Talk:World Heritage Site/Archive 2

Requested move 8 December 2018
World Heritage Site → World Heritage site – In spite of the recent RM discussion that closed in opposition to capitalizing Site, it is again capped due to an odd close of a move review. Let's see if we can fix this by paying attention to how this term is treated in sources, starting with all of UNESCO's sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Evidence
List evidence from sources here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Google search of site:whc.unesco.org shows UNESCO consistently lowercases site in "World Heritage site"
 * Google search of site:whc.unesco.org shows UNESCO consistently lowercases sites in "World Heritage sites"
 * UNESCO's 2010 book has "World Heritage site" and "World Heritage List", clearly distinguishing what they think is a proper noun and what's not.
 * UNESCO's 2015 book on World Heritage sites uses lowercase sites (except in the title where they use title case), treat it as not part of a proper noun.
 * World Heritage List is overwhelmingly capped in books, while World Heritage Sites is much less so, with a huge number of those caps coming from book titles and table headings.

Guidelines

 * WP:NCCAPS – "... lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." and "For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters and, when relevant, on trademarks."
 * MOS:CAPS – "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."

Survey

 * Support as nom – It is ridiculous that WP caps "Site" when UNESCO does not. Per MOS:CAPS, we treat as proper names things that sources consistently capitalize, such as their "trademarks" "World Heritage" and "World Heritage List", but not "World Heritage site". Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this endless edit war and per this convincing and should-be-discussion-ending ngram. The upper-case has been the long-term title, has gone through the test, and now either again presented for a month long discussion (are we going to do another round of RM, Move Review, RM, on and on) if RfCed or will some reasonable admin close this and moratorium this RM. Time will tell. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe this n-gram will help stop the beating of the barely-alive horse Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's even one on Lyon, which includes both "as a World Heritage Site" and "as a World Heritage site". This guy writes a ton of books with this level of attention to detail.  The n-gram clearly shows that caps are not consistent or necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – The nomination is convincing. According to MoS:CAPS and NCCAPS, we avoid unnecessary capitalisation. If even the organisation itself uses the lowercased 'site', certainly capitalisation cannot be considered necessary. 'World Heritage site' is not a proper noun, and does not refer to any specific 'site'. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Randy Kryn. Enough already. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is stupid. Enough already. Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy close Too soon

 * Speedy close. Discussion on this is overdone already and a pause is needed.  The MRV has closed with a consensus declared. Respect that, and stick with the standard WP:Moratorium, not to be discussed for at least six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The MRV result was that since the latest RM closed with no consensus, the title should revert to the long-term stable title. That's a far cry from a consensus for what the title should be.  When consensus has not been achieved, more discussion can help.  In particular, focusing the discussion on guidelines and evidence might help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A no consensus close is not an invitation to immediately reopen it because you're mad it didn't go your way. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So your only reason to oppose is that you think I'm mad? Interesting. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, trying to reopen a discussion in which you were unsuccessful at obtaining your desired result immediately after it was closed as no consensus is against guidelines. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close stupid discussion we just had. Leave it alone already. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and impose moratorium.. Come on Dicklyon, you know better than this. We have spent months. And months. Discussing this sorry subject. The MRV has been closed and it is time to move on. Sure you don't like the outcome, I wouldn't have liked it if it had gone the other way, but that's how it is. Let me quote from 's MRV close: "Given the amazing amount of discussion this has engendered (here and elsewhere), I'm sure there will be some people who are discontent with this close. I urge those of you to read The Wrong Version and WP:STICK". This request is the exact opposite of that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, withdrawn per SNOW. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Mexico not in Latin America and Caribbean not in the Caribbean?
From World_Heritage_Site:

Russia and the Caucasus states are classified as European, while Mexico and the Caribbean are classified as belonging to the Latin America & Caribbean zone, despite their location in North America.

Well, Russia and Caucasus can be considered either part of Europe or Asia so it's not a problem to call World Heritage Sites there "European".

But the rest of the sentence is borderline funny — maybe the writer thought Latin America is a synonym of South America? Sure, Mexico and Caribbean are part of North America. But firstly: Mexico is also a Latin American country. And how is it surprising that the Caribbean belongs to the "Latin America & Caribbean zone"? Also, the countries in the Caribbean with the very largest land area are also Latin American. --83.245.228.89 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right. I removed the last part of the sentence, so it makes more sense now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Preparing article for GA nomination
Looking at the current quality, GA-status for this vital article seems within reach.

These days I will go through the following steps to prepare it for GA nomination:

- Text content: checking for unclearness or inconsistencies / checking the WHS criteria – should be the same as at UNESCO's website (updated) / elaboration of section Consequences (adding the positive ones) / update dates to June 2020 where needed

- Grammar: general copy-edit / check with Grammarly / consistent use of British English / consistently writing "World Heritage" and "Committee" with capitals

- General reading: cutting snakes / avoiding complex wording and weasel words / final general check

- Manual of Style: numbers / punctuation / miscellaneous

- Wikilinks: avoiding overuse (barely the case) / insert useful links if possible (none)

- Images: equal sizing (some are smaller) / if possible, retrieving even better pictures from Wikimedia Commons (hard to assign any image as better than these) / checking if there are copyright issues (OK, none found) / improved caption for the logo/emblem

- Structure: checking appropriateness of (sub)headings / spacing / consider Bibliography subsection (added) / consider Notes section (added) / shrink introduction / make sure introduction only includes information mentioned elsewhere / proper paragraphs rather than loose sentences

- References: links still working? OK / merge references / add links if references lack links / check if sources seem appropriate and trustworthy (all seem decent) / if needed additional sources (added 5, there seem to be enough) / uniform way of referencing, both in the text and at the bottom / elaboration of short references (only website) / translating foreign languages / archiving links as much as possible

- Adding final comments based on GA criteria:


 * A good article is:

 :  ; and -> seems OK; I worked a lot on making it more concise, spelling/grammar + very understandable for most people who read a lot in English .''-> I cannot think of major issues. Not too complex wordings or weasel words.''  :  ;-> Did a lot of work on the references, should be the best part of the entire article ;-> I don't think I overlooked something ;-> No OR as far as I see</li> <li>.-> Not that I know</li> </ol></li> <li>: <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>;''-> Fair enough, with thanks to all the previous editors. I changed little to the actual content.''</li> <li>.''-> The article stays very focused IMHO. The opposite might be true, that some more elaboration is desirable.''</li> </ol></li> <li>.-> I think the Consequences section in the current form (1 June 2020) is a good example of that.</li> <li>.''-> Before I started editing the article 'stood still' for a couple of weeks. I also changed little to the actual content, so quite stable in my opinion.''</li> <li>:''-> Hard to find more suitable images I think. I made a necessary improvement to the caption of the emblem.''</li> Kareldorado (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC) </ol></li>

- Ask GOCE for CE

Kareldorado (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)