Talk:National Heritage List (Australia)

Dead links
None of the listings links in the article work. Peter Bell (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed them (they had consistently renamed the URLs) but with one exception. I could not fix #4 Old Great North Road. I checked on the Australian National Heritage website and their link to Old Great North Road is also broken. I have sent them an email pointing this out and hope I will get a reply with the updated URL, so I can add it here. So all but one should be fixed. Kerry (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Prompt and efficient response - well done! Peter Bell (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I got a reply to my email and the Govt department has fixed the problem and the link for Old Great North Road is now working again. So all listing links should be working again. Kerry (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How many?
Based on text assertion of there being 119, i put that in as the total count into the table, as here:

But in fact 119 is not the total of other numbers. Perhaps there are duplications, i.e. items that overlap boundaries? Then a row for duplications' subtraction needs to be included, with a footnote itemizing the ones that are duplicated. What about the several overseas ones? And the big table doesn't go up to 119, what gives with that? --Doncram (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It think it's fair to say "it's complicated". This is what I have in my spreadsheet which was webscraped earlier this year from the Australia Heritage Database (117 entries, sorted below by State). Some of the national parks cross state boundaries so may be in more than one state, but the AHD lists only one state for it (e.g. Gondwana Rainforests of Australia is listed as NSW), which might be an underlying database limitation. It can be argued whether Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island should or shouldn't be included NSW. Or what to do with shipwrecks, etc. There are 3 further listings with the status ("Within a listed place") See the 2nd table for these. The mapping between the National Heritage entries and Wikipedia articles tends not to be 1-to-1 either (take a look at Gondwana Rainforests as an example which fans out to many Wikipedia articles). In a word, messy! :-) Kerry (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Within a listed place

As the editor who laid out the table initially and has added many of the new items, I may be able to answer some of your questions. Table should look like: --User:Mattinbgn
 * 1) The reason the "big table" shows only 97 is because several items were listed as a parent group - Australian Alps, Australian Convict Sites, Gondwana Rainforests, Budj Bim etc. If consensus is to number them individually, happy to do that.
 * 2)  are not part of any state (or the two main territories of NT and ACT and should be listed separately in the table as "other territories" Macquarie Island is legally Tasmania and Lord Howe Island is legally NSW.
 * Other than Australian Alps, Gondwana Forests and Convict Sites (which are "groupings" rather than individual sites) no site is shared between two states or territories.


 * Hey, glad you two are on the ball, like you were just waiting to respond to some comment here, waiting for a very long time.... :)
 * Seriously, I do think it is worth making the table make sense. And handling the "complications" of duplicates is not too hard, I say from seeing it done very elaborately in the system of list-articles of U.S. NRHP places, in the top-level List of RHPs and in the state-level ones like List of RHPs in MA, and all the way down.  It is even handled elaborately in the non-mainspace worklist tracking at wp:NRHPPROGRESS where i wouldn't have bothered, myself.  For this relatively short list (not 90,000!) it doesn't change very fast, can be handled, i.e. by putting in specific footnotes to a "duplications" line, with our best knowledge.  I do think making the table go to 119 rather than 97, dropping or handling that grouping some other way, would be better.  Do let's, please?  I will try to make some edits reflecting both your comments here, please do step in to fix further. --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it. If my full spreadsheet is any use to you (that's just a couple of columns above), I can share it with you by some means (email, Google Drive, etc). Kerry (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, i jumped ahead, trying to edit in the mainspace, at least setting up format for the duplications row and footnotes (but please understand I am sure the numbers are wrong for the moment.)  But ... maybe ... it's complicated?  I am confused about the Gondwana Rainforests and the Convict Sites items, say, are each of the rows within those groups a separate Heritage List listing?  Maybe the overall Gondwana Rainforests spans across NSW and Qld, but maybe no individual item does?  So maybe the summary table confusion will go away when the big table gets renumbered.  It probably is good to keep some indication of the groupings, assuming those are indeed meaningful, in the big table.  I do respect the creator and previous editors' good efforts here. --Doncram (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe the big table should count to 97 as it does, and maybe then the smaller table should also total to 97, rather than 119. The Gondwana Rainforest listing linked from several rows, seems to be one Heritage List listing, is that not correct?  It is okay by me to say the truth is that there is one big listing in the table, but we happen to want to have smaller rows within that listing which link to components of that one listing.  And I guess Gondwana Rainforest as a whole does span across NSW and Qld (and even some of its components do too), so there does need to be one note for a duplication about it. --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it start to look like:

, the Australian National Heritage List comprised 97 heritage places as follows:


 * In that, the 22 for NSW is a count of 22 distinct nos. in the big table, including G.Rainforest as one, and Queensland's 12 is a count of 12 distinct nos. also including G.Rainforest. And similarly for other overlaps.
 * Again I am not sure if these counts are right, or if they total up properly, but this may be close-ish? --Doncram (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this does total up properly now, to 97.
 * Another possible change would be to combine the Gondana Rainforest rows into one big row spanning multiple subrows, and have just one number for it. That might interfere with sortability of the big table.  I have never myself created a table like that.  An example is List of governors' residences in the United States which has 3 subrows for Alabama for example, and is not sortable.  I don't have a strong opinion about this;  I mainly want to make the counts make sense for readers! --Doncram (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind about "one big row with multiple subrows", y'all have that implemented already. I wasn't aware that this could be done and still be sorted, the way this splits the multiple subrows for "4", upon sorting, repeating the "4" for each one.  However you did this is maybe something for me to try to take back to the List of governors' residences in the United States article and others....okay and I just did take it back, making that one's table sortable now too.  Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

new proposal
Sorry I am slow to come up to speed here. Per the Australian Convict Sites article, it "is a World Heritage property consisting of 11 remnant penal sites originally built within the British Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries on fertile Australian coastal strips at Sydney, Tasmania, Norfolk Island, and Fremantle; now representing '...the best surviving examples of large-scale convict transportation and the colonial expansion of European powers through the presence and labour of convicts.' These properties were all individually included on the Australian National Heritage List before inclusion on the World Heritage list." [emphasis added]

And there seems to be 117 or 119 or so places officially reported by the government as constituting the "Australia's National Heritage List", as here (linked from this article).

So it seems to me the big table should number to 117 or 119 or whatever is the current number, not 97, and the small table should then conform to that. I think the commonality of the 11 penal sites making up one World Heritage Site listing should be indicated by color coding and/or by asterisks or other indications. I'm not saying this is the best example anywhere, but I am familiar with National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York using both color-coding of the number column and using asterisk-type indications, supported by a key, to indicate commonalities of a couple types. Hmm, there are designated colors for World Heritage Sites set up in wikipedia already, in color schemes shown at wp:HSITES, and a color is there for Australia National Heritage List too. So why not use those to color the narrow first column of numbers, i.e. use the light brown for regular rows and the specific shade of yellow for the rows that are part of World Heritage Sites? I suppose one could use symbols to denote which WHS site applies, as done in the Syracuse list, for the several WHS specific sites. Or the current way of stating the WHS name in each row could suffice, without setting up symbols. Perhaps a separate narrow column could be used to indicate the WHS sites and to make the list sortable by these. From multiple rows being used for each of them, I am figuring that each of the following is a WHS site, is that right?: Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves, Australian Convict Sites, Australian Cornish Mining Sites, Australian Fossil Mammal Sites, Budj Bim National Heritage Landscape, Gondwana Rainforests of Australia. Another question which could be revisited is presentation order, should the list be presented in alphabetical order of Australia's names. Would it be okay for me to try to do some or all of this stuff? --Doncram (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely happy for you to go ahead with that proposal. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Australian National Heritage List → National Heritage List (Australia) – Makes the name clearer - its name is not prefixed by "Australian". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per the nomination and WP:AT -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.