Talk:Lists of World Heritage Sites in the Americas

Pictures
Hi everyone, I've added pictures of three World Heritage Sites in Mexico, I think we all should add more pictures of some of the other World Heritage Sites belonging to each country. Peace :D Dragon Lost In Mexico 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

layout
I'm thinking this would be better in a table format. Therefore the person can choose to reorganize by name, location, etc. User:Leppi 07:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone sure that the Statue of Liberty is in New York? I've heard New Jersey as well as a separate island not in either. I tried to find a copy of the case, but couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.227.254 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the official World Heritage site, it is listed in New York. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Island is within the boundary of Jersey City (hence New Jersey), but the island comes under the jurisdiction of New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.102.31 (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
Mexico the third in the world? That's not true. The first one is Italy; the second, Spain; Then it would follow France or Germany, I'm not sure; after both, it comes China and finally Mexico would be in the sixth place, I beleave. So we could say that Mexico is the second country after China that has more Heritage sites out of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.25.56 (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Edwards, Lonesome Lake & Trumpeter Swans
A short few years ago a massive fire in west-central BC, near Hunlen Falls and I'm not sure whether inside or just next to Tweedsmuir South Provincial Park, burned out the cabin and possessions which had been the location of the fieldwork of Ralph Edwards in his efforts to protect the survival of the trumpeter swan. I'm not sure whether it was Lonesome Lake that was the heritage site - which I thought was a UNESCO World Heritage Site - or some other landform/location in the immediate vicinity. Two notable books, one by Leland Stowe - Crusoe of Lonesome Lake - and another by Edwards' wife Frances - Ruffles on my Longjohns, a classic of "bush wife" literature - are connected with the local; documentarist Tony Wade also produced a doc, The Crusoe of Lonesome Lake....I just happened to be doing geographical stubs in the area, which includes Hunlen Falls, one of Canada's highest, and noticed Trumpeter Mountain and Lonesome Lake in a proximity search around Hunlen, and remembered the burned-out-by-fire story. As far as I know the trumpeters still return every year, though Edwards' cabin was destroyed....I don't have time to do up a detailed history and dont' know the story well, but it's a famous one in BC. What other classification might it have been if not a UNESCO WHS? Anyone here recognize this tale?Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenland
Isn't Greenland in Europe? Sweetie candykim (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Greenland is in North America. Reywas92 Talk  20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps
The current map is missing at least two UNESCO WHS: Jesuit Mission of São Miguel das Missões (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil) and Brazilian Atlantic Islands (Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas). User:MarioBrazil 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

'''Hi, I requested comments because the edits were getting a little heated. The discussion is over whether this list of World Heritage Sites should include maps of the sites as they are currently presented. Other possible presentations are the African, European, Asia-Pacific, and Arab lists. My opinion is the same as it was in August.''' Chouji Ochiai (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, can we talk about the maps being added to the site? I've seen these put up on the Europe list and I feel that they add more clutter than clarity. I would much rather see a table for this page along the lines of Africa's list.--Chouji Ochiai (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I share your concern. I'm beginning a drive to get all of these lists to FL, taking the same layout as the African list (credit goes to User:Arsenikk for that one). People can help out by attempting to replicate the table format in that article to here and other WHS lists; that would be very appreciated. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is a list of geographic locations, maps of where they are is a handy complement to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.159.191 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I really like the maps. Until the lists are converted into a single table like the Africa page, they should be kept. Reywas92 Talk 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a list of geographic locations but a list of World Heritage Sites, i.e. of culturally or naturally important places. Of course they are located somewhere but in my opinion the focus should be on what they are (i.e. images) rather than where they are. Also agree that eventually the list should be converted to table format like the Africa list or the List of World Heritage in Danger. bamse (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say it's not 100% clear what the RFC is regarding, so you may want to clear that up. On the subject of Maps Vs Images, I've got to agree with Bamse. I've looked at the different World Heritage lists and the Africa one is clearly superior. As Bamse explains, it's WHAT the sites which is important, not WHERE they are. I wouldn't have a problem with a large world map showing all 911, or defining "the Americas" area and the sites in it, but to have one per country does not make for an easy to read article. Worm  09:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re RFC description: Roger. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the maps are not the primary concern of this article, which is why they are a complement, not a substitute. Some people will absorb the list sites from a table, others from a map, and having both will cater to both types of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.159.191 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a good example of how these maps can be used disruptively is the Mexico map as it is right now. This map is trying to compensate for the high concentration of sites in central Mexico with a large map, but those sites are still obscure and the map is clearly interfering with the presentation of the list itself. If we include maps on this page, they should at least present information rather than obscure it. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the current layout with maps of different sizes is distracting both visually and geographically (sense of scale and location). I disagree though that geographic location wouldn't be important, however there is no need for the current level of detail in this page, since maps appear in the individual articles. The role of the page is to provide an overview for the continent, hence I could image a map of the Americas (or separately North, Central/Caribbean and South if the list is also restructured) indicating the sites as dots without label. That would at least give an overview of the geographic distribution of WHS on the continent. Different colours could be used for cultural, natural and mixed sites. --Elekhh (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good plan! If the sites/dots get to dense on an America(s) map, one could also think of just color coding the countries, e.g. countries with 1-3 sites in yellow, with 4-8 sites in orange and with nine or more sites in red. (just an example, haven't thought much about good intervals) bamse (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to convert the list to table format. Any help with it is very welcome. A map of all sites in the list will eventually be available through GeoGroupTemplate. bamse (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In case of expansion
If somebody wants to expand this list into table form like it was done with the Africa list, an old revision of the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger (particularly the "Description" column) might be useful. bamse (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments
There is discussion on what should be included in this and other regional lists of World Heritage Sites. Please voice your opinion on the issue here. Thank you. bamse (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And there is now a discussion to finalise this here. Please join in.  Night w   15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Goal list
Requested. This is a reference for what should be included on this list, per pending discussion. I count 164 sites. * = Trans-border site (don't count them twice), !!END!! = endangered site.


 * Thanks. Could you add Chile? bamse (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, I seem to have missed it. Added. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll compare when I am done with Mexico. bamse (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done up to "Description" column. I put Greenland in "Denmark" per UNESCO, otherwise the article's list matches the goal list. The following sites are arguably located in geographical Americas: two sites in Hawaii (Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Papahānaumokuākea), Rapa Nui National Park, Ilulissat Icefjord; and might need to be moved to other list articles (Europe or Oceania). All other sites are either on or near mainland America. bamse (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be sorted between North America and South America. Than sort it out by individual Nation. Would be easier to find certain sites. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.82.253 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Map Caption
The map is entitled "A map of World Heritage Sites in the Americas by state party". I don't understand what that means; is it an error? And if so what is it meant to say? Bagunceiro (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting this list into List of World Heritage Sites in North America and List of World Heritage Sites in South America
Anyone else think this list should be split into two separate ones for North America (Which would include the Caribbean and Central America) and South America? After all, Europe, Asia and Africa aren't combined into Euroafrasia on the List of World Heritage Sites, so why should North America and South America be any different? Not to mention North America and South America already have separate lists of countries, so it doesn't really make any sense for there to be only one list of World Heritage Sites for both. Would probably make it easier to read through and less cluttered, too. 2600:8802:500:EF00:3891:5B02:3E7A:71D3 (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. I'm not sure if we're allowed to do it though. Info2Learn (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)