Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Czech Republic[edit]

Why is the Czech Republic simply labeled as Czech? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous List[edit]

This is ridiculous. Why aren't those places sorted by country? This is so confusing I can't tell which country has which sites. Now there are mixed up places from totally different countries. ~ Illioplius (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Click on the country at the top of the table, and the table gets sorted by country.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, it does, but trans-border sites are nevertheless at the bottom of the list, so you cannot see all the sites in one country at one place. ~ Illioplius (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, but one can not properly sort trans-border sites anyway. I once suggested have individual country lists, and it was rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place missing[edit]

On the map of all coordinates at least one place is missing: Levoča, Spiš Castle and the associated cultural monuments. Can somebody add it please? I would, but I do not know how. Thanks! Illioplius (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The site had the wrong coordinates in the list (those of Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest). It might take some time to appear for you because of caching, but you for the time being you can enforce it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GeoGroup#Cache_delay

bamse (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Eastern Bloc countries missing[edit]

I am opening this section upon the request of another user. World Heritage Sites in three other former Eastern Bloc countries in the European category of UNESCO are missing from the article. Please see the list of regions on the website whc.unesco.org. I understand that the sites in the Baltic region are included in Northern Europe, and those in Albania and the former Yugoslavia are included in Southern Europe, but what about the other Eastern Bloc countries in the European category of UNESCO, e.g. Georgia? I believe that we should revert the article to the version of 02:25 UTC, 26 March 2017. The current version does not include the sites in three other countries and has an invalid <ref> tag. Besides, the first paragraph includes an unnecessary statement regarding Turkey. It is true that the sites in Turkey (e.g. Selimiye complex in Thrace, Pergamon, historic areas of Istanbul, Hierapolis, Cappadocia, Xanthos) are also in the European category of UNESCO, but they are in Southern Europe to be precise, rather than Eastern Europe (not to be confused with Southeastern Europe, i.e. the eastern part of Southern Europe). Therefore, the statement as to why those sites are not included here is unnecessary. Another issue is that the article mentions the sites of the Asian part of Russia (such as Wrangel reserve, volcanoes of Kamchatka, central Sikhote–Alin) are included in Central Asia. If anything, that would be Northern Asia rather than Central Asia. In order to fix the aforesaid issues, I think the article needs to be reverted to the version of 02:25 UTC, 26 March 2017. Listofpeople (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit suprised that nobody replies. I can not really comment on other points, but in the English Wikipedia, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are classified as Asia, not as Europe, and the World Heritage sites in these countries were in the Western Asia lists before you removed them from there without discussion. I will now revert your edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ymblanter, I started this topic upon your request. I believe you should not have reverted that. This is the list of world heritage sites recognized by the UNESCO. As we can see on the organisation's official website, those three former Eastern Bloc countries are only in the European category of UNESCO. What do you mean they are not classified as such 'in the English Wikipedia'? There are many other organisations that place those countries fully in Eastern Europe or other. However, the UNESCO's geographical criterion is what matters the most in this case. Users can add or remove content as long as the changes conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Those edits were reliably sourced and were not out of scope of this article. Listofpeople (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that wherever we have lists (or, more often, templates) splitting countries over the continents, such as European countries by employment in agriculture (% of employed), these three countries end up in Asian lists/templates. Your argument, that UNESCO lists them as Europe, is correct, but UNESCO only has one list for Europe and does not split it into Northern etc. Thus, this argument would imply that List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe is original research and can not exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ymblanter, as long as it does not contradict with the UNESCO's official regional categories, I believe one can discuss which subregion the sites in a given country belong to if there is really a need to divide a continent into subregions. For instance, I can say that Latvia's World Heritage Sites should be included in Northern Europe or Eastern Europe or both, but I cannot suggest another region (continent) for them. Similarly, I am not in position to list Georgia's World Heritage Sites in a Wikipedia article called 'List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Asia' while the UNESCO assigns them to Europe. If one believes that the organisation made a substantial mistake (I cannot see that), it should be reported. Unless re-assigned, such a country belongs to here only. This is also in line with the article's very first statement that countries of Eastern Europe are 'defined here to mean the former Eastern Bloc countries not including the Baltic Countries (which are in Northern Europe) or former Yugoslavia and Albania (which are in Southern Europe) or the parts of Germany that once comprised East Germany (which are included in Western Europe).' In a context other than world heritage sites, such as employment in agriculture that you mentioned, we can perhaps discuss where those countries should end up. Speaking of that, I actually see that article also have some issues:
The map uses the data from the World Bank, but the WB has an Europe and Central Asia category, including 'ALBANIA, ANDORRA, ARMENIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELARUS, BELGIUM, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CHANNEL ISLANDS, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, ESTONIA, FAROE ISLANDS, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GIBRALTAR, GREECE, GREENLAND, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ISLE OF MAN, ITALY, KOSOVO, LATVIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA FYR, MOLDOVA, MONACO, MONTENEGRO, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SAN MARINO, SERBIA, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM' as European countries. Therefore, some countries are missing from the article's map.
That map has a coloured area. Well, not that I object, but it also shows the percentage for two countries outside the coloured area. Those two are highly relevant there, but I wonder why that map does not include the percentage for other partially-coloured countries which are in the same region (Europe) based on the World Bank data. Although this is not the point here, I just wanted to show such Wikipedia articles can be misleading. Besides, not all templates show them that way. Those countries are considered either fully Eastern European or transcontinental, and sometimes included in more than one regional template and category on Wikipedia. The European Union's official thesaurus, too, places those three countries geographically in Eastern Europe, but, again, we should base our list not on the terminology of the EU, but that of the UNESCO (in terms of continents, at least). For subregions, however, the EU's terminology might be acceptable since it does not 'contradict' with the UNESCO's regional categories. Listofpeople (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I agree. Also I assume the splitting of articles between subregions was a result of some consensus. We probably need a broader discussion with more participants.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ymblanter, splitting a continent into subregions is not the problem here. In this case, it probably makes the list more reader friendly. We are not discussing this. As I said, my concern is about listing World Heritage Sites, fully or partially in Eastern Europe as well as in the UNESCO's European category, not in Europe at all but in 'another continent' on Wikipedia. There are also some minor issues I mentioned above. Dividing the list of World Heritage Sites in Europe into Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Western Europe, or even further into the Balkans, the Baltic region, the Benelux Union, the Caucasus, Fennoscandia, Iberia, etc. on Wikipedia is obviously not against the UNESCO. My personal opinion is that those four main regions are fine. The rest would be unnecessary. I think we agree on that. Anyway, missing countries do not belong to more than one of those four main regions. Adding them onto this list was not against a discussion because this particular topic was not covered here before. An edit summary was made, and the edit was reliably-sourced from the official website of the UNESCO itself and did not contradict with the article's specific Eastern Bloc definition. For this reason, I would really not expect you to revert it before seeking a compromise.
All the best! Listofpeople (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I could revert, see WP:BRD. Again, I am disappointed by lack of participation because the two of us would never reach compromise on this point. Should we open an RFC?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World Heritage Sites in Eastern Europe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Eastern_Europe&oldid=1208488366"