Template talk:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site

Caption?

Can someone please edit this template to include a (non-compulsary) caption? Thanks. -Malkinann 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WH Link

Does anyone oppose editing this template so that the WH Link appears to the right of the identification number and instead of showing the URL it just links the text "WH Link"? That URL expands the box more than needed and there is no reason to show the actual URL that I know of. --MattWright (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with other infoboxes

Great idea, but having this infobox in articles that already have an infobox is redundant and messes up article layout. So, since almost all World Heritage Sites have or should have a more specific infbox, I would much prefer to add optional variables to those templates for the most important fields covered by this separate template. This separate template should only be used in cases where another infobox is not appropriate (if any such situations exist). --mav 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice template...although it is rendering quite large on Yellowstone National Park. I think we can add a few parameters to the protected areas infobox template to be able to encompass world hertiage site information, rather than have two infoboxes near the top of articles. If there is no infobox, then by all means, this templaet would be an improvement.--MONGO 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will like that adding some of the World Heritage Site Parameters to the Protected Area Template would be great. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can some take a look at Bath, Somerset and try and sort out the conflict caused by the World Heritage Site box. Cheers. --TFoxton 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with article format

As noted, most World Heritage Sites either have an infobox aready or will have one more appropriate to the article then the fact it is a world heritage site. It is always mentioned in the article and a link provided to the World Heritage Site. This Template is huge and messes up carefully crafted articles by editors who have worked on the article over time. It has a footnote on it that goes nowhere. World Heritage Sites have their own category. Just click on that if you want to see all the world heritage sites. A World Heritage Sites receives that designation because of some special qualities. The qualities are described in the article. So the World Heritage Site designation is secondary to the site's unique characteristics. This is my opinion. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have fixed the table, it was an absolute mess and the reason why most of the articles showed awfully. The colspans were all incorrect. Now all the articles I have loaded look fine, the big size of the table was because of the incorrect colspans. If any article still looks bad it is because the template is still in the server cache, a simple edit to the article fixes the problem.David 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Different post scripts symbol

If an article already contains inline referencing then the indexing used in the infobox is not appropriate. The superscripts in the infobox I am changing from 1 and 2 to a and b. STTW (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Native name

Why is there no place for native name? Thank you.--Eukesh 08:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Link

What's the point of the link as opposed to the ID? ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody checking this page

I changed the template to comply with the request way back to have optional image captions.

City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications

UNESCO World Heritage Site
Luxembourg Castle — The reconstructed Fort Thüngen, formerly a key part of Luxembourg City's fortifications, now on the site of the Mudam, Luxembourg's museum of modern art.
Criteria	Cultural: iv
Reference	699
Inscription	1994 (18th Session)

• Looking at the above comments, and the coding in this template I have to concur, there is little need of it, and every time I run across it, it's oversized width (The image width more often than not governs that, contrary to normal infoboxes which constrain overlarge images (e.g. Template:Infobox book(edit talk links history)).

• Using {{!}}, {{!-}} is ONLY necessary as far as I can see because of the desire to display an empty parameter in an empty template. Standard parserfunctions can just enclose table sections, if it weren't for that, which would simplify seeing what's going on immensely.

• Further, template standards around wikipedia are normally coded with all lowercase. Suggest you recode with wired 'OR' logic such that {{{param}}}{{{Param}}} constructs are used, or run a bot and convert all pages to all lowercase.

Best regards // FrankB 23:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• One also notices that the Bold Heading is larger and bolder than the article titles themselves. Gross template bloat. --Wetman 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The asterisk

This is a great infobox, but I find having the asterisk used on every single one is visually annoying. Is there any other way to do this? --Padraic 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"state party" in examples?

In the two examples for Kathmandu valley, NEP is given as the "state party" but Nepal does not appear in the illustrated example. In the Luxemburg example on this talk page, the flag and country name appear. What's gone wrong? (And, where do I find a list of the codes for "state party"? As it's used in the template it would be useful for this to be mentioned in the documentation). PamD (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does "State Party" mean, anyway? Why isn't it "country" or something along those lines? Hires an editor (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IW trouble

Take a look at the iw's on this template ... something is clearly wrong, and it affects the articles which include this template! --EivindJohnsen (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO website

Does the wiki software allow a way to parse external websites automatically? If so, the template can be changed to accept just three arguments (the WHS number, an image and a caption) and the rest of the details can be extracted from the UNESCO website each time the template is loaded. 130.195.5.7 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO Regions

Can someone add the link http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&&&mode=table&order=region to the first paragraph of the section "Notes"? Wiki-uk (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the /doc version of this page just now. Done! Wiki-uk (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Change of lay-out and contents?

I like the lay-out of nl:Sjabloon:Infobox werelderfgoed cultuur. Would it be an idea to change the English template to have the same color and size? Could the "Session"-field be removed as well? Any other ideas? Wiki-uk (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They really look the same except for the color. _{El Greco}^(talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

I can't edit this page. Please add this link to article uk:Шаблон:Infobox World Heritage Site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyslyi (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing wording of footnotes within template

Could the wording of the footnotes be changed from "Name as inscribed on World Heritage List" to "As inscribed on World Heritage List," and "Region as classified by UNESCO" to "As classified by UNESCO"? The current wording strikes me as redundant and somewhat awkward. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Session link broken

{{editprotected}}

Somebody factored out the session information from World Heritage Site into a separate page World Heritage Committee so now the "session" link from all instances of this template is broken. Could you change it to point to the right page -- I'd rather not revert the change, which I think was good, as such. Thanks.-- era (Talk | History) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hCard address improvement

{{editprotected}}

This template emits an hCard microformat. The "region " property in hCard is a sub-division of a country, such as an English county or US state. There is no specific property for a continent or larger region; therefore, the more generic "label" property should be used, by changing :

|- class="adr"
| '''Region'''**
|style="line-height:150%; white-space:nowrap;"| <span class="region">{{{Region}}}</span>

to:

|-
| '''Region'''**
|style="line-height:150%; white-space:nowrap;" class="label" | {{{Region}}}

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Map?

I think adding a map to the infobox would be very useful, giving some context for the site. What does everyone else think? Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I was just about to come here & do that myself, but I see that this is a protected template. I'll add a request. SP-KP (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jza84 |  Talk  12:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Style tweaks

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with the new sandbox for parity with contemporary infoboxes. Minor presentation changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the microformat classes; my changes should, please, be included with the above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the template with this version of the sandbox incorporating both your contributions; I trust the pair of you know what you're doing. Cheers,  Skomorokh  21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Flags and links

(From User talk:Ranger Steve/Archive 2#WHS infoboxes)

Hi Steve. I noticed you undid my changes there. I made three changes; can you describe your rationale for undoing each one please?

• I removed the flag from the infobox per WP:FLAGCRUFT; the flag adds no information and is merely decorative. As an encyclopedia we don't do decoration.
• I unlinked United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is a redirect to United Kingdom) and also England per WP:OVERLINK; we don't link to countries except in special cases.
• I shortened 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to 'United Kingdom' per WP:COMMONNAME which says we use the common names for things.

Thanks, and sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, The main reason for the revert was to keep the infoboxes in line with all of the other WHS infoboxes in Britain. If you have a look through them you'll find they (mostly) conform to the same style I reverted to. Whether it's right or not is, I guess another matter. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is, as I said in the edit summary, the official designation used by UNESCO (see here), and therefore the logical title to use in that field. I personally think linking to a country, especially in an infobox, is justified in this case. WHS exist all over the world, and although we may be familiar with this country, a great many English speakers won't be aware of the exact definition UNESCO is using. A link clarifies that for them. I would certainly hope to see a foreign countries name wikilinked in a WHS box (as indeed they all are, and in the examples at Template:Infobox World Heritage Site). As for Flagcruft, I didn't know about that (you didn't mention it in the edit summary), so fair enough. But given that 90% of British WHS infoboxes appear to use it, this might be something worth raising on a more general level first. Sorry if I caused offence by reverting you, t'was not my intent. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken! I'll take it to template talk or project talk, or both. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized I had repeated this edit; I think the little UK flag looks cheap and it certainly doesn't add any information. However I realized that I hadn't discussed this centrally as I said I would back in November. Any strong opinions on this? Specifically, any good arguments for using the flag, for linking a well-known country, or for using an unusual long form of the country's name which is a redirect? --John (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey John, thanks for the heads up. I've copied the whole chat above to save splitting the discussion up if anyone looks through here. Personally I think we should definitely be using the long version of the name. UNESCO use State Parties in their designations (instead of countries), and refer to the UK in the same (long!) way throughout their website and management plans (well, the Stonehenge one at least). I think its best to use state party instead of country as well, consider Willemstad, Netherlands Antilles which is in the Caribbean but the listed UNESCO state party is the Netherlands. So, if we follow their criteria and use State parties in the infobox, we should use the correct state name as well (as we do with the WHS name and region). As such I don't think commonname applies, and it doesn't make any comment on an issue like this.

I also think it should be linked. I would expect a wikilink to any country in an infobox, and as WHSs show up all over the world, sometimes in some very distant corners, I would want to be able to link directly to that state so that I know where it is (for example places like Lopé National Park in Gabon). St. George's, Bermuda, is ascribed to the UK state party, so I think its a good idea to link to the UK for the benefit of people who think that the UK is just the British Isles. That is exactly what links are good for, and I think it's important in an example like this. Again I don't see anything about this in Overlink, in fact given that the link directly applies to the article (it's the location that the WHS is in), and its the infobox it seems ok per those rules.

The flag.... well, again I personally prefer it. It doesn't do any harm and makes it very easy to id a country (again, WHSs are everywhere). Flagicons get used in all manner of articles without issue (Military bio's, other interesting places, that kind of thing). Again I don't see any discussion of this in flagcruft, which is more concerned with overuse of icons, not solitary examples in infoboxes.

So I guess I'm happy with the current set up, and it is the format that most articles use. The infoboxes look good in the articles and make navigation quite easy. But I'd welcome some more opinions (although in the meantime I've reverted Avebury to maintain the status quo!) Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am ok with using the longer version of the name of countries to align with the source, if you think it is important. I am not ok with linking common terms like well-known countries (specifically deprecated in WP:OVERLINK) and I am not ok with the little cracker-barrel flags. Not doing harm is not a criterion to include things, and we can all read so it is hard to see what the flag actually adds to the reader's understanding. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a flag in a place like this is decorative, specifically what WP:FLAGCRUFT asks us to avoid. If you or anybody else can clearly state what the flag adds to the reader's understanding without resort to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would be interested to hear it. --John (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well.... sorry but I disagree. Infoboxes are meant to be a simple summary of the main facts, and a useful reference point. Linking in an infobox isn't like overlinking in the main text at all, and besides if obscure countries are to be linked, why not others? The reasons I've mentioned above are reason enough to link even well known countries like the UK (how many British people actually know what UK actually means?). By the logic you're using, there shouldn't be any links to UK in the entire wiki, just because it is a well known place. The country a geographical point resides within is relevant to that article and it is entirely logical to use a link in such a case (this isn't like linking US in an abstract article like the Supply and Demand example in WP:OVERLINK). The same is true of flag icons. If we can all read and they don't add anything, why do they exist? They work very well in infoboxes like these or these which, as per Flagcruft, use the name next to the flag, making the flag technically unnecessarily. WP:ICONDECORATION seems relevent here. World Heritage Sites are global in nature, what better place to be clarifying specific countries or places? I'll certainly continue to do both (I'm reckon its WP:COMMONSENSE). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your disagreement with the wide and long-standing consensuses embodied at the two policy pages I pointed you to is noted. I am not seeing a coherent encyclopedic reason for this practice you support, other than that you like it and that some other pages also diverge from the style consensuses. I am afraid you will have to do better than this if it is important to you that these links and decorative icons be maintained. Is it? --John (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show me specifically where these long standing consensus' are that relate to this? I'm not seeing anything in any more support of your viewpoint than mine I'm afraid. I've already provided some very encyclopaedic reasons for keeping the links at least. With respect I also think you might need to do better if you want to change it. This is a fairly far reaching issue in my opinion. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites to get some opinions, but it's a fairly quiet project. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Long standing consensus not to link countries except with good reason: WP:OVERLINK (already mentioned above). Long-standing consensus not to use decorative flags in infoboxes (military campaigns and people form an exception to that) is at WP:FLAGCRUFT, already mentioned above. I'm sorry but I can't see where you gave good encyclopedic reasons for your nonMOS-compliant linking or decorative flag icon use on these articles. --John (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m very sorry, but I don’t see how I’m being “non-MOS compliant”, nor am I in “disagreement with the wide and long-standing consensuses embodied at the two policy pages”. Please, to clarify this can you show me where in Wikipedia:Linking this long-standing consensus is? I quite agree with the policies on the page, they’re all common sense and clear enough, but I don’t see anything that relates to this. It doesn’t say anything about only “linking to countries in special cases” or “with good reason”. What it does seek to do is control the overuse of the same link, or inappropriate links in articles (such as US in an abstract concept like trade). Besides this is an infobox, and the Linking page is mainly concerned with the prose (the word infobox appears only once in that text and is easily interpreted as supporting linking in infoboxes). The only relevant rule I see there is under ‘What Generally should not be linked’; “Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement”. As I’ve pointed out, World Heritage Sites are global geographical locations; therefore the county or state each one is in is relevant to the article. What exactly would be your special case for linking to a country if it isn’t dealing with geographic locations of a global group? It is also beneficial to the reader to link to states/ countries of an obscure nature, places like Gabon, Azerbaijan, Vanuatu or Cape Verde. Plus, in situations where the WHS is in a state different to the geographical area it is once again extremely convenient to link to the state party for clarity – consider Bermuda or Willemstad above. This helps readers clarify why a place that the vast majority of the world probably thinks is a small group of Islands (ie the British Isles) are actually the sovereign state of smaller islands in the Caribbean or Pacific. These two reasons are covered in point 4 of What generally should be linked.

The same is true of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). I don’t see any “long standing consensus not to use decorative flags in infoboxes” there at all. The guideline is there to manage and standardise the use of icons in articles and control the overuse of flags that have no obvious use in an article. The very reason we have flag icons is so that a reader can quickly identify a region or nationality relevant to that article. The fact we can all read is irrelevant to this argument, the MoS is quite clear that use of a flag should be followed by the written name anyway – this is a style thing, but such a policy wouldn’t exist if we just took it for granted that people can read and don’t need icons. Why else would we have flag and name templates to produce United Kingdom or ESP on Wikipedia? Once again, as we are dealing with a global feature here, this is extremely helpful to the reader who may link here from any page without knowing which country a WHS is in. Within the blink of an eye, the location of this WHS is revealed (exactly the point of flag icons). If this infobox was “English Heritage Sites” then it wouldn’t be relevant, but these are worldwide locations.

I don’t think Otherstuffexists applies here either. Your logic is that links to well known countries don’t need to exist, and that flags (in any capacity) are not needed because the name is written and they are thus purely decorative. I’m afraid such issues are well beyond the scope of just these infoboxes - your problems seem to be more of an MoS issue than with any misuse of this template. If you don’t want any links to countries except in very special cases might I respectfully suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or the talk pages for Icons or Linking. There is no clear MoS policy on this (or someone would have raised the issue by now at featured WHS articles like Surtsey or St Kilda), so if you feel one is needed, a policy can be established across the board and not just in one series of geographical articles. That way the overlinking in articles like this and this can be controlled to your satisfaction. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

WP:MOSICON applies here and it says icon shouldn't be decorative or emphasize nationality. These notation that icon help people find information quick or scan has never been proven Gnevin (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I also fully agree that our guideline should apply regarding flag-icons, and these should be removed from the infobox. There is really no reason to over-emphasise the nominating country, given that all natural sites and most cultural sites were not a creation or product of national states whose flag is displayed. Thus flag-icons in this context can be misleading. They also distract from the meaning of World Heritage. Regarding the argument that their use would help geolocation, I again disagree: there are many large countries where the flag would not even clarify on which continent a site is located, and there are many small countries whose flag not many readers would recognise. Geocodes and maps are far more useful for locating a site. I also have nothing against removing the links to countries from the infobox, given that these are generally already linked in the lead of the article, where the focus of the reader should be. --Elekhh (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove "State party" flagicon per above discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above discussion represents a consensus for this. Several of Steve's points have not been answered. I've disabled the request for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I cant see that. In summary, his points were:

• "I personally prefer it" - this is not an argument
• "it doesn't do any harm" - this isn't an argument either, moreover it has been argued that it does do harm by

- over emphasizing nationality, which is explicitly against the guidelines

- misleading in that they distract from the the whole idea of United Nations "World Heritage"

- cruft, "the flag adds no information and is merely decorative"

• "makes it very easy to id a country" - this is the only meaningful argument, however it has been counter-argued that:

- they are rather decorative

- it is rarely the case, and is less useful than maps and geocodes. For example by large countries the flag would not even clarify on which continent a site is located, and by many small countries the flag would not be recognised by readers anyway

- any id benefit would be outweighed by the negative effect of over emphasizing nationality, which is misleading (as explained above countries are only nominating parties, "all natural sites and most cultural sites were not a creation or product of national states whose flag is displayed") and explicitly against the guidelines

• "flagicons get used in all manner of articles" - not an argument for their use here
• "they exist" - not a valid reason to include

So I don't see any arguments standing in favour of keeping them, but if I missed anything please point it out. --Elekhh (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} 100% agree Gnevin (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this template doesn't actually produce the icons, it just displays what it is specified. For example on Lopé National Park you have the parameter |State Party={{flagicon|Gabon}} [[Gabon]]. So the only way to remove them would be take them out of each separate article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice to have a bot doing this. --Elekhh (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The map

How does this work? For instance, let's say I wanted to add in Blenheim Palace, how would I do this? The coordinates are lat. 41.903 and long. 12.452. Any ideas? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to work the map once before and had no luck I'm afraid. Haven't found any examples to copy from either. Sorry, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the function has only been active since January, very few instances use the map. Here's an example of how to implement it. It makes the infobox a bit long, but in a well developed article (as all WHS should be) I don't think it's a problem. Nev1 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated the documentation, which hasn't been done when the template has been updated. --Elekhh (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple locations

Btw, would it be possible to have multiple locations indicated on one map? There are several WHS which are composed of a set of items in different locations. --Elekhh (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Border

Also would be nice to get rid of the frame of the map, as is already in the infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems that nobody objects, so maybe somebody could do the changes, thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

 Done. Hope that's what you meant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, excellent, looks so much better. Any idea how to solve the multiple locations issue (see section above)? --Elekhh (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Relief parameter

{{editprotected}} Please also add "relief" parameter (see Template:Location map Spain) - is very useful for natural sites. This should be uncontroversial. --Elekhh (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you mean. Please make the requested change to Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/sandbox and then reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This. --Elekhh (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, seems straightforward.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gives altogether the wrong information

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. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of the problems you list above (or on other talk pages where you have raised this issue) can be considered the fault of this infobox. Rather, misplacing of the infobox is each individual article's problem. The Temple of Giza, which you describe as typical example, isn't exactly what could be described as a good article and lacks a lot of information in the prose as well. There are more appropriate infoboxes for the lead of many articles, but it isn't this infobox's fault that they haven't been used. Given that there are nearly 900 WHSs worldwide, an infobox for this important indicator of registered heritage seems entirely appropriate. See St Kilda, Scotland for an example of more restrained use in a featured article or Bath, Somerset where the important information that you mention is provided in other infoboxes, and the 'bureaucratic' stuff comes later.

I'd also point out that in many cases a WHS infobox can be considered entirely appropriate, given that it is one of the most commonly known things about a particular place and is its most defining feature. See the Jurassic Coast for example - it's hard to think of a more appropriate infobox for what is essentially a hundred miles or so of coast. The only reason this article (embodying several individual areas of coast) exists is because its a WHS. The location of a historic site within a country seems a moot point as well, given that World Heritage Sites by definition,are found worldwide. Perhaps there is room for expansion of this infobox or improvements to article layout, but hiding a well used infobox doesn't strike me as a solution. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

[Later] There is no "Temple of Giza". The Giza Necropolis, which I referred to in other versions of this post, is essentially the main Egyptian pyramids, plus the Great Sphinx and other extras. But you would never know this from the infobox - an excellent illustration of its failings! Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well everywhere I go, & I've being seeing a lot recently for an article I'm doing, this is the lead infobox. I'm pretty sure that in many cases other types, such as architecture infoboxes, used to be. Few articles, especially on subjects which are normally highly visuial and much photographed, have the space for two infoboxes. I don't mind it having the lead position IF the information it gives is the most relevant, but at the moment that is not the case. Who actually wants to know the "inscription date", or its "session", or the "Reference" number, or the dates of "extensions"? That can be in the text, or footnotes. All the examples you give are very long UK ones, but for the usually far shorter articles on (to be brutally frank, and as a Brit) much more significant 3rd-world sites this box is invariably used, and there is no space for any other. Even in Jurassic Coast the failure of the current contents is clear - it gives no hint of WHY the WHS status was awarded, just these crappy filing details. It just won't do. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across similar issues at Ujung Kulon National Park, Lorentz National Park, Komodo National Park, etc. In all these cases the WHS infobox does not add much in terms of information, while duplicating most of the useful information and complicating the layout. I agree with Johnbond that much of the information in this infobox is not that useful, while it also cannot substitute other infoboxes. On the other hand there are clear cases in which the infobox is very useful, for instance Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra where no other infobox would fit. I find that ideally there should be just one infobox in an article, so either this one would need to be expanded to include more useful information and therfore be able to substiture other infoboxes, or the other way around, infoboxes like Infobox protected area should be expanded to be able to include relevant information about the World Heritage status. --Elekhh (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would favour putting all the UNESCO filing info into a show/hide feature within the box (Ranger Steve misunderstands me above on this point) and having the visible fields give useful information on the actual site, not the approval process, so that the box is suitable for use in the lead. There seems to be no other general type of box for archaeology & antiquities sites of world importance, like Terracotta Army, Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty, Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Classical Gardens of Suzhou, Fatehpur Sikri, Elephanta Caves and hundreds of other articles. Conceivably there is a case for two versions of the box, one for the lead & one for long articles. This might at least be an interim solution, as adding useful info to hundreds of boxes will clearly take some time - fortunately there is a whole project on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood admittedly (that election race was just so riveting last night, couldn't take my eyes off it!). I still don't really see this as a problem with this infobox per se though. National parks definitely shouldn't use this infobox in the lead - there are far more appropriate ones available and I admit I'm genuinely surprised to see parks that must have a hundred designations already, summarised solely by this infobox. I agree that 1 infobox is enough for short articles, but I do believe that anywhere that is a WHS deserves expanding to something more significant (such as the examples above) and there will almost certainly be sources for it (if not interest in doing it unfortunately). There is an infobox for megaliths somewhere which would cover some WHS's, but I've resisted adding it to the articles I work on I'm afraid (it's a bit restrictive and simplistic). I do agree though that there is room to expand this infobox with some new fields. As a start I'd suggest area (as in size) as a good one, and perhaps some sort of link to the type of structure (beyond the 2 UNESCO designations, which are natural and cultural, I'm thinking more in terms of megalith, architecture, geology, wilderness etc...). I'm not sure about relegating the UNESCO stuff to a hidden feature though. This is an encyclopaedia after all, and that information is just as valid to its status as its reason for being a WHS. That said, if the space this information takes up could be condensed a little that might be good. I am wary about a field explaining why a WHS was designated as well - that isn't something I think can be adequately summarised for a lot (maybe most) of them... Might be better if that was perhaps reflected by the other fields we include. I've started a brainstorming list below for discussions sake, so anyone can add what they think might be a good field. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We are obviously coming at this from different ends, as I have no interest (in encyclopedic terms) in national parks or really any natural WHS sites, & the cultural ones seem equally far from your interests. I am glad you are coming to accept my starting point, the current predominance of this box in the lead across both types - for the cultural ones there is often no obvious alternative in fact. The WHS is rightly considered a very prestigous status, and probably an effective way of suggesting the importance of sites to readers who may not have heard of them before. So perhaps it is not surprising it is the dominant lead box, & we should now address how to deal with that situation better than we do at present. Your suggestions below are really only helpful for natural sites - it might be best to divide the infobox into two types. I have added some. I don't agree at all that the current information "is just as valid to its status as its reason for being a WHS". Can you really believe this? I've no objection to it being somewhere, but a lead infobox needs to give the most important information. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes):

• "As you design an infobox template, consider the following questions:

Is the field of value?

How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?"

Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential new fields

• Brief description (could be taken from Unesco info)
• Date (for cultural ones)
• Originating culture (for cultural ones)
• Size (as an area)
• Location (this might need to be a list of several different options, such as county, state, prefecture etc... with an option to chose the most appropriate)
• Co-ordinates (might be tricky with large ones or split locations)
• Type of heritage (architecture, geology, megalith)

Ranger Steve (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How the template is currently abused and how to change this

The template draws attention to information that practically nobody is interested in and mixes this with a photo and a map. It tends to inflict itself into the leads of articles, where the information which it contains and other infoboxes don't contain is almost always completely out of place. I think there are only two acceptable uses for this infobox:

1. In a section that discusses specifically the World Heritage state of the article subject, possibly in connection with closely related topics. In this position the map is completely out of place. Also, the arbitrary decision of which image to put into the infobox at this point should not normally be taken at all. It makes no sense for the infobox to swallow a random photo. (An exception would be if the WHS status was awarded because of a particular view, and an image showing that view can be added to the infobox without causing redundancy e.g. with the lead image.)
2. In an article that is functionally equivalent to the kind of section described under 1. This happens in the rare case that the actual WHS is not regarded as a separate entity except as a WHS, and also in the rare case that there is so much encyclopedic information about the WHS status itself that it had to be moved to a subarticle per WP:SUMMARY.

I have gone through the transclusions of the template and stopped after finding the first one which was correct in all respects. It was number 16: Maeshowe#World Heritage status. There was also a small number of articles in which the template was placed in a WHS section, without a map, but inappropriately with an image. Example: St Kilda, Scotland#Nature conservation. Among the first 200 articles using the template, there was none which would have justified use as a lead image per 1.

To discourage improper use of this template I propose the following action:

• Move this template to Lead infobox World Heritage Site of Infobox World Heritage Site (lead) so that it can still be used in the small number of cases (< 1%) when it makes sense to put the information into the lead. The documentation of the infobox should have a clear warning that its use is rarely appropriate.
• Create an unobtrusive variant of this infobox which omits the parameters image, imagecaption, coordinates, map, map_caption, map_width, locmapin, relief, latitude, longitude, as they are almost never appropriate.

Hans Adler 07:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is sensible as far as it goes, but this infobox is very widely used indeed, and the majority of the articles are 3rd world places with very short articles, and only room for one infobox. There will be alternative infoboxes available, but working out which one is appropriate & filling it in is a huge task for these important but neglected articles. Realistically a (third?) version of this box, that just states it is a WHS, which is important info, but does not give (or maybe just doesn't show) all the UNESCO crap, and does give the crucial info that people might actually want, might be the easiest way to get a conversion to actually happen. Otherwise it may be best, because quickest, just to remove most of them, and allow a decent-sized lead pic. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes its a definite problem I'd noticed myself. I'#ll address this to User:Plastikspork and see what he has to say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Humayun's Tomb, Delhi

UNESCO World Heritage Site
Humayun's tomb in Delhi, built 1562-1571 CE.
Criteria	Cultural: ii, iv
Reference	232
Inscription	1993 (17th Session)

I agree it isn't a riveting infobox, but I wonder if this is major issue. In my view the photos are the only thing that liven up the otherwise dreary format. It is hard to imagine general readers think it is the view or image that is the site. What is the "crucial info" that would go in an infobox, other than the UNESCO stats? The "region" info is superfluous and could go for me. If it "tends to inflict itself into the leads of articles", why not just move it? The above problems read to me more like an argument for deleting the infobox completely rather than amending it in some way. Ben MacDui 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that certainly would be easier, & might be best. The infobox is often not used for developed world sites, but is for 3rd world ones. Until I changed it now the WHS project page megalomaniacally said that the infobox should be used for "each article on a WHS". Let's look at this example - Humayun's Tomb. Fortunately the English name tells you it is a tomb, and of someone called Humayun (no link, or indication of who he is). Now, don't you think a date of construction, originating culture, a name for the architectural style, and a very brief description might be more useful and "crucial" than the information it actually gives??? There is a lst of other stuff just above. Or look at the Kathmandu Valley examples on the template page itself - what do they tell you about the subject? Personally, I'd be happy to see them mostly just go, but I'm afraid somebody would just add them back,& I don't want to watch over the hundreds of articles with them on. If people really want the ID & "criteria", that should imo be in a hidden box at the bottom of the page. Or we want a little bar saying "UNESCO WHS", with all the UNESCO stuff collapsed. Given the near total mutual incomprehension evident in the section between "natural" and "cultural" editors, it would probably be best to split into 2 templates. If you leave "optional" fields, many infobox fillers will try to fill them all, no matter how inappropriate. Most of these 3rd world articles have very little text, but many decent pictures available, & using up valuable side-of-the-page space on this nonsense cannot be justified. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than have separate infoboxes, you can combine them into one, and have a required parameter (if not filled in, then the output warns the editor that they have filled it in wrong) that switches between the variants described above (the ones I saw were cultural, natural, and lead infobox). But you would need someone with experience at coding that sort of thing in templates (or copy a similar template). Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am glad there is so much interest in improving the usage of this infobox, but I do disagree with some of the proposals above, while I agree with others:
  • I don't see the the need for separate infoboxes for the same topic. This is unnecessary and would only complicate and confuse things. It is technically and intellectually possible to use an infobox in multiple ways.
  • I disagree that images would be confusing, as well put by Ben MacDui;
  • I strongly disagree that location maps would be useless; Instead the functionality of the location map needs to be upgraded in order to be able to display multiple locations.
  • Also disagree that per default the infobox has to be in a subsection, and that this would be the case for most articles. First of all there are numerous WHS notable as such, which often include multiple sites, specifically united by the WHS listing. In these cases the article will only have a WHS infobox. Second, I think it should be allowed for the editors of each specific article to choose which infobox suits better the article.
  • I do agree that there should be more informative fields added, such as "site area" and "date of construction", and that others are not useful and can be removed, such as the "region" field.--Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO/WHS-specific information may well be interesting to some people and there is no reason why it shouldn't be summarized somewhere in the article, but like a lot of other comparatively trivial information that people tend to put in infoboxes, I can't see why it should be colourfully framed at the upper-right-hand side in such a way that it completely dominates the article. Couldn't it just be somewhere at the bottom of the page, perhaps even in a smaller font? It could still be in a template if people like that. Is there a template guru out there who could try making a bottom-of-the-page version of this to see what it could look like? --Hegvald (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there are many sites which are UNESCO created entities, where the WHS infobox on top is the best option, such as the Australian Convict Sites or Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra. --Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there is not a single Wikipedia article where bizarre non-information of the type "ii, iv, Asia-Pacific, 232, Cultural, 17th Session" should appear right at the top and be drawn attention to. That's the kind of detail that should normally be 'dropped because it's the job of an encyclopedia to distill short, informative texts from all the available information. Including these trivia that are only of interest to a few bureaucrats (if that) can only be justified when they appear in small type in a discreet little box somewhere under the fold where most readers will simply ignore them.

It's conceivable that we might have an all-purpose template for cultural or natural sites that also happen to have WHS status. But this template is not it. It's a template that concentrates exclusively on useless technical parameters that nobody wants to see and adds two huge eye-catchers (image and map) to draw everybody's attention to them. No article is going to get featured status while such an abomination is at the top. Hans Adler 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Really?, well I will be back when your tone will be more WP:CIVIL and constructive. Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, although I think that example says more about the sometimes inappropriate focus of FAC on technicalities rather than about the infobox. Also, I somehow managed to miss your real point, which is that some articles only exist because of the WHS. I think that even for those articles (which do seem to be rare as I found none among the first 200 I looked at) the technical information doesn't make much sense, but at least it's more defensible, and my response would have been less heated if I had spent more time reading your comment to which it was supposed to be a response. Sorry. Hans Adler 09:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I am on the pro-improvement side, and I am sure we can agree on major changes, as far the premise is not to abolish the infobox (which is useful either as the only option or as an alternative). When infoboxes such as the one for protected areas incorporate fields for WHS, certainly I agree there is no need to use both, and the editors should have the option which one to chose. Now focusing on the improvement of this infobox: removing the "region" I already indicated I agree with. The "session" parameter duplicates the year field, so can be removed IMO as well. However information explaining why a site is considered World Heritage, is essential (while I recognise that "represents a masterpiece of human creative genius" would be more telling than "criteria: i"). Also if the aim is to improve, than let's introduce fields such as "site area" (natural sites) and "date of construction" (cultural sites) and improve the functionality of the map. --Elekhh (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Conversion to {{infobox}}

I've finally gotten round to moving this over to an {{infobox}} codebase. The result is in the sandbox, and a test case showing most features is on the test cases page. If there are no problems with this I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interlanguage link

{{editprotected}} Please add German interwiki de:Vorlage:Infobox Welterbe, thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit should take care of it; I think it was the unprotected Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/doc that needed to be edited rather than this template directly. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you were right. Sorry for not noticing that. --Elekhh (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What a "state party" is and why it should be called "country" in the template

I came to this talk page to find out what "state party" means in this infobox, and found no explanation; nor is there an explanation in the template documentation, and there ought to be one. I saw "state party" in an infobox for the Hạ Long Bay World Heritage site in Vietnam, and it was so very odd that I thought that some especially keen Communist had vandalised the infobox with this usage, overwriting the word "Country". I only found otherwise when I entered Edit Mode to fix it.

"Original research" led me to this information at the UNESCO website: "States Parties are countries which have adhered to the World Heritage Convention."

So a state party is a country—it says so. There is no need for Wikipedia to copy this peculiar and reader-baffling usage, since it only has evident meaning to those who are familiar with the UNESCO bureaucracy's internal jargon. The overwhelming majority of the encyclopaedia-reading public should not be subjected to this puzzling and unhelpful term, the use of which in Wikipedia adds nothing to the reader's experience, and merely interrupts it. I propose that the "state party" variable be replaced by "country" in the template. It is common sense. — O'Dea 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess the idea with "World Heritage" is that the sites are "common heritage of humanity", hence their designation is of supra-national character. As you pointed out, countries are relevant here as members of UNESCO (i.e. UN) hence I can see why the the formula "state party" has been chosen by UNESCO as a descriptor. I got 1,000,000 google hits, so the term is not that obscure. --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, we should use "country" here, as per normal. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Google results also include many other meanings than the one used by UNESCO, and most of them have nothing to do with World Heritage sites, so a million Google results is meaningless in this discussion. The point is that "state party" is so obscure to the man in the street that this one was completely nonplussed by it; it is just a bloody nuisance, a time-wasting and irritating distraction; and it ought to be changed to what it means: "country". There is no advantage in using "state party" and "country" is known to all. — O'Dea 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, new words can be "bloody nuisance". --Elekhh (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. They are not "new words". They are, in this context, an unnecessarily obscure rearrangement of very common words. 2. The talk page is for discussion, not for trading petty insults. If you have something meaningful to say, say it. — O'Dea 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to say anything offensive, just tried to hint that I would appreciate a friendly and calm tone in the discussion. Now I'll try to summarise it again differently: (1) my presumption is that the UN did choose the term "state party" instead of "country" for a good reason, (2) the term is broadly in use in relation to WHS as well as in other contexts, and (3) I don't think the encyclopaedic description has to be simplified to the expense of accuracy to meet the average level of knowledge of the "man in the street", even if this will require more effort from the readers. The term which many might not be familiar with is linked to an overview page which also provides an explanation. All this being said, I am really not fussy about it and if the consensus will be the other way I will acknowledge that. --Elekhh (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Elekhh here. These are sites designated by UNESCO, and despite the importance that people attach to them they're nothing more than entries on a list created by that international organization. The designation process is completely dictated by the processes and politics of that body. As such, the info boxes should reflect the sources they draw from. I also don't see the problem with using state party, as state and country are synonymous anyway. This proposal might be more appropriate for the Simple English Wikipedia. In addition it's a mistake to assume that any word is "normal." It might be a normal designation within your own context, but don't assume that it's normal for everybody. That's my opinion. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "the info boxes should reflect the sources they draw from" but you don't justify the claim. There is no reason at all why a term which will puzzle and therefore delay the average reader should be used when the word "country" is immediately understood by all. If you asked 100 people at random in the street what a state party was, most would imagine it meant a controlling political party in a one-party dictatorship. Hardly anyone would guess it meant "country". That is why the designation is a problem. — O'Dea (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't seriously believe that anyone with half a brain will see the words "state party", freak out because it's too technical, and stop reading the article, can you? Especially since there's always a country name right beside the words. An average reader would accept the term as a UNESCO-specific title and would think nothing more about it. Those that were a bit more curious could search Google for state party world heritage site and immediately be directed to this page, which not only explains what they are but lists every single state party in the world. UNESCO uses the term "state party" to distinguish from a regular country in that only state parties have agreed to the World Heritage Convention, whereas other countries have not. This infobox should do the same.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for the assertion that "UNESCO uses the term "state party" to distinguish from a regular country in that only state parties have agreed to the World Heritage Convention, whereas other countries have not." It makes very little sense & I'm fairly certain that they actually use it to avoid questions such as whether the Palestinian Territories or Hong Kong are a "country" or not. But that is beside the point for us. The major issues with this infobox, still on the back-burner, are that it is much too concerned with UNESCO bureaucratric stuff and far too little with the site itself. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What happens if the ownership of a WHS changes from country to another due to a war or revolution?

• Does the "state party" change immediately to the new owner?
• Does the new owner become the new "state party" after filing the necessary paperwork?
• Does the "state party" remain unchanged because it's only about the original application?

Hans Adler 07:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an answer, but interesting examples are Visoki Dečani and Patriarchate of Peć, where Serbia is listed as the "State Party". True, Kosovo is not a member of UNESCO [yet], but using "State Party" in the infobox sort of spares Wikipedia from the decision whether Kosovo is a "country". No such user (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• With luck, the discussion 3 sections above ("How the template is currently abused and how to change this") is moving towards a total revamp of the box anyway. If, for example, all the UNESCO technical detail was normally hidden, with a show/hide thingy, I expect most objections to "state party" would go. We could then have a simple "Location" field, allowing a fuller and more useful location including the country. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Gradual improvements

While there seems to be consensus that the infobox needs improvement, previous discussions stalled as there was disagreement regarding the different "packages" of change. Therefore it seems to me that the best way forward would be to implement step by step those changes which have general support. As the infobox and its usage will improve it will be than easyer to find consensus for further improvements. I am listing below previous proposals which based on former comments are likely to find support.

1. Specify in the infobox documentation, that "the use of this infobox is discouraged when more specific infoboxes are in use in the article", particularly when those also have WHS specific fields, such as Template:Infobox protected area
2. Add "site area" field (for natural sites)
3. Add "date of construction" field (for cultural sites)
4. Remove "regions" field - purely administrative categorization with limited relevance
5. Map should be able to display multiple locations for those WHS which are composed of multiple sites. See Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra for example.
6. A bot should remove all remaining flags per MOS:FLAG and previous consensus.

Please indicate support and/or concerns specific to each of these changes, so that we can proceed at least whith those we all agree on. --Elekhh (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support all, and the approach. I think at some point we may need to split the template into cultural and natural variants. Johnbod (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support We may also have the possibility to add the official website when relevant. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Endangered

"Endangered" in the template should link to World Heritage in Danger or List of World Heritage in Danger, i.e. without "Sites", since this is the name UNESCO uses. bamse (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The link in the infobox is a redirect to the second page you mentioned.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but since "World Heritage Site in Danger" is a non-existant term, why not link to it directly? bamse (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Extensions

Are all changes of World Heritage Site boundaries extensions? The universal use in the infobox of extensions for boundary changes is justifiable if there has never been a reduction of a WHS's area, but I am aware of at least one example where the change was a mere "minor modification", a neutral phrase in terms of area change. Perhaps the infobox ought to reflect this by providing an alternative to the word "extensions" for this kind of thing. Waltham, The Duke of 23:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bamse, 15 August 2011

The template currently links to the redirect page List of World Heritage Sites in danger. This phrase ("List of World Heritage Sites in danger") is non-encyclopedic because the correct name as used by UNESCO is List of World Heritage in Danger. The phrase with "sites" is a wikipedia invention and does not exist in reliable sources. Because of this, I request to link to the correct name: List of World Heritage in Danger. bamse (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Post >Deleted<

Plain language

Can we add a switch to display the criteria in plain language, rather than as numbers which will mean nothing to our readers? We would obviously need to abbreviate the full terms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would rather they were just hidden and more useful information included instead. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy: How do you want to fit the criteria in plain language (even using abbreviations) into the infobox, especially for sites that are listed under several criteria? What "more useful information" are you thinking about, Johnbod? Personally, I could get rid of the reference number and perhaps put the corresponding external link into the heading (Site's name). bamse (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have explained what "more useful information" would be above at length. Little things like the date, originating culture, and function of the site, currently absent. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer would seem to be to embed {{Designation list}} in a parent infobox, as done for example, in Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an imptovement, but it still takes up a lot of space giving readers information they are already know (repeats that it's in India) or that is too basic (India is in Asia-Pacific region) or is just uninteresting (session dates etc). There's just no way this box complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." and "As you design an infobox template, consider the following questions:

Is the field of value? How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?"

It's important to know a place is a WHS, & maybe the date it became one, with a link to the award documentation, but "key facts" stop right there; the rest is pure cruft. The criteria are not very helpful, & mostly obvious, & can easily be be picked up from the UNESCO site. If it's a building or city it's a ii, probably plus a iv or something else, if it's a national park it's a vii plus maybe something else. It's all "unnecessary content" as the MOS puts it. Usually articles that don't have the infobox just give the fact, the date & quote a couple of lines from Unesco's summary blurb. That's all you need. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Old City (Jerusalem)

A number of editors (including myself) are concerned that the designation "Arab states" as the region where the Old City in Jerusalem is located violates Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. A proposal that is being considered is to modify the infobox such that the "Region" parameter be optional in order to accommodate NPOV, otherwise it may be necessary to forgo the infobox altogether at the article. It appears that currently it isn't possible to leave the "Region" field empty.—Biosketch (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This infobox is stupid in any case and should be deleted. See comments by Johnbod in sections above for why it is problematic even in articles with no political controversy attached. Why fight over what should be in the box when the solution is to get rid of it altogether? --Hegvald (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if there's consensus to delete it so be it. But the discussion above is pretty stale by now and the reality is the infobox is still around and causing problems.—Biosketch (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

latitude/longitude in header?

In articles that have the latitude/longitude fields filled out, it appears they're used for placing a dot on the mini-map, but they don't appear as coordinates in the header, like the {{coord}} tag would do, so that readers can click through to an OSM or Google map, or use the WikiMiniAtlas. Instead it looks like a separate coord-tag has to be added for that. Is there a way to make the latitude/longitude tags automatically populate the coord data as well? Here is an example article with such a situation. --Delirium (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Clicking the initial title in the infobox (UNESCO World Heritage Site) redirects to World Heritage Site. I can't quite work out how to fix this. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Location

This template really needs a location parameter right below the country. Right now, only the country specifies its location, and that is far to inadequate, especially for the articles where the WHS infobox is the only infobox. I suggest to add a Location parameter where a province, city, or other location can be specified as needed. It should be optional for WHS where a specific location doesn't apply. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please could you follow the following procedure:

• Put your proposed code on /sandbox.
• Use some examples to thoroughly test it on /testcases.
• Allow time for others to comment on your changes.
• Reactivate the edit request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the proposed location parameter to the sandbox and test case for review, see: Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/testcases. Any comments, objections? -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds worthwhile to me, although I'm not sure whether or not it is. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reactivate edit request. No objections, one weak endorsement. But really, this is hardly controversial, because the location parameter will be optional. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Could you update the template documentation as well? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012

Template's footnotes as they currently stand are too small, at least as they are rendered here. The sandbox's current version (19 November, edit summary "typo") solves this by moving them into the template's body (rather than with an increased font-size). Seems to work well with the test case. Shall I activate an "edit request" template? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I had to revert all your changes to the sandbox in order to resolve first the issue above. Once that has been adopted, I will just undo my edit and you'll have all your changes back. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  Understood – thanks for explaining. My suggestion's been here a while now, so, once it's back in place, I'll activate an edit request. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request is at start of this section. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes to the sandbox. Can you confirm this code is ready to copy over? I don't want to undo the other recent change to this sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The version "02:29, 19 November 2012‎ 213.246.91.158 (talk)‎ . . (3,886 bytes) (0)‎ . . (typo)" should be in shape – the testcase looks okay here. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The new "location" parameter is not in the sandbox version... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry not to spot. I've inserted it now (edit summary "tweaked" on 20 Nov), so, if you you think all seems correct, the edit can take place. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think we need to leave more time for discussion about these edits. They have quite a visible impact on the template, and as far as I can tell they haven't really been discussed anywhere. Could you drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Heritage Sites and wait for more comments so that we can have a clearer idea of whether there is a consensus? If no-one replies in a week or so we can take that as an indication that there isn't any opposition to the change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just left this and set up the area below. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add interwikiki for sr: Wikipedia - Шаблон:УНЕСКО кутијица. --Pockey (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)