Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expansion[edit]

I think it is right for members of the Jesuit Churches of the Philippines (Extension) and Spanish Colonial Fortifications of the Philippines to have it own boxes just like the Baroque Churches of the Philippines. Readers might think that it is only the Baclayon Church and Taytay Fort being considered to the UNESCO List. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can come up with individual articles for the different sites under those collections including the Baroque Churches (extension), then we can probably accommodate those separate entries. Nevertheless, having a representative site and image for each collection under the tentative list would suffice for now. They are listed in the description anyway and are counted as one by UNESCO. :) --RioHondo (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panglao Island[edit]

I think it's a bit cheeky for this place to be included on this list, since the government is ploughing ahead, literally, with building an international airport there. Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! 112.198.82.85 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the whole island of Panglao is protected area. Its entry to the WHS tentative list is somewhat confusing tho, as it describes the whole topography of the island but also mentions that it is the protected area established in 2003 that is being nominated, which is a Protected Seascape covering only the coastal areas of Panglao and nearby Balicasag island. When I get the time, I will create the Panglao Island Protected Seascape article and link that to this this instead.--RioHondo (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/677, https://web.archive.org/web/20051208194254/http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/502/, https://web.archive.org/web/20100722202905/http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5487/, and other UNESCO web pages; after confirming extensive copying, some has been presumptively removed. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Would it be possible to restore the description and put quotation marks on them as those are the official summaries as inscribed in their WHS markers? If that isnt possible, will have to paraphrase those official descriptions from UNESCO. Thanks and happy new year!--RioHondo (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RioHondo, there's absolutely no objection to writing descriptions in your own words, with acknowledgement (citation) of the source. On the other hand, in my personal opinion, quoting the entire source text would be an excessive use of quotations. Hope that helps, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gvp":

  • From Mount Arayat: "Arayat". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2010-12-19.
  • From Biliran: "Biliran". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2013-11-14.
  • From Taal Volcano: "Taal Volcano". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2013-02-13.
  • From List of active volcanoes in the Philippines: "Volcanoes of the Philippines and Southeast Asia". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2011-08-18.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "volcanism":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative List[edit]

The tentative list had a massive overhaul but also the original list wasn't as massive as the future sites here. I would suggest splitting this up into officially list and possible nominations.

As I side note I noticed all these "old towns" are not listed as tentative anymore, I also saw these in person and can't agree they have any UOV. A few old buildings doesn't make it universal value, otherwise massive amount of towns around the world, especially Europe, would be listed. The churches are not special imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.190.142.20 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of World Heritage Sites in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: copyright UNESCO web pages, which are not released under license. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Sanglahi86, I have reverted your removal of most of the lead and am going to provide a more elaborate reasoning here. I do apologize for the removal of the MOS:NUM edits and will fix it.

  • The first paragraph is important in establishing what UNESCO WHS is, for readers who do not have a high understanding of the criteria and what kind of things get in the list. As I mentioned in the summary, many FLs (credits to Tone for the contributions) have the same lead, and I think it is just appropriate that PH get the same treatment (am eyeing this for an FL with Indonesia and North Korea).
  • The "self-published content" comes from Ivan Henares, a university professor, researcher, and secretary general for UNESCO's Philippine division. Granted this is a rarity in WHS FL leads and Tone can disagree with me on this one, but it doesn't hurt to include this as the article is being improved.

GeraldWL 08:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 update[edit]

This needs to be updated as new sites are added to Philippines' tentative WHS list. It was ambitious for them to revive Intramuros but maybe this is due to recently active campaign of neighboring SEA countries that have similarly reconstructed or damaged properties getting easily inscribed to the WHS list. They got hopeful too with the ever-urbanizing Taal landscape, citing historical towns and the biodiversity inside and around that caldera. These two would certainly be hard to prove the integrity and authenticity of sites, regardless how undeniable OUV status. In this case, my bold suggestion is to include Culion. I love that they have now added the historical landamarks of relevance to sugar heritage of Negros and Panay, albeit too few, that I've been dreaming so long of its tentative status. Also, the "grouping" of previously listed prehistoric sites of Cagayan Valley is a good move as it is the most exciting and probable win like Mayon and Chocolate Hills. Another is recognizing Corregidor Island. Might as well consider Rizal Historical Trail or Philippine Revolution Trail. Meanwhile, Pambansang Museó is doubtful of OUV status of Kabayan Mummies burial caves and the ancient rock art and carvings across the country which is very sad to know they dropped these. Jdlmpo (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_the_Philippines&oldid=1218936669"