Talk:UNESCO World Heritage List

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Getting started[edit]

Hey, this is so great that this is getting started! I also like that it's keeping in line with the Project:What is an article? guidelines. --(WT-en) Evan 16:25, 28 Nov 2003 (PST)

Making this list is turning out to be a tougher job than I expected! My first idea was to list sites alphabetically within the different countries. But the extremely variable nature of these sites makes it hard to classify them: there are cities, parks, regions, etc. but also individual buildings, monuments or ruins. Since we don't generally write articles about individual sights, how do we want to list these here?
Different areas/buildings/... can also form a single site, such as the belfries of Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium (32 belfries in different locations) or the central eastern rainforest reserves in Australia (41 separate parks, reserves and forests). Do we list every item separately or not? And if we do the latter, how do we link? We can't have an article called Belfries of Flanders and Wallonia, can we?
So, could somebody have a look at it and perhaps come up with other ways to look at this issue? (WT-en) DhDh 16:28, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)
A possibility: User:(WT-en) Dhum Dhum/UNESCO (WT-en) DhDh 18:10, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)
I'm currently changing the format somewhat, so the sites are more conveniently arranged. (WT-en) DhDh 09:57, 30 Nov 2003 (PST)

Rather than have individual articles for each of the sites, how about redirecting them to the relevant region/city article, within which would be the necessary information? I have just done this with Stonehenge and Hadrian's Wall, both of which have links to official websites of their own within the region article. Any thoughts? --(WT-en) sjc196 15:56, 7 Apr 2004 (GMT)

I've usually done it like this [Cumbria|Hadrian's Wall], rather than by creating a redirect page. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:22, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)

The list is getting quite unwieldy now. how would people feel about ordering them by continent then country then site? It would feel more structured and be better for organising holiday tours, etc. -- User:(WT-en) Bobkemp 20:00, 26 Sept 2004

Sounds like a good idea ! How would you feel about plunging forward with that? -- (WT-en) Mark 15:18, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Okay. In the next few days, hopefully. -- User:(WT-en) Bobkemp 13:00 27 Sep 2004 (BST)

By the way, I've broken the pattern with le Pont du Gard in France and given it a separate page. It's not particularly near any town. -- User:(WT-en) Bobkemp 20:00, 26 Sept 2004

Isn't it sort of near Gard ? Not that it matters... the rule is that the link should go to the nearest place which (potentially) has a Sleep listing. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:18, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Gard is a large area (think small US state). I see you've changed it to redirect to Remoulins. The town isn't very much but that kind of makes sense. I'll put back the wikipedia reference WikiPedia:Le Pont du Gard and leave it at that. -- User:(WT-en) Bobkemp 13:00 27 Sep 2004 (BST)

Need to ban links to nonexistant entries[edit]

Example of the problem : UNESCO (and other scientists) calls it the Cape Floral Region, but the inhabitants (incl. government) and travellers will refer to it as the Overberg, eventhough the Cape Floral Region is somewhat larger than the Overberg.

Now if I were to create a link to nonexistant Cape Floral Region, visitors to the list will think that nothing has been written on the topic. Even worse : A knowledgable person may start editing the topic, duplicating my work, and creating work that is not linked to from the Overberg topic.

If someone really needs a seperate topic for Cape Floral Region, they can mention it on Overberg, create it and then update this list to point to it. (WT-en) Nic 06:15, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

No need to "ban", just redirect (or use piped links) from the official UNESCO version. And mention the alternate name on the page being redirected to for maximum search engine goodness. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:59, 15 May 2005 (EDT)
Just to clarify for (WT-en) this wiki novice :
Redirect means create an entry at Cape Floral Region that causes an HTTP redirect to Overberg
Piped means Cape Floral Region
You advize that Overberg should contain the words 'Cape Floral Region' so that Google will associate Cape Floral Region with our Overberg article.
Am I right ? If so we need lots of volunteers to fix the list ...
Correct on all three counts (sorry about the jargon!). The special tag #REDIRECT (name) can be used to create redirect pages.
Yeah, that's the way Wikivoyage works. Lots of volunteers write stuff, and lots of volunteers to editorial work. -- (WT-en) Mark 14:48, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

New Places in July - update before then? - volunteers?[edit]

Having quickly compared this list with the one at: (easier to read than the official one), it seems that there are still a few gaps.

It is probably worth trying to get the list sorted out so that it looks good when new places are added in July.

"The 29th Session of the World Heritage Committee will be held in Durban, South Africa from 10 to 17 July 2005"

I am happy to try to do South America, Italy, Spain and Croatia. Any volunteers for the rest? (WT-en) DanielC 06:51, 15 May 2005 (EDT)
2005 List Done. (WT-en) DanielC 08:38, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
2010 UPDATE: Before the new 2010 list arrives, I have compared our list to the official list, and added all missing sites. I haven't added missing pages, but at least they are all on our page. The 34th session of the committee meets July 25 - Aug. 3, so we'll have new sites then. They are considering 32 sites, but probably won't approve all of them. Last year they added 13, the year before 27. (WT-en) Bill Ellett 02:20, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
The UNESCO committee inscribed 21 new sites and extended eight during their 2010 meeting. I have updated the list accordingly. Their agenda indicates that they have completed consideration of new sites so I think that's all, though they continue meeting though Aug 3. (WT-en) Bill in STL 20:35, 1 August 2010 (EDT): new sites today (WT-en) Bill in STL 14:22, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

External links[edit]

These links are useful for research purposes: (moved from main page)

Editing guidelines[edit]

Proposal for how to handle various types of places:

  • If the site is within a city, link it to the city:
Historic Centre of [[Avignon]]
  • If the site could in the future be a destination, but is listed in a city now, create the destination as a redirect to the city:
[[Holasovice]] historical village reservation
Holasovice: #REDIRECT Ceske Budejovice
Messel Pit Fossil Site, near [[Darmstadt]]
  • If the site's official name is different from Wikivoyage's name, pipelink it:
[[Westland/Tai Poutini National Park|Westland National Park]]

Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:44, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Yep they sound like good guide lines though I have been linking to the 'Get Out' Section of nearest city just to avoid confusion if people follow the link and can't find relevant information. e.g. Messel Fossil Site the link is to Darmstadt#Go next. (WT-en) Meltwaterfalls 07:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Brazil's Atlantic Forest Reserves[edit]

Right, there are two UNESCO W.H. "sites" in Brazil that are infact a collection of seperate dispersed reserves. However, these reserves are pretty tiny, one is 11 hectares... would it be best to have a page for each site and then list the individual reserves there? -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 14:05, 4 July 2007 (EDT)


I have tagged all articles listed here as {{Related|UNESCO_World_Heritage_List}}, but ran out of time before I could tag them all. If anyone wants to continue, please do so, but update this comment so we know how far you got. I'll check back to continue with this tomorrow.

Wikivoyage:World Heritage Expedition[edit]

I've launched the Project:World Heritage Expedition to finally complete this. Let's get to work! (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Now that Jani has launched this expedition and this list should be getting some attention, would it make sense to add the year each site become a UNESCO site next to the listing? Basically just "Everglades National Park (1979)"? That would give some redundancy to the process since individuals could verify the list by country or by year, and it would have the added bonus of giving travelers an additional bit of info about the places listed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:29, 7 December 2008 (EST)
It's a bit of extra work, but why not? I'd also like to add pictures to liven up the table. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:45, 7 December 2008 (EST)
We could also do with adding the Related tags to the relevant articles as we go along. It looks like that task was begun (see previous discussion topic), but never completed.
Inspired by Jani's expedition I have today brought the related UNESCO Creative Cities page up to date and added all the relevant tags. A much easier task as there are only 16 of those! (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:14, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Another list[edit]

I just added a link to the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network, for parks of great geological interest. Searching WT for "geopark" shows we have articles mentioning quite a few of these. I think this needs its own article. but I don't have time. Volunteers? (WT-en) Pashley 08:23, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Alphabetical order?[edit]

It seems as though some countries have their sites listed by alphabetical order, while others are by year of inscription on the list? I think it makes more sense to have them in alphabetical order, especially for the longer lists, to make things easy to find. The year of inscription isn't really travel relevant, and we already are supposed to put it next to each site's listing for organizational purposes. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:46, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Agreed, should be in alphabetic order. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:35, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
Alphabetic order makes the most sense. Many of the listings are qualified with some noun though, e.g. "ruins of," "historic town of," "site of." I think it would be best to alphabetize by the specific name; for instance "Royal palaces of Abomey" would be under "A." --(WT-en) Jtesla16 23:11, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
That might complicate things, because a lot of these sites span more than one location. Some are difficult to place in country categories. It might save a lot of trouble later if they were put in alphabetical order according to their official name on the list. I do like the alphabetization, though. If anyone thinks it would be useful, we could organize it like they do on UNESCO's country pages, listing alphabetically, but separating natural from cultural. Here is the China page for an example [1](WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:11, 21 July 2009 (EDT)


Why is Australia the only country that has sites split by regions? Is there a reason for this? Shouldn't it be like all the others? 03:03, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Copper Canyon (Mexico)[edit]

Copper Canyon is listed under Mexico. However, it is not on the official UNESCO list of World Heritage sites. No mention of world heritage site in the Copper Canyon article on wikipedia. Listed as one of the "top 50 missing" sites on I did find some travel company websites which called it a world heritage site, in their exuberance. I think it should be deleted? The Understand section on Copper Canyon also says "The Copper Canyon is a UNESCO World Heritage Site."

(newbie on wikivoyage, less than a week experience, so still feeling my way on protocol and policy. Thanks) (WT-en) Bill Ellett 19:55, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Feel free to remove it. There was an effort started a while back to update the UNESCO list, but it looks like no one got to Mexico. Also, you're doing a great job thus far - thanks for your contributions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:03, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

Where should territories, protectorites, and similar islands be placed?[edit]

Our World Heritage List is arranged geographically, by continent. When an area is geographically separate from its main country, this can cause a problem. Frequently, we have placed islands where they appear geographically. For example, someone planning a trip to France is not helped by knowing that there is a World Heritage site in New Caledonia (South pacific), so it is listed under Oceania. The breadcrumbs trail we use is also based on geographic location, so Bermuda IsPartOf the Carribean, not Europe. When the island is considered in the same continent or world region as the main country, they are listed under the country. So Italian islands in the Mediterranean are still listed under Italy.

Wikivoyage seems not to let the bureaucratic oddities of organizations such as the UN dictate our structure. While their list shows all sites under the UN member which proposed the site, that should not confine us.

Before I either move the remaining islands to their appropriate world region or move the islands back to their parent country's listing, I want to seek consensus of which is right. (I would recommend moving the islands to the region where they are).

Should there be a link between the two locations? Someone apparently tried to do this for St Helena, though the display needs to be corrected. Should these sites be listed twice, once in the island and again in the primary country?

Affected entries include: Bermuda, Pitcairn Island, Netherland Antilles, Reunion Island, St Helena, New Caledonia, Gough Island, and Greenland.

It appears that in Wikivoyage, Hawaii has been well-defined as part of North America, so won't open that question here. (WT-en) Bill in STL 21:38, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

Per Project:Geographical hierarchy, bureaucratic divisions are generally not followed (as you've noted). In the examples you've cited above, I'd suggest following the existing Wikivoyage hierarchy (as denoted by the article's breadcrumbs), so an article like Pitcairn Islands is listed under Oceania, despite its association with the UK. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:15, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

World Heritage Articles[edit]

While many sites are just single-sites that are served well by our links to their respective cities, there are also a lot of sites that are given a single World Heritage Listing but actually contain many sites, sometimes even scattered about a country or across multiple countries. For these sites, I think it would better serve the traveler to have a separate article to list the sites and give a little information. That way we don't have those hideous mess sections, like Belgium's Flemish Beguinages. We can also avoid useless and somewhat offensive-to-the-traveler redirects, such as the Kii Mountains redirecting to Kansai which still doesn't tell anyone what sites in the region are part of the listing. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:42, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Any comments on this? I think it's important if we really want our list and links to be meaningful for those interested in World Heritage Sites to be specific about what/where the actual sites are. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 08:33, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
I guess they would be travel topics, then? I'd be more than happy to see those develop. Occasionally it might make sense to not have an article on a UNESCO site, though, in which case we could probably just mention it, and explain why it's not really something you can visit, on the region page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:39, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

New layout[edit]

I'd like to propose a new layout for this page; I've created a mockup (WT-en) here. I see a number of advantages with the new version:

  • I've included three new sections which will help the traveller.
    • The criteria is for those who are history-buffs looking for the Cultural sites, or nature-lovers looking for Natural sites.
    • The year assists those who may want to visit sites which have been recently added.
    • The notes section is multi-purpose, but mainly lets travellers know if a site is cross-country, or if it is "in danger" which may mean it's not safe to visit.
  • The fixed width table helps travellers scan info quickly down the page. It also reserves room on the right side for photos of some sites. (I don't feel there's a need to go crazy and have photos for every site like the Wikipedia article
  • The location has been separated from the "official name", as sometimes the name doesn't mention the location, like "Timgad, near Batna". The first column will never link out to articles unless if it's a national park or major location (Angkor), which is the only sites we'll ever create articles for.
  • The table is sortable, so can be sorted by location, year, etc.
  • There is a possibility of putting WH sites with a huge number of specific locations (ie, Belfries of France and Belgium) into collapsible lists within the table, although I'm still working this out.

Anyway, what do you guys think? If you wanted to see how more countries look in the table, I can certainly add more. (WT-en) JamesA >talk 02:01, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Great! (WT-en) Jjtk 02:47, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes, let's use this! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:12, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

New Zealand[edit]

With this edit I have:

  1. changed the listing order to chronological (earliest first) & from North to South
  2. expanded the (little known, even to Kiwis) designation of "Te Wahipounamu" (we have no - and in my opinion, should never have - an article for it) to our linked articles for the four constituent National Parks. I believe this expansion is more useful for the traveller, without looking too messy.

I hope this is uncontroversial! --W. Franke-mailtalk 15:08, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

Hey, I think it looks good. Actually, those are general guidelines I've been trying to follow! The official list is in date order, so we should do the same, just to have a standard. And I have also been "expanding" the designation of one site to mean multiple towns/national parks if that is what is necessary! When we get collapsible tables, we'll be able to put heaps of "subsites" as a result of one particular site. JamesA >talk 16:22, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

Border Issues[edit]

How do you think we should deal with countries spanning more than one continent? List all sites on one continent (like UNESCO does, resulting in Kamchatka volcanoes listed in Europe) or divide between two, with links maybe? Jjtk (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

I think dividing will get very messy and confusing. I think the best option is to keep them together, but don't follow the UNESCO guidelines, but what's logical. So, all of Russia and Turkey in Asia, all of Egypt in Africa, etc. The UNESCO site does other weird things, as well. Example, Reunion Island is listed under France, so therefore is in Europe. On our guide, we just let Reunion have its own header. JamesA >talk 10:42, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
I'm OK with whole Turkey in Asia (anyway it's only 1,5 listing in European part), Russia is more complicated - I'd hate to list St. Petersburg in Asia almost as much as Kamchatka in Europe. From a traveller point of view St Pete is Europe, few hours bus ride from Baltic states and Far East destinations are easier to reach from Asian countries, I guess. Jjtk (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
You're right, but I still feel that cutting the country in half so that it is listed in 2 places will get confusing, and where exactly do we draw the line? There may be disputes over where Europe ends and Asia begins within Russia. At this stage, we are keeping the UNESCO list as one huge article. If we were splitting it into different articles for different continents like Wikipedia, I'd support merging them off. But on the same page, keeping them together is the best option. Maybe it's best to have the views of others who have been uninvolved up to this point. JamesA >talk 11:45, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
Yes, would be great to get other opinions. My proposition for cutting looks like this [2], there shouldn't be any issues with the border between continents. If we decide that Russia should stay together on one continent, then I vote for Europe, there's more sites there. Jjtk (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
A+ for art skills! Jokes aside, I didn't realise there was such a gap between the Asian and European sides. I may be willing to go with your proposal in that case, as long as we make a note at the top of the page regarding the division. The map probably won't be needed within the article, haha! JamesA >talk 16:19, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
How do we deal with Hawaii? It's now listed under both North America and Oceania. --Globe-trotter (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
List it under USA with a link under Oceania, or vice versa. Pashley (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Other programs?[edit]

UNESCO has a bunch of other programs. I just ran across Asia-Pacific Programme of Educational Innovation for Development.

Do any of those need mention here? My guess is no, but it seems worth asking. Pashley (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


These tables (now replaced by Wikivoyage:World_Heritage_Expedition/Progress_tables) can help to see what the implementation status of the UNESCO banner icon is. Please add a country and a Tick when UNESCO icons are implemented in banners for all destinations in the country.

When adding icons, it might be a good idea to check for each destination if UNESCO is mentioned and linked. —The preceding comment was added by danapit (talkcontribs)

Nice idea. Would it be worth expanding this table and turning it into a checklist for a multitude of 'to-dos'. For starters, many sites do not even have articles; but then we could have a column for a mention of the site/UNESCO, for a banner, for photos, the status of the guide, etc. That could be staged at the Expedition of course. Thoughts? James Atalk 11:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. We could use the tables from the expedition site as a template? Which columns?

Site / has article / article status / has custom banner / has icon in banner / has photos / has UNESCO link / was featured / comments / ... ?

Other wishes? Danapit (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And yes, the progress tables could be added to the expedition. Any other ideas which columns should be added before I make the tables? Danapit
Sounds good to me! Although I wouldn't think 'was featured' is necessary, but up to you. James Atalk 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I started the tables under Wikivoyage:World_Heritage_Expedition/Progress_tables. --Danapit (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Ready for use, I guess. --Danapit (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, what do you guys think of transparent BG UNESCO icon in page banners? I've just tried it and it looks good. --Saqib (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
[[Dana, should we add UNESCO icon in a destination article where a tentative UNESCO site is located? --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Saqib, if you ask for my opinion, I'd say no. This could be mentioned in the article text, but I think we should reserve the icons to approved sites only. Danapit (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Some of Wikipedia's lists of World Heritage Sites include the sites' coordinates (example). What would you think about adding a Markers with the coordinates for each site here in the table so that they could all be plotted on a map just like POIs in destinations? It would also be great if we could add other UNESCO sites (UNESCO Creative Cities etc.) to that same map, but probably it's not possible to link from listings/markers in another article to a dynamic map in this article. Would it be a good idea or just a waste of time? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Tauric Chersonese and its Chora ?[edit]

This site is in the Crimea, and User:Eloi.sanmartin therefore moved it from the Ukraine section to Russia. I reverted; in my opinion we should list it where UNESCO does and they still list it in Ukraine.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. We list Jerusalem rather than putting the listing in Israel just the same as UNESCO does, so let's be consistent and go with UNESCO's list. People are getting way too excited over this Crimea thing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but perhaps there should be a brief note to that effect in italics at the start of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New 2014 Sites and perhaps even more[edit]

Great that Dana has added some of the new sites that UNESCO has put on their list in 2014. I have a feeling that there might be some sites still missing from our list here and several UNESCO logos missing from banners - not just new sites but a few older too. Someone who has time/is bored could at some point go through UNESCO's list site by site and make sure we've got them all here. (Ps. this could maybe be good a Featured Travel Topic sometimes). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

While all efforts to add sites is appreciated, generally in the past we agreed that all new sites should be added at the same time in the same edit (even without other details) just so we know the list is completely up-to-date, rather than any unsurity surrounding which new sites are missing and which are present. Or else we'll need to confirm all 1000 sites (again, this has been done in the past). James Atalk 10:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, don't worry, I'll make this task complete within the next weekend :) I am following the new 2014 additions here: [3]. The next will be adding the sites to the Wikivoyage:World Heritage Expedition/Progress tables where we can track their status, etc. I will do that completely bit by bit. --Danapit (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Splendid! A few days ago I was checking that facts are still present in the Discover articles, run into Golestan palace in Tehran which was inscribed last year per its description. As Tehran didn't have the icon in its banner I started wondering whether we're up to date. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
ϒpsilon, James A, I updated all 2014 changes from [4]. In some, but not all, cases I have added an icon and a short note to the destination. Within the coming days if I have a chance I'll update also the progress table by adding 2014 changes. Danapit (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice. The table looks eerily empty, though. Would like to help but it would be number six in my queue of WV-To Do. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sadly... I would like to keep the template up-to-date though, so that interested individuals can jump in and work on certain regions. I don't think I can fill up of the missing stuff by myself in a near future, but this table enables to work on UNESCO sites in a structured way. Danapit (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome work Danapit! UNESCO sites have always interested me, so I'll do my best to add some more details when I can. The progress table is very helpful. James Atalk 02:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, James A! The Progress tables are updated with the 2014 sites Yes. Now just the progress is missing ;) Danapit (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's get started. At the very least, each UNESCO WHS should be mentioned in the appropriate article, and that article should have the UNESCO icon in the banner. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, now each of the 1000+ sites (except maybe 4-5 sites with a huge amount of points spread over several countries) have a "home" article with the UNESCO icon. Most I think mention UNESCO with a link, though I didn't check out all of those articles that already had the icon. Will eventually move on with adding pics, banners and some info.
Perhaps this UNESCO section will never be complete, however I think this is a good start — now we have at least a skeleton. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

India, 2015[edit]

I have seen some 2015 inscriptions were added to India. Manoj Bhalodiaan, can you please help me find where they were announced? I haven't seen any 2015 new inscriptions at the UNESCO web site yet. Additionally, I wonder if maybe Amer Fort isn't a part of Hill Forts of Rajasthan. Thanks! --Danapit (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no 2015 inscriptions; the meeting is months away. All 2015 additions should be removed. It may be that they have announced they will review those sites this year at the meeting but no site should be added here until it is officially approved and added to the list by UNESCO. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think none of the site other than Amer Fort which is part of Hill Forts of Rajasthan is UNESCO site (tentative OR inscribed). Thus edits reverted! --Saqib (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking non-UNESCO Sites in UNESCO article[edit]

I was wondering if this edit [5] should be reverted. Being in the UNESCO World Heritage Site article, should we really be linking to content that is not the heritage site being highlighted? If someone is searching the this list, don't you think we should make it as easy as possible to keep the links relevant to the actual site? It can already be cumbersome to have to go to the article and find the site in order to get information about it (or find out there is none), but the extra links seem to detract even more. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you posted on the wrong page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ikan. Indeed I had two windows up and posted on the wrong one ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I quite agree, that non-related lins are distractive in this list. Danapit (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I started out by removing a link to Northern Germany (now a redirect) and than added links to some travel topic articles whose names were already mentioned verbatim. If we have them why should we not link them? Can't we trust our readers to think whether they want to click on a link that is exactly what it says on the tin? It's not like we are linking deceptively to entirely unrelated stuff. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Some of these places are tiny hamlets which we only list as part of large rural areas, but which are unlikely to ever meet Wikivoyage:What is an article? on their own. Red Bay, Labrador is one example; our Forteau page extends roughly from Red Bay to Blanc-Sablon, Québec over 100km of not much of anything there. K7L (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because "Roman Empire" is in the name, that does not necessarily make it a good or relevant link. For example, "Roman Empire Monuments, Cathedral of St. Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier" has Roman Empire in the name, but the information that is relevant and of interest for a UNESCO traveler is the Cathedral of St. Peter and the Church of Our Lady in Trier. UNESCO has some rather fluffy names at times, but providing links that send the traveler away from the actual sites is frustrating for the traveler. This article is difficult enough to use as it is with a lot of the actual World Heritage Sites not actually specified, many are not listed/mentioned in the articles they link to, and/or the article they link to is inappropriate. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I share ChubbyWimbus's point of view on linking from this article. In this list we should concentrate on providing a gate to UNESCO destinations (or regions, if no destination articles exist). Danapit (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

New 2015 sites[edit]

Attention! UNESCO's yearly conference is taking place right now. Some new sites have already been listed, but there are still sites to be examined. Once they're done, let's add all the new sites to our list and update the articles accordingly ASAP. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What to do with sites comprising tens of components?[edit]

This week UNESCO decided to add 20-something entries to their world heritage site list. I’ve added them to ours, and noticed that a couple have already been added. Most notably the Japanese Industrial Heritage. As you can notice, this is a site made up of several components and its listing takes up more space than all sites of the average country. For brevity’s sake the “location” of the site should be the region(s) the sites are located in, just like has been done with other sites in this list.

Speaking of sites that are made up of a lot of (let's say 10+) components AND spread over several regions or even countries, I think such sites could and should be made into travel topics. Yes, these would be "long list articles" but I think it'd be good to give readers a complete overview of each of these complicated world heritage sites. Also, it would be helpful for editors organizing world heritage sites into individual articles (it'd be easier to see in which destination article the UNESCO icon should be put and the site be mentioned). ϒpsilon (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I brought this topic up above under "World Heritage Articles" with only one response. It was also sort of asked about in the above Brazil's Atlantic Forest Reserves discussion. There are in fact a lot of these types of listings. In the past Belgium's belfries were all listed. With 33, it was a huge area but that list, which was long but more helpful to the traveler, is gone. It seems that there are only a few options; either list them here, list them all in another article and link to that section, or create World Heritage articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The more spread out the individual places are, and the larger number of them there are, the more I'd prefer to have a separate article for the site. I went through the list half a year ago, trying to find a destination article for each site, adding icons, pictures and such and noticed that there were quite a few sites that are so spread out that it's hard to write comprehensively about the site just one article. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Concerning the above discussion, I'd suggest systematically creating travel topics for complicated sites. To get an article on its own, the world heritage site should fulfil three criteria:

  • Consist of at least five separate components (components that themselves have an article, like national parks do not count).
  • The components should be located in at least three separate regions, where a region is defined as anything above city level.
  • Preferably the components should be so spread out that there are at least two components with at least, say 300 km/200 mi between them.

Comments? ϒpsilon (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I like your proposed criteria. It's a major issue in terms of the World Heritage List, as there are now lots of sites that comprise of multiple items. In the past, I've attempted to list the site in each individual region/town, but I think an article/travel topic on major ones would be a good idea. Common sense should come first, however, as there's the chance that some sites may meet the criteria but not be fit for a travel topic. James Atalk 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
If all the components of a World Heritage Site is located in the same city or the same region, it's of course easy to describe them there including the "big story" behind the WHS listing. Individual articles should be created only when and because this is impossible (WHS like the w:Belfries of Belgium and France or the w:Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty). And individual components should if possible also be listed in the cities or regions where they're located. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. However, we should still consider each site on a case-by-case basis. For example, what would you propose for w:Baroque Churches of the Philippines? Officially, UNESCO includes four separate sites across the country, which is less than the five necessary in the proposed criteria. However, I still believe an article may be useful, especially considering there are at least five further churches under consideration to be added to the listing which would be useful to talk about. Then there may be cases of the opposite, although I can't think of any off the top of my head right now. I do agree with your criteria, just trying to promote some discussion and point out that any criteria should only be advisory rather than mandatory ;) James Atalk 09:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of experience I know some of our more deletionist editors may disagree with having such articles altogether: "individual attractions shouldn't have their own articles" "I don't see why we couldn't cover these sites in destination articles just like other attractions" and so forth, this is why I set the bar rather high. Though yes, its probably possible to have articles for sites comprising less components (especially if they are geographically really far apart) but that needs to be discussed on a case by case basis.
Concerning the churches in the Philippines, I would at this point perhaps not start an article for them. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Instead of an article, would you list the locations/towns individually on the main UNESCO list then, similar to how it currently is? James Atalk 10:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, like UNESCO_World_Heritage_List#Philippines is now. And if the site grows in the future, we can always create an article for it. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Requiring the components be spread across 300km is arbitrary. Rideau Canal is approximately 200km, but gets its own article to avoid splitting coverage between Ottawa, Merrickville, Smiths Falls, Westport (Ontario), Battersea (Ontario) and Kingston (Ontario). Start an article if the destination is sufficiently complex to not fit in a listing or small group of listings (as we do with national parks, huge international airports and Pompeii-sized ghost towns) or spread geographically in such a way that the info would otherwise need to be duplicated into multiple destination articles. K7L (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly right. Pashley (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with K7L. Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions notes "Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article". Based on that criteria, if a UNESCO site is spread across multiple regions and there is a lot to say about it (more than just a couple of paragraphs), putting the info in a separate article should be fine no matter how far apart things are and whether it is in two regions or twenty. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites photographs from UNESCO available on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi all

I'm very happy to say the first 750 images of World Heritage sites from UNESCO have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I've set up a group of pages on Meta to help people see what content from UNESCO is available and which files are not used for each language and each Wikimedia project. The files include descriptions in several languages, typically the six official UN languages.


John Cummings (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO and Wikivoyage[edit]

Swept in from the pub
Proper light? Proper composition? Never heard about it
Good photo for the cover page, isn't it?

Hi all

I've set up a group of pages on Meta to help share content and data from UNESCO and improve information about UNESCO inscriptions (e.g World Heritage Sites) as part of my project as Wikimedian in Residence there.

UNESCO have just released 750 images of World Heritage Sites to Commmons, I've created a section to help people find which images from UNESCO aren't used in which languages including Wikivoyage. There is also a section for creating and improving Wikivoyage articles across all the languages but its current quite limited.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of these images are of extremely low quality, see two examples here on the right. In my opinion, such photos should not botch Wikivoyage articles. We can find much better stuff on Commons and Flickr. --Alexander (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The second image is certainly more beautiful than the first, but I think describing either of them as "extremely low quality" is a gross exaggeration. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither of them is up to our visual standards, that's a fact. Ibaman (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Andre, there are basic things like carrying the camera straight, choosing the right composition, and taking care about the light. Open the second photo, and you will see some strange reflection in the middle of the photo. I would not post such a bad photo in Facebook, let alone illustrating the travel guide.
I am closely involved in Wiki Loves Earth/Monuments competitions and know very well that most of these "UNESCO" photos will get the lowest grades there. It is low quality simply because making a photo of even lower quality is impossible. --Alexander (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Point taken about the reflection in the second photo, which I missed until I blew it up to full screen. Still, speaking broadly, I think it's a mistake to get too hung up about questions like if the lighting is perfect or whether the camera is held exactly straight. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a photography exhibition. The pictures do their job if they accurately illustrate some aspect of the destination. If they also happen to be stunning-quality images, so much the better, but that's not as essential as we're making it out to be in this conversation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I would agree if very distant and hard-to-reach destinations were considered. But UNESCO objects are not such. They may even have a special category for quality images, as for the Admiralty building in Saint Petersburg here. Make a search on Commons and find loads of better photos. --Alexander (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. Anyone making an effort to imporove Wikimedia projects is appreciated. Constructive criticism of those efforts is useful, we just need to try and make sure not to be dismissive of these efforts.
  2. No one should be adding poor pictures to articles if better images are already present, but if no image is present to illustrate an important site then a mediocre image is usually better than nothing. If we already have good images of most UNESCO sites then this new effort will be better off highlighting areas that lack coverage and/or highlighting areas where high quality new images are available.
-- Ryan • (talk) • 18:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments is a much better way to collect good pictures of tourist attractions. If you are interested in this effort, do WLM. It needs more volunteers for both national and international contests. --Alexander (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
A list about "which images from UNESCO aren't used"? This sounds not a little backwards (especially as not all images are good). On Wikimedia Commons it is clear that we will not use all images, we want to have images from which to choose. The right question would be what articles would benefit from some of these images. Are there articles about a destination with a UNESCO site without an image of that site? Then a pointer to the relevant images (a Commons category?) could be posted on the talk page of the article. A general list is also useful, if it is sorted by destination (in some sense).
I think the best way to get these images used would be to make sure they are in the relevant Commons categories, which they seem not to be. Then people working on an article can compare it with other images of the object and choose the best one for any given purpose. There is no reason we would want specifically to use an UNESCO image – but UNESCO providing them of course increases the chance we find a good image to use to show the object.
--LPfi (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I take your points, some of the images are quite old so the quality isn't going to be great, I'd point you to the images below for some examples of higher quality ones
Regarding categorisation, they have all been added to the category of the official site names, however Commons doesn't always have an existing category, its a mixture of images being added for sites with no other photos and slightly mismatched category names. I'm trying to find a tool to find the redlink categories, if anyone knows one please do let me know.
I would love to be able to provide a tool to find Wikimedia articles on the subjects without an image, I'm not sure how it could be done, any ideas welcome, my assumption is it would be done through Wikidata to find all the articles and then searching the text for File: .
John Cummings (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Guardian: Half of world heritage sites threatened by development, says WWF Pashley (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

New sites are coming[edit]

FYI, in a few days it's time for UNESCO's yearly conference, this year with 29 proposed new sites. As usual, let's remember to update our list. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So, the conference is over and the final number of new sites seems to be 21. I've added them all to this list and it looks like Jonte has started adding UNESCO icons to the appropriate articles. Jonte, if you're unsure in which article the UNESCO icon belongs (and, needless to say, where the attraction should be mentioned :)) you can just check out the list and save a few minutes of googling for coordinates. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I realised I'm not doing it in a very structured way (which is true to most of my editing). Good to have the list. --Jonte-- (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A year and a half ago our UNESCO section was in a deplorable state, a great deal of sites weren't mentioned in any article, or it wasn't mentioned in the article that an attraction was a world heritage site, banner icons were missing etc. It took almost a month to get everything organized and up to date, so after this I tend to be very systematic when it comes to this part of Wikivoyage. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The 2017 conference will start in a little more than a week, so let's remember to add the new sites when they've approved them. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Separate articles for countries?[edit]

Our Italian colleagues have gone a little further with their UNESCO list. Not only do they have a list with all WHSs, but also separate articles for each country with coordinates of all sites in that country (example).

What do you think, would it be a good idea to have similar lists here at en-WV too? We actually already have one such article: UNESCO World Heritage List (India) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of having the same info in two places, doubling the maintenance work for little or no benefit. Also I think there might be problems for countries with few WH sites, for cross-border sites like the Sundarbans or multi-nation game parks, and probably others I have not thought of.
Is it enough to just link to the relevant section of the list from the "other destinations" section of country articles as I have done at China#Other_destinations. Could this be done automatically by adding something to a template?
Could we offload the whole problem, put the whole list — including things we do not currently have like a link to the UNESCO citation — into Wikidata and just link to it from city, region & country articles here? Pashley (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm also not that much of a fan of ~200 new UNESCO articles, but wanted to hear what other people think. Let's just keep things like they are, then. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I've said this at least 3 times now, but just for kicks: It would be useful to make articles about WH listings that consist of many sites, such as the Belgian belfries, Kumano Kodo, Okinawa's Ryukyu sites, Meiji Industrial Sites, etc. This article is not useful for those kinds of listings. For country listings, it might make sense for a small nation that someone could realistically plan to visit all/most of them in a trip but is of very limited use for large countries. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
We have at least one itinerary, World Heritage Sites Tour in Sri Lanka, that covers all the sites in a small country. Pashley (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Articles for WHSs with several components would be an excellent idea. I suggested it too last year, and was even about to start creating articles but didn't have time or something. But I'm not sure if we need itineraries for WHSs that have the only thing in common that they are located in the same country. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
So it seems the result is: WH articles would be useful for listings with multiple sites and possibly useful for small countries, and are permissible for large countries if a user really wants to create them, but they're not necessary to create. Even those that are very useful are still best created by a user willing to put at least enough effort into the article to add everything that it's about. Is that pretty much it? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much it. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Going through the site list I counted up to 20 sites that might merit an article on their own, because they are (1.) composed of a lot of components and (2.) they are spread out over a large number of regions, in many cases across several countries. Their might be more of them, but these are the ones I noticed: 1. Belfries of Belgium and France 2. Australian Convict Sites 3. The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement 4. Sites of Japan's Meiji Industrial Revolution: Iron and Steel, Shipbuilding and Coal Mining 5. Stecci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards 6. Imperial tombs of the Ming and Qing dynasties 7. China Danxia 8. Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range 9. Baroque Churches of the Philippines 10. Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps 11. Flemish beguinages 12. Fortifications of Vauban 13. Canal du Midi 14. Primeval Beech Forest of the Carpatians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany 15. Longobards in Italy, Places of Power 16. Wooden Tserkvas of the Carpatian Region in Poland and Ukraine 17. Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula 18. Decorated Farmhouses of Hälsingland 19. Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis 20. Qhapaq Nan, Andean Road systems 21. Atlantic Forest South-East Reserves 22. Discovery Coast Atlantic Forest Reserves

I will probably create articles for most of them at some point, some might not merit articles after all if they can be described in, say, one or two region articles. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've created the articles I thought were worth creating. The ones that are still redlinks weren't after all (IMO) so spread out, or in a few cases they comprised an insane number of different components or the article would've been a long list of codes instead of normal names. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Supposedly UNESCO is releasing a few thousand images of World Heritage Sites. They will be going here Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Should these articles keep on being classified as World Heritage Site articles?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Most of the articles that are classified on the English Wikivoyage as World Heritage articles (that have a WHS category and WHS symbol in their banners) either are about a single site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, or are a city/town/village which contains at least one site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. Nevertheless, we ALSO have the following exceptions I listed below (which I am suspecting might have been classified as World Heritage Site articles by mistake by new editors) that are about much larger areas (such as wide regions/districts of a country or even a country).

Because of this, I wanted to suggest that we reconsider removing the World Heritage articles classification from all of the following articles I listed below:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)I can come to think of at least two reasons why these articles have the WHS icon. Sometimes the WHS is composed of tens of different components/sub-sites spread over a large area (one or several regions). Secondly, a WHS might be located far away from any place that has an article or could merit an article; especially true for natural attractions this is not uncommon. Also, please refer to the See section in the articles; articles that have the WHS icon should have the site(s) located in the article's domain listed.
This is by the way the reply to the question you asked in the thread right below; a site is not always located in just one city district but spread all over the city (and the component might not be as significant when looked upon out of context, that is apart from the other components making up the WHS), wherefore it's most practical to keep the symbol in the main city article. However in the case that the site is located in just one district, then the symbol, just as any listing, should be in the district article rather than the main city article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable to assign at least one UNESCO icon for each listing on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Usually that would be on the article closest to the actual heritage being listed, whether it's a park, a city or just a large rural area covered as a city/bottom-level destination. The UNESCO icon for "Rideau Canal and fortifications" is on the Rideau Canal itinerary, not on Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Merrickville, Smiths Falls, Newboro and Kingston. The icon for Waterton Glacier International Peace Park appears on an extraregion and on the two constituent parks, but not on North America as the containing region. Red Bay is listed at Forteau, a ridiculously-large but sparsely-populated rural area which covers a few villages across the entire mainland side of the Strait of Belle Isle. The other side of the strait, Newfoundland's Great Northern Peninsula is a similarly-ridiculous large rural area which bears the UNESCO icon for the Anse-aux-Meadows Viking archaeological site. Mistaken Point, as an archaeological site somewhere along the 200km-long Trepassey and the Irish Loop, is more of the same.
I see that many of the places listed above are region articles. If there's a park, an itinerary or a group of small rural villages (which we're prone to treat as one "city" if that gives a bottom-level destination of reasonable size) then by all means move the icon to the more specific article. If it's notable enough for UNESCO, it's notable enough to get some mention in Wikivoyage below the region level - if not as a village, then as a park or an itinerary. I wouldn't remove the icon from the region article until the appropriate destination articles have been created and the icon moved there; a UNESCO-listed destination with no bottom-level article would be a good candidate for creation (either on its own or as part of a wider rural group of villages) or for nomination on Wikivoyage:Requested articles. This list may find many articles which should exist, but which aren't yet on en.voy. K7L (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I can reply for the cases of Ticino and Graubünden. They both have two sites each, of which only one is covered at a bottom-level article (Bellinzona). In the case of Ticino, I suggest we leave the symbol there until maybe an article for Mendrisio or something closer to the Monte San Giorgio site is created. For the Graubünden case, I added the UNESCO symbol to Engadin as that's where the Benedictine Convent of St. John at Müstair is located. As for the Albula and Bernina lines, being train lines, they go through several regions within Graubünden and even Italy, so I really think the main Graubünden article should probably stay listed. Drat70 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't these articles also be classified as World Heritage Site articles?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Usually, when a city contains at least one site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, the article about that city on the English Wikivoyage is classified as a World Heritage article (it has a WHS category and a WHS symbol in the banner). Nevertheless, we ALSO have the following exceptions I listed below (which I am suspecting haven't been classified as World Heritage Site articles because no one has noticed this up until now).

Because of this, I wanted to suggest that we reconsider adding the World Heritage articles classification to all of the following articles I listed below:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but if we do that then the UNESCO flag will become mostly worthless. What information are we trying to convey is we say New York City is a UNESCO site? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Andrewssi2 - So you are saying that we should refrain from classifying ALL city articles that have sub articles about UNESCO World Heritage Sites as UNESCO World Heritage Sites articles? Or should we only make the main NYC article an exemption while having all the rest of them classified as as UNESCO World Heritage Sites articles? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on UNESCO, so do please correct me if I'm wrong about this. As far as I can tell, New York has precisely one UNESCO site, the Statue of Liberty ( w:List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_the_United_States . New York city has a population of over 8 million.
So it is just my opinion that one statue doesn't confer UNESCO status over an entire city. However if our rules say that is how it should be then I won't object. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
If the site is just in one district (which is the case for the cities above) or perhaps two, it's best to have the icon in that/these district's article. On the other hand, if one site has parts in a lot of districts/spread all over the city (like the Banks of Seine in Paris), then it makes sense to have it in the city article. In the same way, if a site is spread over a region (especially with cities and towns that don't have articles on their own) it makes sense to put the icon in the region article. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Every place should belong to one (and only one) non-overlapping bottom-level destination article. This may mean splitting huge, Paris-sized cities into arrondisements, boroughs or districts. This may mean grouping a small city and surrounding rural villages together (so Picher OK, a ghost town, appears at Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby) or treating a huge, Anticosti-sized rural area (one village and a hundred miles of provincial parkland) as one bottom-level entity. Red Bay (a tiny coastal outport with a UNESCO-listed archaeological site) is listed at Forteau, which covers the entire southern coast of Labrador. Unless UNESCO has added the entire region to their lists, placing the icon at the region level is merely a stopgap until the appropriate local bottom-level article (or an itinerary, for something like the Rideau Canal or a historic rail line) can be created.
Our existing policy is to push individual {{listing}}s out of the region articles (which should only be an overview) into individual destination articles. A destination notable enough for a UNESCO listing should have a local article of some sort, even if it groups multiple rural villages as a single "destination". K7L (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I arranged all the UNESCO sites in 2015 (back then more than half of them weren't mentioned anywhere) listing each of them in at least one article. I tried to be as careful as I could with creating new articles, yet still someone thought it was a bad idea creating a lot of new empty articles. Perhaps for WHS that are spread out (e.g. "Belfries of Belgium and France" made up of 56 components) it would be best to have just one travel topic article for the WHS and list all of the places there. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason to create empty articles; presumably you're creating the page because there's something to see or do which you want list there? K7L (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm afraid articles with just one see listing in them will be regarded by some people as "empty", especially if someone creates, say, twenty or fifty such articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here. But I'm not seeing anyone on those talk pages actuality saying that it's a problem for you to create articles to list the UNESCO sites. An editor asked you about the articles on your talk page, you explained and addressed his concerns. As for the conversation that editor started at the Deletion policy talk page: He never mentioned you or your UNESCO work, until you brought it up. And when you did bring it up, everybody was supportive of your work!
If an editor has an actual objection to what you're doing, it's up to him to speak up. Otherwise, I think you can go ahead. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The point is that this sort of article creation raises some red flags, thanks to editors like "pcv" and perhaps also the Telstra vandal, and you then have to explain what you're doing. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, I myself am not a fan of creating new pages for stuff that would fit into already existing articles. To get back to the issue at hand, I still think that if there is a WHS made up of a great number of components we should describe them in one article (be it a travel topic for that WHS, like the Painted Monasteries, or in the region article (by the way, as a rule our region articles generally suffer from a lack of content)) rather than creating several new articles that usually end up with just that see listing. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Actuality, I did miss something: The timestamp. Those discussions are from 2015, I thought they were current discussions. I didn't sleep well last night. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] So a couple of comments: (1) Sure, in districted cities, it's possible to put the UNESCO symbol in the article(s) for the district(s) that have UNESCO cultural heritage sites. (2) Just what is the harm in having the UNESCO stamp on an article for such a major tourism draw as New York City? Do you think having or not having one will have the slightest effect on how many people visit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - my question was what do you want to say with the UNESCO symbol on New York City? If we add symbols and icons and other visual effects to articles then they should mean something relevant to the traveler. If it isn't relevant then it devalues the UNESCO symbol and clutters the article.
ϒpsilon mentions that Paris has Unesco sites spread across it, which makes the Unesco symbol relevant at City article level. New York with only one site, I (fully respectfully) suggest not Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize New York wasn't already marked with the UNESCO symbol. I would suggest putting it in only the article for Manhattan/Financial District, because that article includes a listing for the Statue of Liberty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Statue of Liberty is indeed the only World Heritage Site in New York, and the logo is already in the appropriate article. Sydney and Seoul, again, have more than one site but if my memory serves me right each of them is confined to exactly one district, so the symbols are better located in those districts. The case with Paris, on the other hand, is different; there is one site, Banks of the Seine, that continues across six or seven arrondissements of the city... ϒpsilon (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Central America[edit]

Since we are using Central America as a region on WV, it would make sense to also split up this list accordingly.

To me it is not clear that Central America is part of North America. Countries like Costa Rica and Panama feel more like South American countries when I think about them.

Any objections?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I object. Central America is as much part of North America as India is part of Asia. Both are geographically separate but are considered parts of those continents on this site, and I don't expect that to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
True, Asia is equally confusing. Just very hard to find any country based on these continent definitions when used to the ones of WV used for regions. Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd be OK with subdividing each continent into regions if that would be more readable. What I'm not OK with is treating regions the same way as continents. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright[edit]

Eight works of architecture by Wright have just been added to the WHL as a single serial site. I've added the listing to the page, but it's a bit awkward due to how spread out it is. I listed just the six states, but really we should drill down to the bottom-level articles. That'll take up quite a bit of space, though. Thoughts? Powers (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

List and link just the bottom level articles, with the state only included in short form (if necessary).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done this (although I hid the names of the district articles I linked, using the city name instead, and I pipelinked "Mill Run" to Ohiopyle). I've also added the UNESCO icon to all eight articles. Powers (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Wright almost certainly deserves a section at Architecture#Well-known_architects Pashley (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this one too deserves its own article, like other world heritage sites that are very spread out. Ypsilon (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Minimally, we probably should have an article for this "site". I also redlinked Frank Lloyd Wright as he is a popular subject of American tourism and a page listing those of his works that are open for tours could be useful. Powers (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes Done I've added the UNESCO sites, feel free to expand the article. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)