Talk:World Heritage Site/Archive 1

statistics

How strange to see the European and North-american sites put together ! What does Europe has to do with the US ?

no name

While this is an interesting page, the way certain items are linked seems odd. For example, Syria has "The Historic City of Damascus, which links nowhere, but there is an article on the city of Damascus, etc. Should these links be rconfigured to conform to Wikipedia links, or should they be left as is until an article on the specific World Heritage site appears? Danny

I suggest, as I have done for the sites of China and France, to link what is linkable to Wikipedia articles. In the case you are mentioning, the result would be : The Historic City of Damascus. If in the future, if someone feels like writing a specific article on The Historic City of Damascus, then this author will make the link change. In the meantime, linking what is linkable alows the readers to gather as much information as possible about the Site. - User:Olivier

Selection process

would be nice to add a little about the selection process to this article - I imagine there is a good deal of politics involved. And perhaps some explaination on why some countried are choc-a-block with Unesco sites (like France) while others are near devoid of them (eg Nigeria). I doubt it has much to do with different amounts of history in each country. Seabhcán 12:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be way too biased

Nominated or selected?

The opening paragraph defines a site as one which has been "nominated". Is that correct? I would have thought it should be "selected". --Tatty 03:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Emblem to Commons

Could somebody please add the World Heritage Emblem to the Commons? thx. --Neoneo13 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving Emblem

I think the emblem should be moved from the right to the left. It would look much better. What do you think? Bremen 06:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I want information for the Ancient Metropolitan City Dholavira to be included on World Heritage Site.

I want information for the Ancient Metropolitan City Dholavira to be included on World Heritage Site. vkvora 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Jerusalem not part of Israel's list on the World Heritage Site

Hi! It is stated in the article that a property must first belong to a country before being nominated. But Jerusalem is an exception (see my explanation here. And hence, to prevent confusion (like what happened in the In Danger List when some editors placed it as part of Israel and some reverted the change), a section here can be included to such an exception to the formal procedure of nomination. Mind you, the explanation I made may require a little more editing to make it more neutral. --Joey80 08:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

World Heritage Site : Pending List

There is no information of Pending List or application is pending. If sombody get the information of Pending List, I reqest to add in the article.

vkvora 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• The official Tentative Lists Database from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre --Joycedula 04:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link cited above contains all nominations. If you are pertaining to those which will be nominated in a set year (e.g. for 2007), I am not sure if the authority is making it public as has been done before. Searching for documents in the official website, I can't find any, which has also been the case for this year's included sites, before they were included. However, natural/mixed sites to be examined for 2007 are available in the IUCN website: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wheritage/sitelist.html --Joey80 07:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nominations to be examined in 2007 available at the end of this document: http://whc.unesco.org/p_dynamic/document/document_download.cfm?id_document=6627 or at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-08Be.pdf --202.138.136.38 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox?

Not to go crazy about extraneous bells-and-whistles, but is there or has there been any sort of discussion for a World Heritage Site infobox? --Calton | Talk 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Photos

I just added Geghard to the list of photos on the page - I did notice in the page history someone write not to add any more photos, but it may have been a reference to photo quality. If not, I would say photos that have been on the page a long time should be rotated out, just because photos were available earlier shouldn't exclude other sites. Otherwise the photos can be moved to a proper (and more inclusive) photo gallery at the bottom of the page. --RaffiKojian 11:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An unregisterd user removed the pic without discussion, I put it back. Again, I think my comments need to be addressed since there needs to be some logic to why these particular photos are displayed. --RaffiKojian 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Curonian Spit (A World Heritage Site shared by Russia and Lithuania) photo with a picture of World Heritage Site #541 "Vilnius Old Town". I think it is proper that Lithuania is represented by the Vilnius Historic Centre (its capital) instead of a shared World Heritage Site. Plus, Russia already has a picture in this article. I would also recommend everyone either stop adding new pictures or start taking old ones off, because if it continues, the article would leave too much spaces in the end.

I also took off the Web link to Sicily, I don't think website about individual countries World Heritage Sites should be in the external links section. --67.2.149.38 20:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You did very well! I think that new images, if they show up in the future, we can add into new image gallery at the bottom of the article too M.K. 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To user Kaveh, I don't know what are your problems with the photos of European cathedrals posted on this article (namely the photos of Cathedral of Vilnius and Svetitskhoveli Cathedral), but why did you remove them? They are of different artistic representations of their individual country's heritages, and these two sites are not alike at all, so I fail to see how you can say these "cathedral" images are over-represented. Also, the qualities of these two cathedrals' images are quite good, and better than the Iranian sites you added in. --Thewallowmaker 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Persepolis photo you added with a image of better quality (I personally liked the picture of Pasargadae better). You also need to put the photo in the correct order according to its id number as well as follow the proper description-style. --Thewallowmaker 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel there are too many cathedrals from the former Soviet Union. But, the current version is fine. Kaveh 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Did anyone noticed that recently the official website has some technical errors happening. The numbering system of the Criteria section seems to have disappeared as well as the numbering system in World Heritage List's Notes Section. I think its kind of distracting because we don't have the numbers to guide what we are looking at. --Godardesque 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess its just a format change or fixing of it. These numbers are back.--Godardesque 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

World Heritage Documents... know anything.

I am wondering if anyone knows anything about World Heritage Documents as a sub-set of World Heritage sites, such as the Magna Carta, Bundesdbrief, Dead Sea Scolls and so on; and is there interest in this additional category.70.90.16.34 12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Jim

ID number list?

Is there a list of the sites ordered by their identification or reference number? I couldn't find it in the official site. It would be good to have some history background on the issue; which were the first sites to be included as World Heritage? Nazroon 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistical Inconsistency?

"There are currently 830 World Heritage Sites" -- how is that possible, when right in the article, several W.H.S. are listed, and numbered over 830? "Site #917: The Greater Blue Mountains Area, including the Blue Mountains National Park (Australia).", "Site #936: The Cueva de las Manos in a remote region of Patagonia (Argentina).", "Site #946: Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina).", "Site #960: Geghard Monastery (Armenia)." -- I don't know if it's just my math, but last I checked, 917, 937, 946 and 960 are *all* above 830. Did they add some sites, and then decide to remove them later on, but not reuse those numbers or something? That doesn't seem to be within a reasonable doubt, I mean, that would be nearly 100 W.H.S. added, then later removed.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaXiMiUS (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

These "Site #917" are just identification numbers UNESCO assigned to each World Heritage property. It does not represent the actual number of World Heritage Sites (830). Sometimes, extension sites could be also added to an already existing World Heritage Site, that might also contribute to these differences between ID numbers and actual statistics of World Heritage Site.--67.2.149.126 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The links per individual properties found in the official World Heritage Site page is identified by their numbers. Hence, if someone is interested in getting the identification number per property, all he/she needs to do is to check out these links. Or you can also message me, I think I kept the identification numbers in a personal file, as part of some school projects--and I also downloaded almost every document found in the official site. In any case, I do agree with someone saying that we should have an infobox for World Heritage Sites, with entries for the site's official name, WHS type, year of inscription (and probably where it was inscribed and it what session), country/location, picture, year of extensions, year placed in the In Danger List (if applicable), etc., and maybe even the criteria in which it qualified, as well as some links. In any case, I think my very concern here is that such infoboxes will look all too similar with the individual pages in the official website. Also, as per the questions for this section, well the identification numbers were assigned upon the submission of the nominations to the World Heritage Center. Hence, because some sites may end up being deferred, referred or not recommended at all, then it is expected that the highest identification numbers to date will not correspond to the current number of WHS. In other words, identification numbers are just part of the preliminary step for inscription, but does not guarantee inscription. I remembered putting this explanation to the main page before, but due to the incessant editing of some users who may think that it's useless, it just keeps being written off. Joey80 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

World Heritage site list

This is the second time that my addition of the UK list has been deleted from this page. While I think that it's a good point that the UK list page can be reached thorugh the Europe list, I don't think this method of arrangement makes sense. The UK is the only listing with it's own page that is not included in the lists of these links. It's ridiculous to prevent users from accessing it, simply because of some odd attempt to organize the lists based on their geographical location. It's simple...there are enough sites in that locale to warrent their own page, and as such that page should be included on the main page. To lump it in with Europe is unnecessarily complex for readers. It is also, redundant to have sites listed on the Europe page, when they have their own page already.MArcane 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Zones

A part of the world seems to be missing out of that list, there are asian countries who are not pacific and not arabic, such as Iran, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan ... and so on. Why don't you make that list more accordingly based on the data within the List of World Heritage Sites section or at least add a new zone.

Refer to this link for the zones as officially designated by UNESCO: As classified officially by UNESCO Joey80 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Note that Russia is classified as belonging to the Europe and North America zone, together with Cyprus and the Caucasus States."

Really??? Sure it isn't the asia-pacific zone which is meant rather than the north american zone?? Mathmo ^Talk 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

oops! Nevermind... I see now. They are one and the same zone. Strange, they have very large and combined areas for zones. Ah well, just very slightly confusing wording. Mathmo ^Talk 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please edit if it will help improve the article. And yes, it is indeed strange that they will group together North America and Europe, making them quite large (both in terms of land area and number of World Heritage Sites), thus possibly skewing some statistical analysis made to study World Heritage Sites. I think that the zone designation is based more on cultural delineation (i.e. Latin America for rest of Western Hemisphere minus Canada and USA, Arab States is a distinctive zone), however, that is just an inference, since Asia-Pacific also encompassed the Indian sub-continent, which is actually culturally distinct from the rest of Asia. Joey80 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the extraordinary session?

While I was editing the Old City of Jerusalem, I found on the UNESCO World Heritage web site that the Old City was nominated on the first extraordinary session, not the fifth session as the former editor proclaimed.

Here's what I found on the session report:

The first extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris on 10 and 11 September 1981, at the request of seventeen States members of the Committee which also requested that the meeting deal with two items : the election of two Vice-Chairmen to the Bureau and the inscription of "the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" on the World Heritage List.

Quite interesting, isn't it? The session was held a month before the fifth ordinary session in Sydney. I've corrected the article accordingly.

I dug in further, and found that there were more extraordinary session, seven in total at the moment. Other six are:

• Second session, 29 October 1997 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
• Third session, 12 July 1999 - to decide whether to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park, Australia on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The proposal was declined.
• Fourth session, 30 October 1999 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
• Fifth session (pdf), 1 November 2001 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
• Sixth session, 27 May 2003.
• Seventh session, 6-11 December 2004.

Should we list all those extraordinary sessions into this article too? Or should we list only ones that concern one or more World Heritage Site in particular, such as the 1st and the 3rd? - DTRY 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While the information is fascinating, the template in the Old City of Jerusalem article should be listed accordingly by the information used on the official UNESCO World Heritage website. This site (Old City of Jerusalem) is official inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1981, which is the "fifth session", as the official UNESCO website listed it. The informations on articles about World Heritage properties should reflect how the sites are actually listed on the World Heritage List to avoid confusions.--TheLeopard 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What is a State Party?

What does the term "State Party" mean, which is used in this context? Does it mean "participating state", as in a state which takes part in the work with world heritage, or what? I think it should be explained in this article. E.G. 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Add another site

I suggest to add Sigiriya a UNESCO World Heritage Site to photos.

--Lanka07 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Site #202: Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka).

I support that, and suggest the form to the right. (see also Heritage website listing) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I too support the addition of Sigiriya to the list of photos on this page. This site is considerably different from the pictures of other sites which have been posted up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.20.3 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And another ... the Piton Management Area in St. Lucia

The following Commons picture is available:

Site #1161: The Piton Management Area in St. Lucia.

Jayen466 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

what mom knows about San Jacinto battle

1.Sam Houston was in charge of the Texan army. 2.Santa anna was in charge of the mexican army. 3.the battle lasted only 18 minutes. 4.the Texans snuk up on the Mexican when they were takeing a nap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.17.12 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

why there is no taj mahal ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.8.0 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New Inscribed Properties

At UNESCO are inscribed a new Sites.--82.200.186.226 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Site #252: Taj Mahal, India.

File:Horezu2008.JPG

Site #597: Horezu Monastery in Horezu, Romania.

The pictures in World Heritage Site, should represent the most famous and well known sites, and not unkown and unfamous sites. In fact the article is not to promote readers to unheard of places, but with regard to the limitations, hilight the most famous and known sites among the hundreds that exist on the list. Therefore I propose replacement of the picture of Taj Mahal in India, instead of the Horezu Monastery in Horezu. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it would be better to promote readers to relatively "unknown" places (unknown for some people that is). Everyone (in the West) probably knows about Egyptian Pyramids or the Great Wall... but not Banaue Rice Terraces or Monastery in Romania. Plus, the term "famous" and "well-known" are very relative terms, what is famous to some might not be for others. However, I really dread when users keep adding images to the gallery and it end up stretching the entire article. I actually think the gallery section is not necessary at all.

You know, I would actually propose (if not delete the gallery), to change a majority of the pictures in this gallery to more obscure sites for all of the countries.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes Israel: Europe and North America?

The infoboxes for Israel show 'Europe and North America' as region. Is this correct? Is there a list showing exactly which country belongs to which region. Can this information be found on the Site? I can't find it. Wiki-uk (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found the list ordered by REGION now:

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&&&mode=table&order=region

This makes it clear. I will change them back to Europe and North America. Wiki-uk (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are the Wikipedia lists not conform the Unesco list actually? Would it not make things more simple? Wiki-uk (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)