Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom

Tentative list updated 10 April 2023: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/seven-sites-confirmed-in-the-running-for-unesco-world-heritage-status

	List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2010 Featured list candidate Promoted

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

World Heritage Sites (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

As far as i can see there is no mention of Kourion on the citation for the UNESCO site of Paphos on the UNESCO site

The list-article looks nice. I agree that a separate list-article for these U.K. ones seems fine. Similarly to my comments on a different list-article at FLC recently, though, I suggest that the number of columns be reduced. One column for three UNESCO-related items: "Criteria / Year inscribed / UNESCO reference number" could save 2 columns. The references column also could be dropped, in my view, with the references moved to the end of text description. In other list-articles of UNESCO WHS sites, linking from the Unesco reference number to the corresponding Unesco WHS webpage about the place has been done, too, and i think could be helpful here too. doncram (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with most of those points (it's not terribly useful having a sortable "criteria" column as most are listed under more than one criterion so it could be merged and the UNESCO reference correlates to the inscription date), however my understanding is that external links outside of an external links section is discouraged. I agree it would be useful, and could try it, but it might get flushed out during any future FLC. What do you think of the descriptions, do they need to be trimmed or are they an acceptable size? The intention was to explain why (beyond the criteria) the sites are significant. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the descriptions a lot: they seem very well-written and are a good length. I like that they use complete sentences, which makes them much more easily readable. UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Bulgaria is an example where i was trying to help another editor and was experimenting with format, FYI. I don't know if there are any WHS list-articles that are FL's now. Linking from a table is more like linking from an infobox, where external links are widely accepted. You should do what you think is best, and let the FLC process go however it goes about that point. You're not writing for FL reviewers, are you? You should write for wikipedia readers! :) That's all for me for today. doncram (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add suggested images to the gallery at the end of this section. Bear in mind they will be 300px if used in the lead.

The list looks a bit bare at the moment without a lead image. It's not the most important thing as the list isn't even half complete yet and the lead needs almost completely rewriting, but as the list covers the UK I thought people might like to voice their opinion on what images should go at the top of the lead. If we use template:Double image stack, we can have two. Ideally, we should use two internationally famous sites (although this may be subjective; doncram if you're watching this page a comment on which of the UK sites are well known in the US might be helpful) spread across time and location. Realistically, our choices are restricted by how good the available images are. For instance, I'd to see a picture of Hadrian's Wall, but the images I've seen haven't been too great. My suggestion is Stonehenge and the Tower of London (both English, so not ideal) as both are very popular visitor attractions and have good images. I'll leave messages on the Welsh wikipedian's noticeboard, and wikproject's Scotland and England to ensure the opportunity for input is given to a lot of people. Nev1 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My choice would be Stonehenge--Kudpung (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view being a "popular visitor attraction" isn't much of an issue, although finding images to draw the reader in (which might involve using images of popular and well-known places) is important. As far as Scottish sites are concerned there are some reasonable pictures of Edinburgh, although none that I can see of the Castle. St Kilda is my favourite, but few people would recognise the location and none of the images are truly stellar. New Lanark likewise. Skara Brae is probably trumped by Stonehenge for photogenic quality (if not in age and interest) and the Antonine Wall is a poor cousin of Hadrians. The Forth Bridge is certainly recognisable - but its only on the tentative list at present. Ben MacDui 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Stonehenge is part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site.
• 
  The Tower of London was built by William the Conqueror in 1078
• 
  Dùn, St Kilda
• 
  The Street, St Kilda
• 
  Holyrood Palace Edinburgh
• 
  Edinburgh Castle
• 
  St Peter's Church, St George's, Bermuda
• 
  Henderson Island

How about a collage, as has been done at Cardiff (5 images) and Cork (7 images). That would allow at least one image from each of the consituent countries, maybe two from England (say Tower of London, Hadrian's Wall or Stonehenge, Forth Rail Bridge, Giant's Causeway, Caernarfon Castle) and even one from the dependent territories. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that suggestion. The best images from Wales are of the castles, so to prevent too much emphasis on castles (although I like castles), maybe we should avoid Edinburgh Castle and the Tower of London and go for Stonehenge and St Kilda. Ireland could then chip in with Giant's Causeway. Then, we have a site from each country, a natural site and a mixed and two culture sites. Maybe a fifth could be included; something more modern such as Bath? Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Giant's Causeway is obvious for Northern Ireland, and one of the castles for Wales. I like the Forth Rail Bridge image for Scotland, and it also adds industrial heritage to the scope. For England, Stonehenge would bring in archaeology. If we're going for a fifth I think it should be from the dependent territories; How about Henderson Island Shelter or St Peter's Church in Bermuda? Of the two I would opt for the second, partly because I think it's a better picture, but also because it would acknowledge the colonial era and brings a religious building into the group. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just noticed the Forth Rail Bridge is only a candidate, so change of tack. Change the castle to Edinburgh, and go with Pontcysyllte for Wales. Both are good pics, and we still get a bridge and a castle, plus the United Kingdom's newest site as a bonus! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course, the aqueduct has a good picture! I'll try to stitch something together tomorrow (four images should be enough, there's a nice spread with those suggestions). Nev1 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the right is a slightly ham-fisted attempt at a collage by myself. So what do people think. Should different images be used, or rearranged to avoid the whitespace? Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'd use the more modern pic of Edinburgh Castle. Not sure the grainy black and white works. Would also get rid of the white space. Ideally by stretching the Stonehenge or, probably even better, by deepening the right (or left) pics on one side. Not really aware how to do the technicalities, but perhaps the authors of the Cardiff and Cork montages could help. I notice they've also done this for Glasgow, London, Dublin and Amsterdam, to name a few. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites of the United Kingdom"? That uses "of" rather than "in". It allows for cultural association with the UK, as for overseas places. doncram (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. I looked into the issue and although the overseas territories are governed by the United Kingdom, they are not constitutionally a part of the UK. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian's Wall is in London, Greater London? I thought it was up north somewhere last time I saw it! Presume this is a copy and paste error? 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was copy and pasting the Tower of London entry to get the basic formatting right, unfortunately I got it wrong! Oh well, I'll just have to have a roper look through once I've finished the list to make sure there are no basic errors such as that. Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha!!--Kurtle (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UNESCO list notes the Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd. Two of the sites (Beaumaris Castle and Conwy Castle are not part of the modern Gwynedd, but are in Isle of Anglesey and Conwy respectively. Caernarfon Castle, Conwy Castle and Harlech Castle were all built in what was (at the time their construction began) the Kingdom of Gwynedd. The Kingdom of Gwynedd was superseded by the English county system in 1284. Construction of Beaumaris castle began in 1295, in the county of Anglesey. I've put their location as "Conwy, Isle of Anglesey and Gwynedd", but it may be more helpful to readers to note it as Gwynedd, with a pipelink to Kingdom of Gwynedd. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick with your edit and use modern administrative units per WP:PLACE; there's no point in using historic locations as the sites were all constructed at different times. I assumed that the sites would be in modern Gwynedd from the title of the site, thanks for checking what I should have. Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we get a better picture than the rather gloomy one of Beaumaris? As a thumb image it just comes out blackish. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about? or

Although the picture of Caernarfon Castle shows more, I think the suggested Beaumaris picture is more striking at a low resolution, so I added it to the list. Nev1 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be more helpful to list the overseas sites under their respective territory in the table, rather than as British overseas territories? This would mean Gough and Inaccessible Island as Saint Helena; Henderson Island as Pitcairn Islands; and Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications as Bermuda, alongside England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough, I've done that and explained in the lead which overseas territories have World Heritage Sites. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kourion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.40 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the entry for Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal to read "Wales/England" since the designated area starts at Rhoswiel which is 1/2 mile over the border in England. Not by much I know but it still qualifies as a joint site. The entry is definately Wales/England though and not England/Wales ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.44.8 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had rather an interesting idea; why not list candidates for, or sites that the populus consider to be world h. sites? It would add quite a few. Think of all the old halls, gardens, churches, etc.. What about some more Roman ones? --Aubs 400 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the populus consider to be world h. sites"? World Heritage Site is a designation, and has a particular meaning and that is what this list is about. Some other sites may be considered by some to be of international importance, but that's not the same as this official status. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the status of the original 2006 list is? I note that for example Cairngorm Mountains was on that list but is not included in the 2010 applicants. Does that means it is still in (other 2006 listed sites are applicants) or, as I suspect, out? Ben MacDui 07:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) PS Came across this today: "The UNESCO World Heritage List is possibly the best known list, of anything, anywhere on Earth". Perhaps the source - heritage-key.com/blogs" - is less impressive than the statement, but I thought you might like the kudos. Ben MacDui 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear the Cairngorms is no longer on the list. Ben MacDui 08:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the UNESCO tentative list hasn't been updated since 2006. The new compilation of 38 sites appears to be applicants to be on the tentative list. I would assume that is a site is not on the applicants list, when they're put forward to UNESCO to form a new tentative list, any absentees will not be included. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Historic Scotland the previous list has been "closed" and "sites that were on the previous tentative list, including the Forth Rail Bridge, the Cairngorms and the Flow Country, will not automatically be included on the new one and will have to apply alongside other sites". There may be a lag between the DCMS Tentative List and the Unesco updated one. Ben MacDui 18:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the only hurdle in the way of this list gaining Featured status (IMO) is the tentative list section and the various descriptions, would anyone object to me adopting the simpler approach used in List of World Heritage Sites in Spain? Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. Would you plan to incorporate a sub-section for sites on the list in 2006 but now no longer active? Ben MacDui 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a list for the 2006 Tentative List (which is still the official UNESCO list), which a second one for the 2010 proposal explaining that these are the ones which will make up the new Tentative List at some point. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this article! I'm just letting you guys know that I'm borrowing the descriptions used to describe the inland UK World Heritage Sites for the List of World Heritage Sites in Western Europe list. It would be highly appreciated if you guys would duplicate any changes made in the descriptions here to the Europe article, if any occur! Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and the British Overseas Territories. 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/20061002160717/http://www.kilda.org.uk/frame26.htm to http://www.kilda.org.uk/frame26.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013142701/http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/planning_portal/publications/listed_build_exhib/pontcysyllte_aque.htm to http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/planning_portal/publications/listed_build_exhib/pontcysyllte_aque.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827194258/http://www.jscarrion.com/pdf/neandertals_nature.pdf to http://www.jscarrion.com/pdf/neandertals_nature.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and the British Overseas Territories. 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/20090818025146/http://www.culture.gov.uk/ukwhportal/funding.htm to http://www.culture.gov.uk/ukwhportal/funding.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218093202/http://www.heritagepassbritain.com/en/places-to-visit/places-to-visit-by-theme/world-heritage-sites.html to http://www.heritagepassbritain.com/en/places-to-visit/places-to-visit-by-theme/world-heritage-sites.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any mention of Kourion on the UNESCO inscription for the Paphos site and so have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6360:500:C52A:FF7C:A15A:1A7 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Lake District not included on the list as it has been a World Heritage Site for a few years now? Penrithguy (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry my mistake it is on the list under English Lake district Penrithguy (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/seven-sites-confirmed-in-the-running-for-unesco-world-heritage-status 82.24.103.92 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]