It seems fixed by but old review went through anyway. Please delete the new one without image:
https://www.worldheritagesite.org/tentative/id/6724#userreview_20451

I think we have to introduce a Zoë-week to handle all your new reviews, Zoë! Or we publish 10 on your birthday.

For some reason, the indicator (FT) does not appear after the name title when a FTWHS is reviewed (see example SS Great Britain today).
It does so in the review preview and has "always" worked... hmmm.

I am investigating!

For new members (users who have subscribed since Jan 1, 2025), the profile dashboard doesn't load after logging in. So adding a count or profile info is not possible.

We're trying to fix this a.s.a.p.
I've disabled new registrations for the time being.

I think this may be caused by the rankings and an unfortunate inner join.

At the moment, it is impossible to add photos to your (new) reviews for TWHS and WHS.
You can still add the review and wait a day or two until we have fixed the issue.
Working on it!

(in the mean time, you can send the photo to me at els@worldheritagesite.org and I will add it manually to your review)

Is there any way of identifiying which/how many T List entries are "Extensions"? I can't find a way of doing it either here or on the UNESCO Web site.

Some (but not all?) have words the effect that it is an extension in the title..... I have also noted a type of T List entry categorised as a "Renomination". Russia has W Caucasus and Virgin Komi T List entries with that wording - reading the details of the entry in UNESCO shows it to be just a type of "Extension". Whether there is a hope to get an easier ride by titling it as a "Renomination" isn't clear to me.

There are also "unclear" situations - E.g "Viking Monuments and Sites / Þingvellir National Park" . This is described as "part of transnational serial nomination". Only Norway has added its own entry for this serial nomination. Yet Iceland ALSO has ANOTHER T List entry imply for "Þingvellir National Park" which is clearly identified as an extension to the existing inscribed site adding Natural values. So---- are they both "Extensions" or just 1 of them. Given the number of sites inscribed twice covering slightly different OUV (E.G Bath) one could easily see that an extended Þingvellir would remain separate from any new inscription which also included it as part of a Transnational site. So it would seem best to limit "extensions" solely to those where the description mentions "extension" (or similar)?

Do we have any idea what %age of the current T List are extensions? I have done a quick perusal and was surprised how relatively few there seem to be from titles and "background knowledge" given that the Operational Guidelines require all but the most minor changes to be properly nominated and "If a State Party wishes to significantly modify the boundaries of a property already on the World Heritage List, the State Party shall submit this proposal as if it was a new nomination, including the requirement to be previously included on the Tentative List". Perhaps States Parties are only adding such extensions to their T Lists at the latest moment before making a nomination???

I've marked them in our database, based on best guesses obviously
Will provide a list! (I have 69 of them)

Could it be useful also to ensure that the T List title for an extension had the word "(Ext)" or similar at the end?? That way they will be clear at all times without analysis....

Will do. We had an icon for that but it failed to work after an update.

This has been fixed!

I updated the OS and the OS lib (GD) needed for uploading pics was not working anymore. Patched it yesterday evening.

FYI:
We have temporarily disabled the main maps incorporated in the website, as Google Maps raised their prices last month and we cannot use them for free anymore.

You can still see the site locations via the button 'Locations' on the WHS and TWHS pages (the small map symbol will lead you to the spot on the map).

We do have an alternative open-source solution lined up; we will let you know when it becomes available.

An update on the Maps situation: As most of you can see, we have replaced Google Maps with the open-source Leaflet solution.
If you're unable to see them, please try clearing your cache (delete the cached images).

We are working on a full make-over of the website, and a more advanced implementation of Leaflet's map features will be included there. In the meantime, we leave the maps on the current website as is (simple but functional).

Yes, it's a pity, the symbols are ugly