Talk:Richtersveld

World Heritage Site
Please note that specifically area of the Richtersveld Community Conservancy was declared a World Heritage Site. The National Park is not even in the WHS - specifically because of mining activities within the boundaries of the park. The article at present gives the impression that the RNP = the Richtersveld WHS. The conservancy is similar in area to the RNP, but just to the south - see map at.

Focus of article
I cannot tell if the focus of the article is the area or the World Heritage Site. I know the WHS name redirects to this article. There is also the National Park to consider.User-duck (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this should be an issue. THe Article deals with what is a substantial area only a part of which is a World Heritage Site. It is also the only article that deals with the World Heritage portion of the area, hence the redirect page, which should surely remain in place until someone feels it is necessary to write a separate article on the World Heritage Site. Otherwise, through its text and map, the article makes it pretty clear where and what the World Heritage Site is. Personally, and knowing the area well, there is very little difference between the ecology, geography, etc. of the WH site, the National Park and the rest of the area that makes up the Richtersveld, so probably no need for a separate article for World Heritage, which would only repeat what is already said. Waitabout 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Waitabout. One of the Wikipedia guidelines is that an article should be "concise". I interpret this to mean not far-ranging. Since there is so much information about the WHS in this article, I thought maybe the article's focus was the WHS. I like the concept about being about the area. This means the WHS is a section of the article and the National Park (NP) another.User-duck (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)