Template talk:World Heritage Sites in Australia

Notes

This template is far too big; it looks awful. Please consider redesigning. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Upon looking at Category:World Heritage Sites by country templates, I found that countries such as France, China and India (all of which have more WHS than Australia) do not classify and divide the sites by state/province, or at all for that matter. I think an alphabetical listing is the best solution. Gizza^Discuss ^© 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about reverting to this version? --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the old design while adding the Sydney Opera House. It is much more succinct now. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves also count in Queensland? MagpieShooter 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template no longer classifies by states (and a good thing, too), I have changed the format back to this layout, bringing it line with other WHS templates. - 52 Pickup 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the list as one large unbroken list detracts from understandability. It's to do with Hrair limits (seven plus or minus two) and human cognition and perception. I prefer understandability to looking pretty. Don't matter if it's broken up by region (like Britain) or site type (like Spain) or time period or whatever, just as long at it gives sub lists of 9 or less! - Gnoll110 - 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]