Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Africa

message: Hey, whoever is watching this list-article.  I want to put in a major revision, to revise this to cover just the UNESCO list for subSaharan Africa (leaving north african countries for the UNESCO Arab list), and to switch to a table format that allows for much more info.  Table in draft form now at Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Tables of WHS Sites.  If there are a lot of editors who want the current list article kept covering all of geographic Africa, plus Sicily(?) and other non-African places, then I could just create a parallel, new article, "UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites in Africa" or something, to cover just their list.  But I'd rather move the current list to a name like that, and keep the edit history, rather than compete.  See also wt:WHS for some related discussion, perhaps.  Any objections or support or questions? doncram (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont believe that the Arab countries should be included in the sub-saharan list, since this is a list of World Heritage Sites in Africa according to the regional division of the UNESCO, and not based on the continental division, it is pretty much irrelevant to add the Arab States, and ofcourse Sicily and Malta to this article, since they are already included in their own regional articles of List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States.
--Arab League User (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  major revision and rename 

message: 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) 15:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments 

message: What happened to the list that had sites listed by country? This current one is rather useless, as it lists them based on the often flowery names given to them by UNESCO. It was so much better as a reference when they were organized according to country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.218.122 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the small arrow symbols next to "Location" in the table's header, the table gets automagically sorted by country. You can also sort by area, year, etc. Much better and more flexible than the old "good list". bamse (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, the list is so much better that way. I feel like these directions should be mentioned in the article, though, because I don't think the default displays them in a way that anyone would actually want to view this information. Could this information be added above the table or is this one of those "if you don't know how to do it, it's your fault" sort of things? 72.92.218.122 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added "The table's columns (except for Image and Description) are sortable pressing the arrows symbols." bamse (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted the change. This feature is widespread across the site with lists and does not need to be pointed out (otherwise we would be placing them before each and every list on this site). Notes in articles are normally only used when necessary, for example, when using legends. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly about this, it is just that I have such phrase in a couple of featured lists that I wrote and it was never an issue in FL reviews. It might even have been suggested in a review to put such a note. To me it is somewhat similar to having a legend explaining the table headers (which often are self-explanatory). Also in my experience, the sorting feature is not well known among users of wikipedia and pointing it out could help to increase interest and usage of this particular article. bamse (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that "sort by" features are very common in computing. Maybe not exactly the most noticeable, but nevertheless. You can create a  if you really want it there, but I think it would intrude on the reading if it were in plain text. I don't feel strongly about it either way, either. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the good list?

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Khami.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi? Looks like a very good list to me. Why not nominate it at WP:FLC? bamse (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had originally planned to expand the text for each site a bit more before nominating, and then probably do the same for the lead. You're very welcome to nominate it anyway; perhaps it's just fine as it is! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-contributor, I won't dare to nominate it at FLC. To me the site description seems sufficient, but I only had a quick glance at it. I'd rather flesh out the lead part a bit. For instance it could be mentioned, that Africa has relatively many endangered natural sites (12 out of 17 worldwide). Also the distinction of what UNESCO calls Africa (i.e. geographical Africa minus "Arab States") should be made more clear in my opinion and it should be stated which definition of Africa this list uses. Possibly there are some other interesting facts about African heritage sites (compared to those in the rest of the world) beyond pure statistics that could be mentioned, but I don't know enough about the topic to imagine what those could be. In the FLC of the danger list I was asked to put the "site" column first (which makes sense to me) and to introduce a separate "Refs" column. I just noticed that according to the todo list, this list is meant to cover UNESCO's Africa (i.e. without Tunisia, Morocco,...). As for UNESCO regions vs. geographical division, I'd be happy if some kind of consensus could be reached and we could have a set of non-overlapping World Heritage Sites lists on wikipedia. At present it seems that each list uses its own division. I tried to kick of a discussion on that, but possibly only a vote (not sure how to initiate that) could resolve this issue. bamse (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I created most of this list back about a year ago with the intention of making it an FL, but then was distracted a bit. I agree that the lead needs to be longer, and there area also some MOS and ACCESS issues, but these are fairly easy to fix (although they might take some time). Personally I don't see the need for lengthening the descriptions; if anyone wants to find out more than the basics about a site, there is a nice handy link to the article in question. Of course, a copyedit of the descriptions is more than encouraged. I remember Bamse's attempts at discussing the grouping of sites; it seems very counter-intuitive to a reader to have a list of sites in Africa, but exclude half a dozen sites because they are Arab. We need to have a reader-oriented focus on the lists; UNESCO's categorization is more about politics than anything else. Similarly, the corresponding list for Europe would be too long for a single list following this format, so we're going to have break it up. Anyhow, I can take a look at this later when I have more time and I'm more awake. Arsenikk (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to give you credit in the to-do list for the table format, haha. Last year I had the same goal of bringing it up to FL, but improving on the description is tedious, and finding relevant information became quite the task. So I've kind of given up on this topic, but if we can somehow get some sort of collaborative effort going, I'll probably tag along. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in it. Do all of us three agree that we use the geographical definition of Africa for this list? May I: (i) swap the first two columns (for consistency with other FL of WHS), (ii) add a "Refs" column and (iii) join "Area (ha)" and "Area (acre)" (to save space)? bamse (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with the suggestions. I might do a bit of research and write a bit regarding the topics you mentioned above. I don't want to enter an edit conflict with you though, so I'll refrain from editing the page itself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd say we keep it consistent with "geographical, not political". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. bamse (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to quite a bit of trouble to make this map, but there is a rendering error so I need to figure out how to fix it before adding it. As you see if you render it as a native .svg in the brower (click on the image for full size), it works, but the WikiMedia software seems to be rendering it wrong. Arsenikk (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SVG rendering is usually a problem on wikipedia and the only way around it AFAIK is to make a png out of it (upload the svg as well to allow for easy editing if something changes later). Not sure how good the map looks in the article at 300px or so since the labels will be tiny. Possibly just color coding the countries would be better for looks. This could be combined with . BTW, Arsenikk, do you agree with the stylistic changes (i, ii, iii) to your table I proposed above? bamse (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh wow, and just a few hours apart as well. If I had known, haha. If you remove the text and leave in the dots, I think it would look much better (and retain its EV). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Before editors nominate this list, I think it's important for us to confirm what it's about. There's a discussion at WT:WHS to finalise this. Please take part. Nightw 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list? 

message: The following is what should be on the new list. This is for reference for anyone thinking of wanting to progress the article. * designates multi-national site, !!END!! designates endangered site:
And here is a vector image for the top of the article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal list

message: W National Park is a three-country transborder Park. Is only the Niger part a World Heritage Site or should Burkina and Benin be added in the country column?--Marco Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only the Niger part of the park, even though the site does span Burkina Faso and Benin. According to the inscription document, "A considerable debate followed, including the question of the protection of the transfrontier ensemble of the three National Parks (Benin, Burkina-Faso, Niger)". Apparently it simply didn't work out. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  W National Park 

message: Unlisted and an orphan article, table editing isn't still my thing. Thanks! Yosef1987 (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An-Nakhl Fortress is only on the tentative list at the moment, and tentative sites aren't included in this article. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. Yosef1987 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles do include the tentative lists, but in an article which covers an entire continent it's not really practical as it could double the length. Unfortunately, there's no List of World Heritage Sites in Egypt. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[An-Nakhl Fortress]] 

message: I see that there are several sites in Zimbabwe, but this link:
List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe
is simply a redirect.
Wikimedia was contacted by a reader who wondered why there was not a separate article. :ticket:2017020610020021
Perhaps someone would be willing to create the page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61F7YBBDB?url=http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257 to http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1257
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917053526/http://vrheritage.org/vrorg/ to http://vrheritage.org/vrorg/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: There are 145 site in the list. So I make the necessary change. --Sofy  ₪  08:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  144? 

message: warrent heritage site 105.245.110.48 (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism