Talk:United Nations

Do we really need this article? Does UN merit its own article? --Saqib (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it exists to cover sites where you can visit UN offices as a tourist, I don't see a problem with this as a travel topic. It shouldn't get into too much encyclopedic detail about the make-up, activities, or history of the UN of course, but that is not currently a problem. Texugo (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Travel relevance

This looks like a legitimate travel topic, but most of "Understand" is encyclopedic and irrelevant. I think it's very important to keep that section brief and travel-focused. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be best to make this article a disambiguation page among the UN offices, linking to their listings at the appropriate destination articles. Those listings will always be more up-to-date on those articles, and there's no point in duplicating the information here. Plus, as you said, the rest of the text is not very relevant. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I still think this is a valid travel topic, and someone could easily type "United Nations" as a search term. But "Understand" needs to be pared down. I'll try my hand at it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

UNESCO tag ?

Swept in from the pub

Hey guys, in the past I've added the unesco=yes flag on pagebanners for places that are on the UNESCO World Heritage list. What do you think about adding it to parks that are on the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve list, or articles for cultural attractions that are on the UNESCO Intangible Culture of Humanity list? I think the flag would be okay on any of those types of articles, but wanted to see what the consensus is. Okay to use it for any type of article? Mrkstvns (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I'd assume by default that it exclusively refers to world-heritage sites only. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to make the same assumption. How hard would it be to create separate tags for Biospheres, UNESCO Global Geoparks Network, UNESCO Creative Cities & UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage? Would that be worthwhile? Pashley (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they've been for world heritage sites only. If I remember correctly UNESCO has logos for the others categories also (one of them was light green..?), we could maybe import them and use them like the WHS logo. Ypsilon (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see these imported – what's everyone else's thoughts on adding the other logos to pagebanners? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If y'all want to import other UNESCO logos, I'll happily use them, but I know you guys are busy with other things, so I'm also happy to just stick to the World Heritage Sites if that's what you think is best.Mrkstvns (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The existing logo is certainly intended for World Heritage sites only. Is there a recognizable Biosphere logo? And if so, do we have enough articles that cover reserves in a 1:1 manner? Most Biosphere Reserves on our list aren't linked to an article. Some of the park articles cover a national park that is larger or smaller than the designated Biosphere. In these cases, in the interest of accuracy, an in-text icon for a description of a park's relationship to a Biosphere Reserve might be more appropriate than a banner flag. Gregsmi11 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all UNESCO sites should be tagged/listed, not just the World Heritage Sites. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess someone needs to look through UNESCO's websites for logos.

The WHS's should be up to date. Around 2017 our coverage was very patchy so I spent months adding tags and listings to articles to have each world heritage site mentioned in one destination article. After that I've followed the world heritage conferences (including the recent 2023 edition) to keep our list and articles up to date.

The other lists (UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO Global Geoparks Network, UNESCO Creative Cities, UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves) were updated around the same time, but sites that UNESCO has listed later might not have been added. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting officially proposed but not yet officially accepted UNESCO sites such as Dayton Aviation Heritage Site (Ohio, USA). The United Nations keeps an official list of proposed but not yet accepted sites on their website. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think we should tag only the actually designated sites; maintaining the list & tags requires considerable work (hurray for those who have been doing it) & I would oppose adding to that work, unless those doing it say "yes".

Nominations could of course be mentioned in the destination articles. Pashley (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Would a template for links to the proposed list come in handy? Pashley (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Should w:Memory of the World Programme sites also be tagged? Pashley (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of it. I think it's interesting and would be good to note. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should replace the |unesco= parameter in {{pagebanner}} with the |whs= parameter, and introduce |ich= (Intangible Cultural Heritage), |gg= (Global Geoparks), |cc= (Creative Cities) and |bsr= (Biosphere Reserves). I'm gonna test the proposal in Template:Pagebanner/sandbox. Similarly, the {{unesco}} template should be moved to {{whs}}. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I can't show testcases of pagebanner, unlike other templates, I'm using permanent links to demonstrate the proposed template. For example, Kolkata (Intangible Cultural Heritage), Varanasi (Creative City) and Sundarbans (World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the template requires some CSS code that requires an interface admin to add the code. @Andyrom75:, any chance you could do this (since you're the only active int. editor). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The sandbox code is available at Template:Pagebanner/sandbox/styles.css. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@SHB2000, no problem, I can do it. One question, since all the parameters refer to a UNESCO branch, wouldn't be better to add a prefix to all of them? Something like: |unesco_whs=, |unesco_gg=, etc. or |unescoWHS=, |unescoGG=, etc. or others. What do you think?

@Sbb1413 bsr & cc has the same icon. Is this correct? Andyrom75 (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with either, TBH. They both have benefits of their own. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Having self-explanatory template and parameter names is good. "whs", "gg" etc. say nothing and have to be looked up in the template documentation when you see them in the page code. "unesco_x" tells enough for me to know whether I should look it up, so I prefer such forms. There is more to type, but if you add them to a few pages, that's no issue. If you add them to many pages, then you should copy and paste or automate the task, not type, so the number of letters is even less of an issue. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Andyrom75: "bsr & cc has the same icon. Is this correct?" I'm currently using the UNESCO logo as placeholder icons for BSR and CC. Although the logo for Biosphere Reserves exists (File:Man and the Biosphere Programme Logo.svg), the white background of the logo needs to be removed. I can't find the logo that represents the whole Creative Cities program. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413, maybe we can use for BSR what you have found, while waiting for someone that will create a new image with a better background. At least people can get familiar with the logo. At the same time, for CC only, we can use the generic UNESCO logo while we'll keep on trying to understand if exist a dedicated logo. What do you think? Andyrom75 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

While waiting for @Sbb1413 reply, I've taken a quick look to the template. A couple of notes:

• After the implementation of the new parameters (we agreed on "unesco_xxx"), I'll keep the old one ("unesco") to avoid that all the current logo will disappear at once. Maybe I'll create a temporary category (e.g. "UNESCO icon to be fixed") that will contain all the article with the old parameter (approx 1 600). Once that category will be emptied, the old parameter and the temporary category could be definitely deleted
• Currently, all the "UNESCO articles" fall into "Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites". Do we want to:
  1. keep this sole category for all the new parameters?
  2. keep it but also create a new category for each new parameter?
  3. create the new categories and delete the old one (once emptied)?

Let me know, Andyrom75 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback, I've been bold :-) and I've done the following:

1. implement the new unesco parameters using this syntax: unesco_xxx, keeping also the existing one for compatibility (i.e. unesco_whs, unesco_ich, unesco_gg, unesco_cc, unesco_br). Note: I've changed bsr into br, since I've used like for the other just the initials of Biosphere Reserves.
2. I've differentiated all the icons, although one should be improved, to avoid visual ambiguity
3. I've created all the new categories (i.e. Category:UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Category:UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage, Category:UNESCO Global Geoparks, Category:UNESCO Creative Cities, Category:UNESCO Biosphere Reserves), keeping the existing one.
4. For each one of the new categories I've linked a dedicated landing page (i.e. UNESCO_World_Heritage_List, UNESCO_Intangible_Cultural_Heritage, UNESCO_Global_Geoparks_Network, UNESCO_Creative_Cities, UNESCO_World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves)

Please check that all works properly and let me know about any issue that may arise.

PS Is there anyone that wants to update the documentation? :-) Andyrom75 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the implementation. However, I think you should create UNESCO tag to be fixed for pages using the |unesco= parameter. Also, I've used |unesco_ich= for Kolkata but the logo doesn't appear despite the page is and the page doesn't seem to be categorised at UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've updated both the documentation and the TemplateData. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413, thanks for updating the documentation. I've added the temporary maintenance category. Once emptied the old unesco parameter could be deleted and the template updated.

Kolkata now is correctly categorized. I've fixed a typo in the template.

Regarding the "hidden icons" I've initially thought it was a cache problem, since persists, I'll further investigate and let you know. Andyrom75 (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The icons are now working, thank you. Now I want to rename the {{unesco}} template to {{unesco whs}} or something. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413, actually, all icons work but the one of unesco_br. I don't understand why. Any suggestion, or an alternative icon, would be appreciated. All works now. The problem was another typo :-)

Regarding {{Unesco}}, I would be inclined to use a redirect. This will avoid to modify all the articles and will still allow all the editor to use the "shorter name". Andyrom75 (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Andyrom75: It seems that Special:Diff/4754139 seems to have broken the icons on pagebanners. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And it changed the font of the text too – could you please self-revert your edit ASAP? TIA, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now I propose {{UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage}}, {{UNESCO Global Geoparks}}, {{UNESCO Creative Cities}} and {{UNESCO Biosphere Reserves}} templates that would work like {{UNESCO World Heritage Site}}. I don't like the policy of discussing templates before using them widely. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@SHB2000, as you may have seen I've done the opposite: delete the code in the template keeping it in Commons. I've waited almost 1h before modifying the approach, because of cache delay. Briefly: everything was under control ;-)

@Sbb1413, create the template you think are more appropriate, however I would suggest to avoid to create too many redirect. I mean {{UNESCO WHS}} is fine, but maybe {{Unesco whs}} could be unnecessary. If you agree, I would delete this second one. Andyrom75 (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413, I've deleted the second and I've fixed an issue with double redirecting. If you are autonomous to create the above template, it would be great, otherwise let me know and I'll support you. Andyrom75 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, Andyrom! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I just discovered World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme (WHEAP), unknown to me but linked at Talk:architecture. Are there more? Pashley (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a tag for Ramsar sites? Pashley (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)