Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites

Could someone please reassess the above article ? Thanks Anthere (talk)

I would like to use the Historic Site infobox for articles on the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and so I need a designation. I believe this register meets all the criteria:

1. It is a register that exists under legislation of South Africa as the National Heritage Resources Act, number 25 of 1999
2. The article South African Heritage Resources Agency has existed for some time on Wikipedia
3. Its scope is of National importance and currently has 1720+/- entries (and will continue to grow slowly over time)
4. The text should be "South African Heritage Resources Agency" (which is its official name and is unambiguous). If it needed to be shorter, the acronym "SAHRA" could be used. The national colours of South Africa are Green and Gold and as World Heritage Sites are indicated by Yellow/gold it would be preferable for the South African Register to be a dark Green colour.
5. Hundreds of pages already exist from the SAHRA registry and I would like to make more over time.

Thank you, User:SpringbokSam 27 March 2017

I Template talk:Designation#Template-protected edit request on 26 July 2025 comming .... Axxter99 (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The article failed its FAC, but it was much expanded and edited in the process since it became a GA, and actually got some support: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. It most probably fulfils all the criteria to be promoted A-Class. Thank you in advance to all future reviewers! --Edelseider (talk) 10:13 pm, Today (UTC+2)

@Aguyintobooks:@Kerry Raymond:@The Drover's Wife: A revision of the exiting designation for the New South Wales State Heritage Register is proposed. The Register currently lists items of international, national, State, and local heritage. As a result, the existing designation structure on Wikipedia does not allow the reader to distinguish if a heritage item is of local or state significance. It is proposed that seperate codes be established, as follows:

Code for {{Designation/colour}}

|NEW SOUTH WALES STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW|NSW SHR = #DACAA5
|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = #A8BDEC

Code for {{Designation/text}}

|NEW SOUTH WALES STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW|NSW SHR = New South Wales State Heritage Register
|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = New South Wales Heritage (Local) Register

Code for {{Designation/colour2}}

|NEW SOUTH WALES STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER|NSW|NSW SHR = #DACAA5
|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE|NSW HERITAGE DATABASE|NSWHD|NSW HD = #A8BDEC

Explanatory notes for inclusion in Template:Designation/doc and Template:Designation/Supported designations

{{designation/Supported designations/row|t={{{t|}}}|New South Wales State Heritage Register|[[Australia]]|~2000|NEW SOUTH WALES STATE HERITAGE REGISTER; NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER; NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE REGISTER; NSW HERITAGE REGISTER; NSW; NSW SHR}}
{{designation/Supported designations/row|t={{{t|}}}|New South Wales Heritage Database|[[Australia]]|???|NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE DATABASE; NSW HERITAGE DATABASE; NSWHD; NSW HD}}

I have nominated Angkor Wat for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daniel C. Muller Carousel#Requested move 27 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated West Wycombe Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(For more context, see here)

I originally planned to see if the Chinese wikipedia's Chinese protected site infobox could be added to english wikipedia, though I was told it was better to use Template:Infobox historic site, however I don't see info on chinese protected sites like national/provincial protection on that template, so was just asking whether we could allow Template:Infobox historic site to be used for stuff like National Priority Protected Sites or their provincial/municipal equivalents. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox historic site works by using an embedded version of Infobox designation list, so it should allow for anything that appears on the documentation page of the related {{Designation}} template - Infobox historic site displays the "bordered version". There is an option for national sites in China meaning that with the Infobox historic site you could use |designation1 = Major cultural heritage sites under national-level protection and then customisable parameters such as |designation1_free1name = Era |designation1_free1value = Ming Dynasty . The Designation template does not have anything for provincial/municipal level, but the documentation has information on adding new designations and these would then also work with the infobox. EdwardUK (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks; If possible, can other members of the wikiproject please start adding it to Chinese national sites because this part is almost non-existent on related articles. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@EdwardUK

I added said designation to the forbidden city infobox; Could you help me with several things?

1. the official name is National Priority Protected Site, not Major cultural heritage sites under national-level protection; could you help me pls correct the infobox please?(idk how to do so)

2. Could I ask how could I add designations for provincial and municipal(maybe even county level, though I doubt that would meet GNG) protected sites on the infobox? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

1. I think it should be possible to change the designation template so that it will automatically change the text in the infoboxes. I have tried some changes in the sandbox, and so far I have not been able to get them to work. In the testcases I can change the name of the designation, but it does not show up in the bordered version that would appear in the infobox. If I cannot figure out how to get it to change then an alternative method could be to add a new designation for National Priority Protected Site, but this would mean going through the infoboxes that currently display Major cultural heritage... and changing each one.

2. To add other designations to the template place an edit request on Template talk:Designation. This will need code to be added to three places: text, colour and colour2, something like:

• designation/text:|PROVINCIAL PRIORITY PROTECTED SITE = Provincial Priority Protected Site
• designation/colour and colour2:|PROVINCIAL PRIORITY PROTECTED SITE = #FBEC5D

It is probably easiest to copy the formatting from one of the previous requests and change the names and colours as needed. EdwardUK (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@EdwardUK Srry for not being able to respond;

As with how is done on Chinese Wikipedia, usually the userbox says something like "Shandong Provincial Priority Protected Site" or something like that; may add them in the future(though considering they are provincial level, they have less notability, so there are less articles about them, even though there are in fact more provincial sites)

For the national one I'll just keep it like that for now, better not to make things too complicated Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Boughton Monchelsea Place has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kāhui St David's#Requested move 13 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 07:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Buildings and architecture of Bristol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Richmond Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

All Saints' Church, Runcorn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)