, or even merits a mention at all. It's clearly added by someone who either has a vested interest in the product, or is just adding some random fact for no apparent reason. It's impact on the economy (the subsection in which it sits) or local culture is below negligible. Even many Hokkaido residents are fairly unaware of it.
Bilk (the drink mentioned) doesn't even register in terms of importance to the region (it's like singling out one small fairly obscure company's microbrew and giving it the only entry in an article on New York State). Sapporo Beer (huge company, internationally famous and massively important to the region's economy) doesn't even get a mention!
Saiing ( talk) 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
After a quick check, it turns out it was added by the company that owns the brewery. Blatant advert and no reason for existing. After a few minutes thought, I'm going to take it out.
Saiing ( talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate article should be made for the island itself, and this one discuss the Japanese prefecture? Seems like they would do well apart. The island page can be called Hokkaidō (island), leaving this one as the main article. In particular, details about geography can be removed from this article and be replaced by a short summary. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 10:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The article describes these events the following (my emphasis): "During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima peninsula. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu. The disputes eventually developed into a rebellion. Takeda Nobuhiro killed the Ainu leader, Koshamain,[1] and defeated the rebellion in 1457"
I have no konwledge on the Hokkaido history, but since the article does not mention Japanese taking of control over the island before conflict, wouldn't it be more accurately described as Japanese invasion rather than native rebellion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.17.249 ( talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that'd be uncontroversial. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 06:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hokkaidō →
Hokkaido — Per
WP:AT,
WP:EN and
WP:MJ, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore it should be used in the article title.
Jfgslo (
talk)
00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The current consensus is that the macron-less form, Hokkaido, should be used. The consensus can be verified here and here. However, the article is currently located at the macroned form Hokkaidō. I do not know for what reason that move was done since it went against consensus. Per WP:AT, WP:EN, WP:MJ and the last consensus discussion, the article should be located at Hokkaido. But it's been pointed out to me that the former consensus is 4 years old, so a new consensus may be preferable.
I requested the move because I believed it was uncontroversial since it was done in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN and WP:MJ and also followed the previous consensus. This is still my rationale for this proposal. Per the previous guidelines and as I pointed out within this talk page in the previous section, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore the article title should be without the macron.
To show that the macronless form is much more commonly used, here are some examples using some search engine tests:
Also, as I pointed out before, other encyclopedias, like Britannica and The Columbia Encyclopedia, use the macronless form. Additionally, the sources used to reference the article do not use the macron. Hokkaido's government also uses the macronless form. I could also point out to some mainstream media publications but I think I have already shown that "Hokkaido" without the macron is the most commonly used form in reliable English sources.
Therefore, in accordance with the applicable guidelines WP:EN and WP:MJ and the policy WP:AT, I propose to move the article from Hokkaidō to Hokkaido. Please share your comments and thoughts in order to reach a new consensus. Jfgslo ( talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the merger. Ezo has usage beyond the purely geographical. -- Klein zach 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Nanshu is pointing to a discussion that no one else bothered to take part in. The name of this island in the language of its original native people (who are determined to be so by the Japanese government) is Aynu Mosir. It may translate to "Ainu Land" but there is no consensus not to use this name on this article.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong added a piece of text on aynu mosir again [2]. It is much better than earlier revisions but is still problematic. The source he cited gives:
“ | The Ainu called their domains Aynu Mosir (the earth/world of humans). | ” |
— Minpaku, http://www.minpaku.ac.jp/english/museum/exhibition/ainu/11.html |
It was incorrectly expanded by Ryulong as follows:
“ | the term Aynu Mosir (アイヌ・モシリ), translating as "Ainu Land" or "The Land Where People Live", has traditionally been applied to the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited; | ” |
Ryulong must prove that the term was traditionally applied and that it referred to all of the lands the Ainu inhabited.
We should keep in mind that the phrase is vague. And accordingly Minpaku gives a vague explanation to it. I suspect Ryulong misinterpreted the map on Minpaku's page. It depicts "the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited." This is a very product of modern researchers, who have full knowledge of geography and ethnography. It is not something shared by the Ainu in the past. I doubt the Ainu ever thought of all of the lands the Ainu inhabited when using the phrase. Were the Ainu in Ishikari aware of their brothers and sisters in Shumshu? And did they manage to develop the concept that they all belonged to the same nation despite lack of a unified polity? Did the phrase have a territorial connotation at all?
The following sentence is unsourced.
“ | this also designated them separate from the Kamuy Mosir, or the land of the Kamuy, and the Sisam Mosir, the land of the Yamato people. | ” |
Ryulong seems to have taken this from ja:アイヌモシリ.
“ | 対となる語にカムイモシリ(神の住むところ)がある。また本州をシサムモシリ(和人の島)、サモロモシリ(隣の島)と呼んだ。 | ” |
Leaving aside the fact that the Japanese article is also unsourced, Ryulong over-interpreted the source again. The Japanese article does not claim that aynu mosir was contrasted with sisam mosir. It explains sisam mosir only as a related phrase of aynu mosir while kamuy mosir is an antonym of aynu mosir. Are there any attested examples? -- Nanshu ( talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ryulong pushed the nonsense again. [3] He was aware that his unsourced claim was questioned and rejected here, but he did not follow one of Wikipedia's most important policies CITE. He carried out his purpose simply by editting the article more often than users. He looks more like a revert warrior.
Once again, you must cite reliable sources to confirm that aynu mosir is the established alias of Hokkaido. This term belongs to folklore or cosmology but not to geography or politics.
Ryulong is not just rude and dishonest but ignorant. It is astonishing that every time he edits, he inserts errors. This time he stupidly misunderstood John Batchelor's century-old dictionary. [4]
Batchelor did NOT "record" Isho Mosir as the Ainu word for the Japanese place name of "Ezo." Quite the opposite. Batchelor attempted to interpret the Japanese word "Ezo" as Ainu and found isho (iso) as a supposedly good candidate. If Ryulong had spent 10 seconds more to read this page, he would have found that this folk etymology was followed by another folk etymology for Mount Fuji. I think this mistake alone shows that this topic is outside his capability. -- Nanshu ( talk) 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A man without common sense may find it difficult to understand, but the name of an island with a population of more than 5 million cannot be determined by a dozen of activists. 5 web pages, cited (improperly) by Ryulong, all point to a single event: a meeting held by a small group of activists to counter the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit 2008. No serious attempts to change the name of Hokkaido have happened since then. For example, the Ainu Party was founded in 2011 and failed to win any seat in the 2012 House of Representatives election. However, no such policy is proposed by this small political group. [6] Actually, the meeting of 2008 did not aim to propose the name change either. The adoption of the new name was nothing more than a superficial attempt to make the meeting look Ainu-like. After all, this event is too trivial to mention at this big article. It is something like mentioning Emperor Norton at the article of the United States.
Ryulong cited 5 web pages for the following sentence:
So did he manage to make this statement credible? Not at all because these web pages contradict with each other. All he can do is to google "Ainu Mosir" and to add whatever he gets. Unfortunately, he is incapable of understanding the contents. Two web pages just use the name of ainu mosir as the name of the 2008 event. For what purpose were these pages cited? One web page is authored by a photographer (reliable?). This page equates Ainu Mosir with Hokkaido without providing any evidence. However, a Japanfocus article correctly admits:
there is no overarching term in the Ainu language which refers specifically to Hokkaido, because Ainu historically dwelled in Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, Hokkaido, and Northern Honshu, and did not conceptualize their terrain using modernist concepts of territory such as the nation-state.
This statement clearly contradicts with the photographer's claim. But this article may be too long for Ryulong to read. Lastly, a paper from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa does not map ainu mosir to any geographic region. To sum up, among 5 pages, which supports the part of the claim: Ainu Mosir = Hokkaido along with the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and parts of northern Honshu? None. Two against it. One weak oppose. Two claim nothing. That's incredible! If Ryulong is not intellectually dishonest, his reading ability is far below minimum standard.
So what about another part of the claim, ainu mosir as the name taken by "the modern Ainu?" None. This is Ryulong's original research. His style of citation is too innovative to edit Wikipedia. BTW, who ever represent "the modern Ainu?" The group of activists? Is there any evidence for it?
As I said before, you are at the wrong place if you want to say something useful about aynu mosir. It is about folklore or cosmology not about geography or politics. This is too obvious to those who know the basic knowledge of the Ainu. But it is probably too difficult for Ryulong to realize.
I don't see why Ryulong sticks with this article even though his lack of ability is too obvious. Does he just want to demonstrate that anti-intellectualism is a real threat to Wikipedia? -- Nanshu ( talk)
This article has some problems but I do not have enough time to correct them. Maybe I will work on them but for now I only list most serious problems here.
-- Nanshu ( talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why Bilk redirects here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leegee23 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitious.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
The historical use of Ezo, Yezo and Hokkaido can be restated or captured by an algorithm which surveys the array of books uploaded to the internet by Google.
This data gives us an insight into a change which is important enough to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.
The Google Ngram link was added to the "external links" section here and removed here with an edit summary which ased "what purpose does that have?"
In my opinion, the link should be restored -- if not at the bottom of the page, then as a note in the 1st sentence of the article here. -- Ansei ( talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just this stupid Chromebook computer, but this page is coming up as two-thirds or more of footer. Well I'm not sure 'footer' is the right term, I mean the part of the frame left at the bottom of the page. Lots of blankness, even if I expand every part of the bottom link-box! Someone might want to look into that, eventually.
KhyranLeander 16:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander ( talk • contribs)
Sika deer and Asian brown bears made it onto Hokkaido, but the tiger didn't. Is the bear the only deer predator? Will ( Talk - contribs) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There are several Jomon sites in Hokkaido proving that before the Ainu, Jomon people lived there. So the original indigenous people of Hokkaido are the Jomon, not Ainu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikedalan ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now, we have way too many names shoved into the lead and they don't even mention other common spellings in earlier English and French sources like Jesso. They should be sourced and dealt with an a Name/Etymology/Toponymy section. The current "Name" section solely deals with Japanese nomenclature and is misplaced as a subsection of the island's history. Treatment of the names themselves should follow the lead, with a fuller history section (without dwelling overmuch on the naming) should follow it. — LlywelynII 16:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)