YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:UNESCO World Heritage List

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 4 June 2007 and 10 July 2007.

Hey, this is so great that this is getting started! I also like that it's keeping in line with the Wikitravel:What is an article? guidelines. --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? DhDh 16:28, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)
A possibility: User:Dhum Dhum/UNESCO DhDh 18:10, 29 Nov 2003 (PST)
I'm currently changing the format somewhat, so the sites are more conveniently arranged. 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? --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. -- 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:bobkemp 20:00, 26 Sept 2004

Sounds like a good idea ! How would you feel about plunging forward with that? -- Mark 15:18, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Okay. In the next few days, hopefully. -- User: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: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. -- 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: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. 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. Jpatokal 07:59, 15 May 2005 (EDT)
Just to clarify for 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 Wikitravel works. Lots of volunteers write stuff, and lots of volunteers to editorial work. -- 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? DanielC 06:51, 15 May 2005 (EDT)
2005 List Done. 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. 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. Bill in STL 20:35, 1 August 2010 (EDT): new sites today 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 Wikitravel's name, pipelink it:
[[Westland/Tai Poutini National Park|Westland National Park]]

Opinions? 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#Get Out. 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? -- 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.

  • Done to the end of Mali. Pashley 07:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Wikitravel:World Heritage Expedition[edit]

I've launched the Wikitravel:World Heritage Expedition to finally complete this. Let's get to work! 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. -- 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. 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! 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? 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. --Peter Talk 14:46, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Agreed, should be in alphabetic order. 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." --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]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 wikitravel, less than a week experience, so still feeling my way on protocol and policy. Thanks) 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. -- 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.

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

Per Wikitravel: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 Wikitravel hierarchy (as denoted by the article's breadcrumbs), so an article like Pitcairn Islands is listed under Oceania, despite its association with the UK. -- 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. 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. 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. --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 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. JamesA >talk 02:01, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Great! Jjtk 02:47, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes, let's use this! --Peter Talk 16:12, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
Looks good to me, too. Pashley 22:48, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Question about site "troubles"[edit]

While I have no trouble with the UNESCO "list", rarely does a month go by that I don't see some article lamenting damage to one or more listed and often newly-famous sites. Apparently, sudden fame is too often not accompanied by needed protections by site managers. Is the article worth a constructive statement (by someone better-informed about the list and sites than I) that notes the problem, gives examples and encourages visitors to take great care while there? Regards, Hennejohn 17:57, 16 August 2012 (EDT)