Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites/Archive 5

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

Project cleanup listing

I've updated the link for the cleanup listi9ng for this project as the old bot has not worked since March 2010 & has been replaced with a new system. The current list which is updated weekly is available here and shows of the 2580 articles in this project 422 or 16.4 % are marked for cleanup.— Rod talk 08:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected areas of Croatia + World Heritage Sites in Croatia

Please add the following register to the {{Infobox Historic Site}}: Protected areas of Croatia. I would like to suggest to use the colors of the Cultural Monument of Albania template, though with a white font color. Croatia is particularly known for its protected natural sites. They are all under national government protection by law. Apart from the natural sites, some cultural World Heritage Sites could also be comprised into this template, see World Heritage Sites in Croatia. --Maestral (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Designation#Requirements. What would be some good callnames?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will create a new Wiki article Natural and Cultural Heritage of Croatia. I will provide further detailed explanations there, particularly as regards laws and official registers. However, the category could already be established. --Maestral (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh, well I wasn't really saying you had to create new articles or anything.. From what I can see, the register passes Criteria 1-4 already. The only thing I was even slightly skeptical about was Criteria 2. Is the list on Protected areas of Croatia complete? I suppose there are enough articles on this list to warrant the addition to the infobox now, but if it isn't complete, I'd like to see it expanded and would be willing to help. If it's complete already, though, that's fine; I was just wondering.
The only criteria that was ignored completely was Criteria 5, the callnames that will be used in the infobox. I would assume examples would be "Protected area of Croatia", "Croatia", and maybe some others.. Are there any abbreviations that you would see fit (DZZP or something)? Maybe the Croatian native name for the register? See Template:Designation#Callname selection for some guidelines. Examples are found farther up on the page.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Think the article had to be created anyway. "Natural and Cultural Heritage of Croatia" as designation would be just fine. As regards your question - yes, the list on Protected areas of Croatia is complete. It's just that infoboxes would have to be adapted and that the quality of the articles needs to be enhanced, but that's almost a lifetime job. I'm already working on the Plitvice Lakes article. If you like, of course, you're kindly invited to update the infoboxes or form of the articles. As for the callnames with regard to criterion 5, I'd say the following official names are used (basically twofold due to separation into nature and culture): "Natural and Cultural Heritage of Croatia" (could be used generally since used officially and in the media, Croatian name "Prirodna i kulturna baština Republike Hrvatske"), "Registar kulturnih dobara", "Upisnik zaštićenih prirodnih vrijednosti", "Protected areas of Croatia", "World Heritage Sites in Croatia", "Spomenik prirode", "Spomenik kulture" if that's not too much. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that no abbreviations of these registars or lists exist (if they do so then only insiders would know). Could you add this national designation with these callnames please or would you need further information? --Maestral (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok I understood what you were proposing to be something that it is – after researching the topic a bit – apparently not. I was under the impression that there was some register out there (comparable to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] or the National Monuments of Ireland) named "Protected areas of Croatia". I see now that this is not the case, but in fact that this is a very broad category that applies to many different individual designations in the country. My fault.
What this infobox is mainly used for is to indicate which specific registers a site is listed on. For example, see the Statue of Liberty article. As is evidenced by that infobox, the Statue of Liberty was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, listed on the NRHP and as a National Monument by the U.S. National Park Service, and designated a New York City Landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. These are all specific registers governed by specific organizations on which properties are listed. Yes, they are in a sense "protected areas of the United States", but only the specific registers are concrete enough to mention in the infobox. If we left the designations as open ended as simply "protected areas", there would be no real benefit to adding those designations to articles in my opinion.
From what I can tell, I think the specific registers that you want added are the "Register of Protected Natural Values" (Upisnik zaštićenih prirodnih vrijednosti) and the "Register of Cultural Goods" (Registar kulturnih dobara). I am more than fine with adding these designations with the suggested callnames above including "Spomenik prirode" and "Spomenik kulture"; however, I think there needs to be more expansion about the specific registers themselves – not just general expansion about protection in Croatia – including making articles about those registers.. Is there a place online that perhaps contains a database of sites in these registers? For example, all of the NYC landmarks designated by the Preservation Commission can be found here organized by borough/area. If there is somewhere like this that we can link to for each of the Croatian registers (and ideally create a list article from), that would be a good start in adding support for these registers to the infobox.
Also, kind of pertaining to the above discussion of specific registers, any of the World Heritage Sites in Croatia would just receive the regular WHS bar in their infobox; there need not be a special one for only World Heritage Sites in Croatia. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don't think a category as broad as "Protected areas of Croatia" or "Natural and Cultural Heritage of Croatia" would be a helpful/informative addition to the infobox. If, however, the specific registers above were added, I think that would be great and extremely desirable.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As already explained in the newly created article, those registers exist. I can split the article if that's more appropriate. Could be another approach. The only thing is - and I did a lot of research yesterday - that those registers are public, however not accessible via internet. Unfortunately, I also could not find a count of how many items or places there are in these registers. As regards the protected natural areas this is quite obvious, but not so much for cultural goods. Anyway, items or places are put into regional subcategories - by county. Think for now we can say, yes 2 registers exist, national protection exists, the lists are public, just that there are no statistics or insights to be granted into these registers. Might still be a mess after the war in Croatia i guess. I'll try to find out... Do you think we can proceed further with these 2 split approaches (by official register)? --Maestral (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, I think those two register articles should be created/expanded a bit more to include specifically what the register covers. Are there any example sites that are on the register? There doesn't necessarily have to be a full list anywhere online, but at least a handful of examples would suffice I guess. I think you're on the right track, but I would like a little bit more information about the registers before adding them...--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I just created the following articles, as discussed: Register of Protected Natural Values of the Republic of Croatia and Register of Cultural Goods of the Republic of Croatia. These registers are official and represent unique national databases of cultural and natural goods. I'm still working on adding examples, numbers, etc. Appreciating general help. Hope, this could serve as a foundation for creating the mentioned designations. --Maestral (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, awesome. I've just added links to these new register articles to the Natural and Cultural Heritage of Croatia article as well. I think these new articles are exactly what I was looking for; the Register of Natural Values even includes a total count of the sites covered (461). While the Cultural Goods article doesn't have an exact count, I think it will still suffice. Now I think the only thing left to do is to find some examples of sites on each register. I assume the Protected areas of Croatia are all on the Natural Values Register, so that's enough examples in my book for that register; it can be added now. I would, however, like to see some examples of Cultural Goods before adding that one. Great work so far!

I'll go ahead and add the Natural Values Register with the relevant callnames above. Do you want to change the color scheme now that there are two distinct registers, or would you like both of the registers to show up the same color/design?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have been searching desperately so far for an exact count of protected cultural goods. Almost impossible to find something, but I will try harder. Think it should suffice so far. The translations of these registers represent official translations I have found on government sites. The protected nature areas are all comprised in the nature register, yes. Think I should also be able to find a list of nationally protected animal species. More examples will be added to both articles. As far as cultural goods are concerned, there are thousands - just have a look at the wiki articles mentioned. Not to mention museum collections and so far... I will focus on monuments (landmarks). --Maestral (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
And what about this one?
Croatian Cultural Heritage Which wiki article writes about this? --WhiteWriter speaks 10:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the best reference database regarding cultural goods so far. You can pick whatever you like. However, there is no comprehensive count of cultural goods. Think that's ok so far and should suffice for proper designations. By the way, have a look at: Register of Protected Natural Values of the Republic of Croatia and Register of Cultural Goods of the Republic of Croatia. Help appreciated. --Maestral (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see that you've added several examples to the cultural goods article. While I encourage you to continue looking for more examples or, ideally, a full list of all the monuments, but for now, I think this short list of examples (where at least a few articles could be improved by adding {{Infobox Historic Site}}) will suffice. Again, great work!
The question still stands though: Now that we are sure there are two distinct registers, would you like to keep the above color scheme – red background/white text – for both registers, or would you like to differentiate between the registers with different colors? I'll add a section below that you can change/append how you feel. After you do so, I'll add the designations.
Register of Protected Natural Values of Croatia:
Color scheme/text: Red background/white text displaying "Protected Natural Value of Croatia"
Scope: National
Count: 461
Callnames: "Protected Natural Value of Croatia", "Croatian Protected Natural Value", "Protected area of Croatia", "Croatian Protected area", "Croatia Natural", "Spomenik prirode"
Register of Cultural Goods of Croatia:
Color scheme/text: Red background/white text displaying "Cultural Good of Croatia"
Scope: National
Count: ???
Callnames: "Cultural Good of Croatia", "Croatian Cultural Good", "Croatia Cultural", "Spomenik kulture"
As soon as you give me the ok, I'll add them. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! I'll endeavor in expanding the template and examples. As for the color schemes: I'd prefer dark blue as background color (white text - see New Zealand) for natural values and wine red for cultural goods (white text - see Albanian background). Just go for it! Thanks a lot! :) --Maestral (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added the two designations. They can be seen in action at Plitvice Lakes National Park (natural designation) and Fortress Nehaj (cultural designation). You can add them to other articles as you see fit. Good job on developing information about these registers; they make a great addition to the global inclusiveness of this template.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks! Work has only started. :) --Maestral (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Archaeological Protected Monuments in Sri Lanka

We don't have an infobox designation for these, do we? I just discovered that there's a list, even if there are no articles; at least there's a starting point, though. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, looks like a good list (though I would like to see more articles from it), and seems to be pretty extensive. I would like a little bit more information about the register itself, though. Things like how many sites it covers, the requirements for listing, etc. I'll look into it shortly.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll drop a note over at the WikiProject tomorrow and see if we can't get a few started. Been meaning to leave a note regardless. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
After a little more research, it appears to me that the inclusion criteria are surprisingly low. Using this document (Relevant section of the linked PDF is Part III: Sections 16-32) as a source, it appears to me that a "Minister" (which I'm assuming is some position of power in the archaeology department of Sri Lanka but am too lazy to look it up haha) can basically designate anything he wants an "ancient monument" as long as it's over 100 years old – even trees are fair game. To become a "protected monument", the Minister must simply believe the monument in in danger of destruction/damage/etc. and declare it one. Not to demean the register at all, and I know inclusion criteria is not one of the requirements for the infobox to contain the designation (should it be?), but I feel like these criteria are amazingly easy to satisfy. Am I the only one?
I'm sure we can add a HSITES tag to the article and claim it under our scope, but I hesitate to add it to the infobox. Comments?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is our part to comment on or criticise inclusion criteria? If a heritage register exists and is officially recognised, then I don't see why we can't include it. Its not as if anyone can add something to the list - it has to be a government minister. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. And there are lower threshholds - check out the Maryland state register, for instance.
Whether or not all of the listed items would meet inclusion criteria is another matter entirely... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

List of historical monuments in Romania

As above - if there's enough information here to begin coding a designation I'll ask the WikiProject for help. I have a feeling we probably have articles on some of these already, but I don't know Romanian and wouldn't know where to begin. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, that looks like a designation that could be added already.. It appears User:Codrinb started the list but never finished it... perhaps because the next county has 100+ monuments haha. Maybe we could start something up with him to finish the list, or maybe he could direct us to somewhere that we could find an English version of the register? I'm currently working on a list of Michigan State Historic Sites, as well as some other stuff including rating the importance of all WP:NRHP articles, but after I finish off a bit, I could help out with the list. Sound good to you?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Eesh, sorry I missed this. Yes; sounds good. Might help to get WP:ROMANIA involved, too. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

A user dropped off a note about Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 on my talk page. I think this may be of interest to this project.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Colored links in the infobox

User:Moxy has brought up something at the talk page of the Historic Sites infobox about the color of the links in our {{Designation}} template. According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates (which may or may not apply to infoboxes?), links shouldn't be falsely colored red or blue, the specific colors of existing and non-existing pages. Wikipedia:Link color, on the other hand, shows how to change the color of links like in our infobox but gives no restrictions on when and where to use that method. Without a red color, many of the existing supported designations will need to be changed. Any comments at the infobox talk page would be welcome.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New navbox

I have drafted the {{Heritage protection in the United Kingdom}} navbox template, aiming to bring together scheduled monuments, listed buildings, monuments records, etc across the UK. Comments suggestions and improvements from anyone interested would be welcome on the template talk page. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset

Would anyone be kind enough to take a look at List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset which has been revised by several editors & is nearly ready for FLC. If anyone had any comments on meeting the FL criteria or other improvements, on the peer review here that would be great.— Rod talk 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kennet and Avon Canal

The Kennet and Avon Canal article, which is tagged as being of interest to this project, has been a Good Article since 2006. A few editors have recently been expanding and improving this article in an attempt to get it up to Featured Article standard. Could you take a look and help to improve the article?— Rod talk 13:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kennet and Avon Canal article has now been under review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive2 for some time but has not received many comments. I am worried that it will be archived soon unless more comments are received, therefore can I ask anyone interested to participate in the review.— Rod talk 19:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Michigan State Historic Sites

The List of Michigan State Historic Sites has just been completed and moved into mainspace. If no one disagrees, I will add support for this register to the {{Designation}} template. Any suggestions for coloring, callname, or text options?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! I believe Cornflower blue (#6495ED) is used in the NRHP infobox for this designation. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so how does background color #6495ED with regular link text sound? It would look like this: "   Michigan State Historic Site   ". Think the text color should be changed for contrast? Callnames could include "Michigan State Historic Site", "Michigan", and "MSHS".. any others?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I've now added support to the {{Designation}} template.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding abbreviations to Template:Designation

There is currently a proposal at Template talk:Infobox NRHP#Designated other textcolor? to allow support for Template:Designation in {{Infobox NRHP}}. The proposal requires the addition of a new section to the Designation template: abbreviations (e.g. "Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument" = "LAHCM"). Since {{Infobox historic site}} (which relies heavily on Template:Designation) is widely used by articles in this project, I thought the proposal should be brought up here before the change was implemented. All articles currently using the infobox/designation template will not be affected, but the requirements to be included in the Designation template would now force either an official designation or a commonly used one to be provided for new designations. Nearly all of the current designations have abbreviations that are widely used around Wikipedia already, so there shouldn't be many problems there, but this may lead to some contention in the future. Overall, though, I think the proposal would benefit the NRHP infobox while not seriously detracting from the Designation template's use here. What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea, since I am considering the use of the designation template for the various National Historic Sites of Europe in connection with the WP:WLM photo contest taking place this september. Since the monument ID numbers are necessary for the participants, there should be a place to store these in plain site on the article pages. For many countries, the number can be used to refer in one click to the object data in the historic register. I am just a bit concerned about being able to have more than one designation for a cultural property object. Sometimes a WP article is about a building that contains more than one designation. The other way around can also occur, namely that a WP building article on a sculpture can be part of a larger garden, both designated with different ID numbers. Jane (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just updated the Designation sandbox to include a third section for abbreviations. When former abbreviations were there already, I used those. When they weren't I basically made new ones up. I think if any "official" abbreviations exist, they should supersede the ones I made up, but I didn't take the time to look for them. What do you guys think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ontario and Quebec

This is a request to add two designations to {{Designation}}: the Ontario Heritage Act and the Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec. To respond to the criteria at Template:Designation/doc#Adding new designations:

  1. These are the heritage registers for Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Both contain thousands of sites.
  2. There are articles on both registers. Quebec maintains an online database, shown as an external link in the article, that contains all sites on its register. Ontario used to have an out-of-date online database, which no longer appears to be available. However, both Ontario and Quebec are coordinating with the Canadian Register of Historic Places - an online database of all historic sites across Canada (the CRHP, despite its name, isn't a register itself, but rather a compendium of provincial registers and National Historic Sites). Although the CRHP is a work-in-progress (it currently contains about 12,300 or so of the roughly 17,000 historic sites across Canada), it is the best English-language database available for both the Ontario and Quebec registers. There are no Wikipedia lists as of yet for articles about sites on that two register - given the large numbers of sites, lists may not be feasible, although categories would be helpful, and I could start on that once I finish cleaning the lists for National Historic Sites of Canada.
  3. The registers are both provincial in scope ("State/provincial designations"), limited to sites in Ontario and Quebec respectively. In Qubec and Ontario, both the province and municipalities can designate sites.
  4. I would think the colour scheme would be blue for Quebec (the same blue as the Flag of Quebec) and green for Ontario (the green from the shield in the Coat of arms of Ontario - the Ontario flag is simply a red ensign with the same shield).
  5. Callnames:

    Ontario: Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario

    Quebec: Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec, Quebec, Québec, Cultural heritage register of Quebec

If I haven't supplied the necessary information, please let me know. Thanks, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

These look fine to me. Unfortunately, I won't have internet service (except on my phone) until August 16. If you'd like to follow the directions at Template:Designation/doc#Designation incorporation and incorporate the designations yourself (there is a sandbox), feel free to do so. If not, I can add them after the 16th. One question: Would the text be the regular blue color? Or would it be white? With the two colors you've chosen, it would appear to me that the default link color would not go well with these designations.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just put in the editprotected request at Template talk:Designation. I made the text white, so they will appear as follows:
Satisfactory?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologize - I just saw these responses now. Look great! Thank you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbeschermd erfgoed

Another suggestion for {{Designation}}: beschermd erfgoed, the Flemish cultural heritage list. There is a database of sites online, and lists of them are being generated in article space right now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Not knowing much about Belgium, would Flanders be considered a province? Any ideas about color schemes/callnames?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It's more than a province - it's an official Region. My own thought on colors was that they could be derived from the Flag of Flanders, so yellow and black. But I don't know enough about Flanders to say for certain, so I'll drop a note at the talkpage of the person who's been creating the lists. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I guess it would still be grouped with the state/provincial designations though.. I think "regional" in national/regional was meant to cover like supranational regions, i.e. the EU, Sub-Saharan Africa, or (according to whom you ask) the UK. Flanders is entirely contained inside of Belgium, so I think it would still be state/provincial, even though it's technically called a region.
Yellow/black sounds good to me. I'll wait to see if that user responds here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am creating the lists from the Dutch wikipedia. There are basically three lists with three list-holder organizations, and I have started on Wallonia, which includes the East-Belgium German-speaking districts. The basic background on the lists is in an article here on Belgian heritage. Jane (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So from the link provided by Jane, it appears as if beschermd erfgoed is a Belgium-wide designation. They are called different names (I think?) in the different regions of Belgium, and they are coordinated by different agencies, but they are all under the title beschermd erfgoed. Am I correct? If so, this would definitely be a natinonal/regional designation.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Basically either of the other two terms are also legal for all of Belgium, but each region uses the term most common for their language area. Since the language areas don't sort into the same township borders, I decided to get radical and pick the term most specifically Belgian (both of the other terms Kultuurdenkmal and Bien classé are used widely in other countries). The term Beschermd erfgoed is only used sporadically in the Netherlands, because for referring to their heritage objects, the Netherlands uses the official terms "Rijksmonument", "Provinciale monument", and "Gemeentelijke monument". Jane (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the other reason I picked "Beschermd Erfgoed" is because it abbreviates to "BE" which is the Belgium country code. Jane (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved every article relating to "Beschermd Erfgoed" in Wallonia to "protected heritage sites" in Wallonia. "Beschetmd erfgoed" is the Dutch language term, which is never used in Wallonia. Since no one in Wallonia calls it "Beschermd Erfgoed", and no one in English uses the term either for those, it makes no sense to use that term here. For Belgium, the safest solution is to use an English term, since otherwise you will always run into linguistic problems. Fram (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply.. I agree with Fram on this one.. I was under the impression that Beschetmd erfgoed was an official term, but it appears–both by Fram's remarks and by Jane's own admission–that it is a completely arbitrary name. If the three regions are to be combined into one designation, the most sensible title would seem to be "National Heritage Sites of Belgium" per the link Jane gave above. Sure Beschermd Erfgoed (and any other language term used locally) can be used as an alternative callname, but I think the bar in {{Infobox historic site}} should contain a title that is a little more inclusive.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
They aren't really "national" heritage sites though, protection is done by the three regions independently. I chose "protected heritage sites" as a neutral, descriptive term for that reason, but if there is consensus to change it to some other English term, no problem. Fram (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Designations in Europe

A question from the Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list led me to this link: Commons:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Commons_infrastructure This table shows all of the templates (with their designations) that are being used for the WLM photographs this year. Hopefully this is in line with the designations here! Jane (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like many of these could/should be added here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Resurrecting this, as people are beginning to create articles: see Zsámbék Premontre monastery church. I know there isn't a list here yet, but there's a collection of images on Commons - is that basis enough for coding some new designations, do you think? If so, there's a number of countries to be considered. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I created the article because it was the most photographed Hungarian church during WLM2011 (this is what I learned from the mailing list), and I noticed it only has the Hungarian article. I did not even look at Commons yet, except for picking up the category, planned to do it tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Historic sites as film locations

I have had an idea, like an actor would have a filmography section on their wikipedia page would it be an idea to have a filmography section for buildings with a portfolio of filming that has been done at them? such as Highclere castle could have the Downton Abbey series listed? This makes up the interest of the building and its history so if people researching cant find or remember the year it was used for filming, then it would be good to have it listed on wikipedia as the proposed. JMRH6 (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites/Archive_5&oldid=1137380581"