![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As far as I know Israël is no part of Europe, neither statwise or geographicly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.39.127 ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Is is right to include Henderson Island in this since the article is titled "in Europe" as its in the South Pacific? I'm going to list it on the Asia and Australia Page as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Germany's list is inaccurate; according to the UNESCO official website, Germany only has 30 total World Heriage site, so the site of the ancient city of Trier wasn't on the UNESCO list at all, I don't know who added on to the Wikipedia's list. - Random User
Germany now has 33 sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.240.28 ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The numbers in the list do not correlate to the numbers in the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.194.184 ( talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good way to plot these places on a map? I think that would be very helpful to undestand the places as a group.
The UK has its own page for it's sites. The listing on this page seems redundant in an article that's already very long. I tried editing it out, but there's a user that seems intent on reverting every edit I make on the UNESCO pages. Rather than participate in an edit war, I would bring it to the discussion page. Any thoughts? MArcane 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
what the fuck
at the end of page, right, there is one small pic......................... because of it page is so spacious... please correct it!
Considering that some of the country lists here are illustrated, we should make sure that either they all are, or that none are, for the sake of evenness. Also, do we want the images to be 50px or 70px wide? At the moment, countries early in the alphabet use wider pictures than the ones further down. athinaios | Talk 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why world heritage sites in Kazakhstan are not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.204.24 ( talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought I'd raise this here first rather than editing the page outright. No, most of the Aegean islands are not "geographically located in Asia". As correctly cited in the article on the Aegean islands, all but two of them belong to Greece, and the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia in the Aegean would be the boundary between Greece and Turkey. Please provide proof to the contrary or change the second phrase of the article.
Apapadop ( talk) 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm removing this statement: "Asia Minor, Cyprus, all of the Aegean Islands, the Canaries, Malta, Sicily and Madeira are included although the first two and most of the third are geographically located in Asia whereas the latter four are geographically located in Africa." Most of the Aegean Islands are not "geographically located in Asia", and Sicily is not "geographically located in Africa". These islands are always associated with Europe, just like the British Isles, so there is absolutely no reason for such a disclaimer pointing out that these islands are included in Europe.
Skyduster ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the intro is a little silly in it's dance to justify what's listed here and what's not. An easy solution to this would be a more professional version of "UNESCO lists these sites with Europe so that's what we do too." Israel is included in the Europe-North America region by UNESCO, Kazakhstan is not, so the former is here and not the later. If someone wanted to go off on a mini-dissertation about the politicized history of UNESCO's regional groupings that would be fine too. I feel that this more succinct intro would help people understand the contents of this list better. How do others feel about this? -- Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As has been made clear, Israel is part of the Europe & North America region as defined by UNESCO, so it certainly should be included on this list. However, the site "Old City of Jerusalem" is not under the state auspices of Israel. While the site is currently controlled by Israel, it was proposed by Jordan after Israel took full control of the city, and UNESCO specifically separated it from Israel's list of sites. Jerusalem is also listed under the "Arab States" region, not the "Europe and North America" region. If we're going to maintain accuracy, this site should not be listed with Israel. If Jerusalem is to be included here, it should be under "Jerusalem (Site Proposed by Jordan)," which is UNESCO's wording, and should include the disclaimer "(also included on the Arab States" You can find UNESCO's entry on Jerusalem here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/148
Such is my opinion. I hope I have defended it sufficiently. Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Jerusalem is under Israeli control and will remain under Israeli control for a long time, it should be mentioned either as Jerusalem or inside Israel's world heritage sites. Also, Jerusalem was never proposed for any country and Israel legally controls half of it and the other half is supposed to be under Arab control and Jordan doesn't even want that land anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.180.4 ( talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem useful to have this list in a sortable table rather than a long text document. Agreed? I'm willing to put in some time to make one and keep all of the current links, but not if this has already been shot down/others will revert it.
Those maps are hideous and illegible. I much prefer the look of List of World Heritage Sites in Asia. Pictures of some of the sites makes the page more vibrant and interesting. These maps are an eyesore, and make the page difficult to browse. These maps should not be featured like this. Puchiwonga ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Albania has four centers of UNESCO and not two. 1. Butrin in 1992 2. Historic Centers of Gjirokastra in 2005 3. Historic Centers of in 2009 4. Lake Ohrid (Albanian part) in 2009
Albanian former environment minister in 2009 Lufter Xhveli stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is a wealth of humanity. It should be separated Berat from Gjirokaster after different story and are different cities. -- Irvi Hyka ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Irvi Hyka-- Irvi Hyka ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In "UNESCO terms" there is no such region as Europe, but "Europe and North America". It seams to be sort of a twist that this article makes itself to appeare as a strict UNESCO-source follower. In my opinion World Heritage Sites are nominated by world organization UNESCO, however geographical boundaries of Europe are determined regardless of World Heritage Sites nomination. I suggest changing the title of this articla to List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and North America reflecting UNESCO region classification as individual UNESCO World Heritage Site wiki-articles do.-- Jankoja1972 ( talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This page badly needs formatting to cut out all the empty spaces. --Mallard16 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard16 ( talk • contribs)
Sites in Danger are not marked by an asterisk even though that's what the intro says. bamse ( talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 15:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
i think there is a mistake here. פארוק ( talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion to finalise how we divide our lists at WT:WHS. Please join in. Nightw 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Some years ago the Minister of Environment of Albania, Lufter Xhuveli, stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is part of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Add Albania the fourth WHS Lake of Ohrid. [2] [3] [4] Irvi Hyka ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As far as I know Israël is no part of Europe, neither statwise or geographicly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.39.127 ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Is is right to include Henderson Island in this since the article is titled "in Europe" as its in the South Pacific? I'm going to list it on the Asia and Australia Page as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Germany's list is inaccurate; according to the UNESCO official website, Germany only has 30 total World Heriage site, so the site of the ancient city of Trier wasn't on the UNESCO list at all, I don't know who added on to the Wikipedia's list. - Random User
Germany now has 33 sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.240.28 ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The numbers in the list do not correlate to the numbers in the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.194.184 ( talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good way to plot these places on a map? I think that would be very helpful to undestand the places as a group.
The UK has its own page for it's sites. The listing on this page seems redundant in an article that's already very long. I tried editing it out, but there's a user that seems intent on reverting every edit I make on the UNESCO pages. Rather than participate in an edit war, I would bring it to the discussion page. Any thoughts? MArcane 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
what the fuck
at the end of page, right, there is one small pic......................... because of it page is so spacious... please correct it!
Considering that some of the country lists here are illustrated, we should make sure that either they all are, or that none are, for the sake of evenness. Also, do we want the images to be 50px or 70px wide? At the moment, countries early in the alphabet use wider pictures than the ones further down. athinaios | Talk 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why world heritage sites in Kazakhstan are not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.204.24 ( talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought I'd raise this here first rather than editing the page outright. No, most of the Aegean islands are not "geographically located in Asia". As correctly cited in the article on the Aegean islands, all but two of them belong to Greece, and the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia in the Aegean would be the boundary between Greece and Turkey. Please provide proof to the contrary or change the second phrase of the article.
Apapadop ( talk) 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm removing this statement: "Asia Minor, Cyprus, all of the Aegean Islands, the Canaries, Malta, Sicily and Madeira are included although the first two and most of the third are geographically located in Asia whereas the latter four are geographically located in Africa." Most of the Aegean Islands are not "geographically located in Asia", and Sicily is not "geographically located in Africa". These islands are always associated with Europe, just like the British Isles, so there is absolutely no reason for such a disclaimer pointing out that these islands are included in Europe.
Skyduster ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the intro is a little silly in it's dance to justify what's listed here and what's not. An easy solution to this would be a more professional version of "UNESCO lists these sites with Europe so that's what we do too." Israel is included in the Europe-North America region by UNESCO, Kazakhstan is not, so the former is here and not the later. If someone wanted to go off on a mini-dissertation about the politicized history of UNESCO's regional groupings that would be fine too. I feel that this more succinct intro would help people understand the contents of this list better. How do others feel about this? -- Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As has been made clear, Israel is part of the Europe & North America region as defined by UNESCO, so it certainly should be included on this list. However, the site "Old City of Jerusalem" is not under the state auspices of Israel. While the site is currently controlled by Israel, it was proposed by Jordan after Israel took full control of the city, and UNESCO specifically separated it from Israel's list of sites. Jerusalem is also listed under the "Arab States" region, not the "Europe and North America" region. If we're going to maintain accuracy, this site should not be listed with Israel. If Jerusalem is to be included here, it should be under "Jerusalem (Site Proposed by Jordan)," which is UNESCO's wording, and should include the disclaimer "(also included on the Arab States" You can find UNESCO's entry on Jerusalem here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/148
Such is my opinion. I hope I have defended it sufficiently. Chouji Ochiai ( talk) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Jerusalem is under Israeli control and will remain under Israeli control for a long time, it should be mentioned either as Jerusalem or inside Israel's world heritage sites. Also, Jerusalem was never proposed for any country and Israel legally controls half of it and the other half is supposed to be under Arab control and Jordan doesn't even want that land anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.180.4 ( talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It would seem useful to have this list in a sortable table rather than a long text document. Agreed? I'm willing to put in some time to make one and keep all of the current links, but not if this has already been shot down/others will revert it.
Those maps are hideous and illegible. I much prefer the look of List of World Heritage Sites in Asia. Pictures of some of the sites makes the page more vibrant and interesting. These maps are an eyesore, and make the page difficult to browse. These maps should not be featured like this. Puchiwonga ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Albania has four centers of UNESCO and not two. 1. Butrin in 1992 2. Historic Centers of Gjirokastra in 2005 3. Historic Centers of in 2009 4. Lake Ohrid (Albanian part) in 2009
Albanian former environment minister in 2009 Lufter Xhveli stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is a wealth of humanity. It should be separated Berat from Gjirokaster after different story and are different cities. -- Irvi Hyka ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Irvi Hyka-- Irvi Hyka ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In "UNESCO terms" there is no such region as Europe, but "Europe and North America". It seams to be sort of a twist that this article makes itself to appeare as a strict UNESCO-source follower. In my opinion World Heritage Sites are nominated by world organization UNESCO, however geographical boundaries of Europe are determined regardless of World Heritage Sites nomination. I suggest changing the title of this articla to List of World Heritage Sites in Europe and North America reflecting UNESCO region classification as individual UNESCO World Heritage Site wiki-articles do.-- Jankoja1972 ( talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
This page badly needs formatting to cut out all the empty spaces. --Mallard16 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard16 ( talk • contribs)
Sites in Danger are not marked by an asterisk even though that's what the intro says. bamse ( talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 15:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
i think there is a mistake here. פארוק ( talk) 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion to finalise how we divide our lists at WT:WHS. Please join in. Nightw 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Some years ago the Minister of Environment of Albania, Lufter Xhuveli, stated that the Albanian part of Lake Ohrid is part of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Add Albania the fourth WHS Lake of Ohrid. [2] [3] [4] Irvi Hyka ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)