Talk:List of UNESCO Global Geoparks in Asia

Asia misdirection

Some sources depict regional geopark networks as being continental. Such a model may have been an intent of UNESCO at some time but the adopted regionality is not that exactly. I will not say it is far from that, as it is sort of roughly continental. In this case I suppose it depends on your definition of Asia. What about East Asia, and Southeast Asia? The original Asia was Anatolia, now being counted as Europe. In any case there never was a regional network of Asia. As far as I can detect it was always Asia Pacifica. The reference to Asia doing anything stretches the concept too far. This article started with a smaller view of Asia. Then it switched over to being part of a larger (Asia Pacifica). Then finally the truth was realized that there never was any Asian part of Asia Pacifica, it was always straight Asia Pacifica, which is NOT a new continent. The article contains all 3 depictions, hence is very confusing. One alternative is to change article name. A second is a re-write. Think it over, will you? For now I am going for the necessary rewrite.Botteville (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off the topic

I propose to delete the section "Recognition of Asia's geodiversity under different international frameworks." This article is a list of geoparks in a UNESCO region. We have plenty of World Heritage Site lists. While it is true that some WHS may be UNESCO National Geoparks, either now or in the future, this article does not say which ones they may be. It is entirely about WHS and adds nothing to global geoparks. If we were to say, these WHS are also global geoparks, there would be some basis for putting that list or those lists here. But, that study has not been done, and there is already a "List of National Geoparks in China.". In this article we do not care about the lists of any other frameworks. I therefore propose we take out that section and put instead an inline cross-ref to to national geoparks sections of other articles. We aren't losing anything by deleting "other frameworks" because those lists exist elsewhere and we do not care about other frameworks here. They have their own articles and there is no tie-in from here to there. So there are other frameworks and they are geodiverse. So what? This is not about them or geodiversity. After a suitable time I am going to delete the irrelevant section and make the appropriate cross-refs, unless you object in a credible manner.Botteville (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this to talk

Recognition of Asia's geodiversity under different international frameworks

World Heritage sites

Sixteen sites are represented currently on the World Heritage list under criterion VIII,^[1] as an outstanding representative of Earth's history

Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas (China)
South China Karst (China)
China Danxia (China)
Chengjiang Fossil Site (China)

Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)

Lut Desert (Iran)

Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)

Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes (Rep. of Korea)

Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs) (Tajikistan)

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park (Vietnam)
Trang An Landscape Complex (Vietnam)

Further sites are inscribed under criterion VII^[2] of superlative natural phenomena and aesthetic importance. Some of them, which have a special geoheritage importance are: