Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Asia

Banaue Rice Terraces

The photo of the Banaue Rice Terraces is erroneously placed in this article. It is NOT at UNESCO World Heritage Site. The five sites under the inscription Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras are the Batad Rice Terrace, Bangaan Rice Terraces, Mayoyao Rice Terraces, Hungduan Rice Terraces and Nagacadan Rice Terraces. The photo of the Banaue Rice Terraces must be replaced with a photo of any of the five mentioned sites. Phlheritage (talk)

India Sites

On India's World Heritage Sites, as of now, Brihadisvara Temple, is not one of the World Heritage sites listed on the UNESCO World Heritage official websites. And The Hampi Monuments, Mahabalipuram Monuments, and Pattadakal Monuments has been listed/repeated twice here as Monuments at Hampi, Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram, Group of Monuments at Pattadakal. - June 15, 2005

India's Sites now reflect UNESCO's list Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thailand

The illustration (photo) captioned as Phra Achana hand, Sukhothai Province, Thailand is not a photo of Phra Achana. Can this be corrected please?Lin (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Saihoji?

The article Saihoji says the moss garden was declared a World Heritage Site in 1994. I do not find it in this list. Is that information wrong, or should Saihoji be included here? // Habj 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Saihoji is part of the Kyoto site. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tentative sites

Hello everyone. I added a list of tentative sites for South Korea and they were deleted. I can understand the distinction between "official" and "tentative" and I respect that. My intentions were not to conflate the two designations but just to make some articles I had written more accessible and provide relevant and interesting information to readers interested in that kind of thing. They were definitely noted to be tentative sites only. I took my que from UNESCO who does make a section for tentative lists [1] and the official World Heritage Site which also lists both the official and tentative sites on the same page, albiet in seperate categories. [2].

I just want to know what everyones opinion is as to the placement of tentative list articles. I don't see the big deal with making a subsection in each country category on this list noting the tentative lists because it would be helpful and interesting information. But if that is bad, perhaps a new page for tentative lists can be made. Any opinions would be appreciated it. Thanks. Tortfeasor 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Egypt seems to be missing from the whole list ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.235.57.41 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Egypt is in Africa. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing Countries

Lebanon's heritage sites are missing from this article, and are not in the other region lists. If someone cares to add them, that'd be helpful. I'll check back after I finish working on some other edits.—DMCer™ 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon is on the Arab States list. --Chouji Ochiai (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That said someone just added Syria to the list, which I don't have any problem with, especially because we have all those "European" countries on the list already. If someone wanted to throw Lebanon or any other Arab states up I wouldn't object. Anyone else with strong feelings about this? Chouji Ochiai (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Henderson Island

Shouldn't Henderson Island be listed here, as long as Pitcairn Islands is a part of Oceania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.121.56 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's listed under Europe because it's part of British overseas territory. This is also the region it's included in by UNESCO's definition. Originally this page included all overseas territories that fall within the boundaries, but not only are these boundaries only ever vaguely defined they also cluttered up the page considerably.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

So people have been adding quite a few pictures lately and they've been having some effect on the layout of the page. I'd like to start discussing how we should organize pictures here, and how we might use the current format or a new one to integrate new photos better. Ideally anyone who wanted to add a picture for a country would be able to, but adding more than one picture for any country that has less than 5 or 6 sights might be a little much.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I added some of them. I personally don't like the current picture in Iran, because I don't think the long rectangular photos work well with this type of page. I like China and India, because the images fit nicely within their sections... For countries like that, containing their images to only be within that country's list is the best approach. I'm not sure about the best way to deal with those who's lists are not long enough for the images to fit within them. I guess the most important thing is to make sure the images do not exceed the list itself. Puchiwonga (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The pictures exceeding the sites that actually existed was a problem with some Iraqi photos that I took out. I like how Sri Lanka and Syria have solved the problem of a picture being slightly larger than the space allotted for them, I'm going to try messing around with other pictures and see what happens.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes, what does everyone think? I'm less sure about the second round of changes I made. They're for countries that don't have many sites to begin with, which means a lot of blank space - anathema to wikipedia editors. However, if more countries had pictures up I don't think it would be so visually jarring. I'll try adding some pictures around Malaysia to test that out.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, just noticing the mechanics of this during my edits, I'd propose that countries with 1-15 sites get one photo, 16-25 sites get two photos, and so on. This would allow more photos for India and China relative to others, which only makes sense. How does that sound?Chouji Ochiai (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just made some new changes, adding photos from Laos to New Zealand. Does this sort of format justify all the blank space? If not I'd amend my earlier proposal to 0-5 sites = no photos / 6-15 sites = one photo / 16-25 sites = two photos, etc.Chouji Ochiai (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures up for every country now (except Papua, I just can't find a picture of this archaeological site). What do you all think? As before, there's a whole lotta blank space. Again, my proposed solution to this would be taking out pictures for countries with five sites or less. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Welldone, nice layout, and fair for every country, I like it.... (Gunkarta (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)).

answer for picures commenttalk

i have noticed the changes that you have made and i think some pictures that you have added to some cointries are really nice,but i think every country should have at least one photo. you removed all the pictures of iraq , which is not fare.at least keep one of them. also i heared from the news ( radio sawa) that babylon became one of the world heritage sites but i don`t know why they didnot add it yet to the list in the official website of the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoriz (talk • contribs) 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I removed them without then putting one up! That was rude of me, I'll go put one back in with the new format, feel free to replace it if you'd like another one! Sorry again. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On Babylon: while it is on Iraq's tentative list, it has not been added to the official world heritage list yet. New sites are added to the official list usually around June, so it's entirely possible that Babylon will be added this year. It would be nice for Iraq to have a little more representation. However, it looks like there is an army base on the site right now, which might complicate things. You can find more information here: [3]. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In case of expansion

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) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maps

I think we should avoid adding maps to this page. As it is, the page is quite accessible and the graphics do not take away from the actual information the page provides. The List of World Heritage Sites in Europe is a complete mess because of the maps that have been added to it. If we were to change the format of this page, we should buckle down and create a comprehensive table a la the List of World Heritage Sites in Africa page. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally against map page like the List of World Heritage Sites in Europe, it makes the page totally unattractive and messy. However to make table like List of World Heritage Sites in Africa page is nice ide, however it will be too much since Asia has so many sites. Some of countries that have numerous sites like China and India already have pages done in this fashion. (Gunkarta (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Request for comments

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)

Split request

We've split the category this was in into Category:World Heritage Sites in Asia and Category:World Heritage Sites in Oceania. Thoughts on doing the same for the article, moving the Australia, New Zealand, and similar sections to a new page?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - we need to make categories and articles consistent! Thank you for raising this Mike! gidonb (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How many sites are in Asia and how many in Oceania? bamse (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

26 in Oceania, if I counted correctly. The rest in Asia. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How much is the rest? I am asking since I would only support a split if the number is too large to fit in one article. (I created some featured lists with ca. 150 entries.) bamse (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides, I also think that the argument for splitting (because we organized the categories in such a way) is a weak one. bamse (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW - We also need to split the Americas double-continent and the "Arab countries" OR continent. Please look at the present situation of:

It's so different from our standards. gidonb (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of this discussion? bamse (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Our standards? Please. Help us all out by referencing the World Heritage Center. Chouji Ochiai (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Come to me with a rigorous and universally accepted definition of the border between Asia and Oceania and maybe I'll bite. Otherwise I'm fine with loosely following UNESCO's "Asia and the Pacific". Chouji Ochiai (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose! Oceania is too small for a new article. Just follow the UNESCO's arrangement.

• Oppose Oceania's borders are well-defined and following UNESCO really isn't important, so those are both weak arguments, but most of Oceania's sites are in Australia, so there doesn't seem to be a reason to split them right now. If we do ever split them, I think the proposal to have "List of World Heritage Sites in Asia" as a disambiguation page is pretty stupid. The Asia page should be the Asia list and Oceania should be the Oceania list. Seems like a no-brainer to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.220.115 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion to finalise our method of dividing lists at WT:WHS. Please join in. Nightw 15:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. There are two redirects - World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia and List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Australasia - that I'm not sure what to do with now. The first one has no incoming links, but the second has more than 400 in article-space. Those should all be pointed either to the Asia page or the Oceania page, but it will probably have to be done manually, although some of them are probably due to templates, and will stop appearing on that list soon. - GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Asia and Oceania → List of World Heritage Sites in Asia – Since non-Asian content is now duplicated at List of World Heritage Sites in Oceania. Nightw 10:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting to East Asia and Oceania list and Western and South Asia

Per the small consensus at WT:WHS, I propose splitting the list to List of World Heritage in East Asia and Oceania and List of World Heritage in Western and South Asia. Any objections? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections, but the Oceania list has already been split off, so what you propose is kind of a split-merge. bamse (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Err, yes :) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)