World Heritage Sites NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
I'm restoring the link to the list of United Kingdom world heritage sites. To the unregistered user that keeps deleting it on the grounds that it is "a political entity, not a geographic region", I didn't design the way that these lists are delineated. The point of this template, however, would seem to be to link the reader with the various 'world heritage site lists'. Since the UK site lists are not included in any of the links already on the template (that political region is part of any of the listed geographical locales), I'm adding it back in. MArcane 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Will add the link List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription in the near future. Opinions are divided as to whether or not it should be linked before it is complete (or at least more complete). Bruinfan12 ( talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
UNESCO calls it "World Heritage in Danger" (without "Sites"). So this template should link to World Heritage in Danger or to List of World Heritage in Danger (which is the same at the moment). Also the visible text could be changed from "Sites in danger" to "World Heritage in Danger". bamse ( talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is meant as a summary of this discussion. The aim of the discussion is to establish a division of the world for the purpose of World Heritage lists that is natural (suggestive) to most readers. Basically that means a geographical non-political partition with oversea territories of countries put into the region they are located in (and not into the region of the home country). To keep it readable, please discuss any issues with it elsewhere. Of course corrections are welcome. Thanks. bamse ( talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Definition:
Definition:
Definition:
World Heritage Sites NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
I'm restoring the link to the list of United Kingdom world heritage sites. To the unregistered user that keeps deleting it on the grounds that it is "a political entity, not a geographic region", I didn't design the way that these lists are delineated. The point of this template, however, would seem to be to link the reader with the various 'world heritage site lists'. Since the UK site lists are not included in any of the links already on the template (that political region is part of any of the listed geographical locales), I'm adding it back in. MArcane 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Will add the link List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription in the near future. Opinions are divided as to whether or not it should be linked before it is complete (or at least more complete). Bruinfan12 ( talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
UNESCO calls it "World Heritage in Danger" (without "Sites"). So this template should link to World Heritage in Danger or to List of World Heritage in Danger (which is the same at the moment). Also the visible text could be changed from "Sites in danger" to "World Heritage in Danger". bamse ( talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This is meant as a summary of this discussion. The aim of the discussion is to establish a division of the world for the purpose of World Heritage lists that is natural (suggestive) to most readers. Basically that means a geographical non-political partition with oversea territories of countries put into the region they are located in (and not into the region of the home country). To keep it readable, please discuss any issues with it elsewhere. Of course corrections are welcome. Thanks. bamse ( talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Definition:
Definition:
Definition: