Jump to content

Talk:World Heritage Site/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 8 December 2018

WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn per SNOW. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


World Heritage Site → World Heritage site – In spite of the recent RM discussion that closed in opposition to capitalizing Site, it is again capped due to an odd close of a move review. Let's see if we can fix this by paying attention to how this term is treated in sources, starting with all of UNESCO's sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

List evidence from sources here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines

  • WP:NCCAPS – "... lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." and "For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the manual of style sections on capital letters and, when relevant, on trademarks."
  • MOS:CAPS – "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."

Survey

  • Support as nom – It is ridiculous that WP caps "Site" when UNESCO does not. Per MOS:CAPS, we treat as proper names things that sources consistently capitalize, such as their "trademarks" "World Heritage" and "World Heritage List", but not "World Heritage site". Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this endless edit war and per this convincing and should-be-discussion-ending ngram. The upper-case has been the long-term title, has gone through the test, and now either again presented for a month long discussion (are we going to do another round of RM, Move Review, RM, on and on) if RfCed or will some reasonable admin close this and moratorium this RM. Time will tell. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy close Too soon

  • Speedy close. Discussion on this is overdone already and a pause is needed. The MRV has closed with a consensus declared. Respect that, and stick with the standard WP:Moratorium, not to be discussed for at least six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    The MRV result was that since the latest RM closed with no consensus, the title should revert to the long-term stable title. That's a far cry from a consensus for what the title should be. When consensus has not been achieved, more discussion can help. In particular, focusing the discussion on guidelines and evidence might help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    A no consensus close is not an invitation to immediately reopen it because you're mad it didn't go your way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    So your only reason to oppose is that you think I'm mad? Interesting. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    No, trying to reopen a discussion in which you were unsuccessful at obtaining your desired result immediately after it was closed as no consensus is against guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close stupid discussion we just had. Leave it alone already. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close and impose moratorium.. Come on Dicklyon, you know better than this. We have spent months. And months. Discussing this sorry subject. The MRV has been closed and it is time to move on. Sure you don't like the outcome, I wouldn't have liked it if it had gone the other way, but that's how it is. Let me quote from RoySmith's MRV close: "Given the amazing amount of discussion this has engendered (here and elsewhere), I'm sure there will be some people who are discontent with this close. I urge those of you to read m:The Wrong Version and WP:STICK". This request is the exact opposite of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, withdrawn per SNOW. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mexico not in Latin America and Caribbean not in the Caribbean?

From World_Heritage_Site#Statistics:

Russia and the Caucasus states are classified as European, while Mexico and the Caribbean are classified as belonging to the Latin America & Caribbean zone, despite their location in North America.

Well, Russia and Caucasus can be considered either part of Europe or Asia so it's not a problem to call World Heritage Sites there "European".

But the rest of the sentence is borderline funny — maybe the writer thought Latin America is a synonym of South America? Sure, Mexico and Caribbean are part of North America. But firstly: Mexico is also a Latin American country. And how is it surprising that the Caribbean belongs to the "Latin America & Caribbean zone"? Also, the countries in the Caribbean with the very largest land area are also Latin American. --83.245.228.89 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right. I removed the last part of the sentence, so it makes more sense now. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Preparing article for GA nomination

Looking at the current quality, GA-status for this vital article seems within reach.

These days I will go through the following steps to prepare it for GA nomination:

- Text content: checking for unclearness or inconsistencies / checking the WHS criteria – should be the same as at UNESCO's website (updated) / elaboration of section Consequences (adding the positive ones) / update dates to June 2020 where needed

- Grammar: general copy-edit / check with Grammarly / consistent use of British English / consistently writing "World Heritage" and "Committee" with capitals

- General reading: cutting snakes / avoiding complex wording and weasel words / final general check

- Manual of Style: numbers / punctuation / miscellaneous

- Wikilinks: avoiding overuse (barely the case) / insert useful links if possible (none)

- Images: equal sizing (some are smaller) / if possible, retrieving even better pictures from Wikimedia Commons (hard to assign any image as better than these) / checking if there are copyright issues (OK, none found) / improved caption for the logo/emblem

- Structure: checking appropriateness of (sub)headings / spacing / consider Bibliography subsection (added) / consider Notes section (added) / shrink introduction / make sure introduction only includes information mentioned elsewhere / proper paragraphs rather than loose sentences

- References: links still working? OK / merge references / add links if references lack links / check if sources seem appropriate and trustworthy (all seem decent) / if needed additional sources (added 5, there seem to be enough) / uniform way of referencing, both in the text and at the bottom / elaboration of short references (only website) / translating foreign languages / archiving links as much as possible

- Adding final comments based on GA criteria:

A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and -> seems OK; I worked a lot on making it more concise, spelling/grammar + very understandable for most people who read a lot in English
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.-> I cannot think of major issues. Not too complex wordings or weasel words.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;-> Did a lot of work on the references, should be the best part of the entire article
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);-> I don't think I overlooked something
    3. it contains no original research;-> No OR as far as I see
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.-> Not that I know
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;-> Fair enough, with thanks to all the previous editors. I changed little to the actual content.
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).-> The article stays very focused IMHO. The opposite might be true, that some more elaboration is desirable.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.-> I think the Consequences section in the current form (1 June 2020) is a good example of that.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.-> Before I started editing the article 'stood still' for a couple of weeks. I also changed little to the actual content, so quite stable in my opinion.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:-> Hard to find more suitable images I think. I made a necessary improvement to the caption of the emblem.
    7. Kareldorado (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

- Ask GOCE for CE

Kareldorado (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:World Heritage Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 19:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be happy to do this review of this important article. I'll try to get started tomorrow, it's late here already. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for having this review started so quickly. Till soon, Kareldorado (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Review

Overall, the article is very close to GA status, and indeed you’ve yourself done a great job by doing a thorough criteria check before nominating the article. That’s really commendable, it should be a role model for all of us! And the article is generally in a very fine condition, there are no real major obstacles as I can see from getting it to GA. Good work! The only two areas where I’ve some questions and ideas for improvement are the scope and the prose. The prose I will address last, these are minor things like choice of words and the structure of a few sentences. See if you agree with my points or not and we can discuss those things or just tick them off. I should also mention that some of the sources are marked on the WP as retrieved in as far back as 2006 and later archived. They still work and go to UNESCO, but you may want to update those, it would look a whole lot nicer. I couldn’t see any new info at UNESCO that contradicts these citations though so technically they work.

The only other thing I have is regarding the scope: what I miss in the article is a bit more elaboration on what the ‘’purpose’’ of World Heritage Sites are. You touch upon it briefly, noting that it will provide the site with legal protection, but I think a short section with two or three sentences explicitly addressing what the point of the whole scheme is, would be very welcome. I think you could pluck a lot of info from the UNESCO website. Do you agree? Perhaps it could also be made more succinct by including the first paragraph of the “Consequences” section in such a new section, and move the rest of that section to Endangerment and rename that section “Consequences and critique” or something like that – but that’s purely optional from my side.

Another, minor scope thing: what about adding a brief note about the cultural landscapes that are mentioned by UNESCO in their criteria page?

Apart from this, here are some prose notes:

The very first sentence: A World Heritage Site is a landmark or area, selected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for having cultural, historical, scientific or other form of significance, which is legally protected by international treaties. is a bit unwieldly. I would suggest to split it up, possibly like this: “A World Heritage Site is a landmark or area which is legally protected by international treaties [from what and how?]. World Heritage Sites are designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for having cultural, historical, scientific or other form of significance.”

The sites are judged to possess "cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity." I’m not sure a site possesses heritage. Do you think you could rephrase the sentence?

To be selected, a World Heritage Site must be a landmark unique in some respect as a geographically and historically identifiable place having special cultural or physical significance. This is also unnecessarily complex, is it possible to simplify it?

the top three of countries with most sites are Axing it to “the three countries with most sites are” would make it read a bit smoother I think?

The United States initiated the idea of cultural conservation with nature conservation. I’m not sure I understand this. Rephrase.

Thanks again for your hard and great work! Yakikaki (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome; thank you for the thorough review and the encouraging words! Yesterday and today I had little time, but in the upcoming two weeks, I will put myself at it again. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I'll keep the review open for two weeks, after that I'll close it unless we're making progress. The entire GA review process is supposed to take seven days, normally. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Today I could address everything you mentioned – I think. Your suggestion to make a section about the whole purpose of WHS designation was very good. Would you want to reread, with special attention to the lead? Note that the modified "Endangerment and critique" chapter is quite large; I chose this section title since endangerment and critique are partly intertwined – part of the criticism is that WHS selection can lead to decay. Kareldorado (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Kareldorado, thank you for these changes, I think the article has gained in quality through the process and I have no further objections to promoting it to GA status. Great work on an important topic! Yakikaki (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

One problem with considering this a "good article" is the over-capitalization of "site" when it's not part of a proper name. UNESCO does not do this, and WP style is to not do this, yet a number of editors objected when I once fixed it, so we're stuck. Time for a new RM discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I did notice that there had been a long discussion about the name issue, but as it was closed, with last entries from 2018, I did not take it into account when making the GA review. Still, if you believe it's a pressing issue, there is of course nothing that stands in the way for another RM proposal. Personally, I have no strong opinion on this matter. Yakikaki (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yakikaki, please note that the 2018 RM double snow and then withdrawal would seem to have set the mood. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Heritage_Site/Archive_2&oldid=1216201259"