Talk:World Heritage Site/Archive 1

message: How strange to see the European and North-american sites put together ! What does Europe has to do with the US ? 
:Most US citizens came from Europe in the past two hundred years. --Timtak (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: statistics

message: would be nice to add a little about the selection process to this article - I imagine there is a good deal of politics involved. And perhaps some explaination on why some countried are choc-a-block with Unesco sites (like France) while others are near devoid of them (eg Nigeria). I doubt it has much to do with different amounts of history in each country. Seabhcán 12:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection process 

message: The opening paragraph defines a site as one which has been "nominated". Is that correct? I would have thought it should be "selected". --Tatty 03:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated or selected? 

message: Could somebody please add the World Heritage Emblem to the Commons? thx. --Neoneo13 15:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblem to Commons 

message: I think the emblem should be moved from the right to the left. It would look much better. What do you think? Bremen 06:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Emblem 

message: I want information for the Ancient Metropolitan City Dholavira to be included on World Heritage Site.  vkvora 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   I want information for the Ancient Metropolitan City [[Dholavira]] to be included on World Heritage Site.

message: Hi! It is stated in the article that a property must first belong to a country before being nominated. But Jerusalem is an exception (see my explanation here. And hence, to prevent confusion (like what happened in the In Danger List when some editors placed it as part of Israel and some reverted the change), a section here can be included to such an exception to the formal procedure of nomination. Mind you, the explanation I made may require a little more editing to make it more neutral. --Joey80 08:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Jerusalem not part of Israel's list on the World Heritage Site 

message: ::There is no information of Pending List or application is pending. If sombody get the information of Pending List, I reqest to add in the article.
:::vkvora 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The official Tentative Lists Database from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre --Joycedula 04:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the link cited above contains all nominations. If you are pertaining to those which will be nominated in a set year (e.g. for 2007), I am not sure if the authority is making it public as has been done before. Searching for documents in the official website, I can't find any, which has also been the case for this year's included sites, before they were included. However, natural/mixed sites to be examined for 2007 are available in the IUCN website: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wheritage/sitelist.html --Joey80 07:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nominations to be examined in 2007 available at the end of this document: http://whc.unesco.org/p_dynamic/document/document_download.cfm?id_document=6627  or at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-08Be.pdf --202.138.136.38 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage Site : Pending List 

message: Not to go crazy about extraneous bells-and-whistles, but is there or has there been any sort of discussion for a World Heritage Site infobox? --Calton | Talk 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox?

message: Can anyone add a picture of heritage in China? It's a bit strange that the english version does not even have a chinese world heritage. In terms of number and cultural significance, at least one chinese heritage should be put on the picture.--Gomeying (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An unregisterd user removed the pic without discussion, I put it back.  Again, I think my comments need to be addressed since there needs to be some logic to why these particular photos are displayed.  --RaffiKojian 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did very well! I think that new images, if they show up in the future,  we can add into new image gallery at the bottom of the article too M.K. 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced the Persepolis photo you added with a image of better quality (I personally liked the picture of Pasargadae better).  You also need to put the photo in the correct order according to its id number as well as follow the proper description-style. --Thewallowmaker 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel there are too many cathedrals from the former Soviet Union. But, the current version is fine. Kaveh 02:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Photos 

message: Did anyone noticed that recently the official website has some technical errors happening.  The numbering system of the Criteria section seems to have disappeared as well as the numbering system in World Heritage List's Notes Section. I think its kind of distracting because we don't have the numbers to guide what we are looking at. --Godardesque 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I guess its just a format change or fixing of it.  These numbers are back.--Godardesque 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

message: I am wondering if anyone knows anything about World Heritage Documents as a sub-set of World Heritage sites, such as the Magna Carta, Bundesdbrief, Dead Sea Scolls and so on; and is there interest in this additional category.70.90.16.34 12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage Documents... know anything. 

message: Is there a list of the sites ordered by their identification or reference number? I couldn't find it in the official site. It would be good to have some history background on the issue; which were the first sites to be included as World Heritage?
Nazroon 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID number list? 

message: "There are currently 830 World Heritage Sites" -- how is that possible, when right in the article, several W.H.S. are listed, and numbered over 830? "Site #917: The Greater Blue Mountains Area, including the Blue Mountains National Park (Australia).", "Site #936: The Cueva de las Manos in a remote region of Patagonia (Argentina).", "Site #946: Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina).", "Site #960: Geghard Monastery (Armenia)." -- I don't know if it's just my math, but last I checked, 917, 937, 946 and 960 are *all* above 830. Did they add some sites, and then decide to remove them later on, but not reuse those numbers or something? That doesn't seem to be within a reasonable doubt, I mean, that would be nearly 100 W.H.S. added, then later removed.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaXiMiUS (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These "Site #917" are just identification numbers UNESCO assigned to each World Heritage property.  It does not represent the actual number of World Heritage Sites (830).  Sometimes, extension sites could be also added to an already existing World Heritage Site, that might also contribute to these differences between ID numbers and actual statistics of World Heritage Site.--67.2.149.126 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical Inconsistency? 

message: This is the second time that my addition of the UK list has been deleted from this page. While I think that it's a good point that the UK list page can be reached thorugh the Europe list, I don't think this method of arrangement makes sense. The UK is the only listing with it's own page that is not included in the lists of these links. It's ridiculous to prevent users from accessing it, simply because of some odd attempt to organize the lists based on their geographical location. It's simple...there are enough sites in that locale to warrent their own page, and as such that page should be included on the main page. To lump it in with Europe is unnecessarily complex for readers. It is also, redundant to have sites listed on the Europe page, when they have their own page already.MArcane 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Heritage site list

message: A part of the world seems to be missing out of that list, there are asian countries who are not pacific and not arabic, such as Iran, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan ... and so on. Why don't you make that list more accordingly based on the data within the List of World Heritage Sites section or at least add a new zone.
: Refer to this link for the zones as officially designated by UNESCO: As classified officially by UNESCO Joey80 02:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zones

message: Really??? Sure it isn't the asia-pacific zone which is meant rather than the north american zone?? Mathmo Talk 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: oops! Nevermind... I see now. They are one and the same zone. Strange, they have very large and combined areas for zones. Ah well, just very slightly confusing wording. Mathmo Talk 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, please edit if it will help improve the article. And yes, it is indeed strange that they will group together North America and Europe, making them quite large (both in terms of land area and number of World Heritage Sites), thus possibly skewing some statistical analysis made to study World Heritage Sites. I think that the zone designation is based more on cultural delineation (i.e. Latin America for rest of Western Hemisphere minus Canada and USA, Arab States is a distinctive zone), however, that is just an inference, since Asia-Pacific also encompassed the Indian sub-continent, which is actually culturally distinct from the rest of Asia. Joey80 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Note that Russia is classified as belonging to the Europe and North America zone, together with Cyprus and the Caucasus States." 

message: While I was editing the Old City of Jerusalem, I found on the UNESCO World Heritage web site that the Old City was nominated on the first extraordinary session, not the fifth session as the former editor proclaimed.
Here's what I found on the session report:
:The first extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held at Unesco Headquarters in Paris on 10 and 11 September 1981, at the request of seventeen States members of the Committee which also requested that the meeting deal with two items : the election of two Vice-Chairmen to the Bureau and the inscription of "the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" on the World Heritage List.
Quite interesting, isn't it? The session was held a month before the fifth ordinary session in Sydney. I've corrected the article accordingly. 
I dug in further, and found that there were more extraordinary session, seven in total at the moment. Other six are:
* Second session, 29 October 1997 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
* Third session, 12 July 1999 - to decide whether to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park, Australia on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The proposal was declined.
* Fourth session, 30 October 1999 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
* Fifth session (pdf), 1 November 2001 - Election of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.
* Sixth session, 27 May 2003.
* Seventh session, 6-11 December 2004.
Should we list all those extraordinary sessions into this article too? Or should we list only ones that concern one or more World Heritage Site in particular, such as the 1st and the 3rd? - DTRY 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the information is fascinating, the template in the Old City of Jerusalem article should be listed accordingly by the information used on the official UNESCO World Heritage website.  This site (Old City of Jerusalem) is official inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1981, which is the "fifth session", as the official UNESCO website listed it.  The informations on articles about World Heritage properties should reflect how the sites are actually listed on the World Heritage List to avoid confusions.--TheLeopard 07:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the extraordinary session? 

message: What does the term "State Party" mean, which is used in this context? Does it mean "participating state", as in a state which takes part in the work with world heritage, or what? I think it should be explained in this article. E.G. 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a State Party? 

message: I suggest to add Sigiriya a UNESCO World Heritage Site to photos.
--Lanka07 20:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that, and suggest the form to the right. (see also Heritage website listing)  --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 12:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too support the addition of Sigiriya to the list of photos on this page. This site is considerably different from the pictures of other sites which have been posted up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.20.3 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add another site 

message: The following Commons picture is available:
right|150px|thumb|Site #1161: The Piton Management Area in St. Lucia.
Jayen466 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And another ... the Piton Management Area in St. Lucia

message: 1.Sam Houston was in charge of the Texan army.
2.Santa anna was in charge of the mexican army.
3.the battle lasted only 18 minutes.
4.the Texans snuk up on the Mexican when they were takeing a nap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.17.12 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what mom knows about San Jacinto battle 

message: At UNESCO are inscribed a new Sites.--82.200.186.226 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Inscribed Properties 

message: Some information on how much it costs to be considered, and if successful registered, and whether there are repeat costs, would be interesting. Or perhaps conversely Unesco gives money for the up keep of the sites?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: I have the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, and Saint Margaret's Church, which are all one site, to the list as there were only 5 examples of sites from Europe and North America, despite 50% of sites being from Europe and North America, yet there were 7 examples of sites from Asia despite only 21% of sites being from Asia. Usergreatpower (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey, and Saint Margaret's Church

message: Why don't we just group by continent in the section where the article lists the number of articles per region?  There's no reason to put the America and Europe in the same category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.0.83 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Grouping of locations

message: To the page. Cityofblindinglights24 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest to add another photo 

message: I mean... the current table contradicts itself... countries like Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras are all in North America but are also part of Latin America. Also, the Arab States are located in Africa and Asia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiridaz (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not use the sites per country table? 

message: Very few "westerners" know about the Shalimar gardens in Pakistan. It is an example of Mughal architecture different and less known than the the Taj. It would be a very suitable picture would it not?--Westernpit (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very unknown UNESCO site 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.arvind.arasu (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Living Chola Temples 

message: It seems to me that the comments regarding "Rachel's Tomb" are not neutral. 
Both of the citations used to evidence the claim, "there is no documented history of using the site for that purpose[as a Mosque]" are to the Israel National News, a very pro-zionist publication. 
The actual article for the discussed site seems to have many more nuanced details, such as that Israel apparently built a wall around the site and only provides access to it for Israeli citizens. 
What does everyone think? I'm personally not well versed in the situation, but the phrasing of this section seemed blatantly biased.
Joeklein (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So please do some investigating and googling and debunk this report you doubt if you can find verifiable material saying otherwise. If you go to the Rachel's Tomb page, you won't find any evidence either, and not because it's being kept out either. You'll find that the Arabs and even recently the Palestinians, refer to it as Rachel's Tomb (Rachel is a highly regarded proohetess) and that there is an adjacent cemetery, but no mosque. UNESCO is caught supporting revisionism and erasing Jewish history. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a storm in a teacup. UNESCO calls it "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb" and maintain it's in Palestine. Their longer explanation from a few months ago is here. It's a territorial issue, not religious; UNESCO is denying the Israeli claim to the land and not the long Jewish history of reverence for the site. The mosque has been there since at least the 1400's although the name is recent. Sol (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Uh, (talk your link to prove the rachel's tomb was a mosque, actually just says that there was something called rachels tomb, not a mosque. in fact, it clearly says "Qewer Rahel" which is HEBREW for "rachel's tomb."
the section should probably be included as a criticism, but not as  World_Heritage_Site#Criticism_of_criteria because its not the criteria thats being criticized, but rather. its politics. 
if there is a link that supports the alternative view, link it. either way. im gonna clean up the writing Seeasea (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking at the last link I posted? It's in the first page section that comes up,I screwed up the link. Some Russian dude from the 1400's describes it as a mosque. That's the oldest reference I've seen. It also pops up in a lot of the 19th-century travel literature. Sol (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I think you're right about the section title. The section mentions nothing about the criteria, just UNESCO's supposed politics. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute: Criticisms of Criteria Section 

message: 250px|thumb| The Magnificent Pyramid of El Gran Jaguar, Tikal, Guatemala
I think we should add Tikal to the images listed in the article, its the Largest city of the Maya and it also has some of the largest structures made by them, Tikal is also large Nature Reserve that is home of lots of endangered flora and fauna species, and also one of the first 100 UNESCO heritage sites, being number 64. By this and more I think Tikal deserves to be listed in this article as one of the most important UNESCO heritage sites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelda-maniack (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tikal, The Largest and Most Important City of The Maya 

message: As usual, African sites get the shaft, but actually, most regions of the world are ommitted. 7 of these pictures come from Western countries. There are none from Africa, none from South America (although I guess Chichen Itza is supposed to cover the region), 1 from the Middle East (Egypt), and 1 from Asia (Philippines). I am not here to promote any specific entries, but would it be okay if the pictures reflected the "World" part of "World Heritage"? 
I have attempted to rectify this by adding diversity. Currently it is 2 Asia (China and Philippines), 1 Africa (Uganda), 1 Middle East (Egypt), 2 Europe (Italy and Russia), 1 Oceania (Australia), 1 United States, and 2 Latin America (Mexico and Uruguay). I tried to choose interesting yet lesser known sites in order to prevent the same old places from showing up everywhere. I'm sure someone will not like something however, the previous ten were obviously no good. Like I said above, I don't have any agenda to add specific sites; my intention is to add diversity in order to showcase the greater scope of World Heritage Sites. Puchiwonga (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same thing, and even being West centered, it is still far from being a good article about what a "World Heritage Site" is, because it is actually about the concept of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Back in the 16th century the idea of the "Seven Wonders of the World" was conceived, and I think this article should take it from there, and lead up to lists like the UNESCO ones,m but be more about awareness of cultural preservation around the world. Jane (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image list extremely West-centered 

message: I think we should add Stonehenge as it is a very famous World Heritage Site. I think it's more famous than some of the other ones on there. Willrocks10 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add stonehenge 

message: Looking through the talk page, it looks like a lot of debates about picture choices have never gone anywhere. Nevertheless, there's one change I want to suggest. At the moment, most of the pictures are of ancient monuments, and from the page you wouldn't realise that quite a few more modern sites from the Industrial revolution and later, such as Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape, Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal and Völklingen Ironworks were included. Does anyone support swapping in a picture of a later world heritage site? I was thinking perhaps Semmering railway, since it's relatively picturesque, but other options include Ironbridge Gorge, Lifts on the old Canal du Centre and Mountain Railways of India (which might be the one most readers would recognise). Smurrayinchester 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of a reply, I've swapped out Brihadeeswarar Temple for Mountain Railways of India. This maintains the current balance of nations (swapping one Indian heritage site for another) but makes sure that modern industrial heritage is represented in the list. Smurrayinchester 13:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a picture of an industrial heritage site? 

message: Hampi is a World Heritage Site for its architecture. I would like to add video footage of various architectural landmarks around the village. The video was taken as part of a documentary by the Global Lives Project:
ruins or ruins
Achituraya Temple
general architecture
I would subclip the videos down to about one minute a piece. Jordanhkatz (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Video Content  

message: I think the start of this article should help to clarify the difference between a World Heritage Listing and World Heritage Site. I have noticed that some articles use the term "World Heritage Site", when they mean World Heritage Listing". That is a World Heritage Listing can include one or more World Heritage Sites. For example the "Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)" includes 17 sites in one listing, where as "Himeji Castle" is the one and only site within the one listing.Whats up skip (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Site and Listing  

message: The Territorial Division chart is wrong in stating Poland has 13 World heritage sites. They have 14.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmichaeln (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial division chart 

message: There is currently a discussion on Talk:Istanbul#Istanbul_World_Heritage_Sites about the opportunity of tagging as World heritage site a single landmark belonging to a site. Interested users can join. Alex2006 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opportunity of tagging as World Heritage Site single landmarks belonging to one site 

message: I've replaced many images on the page with three: one each representing cultural, natural and mixed heritage site. If someone thinks there are better images, he is free to replace them. But, please, do not add more images. Large number of images decreases the readability of the article, and we can't place images of all sites in the article. So, we have to decide what number of images to include, and I think 3 is OK. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, We should keep those photos. They were in small size, no need to remove most of them. We can create new gallery section below and can keep some of those pics there. Yes, we can't keep photos of all sites here, but there are more than 1000 World heritage sites and we are keeping very selected of those, not all 1,000. So we can create gallery. --Human3015Send WikiLove  13:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were small, yes. But, the column of images was much longer than the text itself, which was quite ugly (on my display, and I have a wide display). I'm not sure why would we need a gallery. We have separate lists of world heritage sites (like List of World Heritage Sites in Africa) with images of all sites. Why having gallery here? And how to decide which images to place? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your reply. See, we need images in this topic, I will say why. This is a parent article on World Heritage Sites which gets around 2000 views daily. This article should be representative of the World. I know lists for different nations exists but they are given in template below, no one see template. Common reader don't look in template. I am reading Wikipedia since 10 years but it is since I joined Wikipedia 6 months ago I get to know about templates and Wikimedia Commons. We should think about common readers who read on mobile in which template of all list many times can't be visible. So this article at least should contain pics of different sites from all continents and of all religions. There as Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian etc related sites, we should choose some of each religion. Also look for continents or regions, like Latin America, Arab World, Africa, South Asia, East Asia, Australia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America etc. 2-3 sites from each region. This article should be World Class. --Human3015Send WikiLove  15:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Why are you replacing the official web page of the World Heritage program (whc.unesco.org) with the web page of the Unesco center for Virgin Islands (www.unesco.vg)? That makes no sense. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official web page 

message: Panoramio is "World heritage image memory of mankind". Please go online again. 89.13.137.110 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Hopefully the Wayback Machine has most of it archived. Maybe somebody else crawled all the images too and maybe people will start uploading to Wikimedia Commons and other open source localized image platforms instead. --Fixuture (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramio is World heritage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on World Heritage Site. 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/20060207191942/http://law-ref.org/HERITAGE/index.html to http://law-ref.org/HERITAGE/index.html
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) 08:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I can't see why the United States is mentioned as the 10th country here and Iran is the 11th, while the both countries have 23 sites and in the English alphabet, I Comes first and U stands next...United state of America is the most powerful country of the world but this is not a good justification to ignore grammatical and reasonable points in a text! respectfully Aran.zahra (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage site 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: World Heritage Site →  – According to our MOS, the entire title should be lowercase, and carefully edited websites like http://ocean.si.edu/blog/world-heritage-goes-marine don't capitalize the last word, and neither does UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ Espoo (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
* Not sure, Dicklyon, why you might think World Heritage is a proper name. Could you tell me where to find World Heritage?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 May 2018