Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Heritage Sites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the Wikipedia World Heritage Sites Project Talk Page
This is the Talk Page for the WikiProject World Heritage Sites.
It is the primary message board for the Project, where changes can be discussed.
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Rating of importance[edit]

What are the criteria for importance ratings? I was very surprised to see Machu Picchu given only "mid" importance (behind Potala Palace, Terracotta Army, Suzhou, and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park — all with "top" or "high"). Rather odd, don't you think? Stevage 11:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. My own personal approach would probably be that any main article on each World Heritage Site would count as Top, and subsidiary articles, like specific locations within the site, their histories, etc., would be the ones that would get the lower importance ratings. Does that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I've looked into it a little more, that definition doesn't make all that much sense. The official defs are:
Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Subject fills in more minor details
Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial
Whereas what you're proposing is essentially "Top=Very central to the concept, others=less central". IMHO, an article on Machu Picchu is more "must-have for a print encyclopaedia" than even the definition of World Heritage Site. Unfortunately "must-have" doesn't tell us how many articles there could be, but at a guess, 20-50 could be "must-have". Stevage 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing to remember is that the importance rating is to determine what is of "top"-importance to this particular WikiProject. What you are basically talking about is for like the [{WP:1.0]] guidelines, which are more universal. For this particular project, though, I would tend to think that the sites themselves are probably all more or less of equal importance, so their central articles are probably all, more or less, of the same importance. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos[edit]

I would like to bring the article on the World Heritage site Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos up to featured article quality and am looking for comments and suggestions on how to improve it. I'd be happy about all kinds of feedback. Thanks. bamse (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obtaining information on World Heritage Sites[edit]

For Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos and possibly other articles on World Heritage Sites, I am looking for general information about the site. Specifically I am interested in:

  1. Who backed the nomination?
  2. Who is responsible for the maintenance and preservation of the site?
  3. What properties are inscribed (besides the six churches)?

Does anybody know a good place to obtain this kind of information? I already emailed UNESCO but have not obtained any reply (not even an automatic reply) so far. Maybe I used the wrong ( email address? I also noticed that for some sites UNESCO offers on their website the much more extensive "Nomination File" in addition to the short "Advisory Body evaluation". Is it possible to obtain a "Nomination File" for the Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos? bamse (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WHS Infobox alterations[edit]

Could I invite anyone interested in the style of WHS Infoboxes to the chat here. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


I've put a $50 bounty on Blenheim Palace for delivery to FA by 11 July 2010, if anyone here is interested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria templates[edit]

On several occasions, when looking at infoboxes or lists of World Heritage Sites, I have been frustrated by the need to keep checking the list of the criteria on a different tab of my browser. I have now been thinking that {{Abbr}} might make things a little easier. In a manner similar to {{R-phrase}}, we might create a template which would display the criterion numeral and would allow the reader to hover over it and see the criterion itself. For example:

i, iv


viii, x

(The exact phrasing of the criteria, of course, is subject to change.) I imagine that this template, if there would be agreement for its creation and use, would accept the criterion's numeral as a parameter. I don't expect that any accessibility issues would arise from its use, so long as there would be a nearby link to the page listing the criteria (as is the case now). Thoughts? Waltham, The Duke of 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site gives altogether the wrong information[edit]

This infobox has now succeeded in crowding out other types of infobox in the lead of nearly all relevant articles, but gives completely the wrong type of information for the general reader, with neither the date of the site, its location within a country, nor any description of what the site consists of being compulsory. Instead the box gives a range of bureaucratic file references to the UNESCO process that are of no interest to anyone but bureaucrats. This information should not be displayed but hidden in a show/hide bar, and the template should only display the basic information that general readers would expect. The articles covered by this template include, by definition, the world's most important architectural & heritage sites, and the current form of template lets the project down badly - see Giza Necropolis for a typical example. Please comment at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Gives altogether the wrong information. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Galápagos Islands[edit]

Please see Talk:Galápagos Islands#World Heritage List where I ask what should be done due to recent removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Danger[edit]

I started to expand the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. The basic design and entries are stolen from List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. I added a "Reason" column and modified the "Year" column which now refers to the year of listing as endangered site (not the year of listing as WH site). Before continuing, I would like to get some feedback, especially on the choice of columns and their order ("Should the reasons move further to the left? ...") Also any other comments/suggestions are very welcome. bamse (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done with the table. Some (any) feedback would be nice. bamse (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the World Heritage Sites articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kaziranga National Park[edit]

I have nominated Kaziranga National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pompeii Discussion re 3D Models[edit]

Could interested parties please have a look at the Pompeii discussion page under "3D Models of Pompeii" and make comment. Pmolsen (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by UNESCO World Heritage Sites density[edit]

I just stumbled across this orphaned article and am thinking about taking it to AfD. As the author says on the article's talk page, it's basically original research, and in any case I don't think density of World Heritage Sites in a country is a particularly useful measure. Any thoughts? Nev1 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong support (to take it to AfD). Pretty pointless list to me and OR. bamse (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't as much OR, rather a simple WP:CALC trying to provide more meaningful stats than the map and graph in Table of World Heritage Sites by country. However I agree that it was incomplete and not very convincing regarding the chosen measure. I think a dot map like this would be best to reflect WHS density. Elekhh (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lists of World Heritage Sites[edit]

There is some disagreement (see for instance this discussion) on how to organize the lists of World Heritage Sites. There are currently 911 sites which means that listing them in one article is out of question. Basically there are two opinions on how to divide the world for the purpose of these lists:

  1. Do it the same way as UNESCO. This means 5 regions: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.
  2. Use a continent-based division.

The main argument pro "1" is that UNESCO is the designating body for World Heritage Sites and that we should therefore follow their division. The main argument pro "2" is that a continent-based division is more meaningful to the general reader who is not familiar with UNESCO's definition of "Arab States" and would not expect to find North America joined with Europe. I am looking for more opinions on this issue in order to reach a consensus for one of the two options. bamse (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want comments here or at Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Africa? Nev1 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Here. Since it concerns all "regions" and not only Africa, I think that this is a better place than Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. Also the RFC links to here as far as I understand. bamse (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've voiced these sentiments elsewhere, but I'm in favor of option 1. These sites are defined by UNESCO, and so we should organize them by UNESCO's standards. Besides, I think that it is useful and meaningful for us to understand UNESCO's organization of the sites in the first place. It's an interesting artifact of the time period UNESCO was created in. I also think that we could easily explain the idiosyncrasies of UNESCO's system in the introduction of any particular article. Thanks for getting this discussion together, by the way. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am at the moment still undecided which of the two options to favour. As far as I understand, the UNESCO regions are not limited to World Heritage Sites, but to all UNESCO activities, correct? If this is true, I'd tend to "2" since UNESCO's division is apparently not aimed at World Heritage Sites. Its division should be discussed in the UNESCO article, but not in all related articles, such as World Heritage Lists. bamse (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but I still think it's important to recognize that the World Heritage Site system is a creation of UNESCO, and thus is always going to be subject to the vagaries (and politics) of that organization. This might sound a little paradoxical, but in order to keep ourselves OUT of those politics, I think we should represent UNESCO's taxonomy as accurately as possible. This might be easier to explain with an example. The status of Jerusalem as a world heritage site is always going to be a sticky issue for anyone who tries to maintain these pages. People with strong opinions about Middle Eastern politics have time and again switched its state party to Israel, to Jordan, or simply deleted it. We've mostly put this ping pong battle to rest by listing Jerusalem as UNESCO does (without any state party) and added a note to explain its special situation. Simply reflecting UNESCO's decisions has helped to keep these pages apolitical (or at least as apolitical as they can be). That's why I'm still behind option 1. It gives us a clear-cut taxonomy that allows the pages to focus on the individual sites. This is particularly useful vis-a-vis continents, because there's no universal rule of what belongs to a particular continent and what doesn't anyway (see here). Splitting things up by the "generally accepted" definitions of continents will see another ping pong battle over the status of, for instance, Inaccessible Island. Still, I'm happy to see this debate happen and this issue resolved. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
As we follow UNESCO's lead when we divide sites up by country (eg: List of World Heritage Sites in Asia#Jerusalem (1)) it's consistent to follow their lead regarding regions. The upside is also that we as editors don't have to engage in wrangles over what is and is not in Europe, for example. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I see arguments for both, which means is a hard decision, and also that neither is totally wrong. I find that organising natural sites by continents, which correspond to ecozones, would make more sense. By cultural sites I find more acceptable to use UNESCO's definitions although there are some really counter-intuitive classifications, such as Israel. But considering that natural sites represent less than 25% of all sites, probably is safer and easier to reflect the UNESCO's bizarre system. Using a simple map like this one in articles, lists and categories can be very helpful to avoid confusion. --Elekhh (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose option 1. UNESCO may very well create the list, but that does not mean that the structure of wikipedia articles must fit groupings used by UNESCO even when they're counterintuitive. We're here to write encyclopaedia articles; readability is more important than mimicry of non-content conventions used by sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Continents are only intuitive because we all learned about them in primary school (though different schools teach different continents), but they are culturally-constructed and do not reflect geographic reality. Creating our own continent-based system for the sites will only engender a whole new set of debates about countries that don't fit nicely into it. Where would the Russian sites go? Are the Ural mountains a legitimate border of Europe? How about Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Cyprus? How about Turkey, for that matter? We can expect that particular debate to get heated. And would we create a North America list and a South America list? Or a North America list and a Latin America list? Or just an Americas list? And if we jettison UNESCO's definitions, what happens to Jerusalem? These are arguments that we wouldn't need to get involved in if we use UNESCO's categories.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to keep Europe & North America together, which will surely produce a very long list, but "Arab States" may be useful. Some sort of hybrid may be best. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes; I'd be happy with some kind of hybrid, bearing in mind the length of lists &c. The main reason for splitting it up in the first place is to make the list more manageable. bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I say maps? As per the Americas article. When you see a list of geographic locations, a natural question is "where is it?". I believe maps should be standard across all the World Heritage List articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not helping your point by shouting. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The current African list page is obnoxious in my opinion, as someone who was actually trying to use it. I favor the Asia article personally. Organizing sites by country first makes so much more sense than the Africa list, which lists them in alphabetical order according to the arbitrary name designated by UNESCO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If you click on the small arrow symbols next to "Location" in the table's header, the table gets automagically sorted by country. You can also sort by area, year, etc. Much better and more flexible than the Asia list, which should be converted to a style like the Africa list in my opinion. bamse (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming discussion[edit]

Apologies -I did not realise this WikiProject existed when i nominated a category relating to it for renaming, otherwise I would have brought it here first. The discussion, here, relates to Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia, which more correctly lists sites in Asia and Oceania, and should probably bee renamed to match. Either that or the articles for places in neither Asia nor Australasia should be removed from it and put into a separate (very small) category. Please add your 2 cents'-worth at the discussion linked above, and again apologies! Grutness...wha? 12:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

State party vs country[edit]

Discussion regarding the renaming of the state party field in the infobox here. --Elekhh (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Non UNESCO references[edit]

Are there any important references to consult when writing about world heritage sites which are not found on UNESCO's website? I am planning to bring List of World Heritage in Danger up to featured list quality (any suggestions for that welcome as well). bamse (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites in Danger[edit]

As far as I am aware, UNESCO uses the expression "World Heritage in Danger" or "List of World Heritage in Danger", while on wikipedia there are a zillion pages calling it "World Heritage Site in Danger" (or variations thereof) which is a non-existant thing. That's why I would like to remind every editor of WHS articles, that there is no "Site" in the expression. I'd also like to request to have it removed at least from the infobox template. bamse (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011[edit]

In order to pave the way for this photo contest in September, the host wikipedias of the participating countries need to have (stub-)articles for all WHS locations for all other participating countries. Please help by checking your favorite European WHS and confirming that there is at least a stub on all of the other sister projects. If not, leave a request at the WP:VP of that wikipedia. We need stubs not just for the listed sites, but also for the *nominated* ones. Also, if you are at all interested in Government agencies having to do with cultural heritage protection, the same needs doing for the individual protection agencies in each country (I know that sounds really boring, but we need it to make sure our listed objects are actually the most important ones). Thanks in advance, and if you are interested in helping in other ways, let me know! Jane (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion: Category:World Heritage Sites in danger[edit]

Please discuss here. bamse (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikijunior World Heritage Sites[edit]

I have recently created a Wikijunior book over on Wikibooks about World Heritage Sites. It is targeted at young people of school age and aims to showcase some of the sites around the world. The book has only just been started so any help is welcomed. --Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 15:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites featured topic[edit]

Is there anybody interested in making a featured topic out of World Heritage Sites? Some of the continent lists are already close to become featured, others like the Europe list still need to be converted to table format and most likely split. If you are interested, please leave a note here or on my talk page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for regional lists[edit]

Some of our regional lists on World Heritage Sites are coming close to FL quality. Before we begin nominating them, however, I feel it's essential to get one thing straight in order for them to comply with our guidelines for lists: what is our method of dividing sites by region—that is, are we going with UNESCO's own regional groupings or are we going with geographic definitions?

UNESCO method Our current lists Proposed method
From UNESCO: "Regions presented here follow the specific UNESCO definitions which do not forcibly reflect geography. They refer to the execution of regional activities of the Organization."
File:WHS divs.png
Proposed divisions for the purposes of accessability on Wikipedia. Following geography, rather than politics.

Bamse pointed out to me that a discussion took place over this less than a year ago (can be seen above), but reached no consensus. Since our guidelines require an inclusion criteria in every list, and since we're currently duplicating content in lists we're considering nominating at FLC, I think it we need to come to a basic consensus here (probably by voting), and then implement it. Nightw 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad you restart this discussion. You might want to leave a note on each of the lists' discussion pages informing editors of this discussion. As I wrote elsewhere, I am in favour of geographical regions and possibly a short mention of UNESCO regions in each of the lists. For instance the Africa list could have sites of all of geographical Africa and a sentence or two saying that UNESCO does not include countries in Northern Africa (which UNESCO puts into the Arab States region). IMHO UNESCO regions have little to do with World Heritage Sites (since they reflect the internal administration of UNESCO in all matters, not particular for WHS) and AFAIK, the only time they feature on UNESCO websites is in the statistics, i.e. they are not mentioned on individual pages on sites or in related documents. bamse (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Will do. The only potential issue I see is the WHS infobox, where our link to Arab States, for example, will have to either point to the African or Asian lists. Nightw 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
No need to have an Arab States link in the infobox if we decide on a geographical division. bamse (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted at the Africa list, I've retracted my original position on this issue. I think following geographical criteria would be a much more accessible (and not to mention simpler) way to organise the lists. UNESCO's classification is political and hinders progression on some issues we're having, such as where to place Jerusalem (because UNESCO places it in its own category) and whether or not to separate some continents due to the large amounts of sites in that area. With that said, I would suggest that we do the following:

  • Keep the Americas together. 150 sites is a little big in my opinion, but it would save everyone from the hassle of determining where to place the Caribbean and Central American countries. The one site from Greenland, however, should probably remain with Europe. I think we should go with UN's definition on this one and place Greenland with the Americas.
    • Hm, I thought UNESCO placed it in "North-America and Europe"!? bamse (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
      • What, Greenland? Yeah, but UNESCO doesn't specify whether or not it's European or North American, whereas the UN does. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove the Arab States list.
  • Perhaps find a way to clearly separate Asia into two, because it comes close to hitting 200 sites. Maybe find a way to merge with Oceania?
    • How about a "Western and South Asia" list and a "East Asia and Oceania" list (including south-east Asia)? The boundaries are well defined and widespread, and it separates the lists very well. Jerusalem would be placed into the former list.
  • Europe will definitely have to be separated, because I'm pretty sure it's pushing 300 sites, if not more.

That would leave us with six lists. That seems balanced, right? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I've had some lists of about 150 entries (with about the same amount of text per entry as in the WH lists) featured and agree that that's about the maximum that should go into a list. bamse (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm going to begin implementing these changes. I'm going to warn people on the appropriate talk pages and then move in a few days. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about this thread (added to watchlist now). I'm certainly in favour of going geographical, but I'd honestly prefer that we stick to "normal" definitions instead of combining regions. If we go geographical, it needs to be clear to the reader. Since East Asia is also a region defined by the UN (and we're dealing with a UNESCO topic), it's fairly confusing. East Asia is ambiguous enough and when you expect it to include Southeast Asia aswell it makes it even more complicated. I see the point about avoiding lists that are too long, but I don't see anything wrong with having shorter lists with a clearer inclusion criteria... Nightw 11:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is somewhat ambiguous (I mean, I had to search the terms in the first place to find the boundary, as I had no clue where they were), and I have no problem with shorter lists either; it's just the issue with the length. We can't expect a list with 200+ entries to pass FLC.
I'm open to other suggestions, such as making stand-alone lists for countries like Spain, the United Kingdom (already an FL), China, the United States, etc. Problem with that is that if this goes to a WP:FT, we would need to find a way to organise the entries to make them accessible, i.e., making sure the reader finds the China article instead of the Asian article.
But that's why this discussion was created in the first place ;) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and I don't really see how we'd make work not including Chinese entries in the Asian list. But Europe and Asia need splitting, that's obvious. "Eastern" and "Western" in Europe is pretty well-known I think. And I'm assuming we're including all of Russia in Europe? Nightw 06:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
We could. I would imagine that people would be looking at Russia's European sites before looking at the Asian sites, so I think we would be safe in combining them in one spot. I was also thinking of "Eastern" and "Western" Europe, but I couldn't find a proper boundary. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have the feeling that Western Europe (for any meaningful definition of it) will be well above 200 sites, so it would need to be further divided. Or maybe we could separate into North/South Europe instead of East/West. bamse (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Or we could really complicate things and do four European lists, haha. North, South, East, and West Europe. But seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well as long as the boundaries are verified and well-known, I don't have an issue with how many divisions we use. Would it be practical to do the same with Asia? Nightw 06:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It may well be. It would definitely cut the article titles to an appropriate length, that's for sure. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking the UNSD definition, we'd end up more or less with (over-counting trans-border sites) Northern Europe: 71 sites; Western Europe: 113 sites; Southern Europe: 146 sites; Eastern Europe: 91. Looks like a good choice of regions to me since the sites are more or less distributed equally among the four regions. However, this partition puts the UK into Northern Europe which might not be desirable. These numbers include sites located in the Asian parts of Turkey and Russia. bamse (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We could place the UK with Western Europe. I mean, even the article on Northern Europe admits the UK is traditionally considered to be in Western Europe. Turkey we could place entirely in the Asian lists, since it's not as big of an issue, and as for Russia, we may have to consider placing its Asian sites in a Northern Asia list (perhaps merge it and Central Asia?). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Turkey is not in Europe per UNSD. I first had it in there (since I foolishly relied on wikipedia articles), but fixed it later. Above numbers for Europe do not include Turkey. Agree with your ideas on Russia (perhaps merge Asian sites into Northern Asia). Not sure about the UK yet. Probably most people would indeed expect it in Western Europe, but then we'd have a shortish Northern Europe list and a longish Western Europe list instead of two medium sized lists (not a big deal after all). When we are done with all this, I think we should collect our reasoning for partitions (especially of critical cases like Asian part of Russia, Pacific islands, etc) somewhere for later reference and to prevent edit wars. bamse (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
With the UNSD regions of Asia (see this), we have: Central Asia: 12 sites; Easterm Asia: 71 sites; Southern Asia: 64 sites; South-Eastern Asia: 31 sites; Western Asia: 56 sites. As before, all numbers up to trans-border sites and errors that I might have introduced; still roughly they should be correct. Maybe it can help to find a good partition for Asia lists. bamse (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I'm worried about is those infoboxes. Those divisions for Europe, for example, look sound, but it would mean a site in the Russian far east would display the link [[List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe|Asia-Pacific]]. This is so much more complicated than I realised. Nightw 14:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the infoboxes, to me the current links are illogical as well. Why should "region: X" link to the article "List of WHS in X"? Wouldn't it be more logical to link to an article on the region or possibly to the article UNESCO regions (or a subsection of it)? bamse (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If someone were to create the article, I think linking to it would be a very reasonable solution. But I don't think it's a major concern at the moment. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't look too bad, does it? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks principally good to me. Haven't really looked into what partition is best for Asia yet. Possibly we could get away with less than four lists. bamse (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So, we're splitting Russia? I don't have strong feelings either way with that. I agree that Central Asia is a bit too small to stand on its own. Nightw 06:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

One quick question, how about Iceland, I guess that should go to Europe (not America), right? I am asking, since Iceland is in the map used in List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas, but could easily be removed for consistency with the map in the Africa list (which does not have middle eastern countries either). bamse (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Should go with Europe, I think. Nightw 12:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious. I've never heard of Iceland being associated with North America. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Me neither, just wanted your confirmations. Will remove it from the map now. bamse (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So, to match the above navbox with specifics, have I got anything wrong with the map to the right? Nightw 09:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have Hawaii in America so far. You still need to divide Europe. Russia could possibly be split into European and Asian part (joined with "Central Asia). Not sure what to do with Cyprus (I don't really care whether it is in Europe or Asia.) Other than that the map looks good to me. bamse (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't exactly know what definition we were going with in Europe. I've uploaded it to show the UNSD scheme as a starting point. I split Russia between Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia. Why would we have Hawaii with America? Aren't we going geographical? Nightw 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No idea why we'd have Hawaii in America. It's just that I put it there so far (moving it to Oceania is fine with me). How about Easter Island? bamse (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think same. Oceania list will need as many entries as it can get. So are we okay with the European division? That seems to be the only outstanding issue and then we can start. Nightw 07:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the need for having as many entries as possible in the Oceania list. According to the wikipedia article, there is also a definition which includes all islands between America and Asia in Oceania (i.e. also those near the mainlands). Personally, I don't consider Hawaii to be part of Oceania (but don't mind if we do here). bamse (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I've not heard of that definition, but for consistency's sake we should probably stick to the definition used in Oceania. Nightw 03:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There's more than one definition in the Oceania article. bamse (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to the main definition used in the infobox and table. Nightw 07:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I started a summary of this discussion here. Feel free to add to it. As specified, the summary should stay free of longish discussions and should only contain stuff that has been agreed on here. bamse (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

One more issue with the map: Canary Islands are presently in List of World Heritage Sites in Africa and also belong there geographically as far as I can see. The only connection to Europe is political which is irrelevant here. bamse (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I'm still interesting in hearing yours and Eric's thoughts on European divisions. Nightw 01:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
For Europe I'd move UK (incl. Channel Islands) and Ireland to Western Europe since I don't know anybody who would search for them in Northern Europe. Other than that, I'd go with the UNSD division (which is what you currently have in the map). PS: And as mentioned above, I'd move the Canary Islands to Africa. bamse (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm good with everything Europe. And yeah, UK should belong in the western division. If anyone wants to begin splitting the main article, feel free. I'll probably start working on it if I can around this weekend or next week. Next involves discussing any conflicts with Asia (for example, we have some resistance at the Arab States article). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll edit the map now. Nableezy is a fantastic editor from my experiences with him. I'm sure we can come up with something he can agree to. Nightw 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As a start I created List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe and List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe from the main Europe list. Removed Russia's Asian sites, but haven't checked whether all sites as of 2011 are in there. Still need lots of work (intro, conversion to table format,...). Feel free to expand. bamse (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also created (stolen from main Europe list) List of World Heritage Sites in Southern Europe and List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe. bamse (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to Andorra in Southern Europe and what to do with Azores? bamse (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I prettied List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe. It still needs stuff for the description column, images need alt text and the intro (largely stolen from the Africa list) needs a copy-edit and a bit of an expansion. Would be great if one of you could do some of these things. Working on the Eastern Europe list now... bamse (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would love to help but I'm pretty busy IRL because of school and work. I, for one, am not planning to drop this though. Just need the spare time. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear. I'll divert a bit to a non WHS-topic for a moment, but will be back soon. bamse (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that keeping both, geographical and UNESCO/political lists with a navigation template like the following is a good idea (i.e. would make everybody happy)? Or would that be too confusing? bamse (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be very convenient for neither the editors nor the readers. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. bamse (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Done with Eastern Europe (up to copy-edit, description column and a more interesting lead). bamse (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I should be able to take a thorough look over tomorrow. Nightw 15:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to make a start on the Asian lists. I've split them off, but what do we do with the now-redundant Asia and Europe pages? Keep them as simple lists with all sites listed? Or turn them into smaller lists redirecting to the regional lists? Nightw 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Could we convert them to disambiguation pages with small summaries of the included countries? Also, I'm currently working on Western Europe (so many cathedrals!) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe it's also worth mentioning that the African list is now the second FL in our targeted FT drive! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to the Africa list! I agree, the Europe and Asia lists should be made into disambiguation pages linking to the N/S/E/W Europe lists (and similarly for Asia). It would also be good to have a Europe/Asia map in List of World Heritage Sites in Europe/Asia with N/S/E/W Europe (equiv. for Asia) marked by different colors. bamse (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Afghanistan in Southern Asia (per File:WHS divs.png) or in Central Asia (per List of World Heritage Sites in Northern and Central Asia)? bamse (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

UN places it in Southern Asia, so does the map, and the article for Central Asia doesn't include it :P EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I moved it to Southern Asia. bamse (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that all lists exist, {{Lists of World Heritage Sites}} should be updated as well with the navbox above. bamse (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Which navbox? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you did already with this edit. bamse (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I thought you were talking about some other navbox I wasn't aware of. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 12:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of flags in infoboxes[edit]

Please note the issue raised here about flags in infoboxes especially if you are a project member. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Noel Kempff Mercado National Park: Changes and Suggestions[edit]

Greetings all, I am working on a university project to improve and expand some section of the article on Noel Kempff Mercado Park. I wanted to get some feedback before doing the changes on the article. The plan is to:

1.Expand and create sections on Introduction, History, Climate, Soil composition, Flora, Fauna, Herps, Conservation. 2. Use reliable primary peer reviewed sources. 3. Define scientific terms or any jargon. 4. Simplify the concepts for the general reader.

This is our rough draft on the project (still needs to be revised and properly cited):


Description Noel Kempff Mercado National Park covers 750,000 hectares of land (RAP 1998) much of which is comprised of the Serrania de Huanchaca (Wallace, 1999). The park is located on the Brazilian Shield in the northeast Santa Cruz Department. The Rio de Itenez is its eastern and northern border separating it from the neighboring Brazil (Wallace, 1999). It is situated in a transition zone where the Amazonian rain forests and the dry forest and savannas of Cerrado meet. The park is made up of five distinct habitat typess, including upland evergreen forest, deciduous forest, upland cerrado savanna, savanna wetlands, and forest wetlands (RAP 1998). As a whole, the region can be described as having a marked dry season in the winter and a mean annual precipiation of 1,500 mm (Wallace, 1999).

History In 1908, Peter Fawcett first explored the area that is now the national park. It was not until almost 70 years later that the area was looked atexplored again. In the 1970’s geologists were sent to the area to survey the rock formations of the Precambrian Shield region in Bolivia. This expedition attracted the attention of Noel Kempff Mercado, an esteemed conservation biologist of the time. Mercado recognized the global significance of the area enough to propose a campaign to preserve it. Unfortunately, Mercado was murdered by drug traffickers and never saw his dream become a reality. Many of his fellow citizens responded. The government established the park and named it in his honor. It came into existence in 1988 as a 750,000 hectare area of undisturbed land (RAP 1998).

Climate The climate is distinctly seasonal, characterized by approximately 1400 to 1500 mm of mean annual precipitation and 25–26C mean annual temperature, with a dry season lasting for approximately six months. Precipitation falls predominantly in the austral summer, originating from deep-cell convective activity over the Amazon Basin and southerly extension of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). Independent paleoclimate evidence for cooler temperatures (approximately 5C below present) the progressive vegetation succession through the Holocene in NKMNP from savanna/semideciduous forest to semideciduous/evergreen forest and finally to evergreen rain forest can be attributed to a gradual increase in mean annual precipitation and reduction in the length/severity of the dry season since the mid-Holocene. This late Holocene increase in humidity reflects progressive increases in January insolation at 10–15S since the early Holocene minimum (Berger and Loutre, 1991) and consequent greater southerly migration of the ITCZ (Burbridge and others 2004). In NKMNP, increasing precipitation caused evergreen rainforest expansion, at the expense of semi-dedicuous dry forest and savannas, over the last three millennia. Insights from Mid-Holocene palaeodata, together with ecological observations and modeling studies, suggest that there will be progressive replacement of rainforest by dry forest and savanna in NKMNP over the twenty-first century in response to the increased drought predicted by general circulation models. The overriding control on this vegetation ecotone, at the regional scale, is climate; mean annual precipitation is approximately 1500 mm per annum (pa) and there is a four month dry season between June and September when mean monthly precipitation is less than 30 mm. Precipitation falls mainly in the austral summer, originating from a combination of deep-cell convective activity over the Amazon basin and southerly extension of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) due to peak insolation in the austral summer (Bush & Silman 2004). Although the mean annual temperature is 25-26C, temperatures frequently decrease to 10?C for several days at a time during the dry season (June-August) when cold dry Patagonian air masses (surazos) reach the area. The range of model outputs indicates a general warming and drying trend. These feedbacks are both biophysical and biogeochemical, and their effects include reductions in evapotranspiration and reductions in carbon storage in vegetation and soil. The net effect on a drying and warming climatic trend would be acceleration, but significant uncertainty exists in quantifying such feed backs, especially over the longer term (Mayle and others 2006).

Soil Composition The Huanchaca Plateau, 600 to 900 m above sea level, dominates the eastern half of the park and is composed of Pre-Cambrian sandstone and quartzite of the Brazilian Shield (Litherland and Power, 1989). This table mountain is dominated by edaphically derived upland savannas but also contains patches of evergreen and deciduous forests where soils are sufficiently deep and nutrient rich (Burbridge and others). The adjacent lowland peneplain to the west (200 to 250 m asl) is blanketed by Cenozoic alluvial sediments and is dominated by humid evergreen Amazonian rain forests, which give way to semi-deciduous dry forests at the southern border of NKMNP. The Pleistocene sediments are predominantly inorganic clays and sands, whereas the Holocene sediments consist of organic muds, indicating fundamentally different depositional environments in these two periods (Burbridge and others 2004). The most conspicuous geomorphologic feature is the Huanchaca Plateau, a table mountain between 600 and 900 m above sea level (a.s.l.), composed of Precambrian sandstone and quartzite, that dominates the eastern half of the park. The adjacent lowland peneplain to the west (200-250 m a.s.l.) is blanketed by Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial sediments, which are covered by humid evergreen rainforests that form an ecotone with semi deciduous dry forests at the southern border of NKMNP. The forest-savannah mosaic of the Huanchaca plateau is largely governed by differences in edaphic conditions.

Deep fertile soils support forest, while heavily weathered sandstone rocks with only a thin veneer of soil can only sustain open savannah. Upland savannahs probably persist on the plateau, not because precipitation is insufficient to support forest, but more likely because soils are insufficiently deep or fertile to support forest (Mayle and others 2006).

Flora The diversity among vascular plant species in Noel Kempff Mercado National Park is noteworthy. So far, 2705 different species of plants have been identified. Because there is such a wide range of different habitats that exist in the park, this number is split into different sections of the park. 1500 of the 2705 plants exist in moist forest, 800 in cerrado, 700 in dry forest, 500 in savanna wetlands, and another 500 in aquatic and disturbed habitats, and rock outcrops. In addition to the 2705 plants that have already been identified, there are still 6000 being evaluated (RAP 1998). The most diverse family out of all the taxa in the national park is the Leguminosae family. This family occurs in all ecosystems and in virtually all life forms except as epiphytes. As mentioned before, thereThere are many different habitat ecosystems encompassed within the national park. This means that there are certain families of species that thrive in all habitats such as the Rubiaceae, Melastomataceae, Bignoniaceae, and the Apocynaceae. Other species do better in specific habitats such as the cerrado (Gramineae, Cyperaceae, Labiatae, and Compositae) or in savanna wetlands (Lythraceae, Stercurliaceae, Onagraceae, Eriocaulaceae, and Xyridaceae). Most species reach their greatest diversity in evergreen forests (RAP 1998). A study on pollen cores has shown though that the evergreen forests found in Noel Kempff Mercado National Park did not always exist in that form. Data collected from pollen core samples has shown that what is now semideciduous/evergreen forest used to be savanna/semideciduous forest. The reason for this change in the mid-holocene was due to a gradual increase in mean annual precipitation and a decrease in the length and severity of the dry season (Mayle and others 2004). Fauna

Herps The herpetofauna of the region is among the most diverse in the New World with species richness exceeding that of the most collected sites in South America. They are approximately 127 species of Reptiles and Amphibians. At present, 127 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to inhabit Parque Nacional Noel Kempff Mercado and adjacent areas. However, a species accumulation curve and experience elsewhere in South America suggest that this number will rise considerably with further collecting effort. The known species richness is greater than that of most well collected sites in the South American lowlands, and, when completely known, the herpetofauna of the region is expected to be one of the most diverse in the New World . Such large numbers of species are likely due to the park’s geographic location and patchwork of diverse habitats. The largest component (almost 50%) of the herpetofauna consists mostly of Amazonian species, with species from southern and eastern open formations comprising an additional 23% of the herpetofauna. Several reptile and amphibian species enter Bolivia only in this area of the country. Several reptile species that are listed by CITES are found in the park, including some that are endangered throughout their range (Eunectes murinus, E. notaeus, Caiman crocodilus yacare, Melanosuchus niger, Podocnemis unifilis, P. expansa, Geochelone carbonaria, and G. denticulata) (RAP 1998).


The vegetation in NKMNP is essentially pristine today. The only obvious human impact over the twentieth century, aside from minimal logging activity in the 1980s, is the removal of mahogany. and AAlthough the underlying causal factor and mechanism is still controversial and unresolved (Wright 2005, 2006; Lewis et al. 2006), Phillips et dl. (2004) make a forceful argument that the only conceivable driver that could synchronously affect the entire Neotropics in a similar way is the anthropogenic rise in atmospheric C02 concentrations, causing increased canopy photosynthetic rates, possibly augmented by increasing sunlight. rubber tapping. The park is unpopulated, with a few small villages at the perimeter.

The key message from the palaeo data and GCM outputs is that the long-term trend of rainforest expansion in NKMNP over the last several millennia is likely to be reversed over the course of the twenty first century as total annual evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation. Although recruitment currently leads mortality in rainforest communities (Baker et al. 2004), we predict that for most rainforest species reduced available moisture will eventually cause an increase in net mortality and reductions in biomass, stem density and basal area gain. However, the recent increased abundance of lianas (Phillips etal. 2002) may continue further, as increased tree mortality leads to more tree-fall gaps (Schnitzer & Bongers 2002). Humid evergreen rainforest would be susceptible to not only increased drought, but also the accompanied increase in fire frequency. Allowing for this rainforest-dry forest ecotonal shift to occur, there is an urgent need to protect the tracts of semi-deciduous dry forest that lie immediately south of NKMNP, establishing a 'latitudinal landscape corridor'. This would not be an easy task as most of the land is privately owned and a development corridor will inevitably emerge along the road between Santa Cruz, Bolivia, and Cuiaba, Brazil. 

If the GCM climate simulations for the twenty-first century are correct, then it is possible that many rainforest species will become locally extinct in NKMNP within the next 100 years, especially as many such species must already be close to their climatic thresholds in this ecotonal region. Rainforest species on the Huanchaca plateau would be expected to be under greatest threat due to their geographic isolation within forest patches surrounded by savannah. Even in low lands, below the plateau, movements of bird and animal rainforest species northward to more central parts of Amazonia would be highly limited due to the extensive deforestation that has already occurred in neighbouring Rondonia (Skole & Tucker 1993), although the humid forest habitats along the Rio Itenez could potentially serve as a biodiversity corridor allowing northward migration. The Huanchaca plateau probably contains the largest protected tract of undisturbed cerrado (upland) savannahs (approx. 42,000 ha) anywhere in the Neotropics (Killeen 1998; Da Silva & Bates 2002), which together with the seasonally flooded savannahs below are home to some of the most threatened savannah megafauna on the continent, such as the pampas deer {Ozotoceros bezoarticus), the marsh deer {Blastocerus dichotomus), the maned wolf {Chrysocyon brachyurus), the greater rhea {Rhea americana) and the giant anteater {Myrmecophaga tridacyla). In the absence of hunting, future climate change could actually favour expansion of these endangered species (Mayle and others 2006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvrivera (talkcontribs) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WHS regional lists for FL[edit]

Just finished converting two European and all Asian lists to table format and am looking for people to help in bringing them up to featured list quality. Anybody up for that? Main task would be to complete the site descriptions and to expand the intro a little. Any list from {{Lists of World Heritage Sites}} would be fine for that, but maybe we could start with a small list like Northern and Central Asia or Northern Europe. Eventually it could look like the featured the Africa list or List of World Heritage in Danger. bamse (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to work on Oceania like you suggested to me. I'll get back to you with some progress in a few days. Nightw 02:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Good plan. I think I'll finish with table conversion of Southern Europe and then work on Northern and Central Asia since that is the shortest list. bamse (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


I need ideas for maps on the Oceania list. It's currently split across two pinpoint-maps that don't cover all the sites. I don't think the style of map used on the African and American lists will work (at least not the shading for such tiny countries). Anyone got any ideas? If not, we can just use the two that are already there and adjust the layout. Nightw 05:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I think it is essential that all the sites are shown. Maybe we could have one map covering everything from Rapa Nui to Heard/McDonald and another map of Australia + nearby sites (New Zealand, East Rennel, etc). If there is space in the big map (I guess not), the second map could be an inset. Another, probably not very useful comment: I always feel very hesitant when putting a single coordinate for a site which covers a large area or for one which is split in parts. I know that UNESCO does it, but don't really know a good solution to this problem. bamse (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
An inset sounds like a good idea and it'd be good to get them all onto one file; I'll see if works with a cropped version of this map. Nightw 06:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the sites are quite spread out in East-West, maybe the first map on top over the full width and the second map (Australia and around) below over the full width. Since otherwise, I am not sure there is much space to inset the map. bamse (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been playing around with it today and there really isn't enough space. Nor is there likely going to be space enough for the labels. What do you think about using {{overlay}} on this map? Nightw 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Tried the idea out in a sandbox. It looks a little harsh, but it'll get the job done. Plus it's clickable... Nightw 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay. I'd like to see all the lists appear roughly the same, including the maps. So I think the best would be some variant of the first map on this page. But I'd also like to make it as useful as possible, so I'm working with some kind of clickable variant. Any thoughts? Nightw 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which title for WHS infobox?[edit]

I am looking for additional input to this discussion. Basically the question is which title to use for the infobox in Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos? UNESCO uses different names on their site (click "Spanish" for the Spanish version). Perhaps also the wikipedia article would have to be moved to Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos. bamse (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites in the United Arab Emirates[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

FYI- It looks like the articles pertaining to the WHS in the UAE are in need of a "designation list" template added to the infoboxes. I checked Al Ain and Hili Archaeological Park and they do not have templates. Looking for help from those who know how to fix this, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Added infoboxes to those 2 articles. Tobyc75 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you for your help! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Different list structures[edit]

I'm trying to set up a template system to make the lists a bit more structured (so that they become bot-readable and can be added to the monuments database we use for Wiki Loves Monuments). I set up the template Template:UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site_row, and would appreciate any input you can give. I'm still trying to work out some problems, such as how to change the background colors if the site is on the dangered heritage list and how to manage sites that are across country borders. It includes a bit more information than in the current lists, but I wouldn't want to loose any, so if I missed anything, please give a shout. I put an example list on this sandbox page. If you have feedback on the template, please use Template talk:UNESCO World Heritage Site row. If you have more general concerns, please feel free to also use this page. Thanks a lot! effeietsanders 22:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a big fan of templates, so thanks for creating these. As for feedback, I think it would be a good idea to model the layout/content on the featured WHS lists: List of World Heritage Sites in Africa or List of World Heritage in Danger. Also, question: is it technically possible to have all the data in the text, but selectively display only some of it? Could be useful if we wanted to display different types of data in country lists and region lists for instance. bamse (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, this should be possible, but I would suggest to use it as little as possible. The more parameters, the more complicated it becomes for people to understand. At this point I do put quite a bit of information in the template parameters that are not being displayed at all - but there are no switches to turn on/off information. Are there specific things you're missing that are being used in those featured lists? I currently used the structure as they are also mostly used in other heritage lists (mostly country specific). effeietsanders 10:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. the nice thing about using template structures is that it is easier to change the layout once everything is installed properly :) effeietsanders 10:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As for specific things I am missing: I know from experience that nomination at WP:FL requires Imperial units or US units in addition to "normal" units, i.e. here "acres" in addition to "ha". List of World Heritage in Danger would require a column for the year it got endangered. Other things are probably up to personal preference: column for references, image column further to the left, no ref number. bamse (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the imperial units (how silly they may be) might be good to add. In any case I hope we can use the ha as default, and get the acre from a calculation (should be easy to add in a later stage to the template). I definitely do think we should add the ref numbers, because that is the number given by UNESCO. This number also links to the official page on the UNESCO website about the monument (and is a reference in itself). Adding a column for when the monument got endangered would be different from other requests: because it means we have to add information we currently don't have. It would also mean an extra column, and we're stretching it so far. I'm a bit doubtful about that one but would like more opinions on it. effeietsanders 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There is the {{convert}} template for units, which can be bot-inserted.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the point of displaying ref numbers as they are just some internal UNESCO database numbers which don't tell anything. While most information in the lists is probably referenced by UNESCO pages, I am not sure whether the WP:MOS likes the non-standard formatting of wikipedia references (in the form of reference number). Not having a column for endangerment year could be fine, but I understand that in this case the template could not be used at List of World Heritage in Danger, correct? bamse (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The good thing about reference numbers is that they are unique, language independent and a clear way to transmit which heritage site you're referring to. That is also why we used the reference numbers (or identifiers) in initiatives like Wiki Loves Monuments so that people can tell which monument the photo is made of. This way we can also design a template on commons, in which they refer to the monuments (no matter whether they look on the French or English lists).
Being able to use the same template on different lists is a good point. I'm not entirely sure if this would be desirable (different types of layouts with the same template) but technically it would be possible to build in a switch that turns a column on/off. Alternatively we could clone the template and change that. effeietsanders 09:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I made a first attempt to template the African list. I was reverted during the night and got some helpful feedback. Please find it on the template talkpage. You can find here what it looked like if you want to share some feedback too. After implementing some, I hope we can quickly move forward to more lists. effeietsanders 11:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments please[edit]

Hello. Comments, please, on this proposed amendment to the World Heritage Site infobox: Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/testcases. It incorporates the two (very small-sized) footnotes currently at the bottom of the template into the main body of the template.

The discussion is set up here: Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Edit request on 11 November 2012. (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual country articles[edit]

User:HIDECCHI001 has recently been generating WP:CFORK articles of every country with a WHS. I asked on his talk page for the reasoning behind this move, but he hasn't responded (as it appears to be the case with other notices on his page) and continues to make the articles. I really don't think it's necessary to have both regional lists and country lists simultaneously with the exact same contents. Or at the very least, not for countries with a small number of sites. I don't want to do anything without asking for input. Thoughts? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to re-redirect those country article to the regional lists. Copying my comment I left in agreement on that talk page: There is absolutely no reason to have an article for every country, especially when a country has ten or fewer WHSs. What is the point of having pages like List of World Heritage Sites in the United Arab Emirates when there's only one entry? Not only is it much more useful and convenient to have all of a region's sites listed together, it is not good to have such duplication because future editing can cause divergence of material. Wikipedia's tables have sort functionality, so there is no need to separate out tables by country, and just because some countries have their own lists (most of which I would also like to merge back) does not mean all should as well. Reywas92Talk 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason is I think that the all countries should be treated equally.--HIDECCHI001 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well all countries are not equal. Some have dozens of WHSs and a separate article may be warranted, but when a country only has five or six - or even just one (39 countries)! About forty have none - there is absolutely no need to have its own article. I think the way to treat them the most equally is to have only the large regional lists, with exceptions only for the 10 countries with more than 20 sites, or maybe the 25 with at least 10 sites. (Table of World Heritage Sites by country) Reywas92Talk 17:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I would personally not create articles for countries with just one listing, but once someone created them I do not see any reason to merge them back - the number of listings does not stay the same forever, a country which has one listing now can have four or five in ten years, and then a page would need to be created anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
In ten years? Even if there were four or five listings there should not be a separate article. It is not good to have multiple articles with the exact same duplicative information across them. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I completely disagree. If there are five sites, I would never support merging the page back to the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's 62 countries; still no need for the rest of them. The folks at WP:FL have a general minimum requirement of 10 entries in a list for a good reason: fewer than that is a bit useless and can and should be merged. They also ban articles that could be reasonably merged or are duplicate material, which all of these are.
(edit conflict) But the issue remains that it's still a useless content fork. It's bad enough that we already have to duplicate all changes on the regional lists to the existing country lists (like UK and France), and honestly, the only reason why I would hesitate deleting those is that they are high-quality forks. We should have one or the other, but not both. So it's perfectly feasible (and IMO, reasonable) to redirect the articles to their original lists until the time comes when we can generate their individual articles again. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I would rather delete the lists then. I recently had to look up the WH sites in Georgia, which I believe only exists in the Asian list with three listings, but that was not really convenient. And the country listings have the advantage that some history could be added there, for instance, when the country ratified the protocol, etc. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but do you not know how to use the table's sort function or your browser's Find function? If you weren't sure to go to the Western Asia list, List of World Heritage Sites in Georgia would redirect there. I find it much more convenient to view the WHSs for a region rather than having a main list and a redundant and likely divergent subarticle. The fantastic Featured List List of World Heritage Sites in Africa is immensely more useful than 37 measly stubs. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the protocol, but I see no reason why that couldn't be included in a regional list. Reywas92Talk 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it insnae how we've edit conflicted twice with essentially the same content... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorting out the list by country did not seem convenient? And I agree, if the countries had histories written up for them, I would want to delete the lists as well. But there is no will (AFAICS) to do so for every single country with a WHS. Sure, we would have lists made up for the bigger countries and its history, but while having near-empty lists for others with no history inscribed, therefore prone to deletion. With the big lists, we have 20+ sites per page with elaborate history and full representation. I find that to be a major plus that overrides any inconvenience caused by having big (yet sortable) lists. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I could see either way on this one. Duplicating the content of the regional lists by country is just not necessary. If that's what they do, then I'd agree that we should just redirect them and merge whatever useful content there is. But I can definitely see some potential behind country pages... Descriptions of each country's tentative lists, would perhaps be a reason for keeping those. Or any expansive content related to the WHS system in that country. But if they just duplicate the region list then, yes, redirect them. Nightw 01:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am with Nightw. The country lists consist (or should consist) not only of the table, but also have an introduction and a list of tentative sites and perhaps a higher resolution map (higher resolution than the continent lists). So they do provide additional value. In introductions of regional lists one is often limited to write about UNESCO WHS in general simply because there are so many different kind of sites in the list; while in country lists it is usually possible to connect the country's history (or geography) with the designated sites, which makes for a much more interesting introduction IMO. Also UNESCO does keep country lists (and not regional lists), so if anything country lists are less of WP:OR than regional lists. So I'd keep both, regional and country lists. Of course country lists with 1 site do not make sense. I'd put the minimum around 5 sites. bamse (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites[edit]

Given the content should List of World Heritage Sites be renamed to Lists of World Heritage Sites? Or should it be removed altogether as it does not provide much more information than a category would? bamse (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The original intention for it was to serve as a disambiguation page to existing lists, not to be a category – a description I'm agreeing with at the moment. I think we should remove links to non-stand-alone lists, and possibly redirect those pages to their appropriate regional articles. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Gough Island[edit]

This article is on my watchlist, but I am not an expert. Please could editors note concerns at Talk:Gough Island#Recent specific edits and determine whether my concerns are valid? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


I know we worked hard to avoid these, but we may have to check for duplicates and discuss at some point. Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians is what caught my attention, as it's being displayed at both the Western and Eastern Europe lists. Again, I'm not touching anything until I get a little confirmation as to where it should go.

Also, I'd like to mention that I'm out of school, so I'll be tending to this project for the next few weeks. Making up for the time lost! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for an overhaul/simplification of the historic designation colors[edit]

Please see Template talk:Designation#A color scheme that scales. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project[edit]

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Liamdavies (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

id Rhine Gorge World Heritage Site?[edit]

At Rhine Gorge page it is stated that it is a World Heritage Site, but it is not on List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe. Where this can be doublechecked? --Jakubt (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here. Apparently, it is not a World Heritage site.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WP World Heritage Sites in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject World Heritage Sites for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid the project is inactive, though I would like to see myself corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

This is a notice about Category:World Heritage Sites articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tentative list[edit]

What should the level of detail in the "Tentative list" section. While FL List of World Heritage Sites in Madagascar has a table, FL List of World Heritage Sites in Spain only has names and the year they were included on the tentative list. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the tentative list is big such that of India, it is preferable to remove the details. First of all of the sites mentioned, 75% are either unnotable or vague, about whom much information is not being retrieved. I believe the same is also for Spain. But in Madagascar as they are "important" and much information can be given it is kept. In a nutshell, I prefer not to keep the details if the monument list is big and much of them are vague. Other comments are welcomed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO[edit]

Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would have a look, I want to include as many different projects and languages as possible and connect editors in each country with local UNESCO partners. The project will include image release of World Heritage Sites. Here are the goals most relevant to Wikipedia:

1. Train UNESCO and its partner organisations to contribute to Wikimedia projects: Provide UNESCO and its partners with the skills, tools, resources and connections to contribute to Wikimedia projects in a meaningful, measurable and sustainable way. To integrate into the Wikimedia community both online and by matching them with local Wikimedia organisations and volunteers for in person support and collaboration. The project will create and improve content receiving 100,000,000 views per year on Wikimedia projects, educate 1000 people in over 200 organisations to learn more about Wikimedia projects. This will include 500 newly registered users trained to contribute to Wikimedia projects and 500 articles formally reviewed by experts.
2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible, a completed pilot project is outlined in the Goal section.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the Wikimedia Commons category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples:

If you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)