Template talk:World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom

Skara Brae is not a site by itself - it's one part of a grouping called Heart of Neolithic Orkney wityh Maes Howe and others. --JBellis 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct according to UNESCO. Should this be called Neolithic Orkney and be link to Orkney? ~ trialsanderrors 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

similarly I believe Durham Castle and Cathedral are jointly designated as a WHS, not separate sites as the current template suggests. Stevekeiretsu 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a recurring problem with those navboxes. One solution might be to create a direct link to a disambiguation page, say Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church, and link to the individual sites from there. Although it somewhat defeats the purpose of allowing readers to surf from one informative site to the next. ~ trialsanderrors 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Should this be called Neolithic Orkney and be link to Orkney?" Perhaps... but a far better solution is for us to simply start an article called, eg Orkney in the Neolithic period or Prehistory of Orkney, and link to that, piping the link with the correct UNESCO title. A stub would do for starters. The article ought to mention the UNESCO designation, and list all the relevant sites, even if red links for time being (they won't be red for long). --Mais oui! 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the various problems with this I'm beginning to think that maybe an infobox with direct links to joint designations and a general link to a list of UK heritage sites might be the best solution. There will be a lot of redundancy if we create a page for each designation. ~ trialsanderrors 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There will be a lot of redundancy if we create a page for each designation." Not sure I know what you mean by "redundancy": something that is of utility is not redundant. I note by the way that there is a History of Orkney article, so perhaps we could pipe to that, pending the start of an appropriate article. --Mais oui! 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list from the UNESCO website:

Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List:

Cultural

• Blaenavon Industrial Landscape (2000)
• Blenheim Palace (1987)
• Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church (1988)
• Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd (1986)
• City of Bath (1987)
• Derwent Valley Mills (2001)
• Durham Castle and Cathedral (1986)
• Frontiers of the Roman Empire (1987)
• Heart of Neolithic Orkney (1999)
• Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda (2000)
• Ironbridge Gorge (1986)
• Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (2004)
• Maritime Greenwich (1997)
• New Lanark (2001)
• Old and New Towns of Edinburgh (1995)
• Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2003)
• Saltaire (2001)
• Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (1986)
• Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey (1986)
• Tower of London (1988)
• Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church (1987)

Mixed

• St Kilda (1986)

Natural

• Dorset and East Devon Coast (2001)
• Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (1986)
• Gough and Inaccessible Islands (1995)
• Henderson Island (1988)

I guess we should agree on a common way to deal with the various problems here. Some sites warrant their own entry which they don't have yet (Liv-MMC), other seem to be better off kept separate. I'm also looking into creating an infobox UNESCO Heritage Sites. Any input is welcome. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since each site has its own page, and it looks like this has been forgotten, I took the liberty of redoing the list, adding the "Heart of Neolithic Orkney" tag with the specific sites in parenthesis. It seems likely given the variety of sites included that anyone interested would want to view the individual articles. I would further suggest that this approach should be taken with the other World Heritage lists, and then they could all be properly alphabetised for ease of reading. Thorf 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland see: WP:Flagcruft.--padraig 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an essay. In anycase we are using the flagicons template which disagrees with that assessment- see also Talk:Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to add the Union banner to these templates.--padraig 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to remove it. The stronger feeling on talk:Northern Ireland is that the flag should be used. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Encyclopedia it deals in facts, not the feelings of some editors, the flag is defunct, is not and never was the flag of N Ireland.--padraig 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, then there wouldn't need to be a debate about it. The fact that there is a debate shows that that is not the case. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any need to debate, except that some editors believe that what they believe or would like to be, should be presented as truth, dispite many sources disputing their POV, these same editor also cannot provide any sources to support there arguements.--padraig 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of keeping a flag for NI, though I don't care which flag is used, so long as it represents NI and not the whole of the UK or British Isles. The fact that the Ulster Banner has, to some people, certain Unionist connotations doesn't mean that it isn't also generally recognised as representing NI. — ras52 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ras- it represents Northern Ireland distinct from the UK and it is fine to use here. Astrotrain 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Ras52, the encyclopedia should ignore the truth and add pretty little pictures to appease POV, dispite the fact that both the British government and the Northern Ireland Assembly don't recognise it.--padraig 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need their permission to add commons images to templates. Astrotrain 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whos permission? your edit breaches WP:POV and WP:OR.--padraig 20:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter whether the government recognises the flag? If you can find a more appropriate flag, I'm quite content to see that used instead. But the visual element makes the navigation template easier to use -- people are predominately visual animals. Plus the other countries all use flags. As far as I'm concerned, the argument isn't "should we use the Ulster Banner" -- frankly, I don't care; rather it's "should we use a flags at all", and my opinion is definitely yes to latter. — ras52 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters a lot, this is an encyclopedia and should reflect fact, the Ulster Banner is not the flag of NI. What about a neutral alternative.--Vintagekits 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has already ruled it can be used in templates. Astrotrain 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meiation cabal states that a flag or image can be used - it doesnt not say the Ulster Banner should be used.--Vintagekits 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation didn't rule on the Ulster Banner only that a flagicon could be used.--padraig 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain, why are you ignoring this fact and continuing to edit war.--Vintagekits 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In November 1973 the College of Arms advised that it would be improper to use the Northern Ireland Coat of Arms, on which the Ulster Banner is based, after the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 had been passed. This did not apply to the actual flag. See here for currency. 90.240.74.203 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the College of Arms has no authority over the flag, which belong to the former government which was abolished along with all its trapping by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the warrent for the coat of arms s still exists and can be tranfered to a future government of Northern Ireland.--padraig 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ulster Banner has no place here. It's not an official flag. It's better to have no flag on the templare than a defunct flag which is just there to make the template look pretty.Derry Boi 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better remove all flags without "official" status then? A big job ahead of you there! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biofoundationsoflanguage, stop adding the UB it dosen't represent Northern Ireland today.--padraig 14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biofoundationsoflanguage, you shouldnt make flase citations in your edit summaries, the consensus here is to not use the Ulster banner. The Ulster banner is not in use anywhere else on wikipedia to represent present day N Ireland, if you switch it back you should be reported for edit warring. Fennessy 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to read above. The Northern Ireland flag is used on a lot of wikipedia articles relating to Northern Ireland, primarily sport but also on other templates. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I garantee you its not in use anywhere else on wikipedia to represent Contemporary N Ireland. To use it in a sport context is fine though because various organisations still choose to go with it, mainly because a new N Ireland flag hasnt been created yet. Fennessy 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of Northern Ireland is in use in Wikipedia to represent "contemporary" Northern Ireland Fennessy. That is isn't in use in many templates in recent months in Wikipedia, and various articles, reflects the voracity of the collaborative campaign to remove it.

Speaking of falseness, there is no such consensus as the one you claim on Wikipedia.

Finally, you state, "To use it in a sport context is fine though [..] mainly because a new N Ireland flag hasnt been created yet." Ironically, this is what I have been arguing on Wikipedia. --Mal 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in sport articles for the Commonwealth games and International football, but it is not used to represent Northern Ireland in a political or geographical sense.--padraig 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know lots of people who disagree with you. If I asked anyone what the flag of Northern Ireland was, they would say that flag.

Biofoundationsoflanguage 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask people to name the county that borders Tyrone, Donegal and Antrim, most would say County Derry, does that mean the article is going be renamed to County Derry? What people say is irrelevant here, whats relevant is whether or not the UB is the flag of NI, and its not. Derry Boi 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what do you think is the flag of england? Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job being evasive & bringing up something else thats totally irrelevant. Fennessy 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?Derry Boi 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, it's clear what he's asking: do you think using St George's flag is reasonable for representing England? How about answering the question without questioning the motive behind the question. Try assuming a little bit of good faith on each others' parts. — ras52 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. Padraig, if I file a formal request for mediation, will you take part? Biofoundationsoflanguage has already indicated that (s)he will. — ras52 12:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that, but in the meantime User:Biofoundationsoflanguage and User:Astrotrain should refrain from edit warring on these templates, they have failed to provide any sources to support their claims, and seem content on edit warring and being disruptive.--padraig 12:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been filed for mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:UK subdivisions.--padraig 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are prepared to accept mediation, can you please visit this site and note that. Thanks. — ras52 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the word "generic" in the first line, which will convert this template from the old and deprecated {{Navbox generic}} form to the new standard {{Navbox}} form. Thanks, --CapitalR 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Andrwsc 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created in french the template fr:Modèle:Patrimoine mondial au Royaume-Uni. Can you add this interwiki link. Thanks {{editprotected}} Oxxxo 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template entitled World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom includes heritage sites that are not in the United Kingdom, but are in Overseas territories. I propose to either rename the template to World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and in Overseas territories or to remove the overseas territories. Or does anyone have any other suggestions? --Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions seem better than the status quo, and I would support either. — ras52 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas territories are in the United Kingdom, just not in England, Scotland, Ulster or Wales. Christopedia (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas territories list Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands), Gough Island, Inaccessible Island, St. George's, Bermuda and Castle Islands Fortifications, Bermuda, none of which are in the United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas territories ARE in the United Kingdom just not as part of either England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales and not (yet) represented in the British parliament due to most either having considerable autonomy or no indigenous inhabitants. Overseas territories citizens are UK citizens. Only the Crown Dependencies that fall under British sovereignty are not in the UK, but overseas territories (formerly colonies) have always been recognised as part of the British state. Christopedia (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Territories are obviously not in the UK. "The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself.^[1]" I would rename the template.Stephenjh (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; the overseas territories belong to the the UK, but are not part of the UK and so they have no place in this list. I am going to remove them. (I think the alternative of renaming the template is a bit cumbersome.) Bazonka (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the oversea sites back in - regrettably without having first seen this discussion - pleas accept my apologies for apparently precipitate action. However... before I delete them again, may I argue for their retention. The nice arguments about whether they are or are not in the UK and whether or not the title of the template should be a precise portmanteau of its contents are well made but wholly ignore the purpose of the template to help users navigate around Wikipedia and locate similar and related information. Including the overseas territories accomplishes this objective. Without inclusion here, they would not appear on any relevant template and interested users might be left in ignorance of their existence. If precision demands a renaming, then the title United Kingdom World Heritage Sites would surely fit the bill ?  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   11:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that a selection of individual sites in this WHS are listed in brackets after the main site? Neolithic Orkney is the main one, but there's also Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd. This seems overkill to me, and if it were repeated for all WHSs with smaller sites, the infobox would be very big indeed. Why Maeshowe but not Ness of Brodgar? How about listing all of the sites in Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites or the individual buildings in Bath? I really think this list should just comprise the actual WHS sites listed by Unesco and not individual monuments within them. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right; whatever the reason might be, it is not stated clearly and is probably arbitrary. Since these two World Heritage Sites have general titles and articles of their own, we'd better leave just the representative links in.

The rest of the template looks fine to me. Waltham, The Duke of 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, and tidied some of the multiple sites so that their UNESCO name is used. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]