The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jaipur's Jantar Mantar(pictured), a collection of architectural astronomical instruments, was recognized by UNESCO in 2010 as the 28th World Heritage Site in India?
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This looks like a very promising list (I like the format which looks like it was based on the Spain list), but the map just isn't working. The names are too bunched together and overlap, making them illegible. I don't think there's a way round this in the current format without making the map ludicrously large. An alternative approach is used in the UK list: coordinates are given in the location column in the format {{coord|53.020278|-1.499722|name=Derwent Valley Mills}}, where "name=" is the name of the site. Then when {{GeoGroupTemplate}} is added to the article there's a link to something like Google maps with the location of each site. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried to have a workaround without technical modifications: shortened the name of several sites, e.g. "Group of Monuments at Hampi" to "Hampi," or "Sundarbans National Park" to "Sundarbans N.P." The links and hover-text remains as before. Also rearranged the names around the location marks (left, top etc.) so almost all of them are visible now, except Taj Mahal :) There are a few sites that are not on the map, will try to add them, but then it's in danger of being all cluttered again. Well I'll bite that bullet. VishalB (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bit more cluttered but satisfyingly complete. Especial thanks to the original editor(s) who added the map to the article. VishalB (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have just removed a sentence stating "There is no site in danger." Manas Wildlife Sanctuary has been on the danger list since 1992. This is mentioned in the site description too in the table, along with three citations. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/338 is the official UNESCO page and seems to be current. It does indicate Manas continues to be on the in-danger list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VishalB (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Ajanta (63).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heritage Sites in India. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heritage Sites in India. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Contesting. World Heritage Site is a proper noun, because it is generally capitalised in running text in reliable sources. — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the UNESCO source I provided above in which the first sentence reads "The conservation and protection of World Heritage sites..." and considering that UNESCO are the stakeholders of these sites then I would say that is the most reliable source out there. I suspect that other sites that use the capitalised version do so through ignorance or laziness, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow suit. We should follow UNESCO's example. Take a look at https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/lists/world-heritage-sites, they use "site" in the title and "Site" in the text...? There is simply no consistency out there. So once again, I suggest UNESCO should be our guide. Also note the wiki page for World Heritage site uses lower case. And I disagree that World Heritage Site is a proper noun, which is the name of something, for example "Taj Mahal" is a proper noun. "World Heritage site" is just a term that applies to many different places, therefore not a proper noun. These are simply sites that carry "World Heritage" status. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made enquiries with both UNESCO and the National Trust. I've had a reply from the NT, namely Chris Brett from the Press Office, who agrees that it's a topic of much debate. His email says: "Many refer to World Heritage Site(s) capitalised as the 'name of the award'. This is incorrect. The award is 'World Heritage' status, which means they're on the UNESCO World Heritage List (capitalised). A World Heritage site is a site that is placed on that list. Although, in recent years it's more common to use World Heritage Site, so by common usage it's almost been adopted by organisations as a title they can affix to a property/area; despite not being correct per-se. As the more commonly used and therefore familiar with audiences, 'World Heritage Site' is what the National Trust use in general, but this will vary depending on the author. Personally, I would use 'World Heritage site' as it's correct. Common usage shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy text and unnecessary capitalisation. Safe to say you would be able to use either without too much of a problem."
Furthermore, WP:NCCAPS states "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." A proper name (orproper noun) is "a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which usually refers to a class of entities..." Clearly, a "World Heritage site" is not a unique entity, it is a class of entities; it is therefore not a proper name and other than the "World Heritage" part it does not need to be capitalised. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extremely weak and nonsensical argument. You are essentially saying that we should follow the majority, even though they are incorrect. This is an invalid use of WP:OTHER. I suppose because the majority of people make spelling errors in their websites, we should deliberately introduce some spelling mistakes of our own, just to go with the flow. Because many many people (wrongly) make the assumption that Great Britain and the United Kingdom are the same thing, then we too should blur the lines and use the two terms interchangeably, never mind all the Irish that we are insulting! Please point me in the direction of a Wiki policy that explicitly states that we should use incorrect terminology because it has become the norm. Also, please explain to me why UNESCO, the authority on this, use "World Heritage sites", if this is not the correct terminology that we should be following. The only reason this is going through the discussion process in the first place is that I think there may have already been a redirect set up and I was unable to rename the article myself for technical reasons. I am really very surprised and disappointed that it is being contested and I shall take this to mediation if I have to. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The linked n-gram results above are extremely strong and relevant. They are graph-specific on-line testimony in favor of upper-casing the word, and wide spreads such as these have been used in favor of one side or another in RM's ever since I've been coming to them. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The move request on the main article World Heritage Site has been completed with the return to upper-case. This RM was notified of that RM on August 28, and has had no participation since that date. The RM at the main article should, of course, now take precedent over this one and this should be closed accordingly. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
This article claims there are 36 sites and the Government of India's culture ministry website says 38. Can someone tell me which one should be in this article? I was about to make changes but thought must have a consensus.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
I have spent lot of time in translating this map to the interactive map format, and now Tone has removed it and restored the old map back saying "man rv, the map as it was is better and consistent with other articles", How is an interactive map inferior to the static map? what other pages map has to do with this? If other pages have inferior map, they ought to be improved. They should not be used as excuse to revert better maps. The revert makes no sense. The interactive map gives the user same information and allows the user to zoom to the street level to know more about its location. Please restore the interactive map. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent more time in formatting the original map. Among other things, the interactive map does not contain all the same information, does not allow direct links, and is not stylistically consistent with other WHS lists, several of which are featured lists. Thank you for understanding. --Tone11:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should consider and compare the benefits of the 2 maps, rather than how much time was spent in creating it, please do not WP:OWN this page. Please elaborate what info is lacking in the interactive map. Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a compromise, add the link to the interactive map to the caption. I am not trying to own the page but I am intended to keep the style consistent and at a featured list level. Two things that are clearly missing in the interactive map are the links and colors. --Tone11:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
