Talk:List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription

Work in progress
I am working to compete this (already I think it is quite useful). Some feel that it should be complete before it is linked with the UNESCO World Heritage page_

Bruinfan12 (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have updated most of the 2011 inscriptions.

Bruinfan12 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Layout
I think the (F) sign denoting the country's first inscription, should appear next to the country, not next to the site. -- ELEKHHT 04:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/616BPHnJu?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1220 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1220
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61F7YBBDB?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016060027/http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1013 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160520123303/http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1012 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1012
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YRivb4Hu?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/426 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/426
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170224235652/http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/409 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/409
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uVrSgOrH?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/217 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/217
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160208184607/http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/131 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/131

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Libya flag
The flag of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for World Heritage Sites in Libya inaugurated before 2011 is wrong. Could somebody please replace the flag with the correct flag. Stunts1990 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 nominations
Resources:
 * Updating timetable of debates = https://whc.unesco.org/document/188313
 * Nominations and draft resolutions to be modified/voted on:
 * http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2021/whc21-44com-8B-en.pdf
 * http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2021/whc21-44com-8B-Add-en.pdf

Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The rest of this thread was basically used as a draftspace for me to list if such articles on these nominated sites currently existed on Wikipedia. They now can be found in the page history. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this not bother anybody?
UNESCO capitalizes World Heritage and World Heritage List and World Heritage Convention and World Heritage Committee and World Heritage Centre and World Heritage Site Managers' Forum, but they never capitalize site in World Heritage site (a term they seldom use, but never cap except when part of a site name). Yet Wikipedians insist on capping Site and Sites even in contexts like the title here where it's clearly not a part of or related to any proper name. For some reason, a lot of books started doing this over-capping circa 1990. But not to the degree that it satisfies the MOS:CAPS criterion of "consistently capitalized in reliable sources". In fact, most of those seem to be from putting "World Heritage Site" into the names of specific sites, not the generic uses. Am I the only one that's bothered by this obvious over-capitalization? Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With the relative traffic here, I doubt you'll get any more responses here than what you might get on Talk:World Heritage Site, or if you even attempted another RM discussion there like you did in December 2018. That said, I believe that nobody seems bothered due to the WP:NCCPT guideline regarding proper names in article titles, as well as consistency in article titles. The current consensus on the main World Heritage Site page it to treat "Site" as part of its proper name, so the other sub-articles like this one should do so as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find the capitalisation of the whole "World Heritage Site" thing cringey. This is English, not German. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "world heritage site" as a common nominal construction, just like "yellow tree house". And even if we accept "World Heritage" as a proper name, there is no need to capitalise the s in "site" as well. It's not "Italian Pasta" but "Italian pasta". Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the current consensus on Talk:World Heritage Site is to treat the entire "World Heritage Site" as a proper name, not just "World Heritage", per Talk:World Heritage Site and the ones before that. That is why the capitalisation here of "Site" too, and in many other World Heritage articles. If there was consensus to treat the entire "Italian Pasta" as a proper noun, instead of the lowercase in "Italian pasta", you can bet you would see the capital "P" in articles too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that current consensus is the bothersome thing I'm inquiring about. It is absolutely not in accord with WP:NCCPT.  Dr. Vogel, re the "World Heritage" part, there's less question; it's consistently capped in sources, as by UNESCO. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can live with the "World Heritage" bit being capitalised, because you could argue that, ultimately, it means more than just "world heritage". You could argue that everything around you is actually world heritage, but World Heritage refers specifically to certain items chosen by UNESCO. Fine, I can accept that. But "Site" is cringey. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But 3 years ago a bunch of Wikipedians decided to cap "Site", without good reason.  This is among the inconsistencies of style that bother me most. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, List of World Heritage in Danger is the only page I see that does not have the word in the page title. However, the article prose still has the "S" capitalised like all the rest. Ultimately, as the third paragraph WP:NCCPT implies, consensus determines how capitalisation conventions are applied, regardless of WP:OFFICIALNAMES or WP:MOSTM. There is nothing stopping you from opening another RM. But until the article title on the main World Heritage Site page is changed, most editors are just going to copy and paste that entire phrase with the capped "S" when entering it into article prose, wikilinking, entering it as part of a title of a new article, and the like. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. Just wondering why this bizarre "consensus" isn't bothering more people.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These days, most users of English are not native speakers - and that's driving the evolution of the language towards this amorphous thing with much looser rules. Just like it happened with Latin back in the day. And, loads of natives aren't very aware of grammar. And, I'm sure a lot of people simply don't care about these things. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)