Following up on yesterday's blog post Smaller than they seem.
I think there's a valid connection in there, with a bit of tweaking of the Name of the connection and its Description.

I started from Smaller than they seem:
- 'Smaller' as in significantly smaller, more limited in scope. I was mostly thinking of the geographical area, but extending it to other types of confusion as suggested in the comments is an idea to further look into.
- 'Seem' = at first appearance, looking at the full site name (without doing a desktop study on the maps).

The comments:
- Measure against "full title" = agree
- National parks named after mountains: agree, but should be checked case by case. I would expect a national park connected to a mountain to cover most of its area, except for the foothills which are likely to have all kinds of towns and modern infrastructure.
- Rename to "Misleading WHS Names": I am open to extending it beyond the geographical areas only, but am wondering if 'misleading' is too vague and it would open up a can of worms. Let's test it with the list of potential connected sites.
- You can simply look up the National Parks and Reserves that it is comprised of : that is always true of course, but the title still should be unambiguous.

(I will get into the suggested sites in the next message)

Suggested additional sites to connect:
- Mt Kilimanjaro, I recall that the boundaries of the WHS officially start 'at the treeline' -> I think several of the park entrances (Marangu for example) have road access, and the boundaries of the WHS are equal to that of the NP. An extension in 2005 made the scope even larger "the National Park includes the whole of the mountain above the tree line as well as the natural forest (montane forest) which was under Kilimanjaro Forest Reserve"
- Augsburg? Only certain locations in town are actually inscribed. -> here the "look at the full title" rule explains
- Chauvet-Pont d'Arc. The plaque may be at the replica cave but that (as discussed on this site previously) is not in the core zone. -> I find it not unusual to have a replica or a visitor center outside of the core zone. The WHS isn't named "Replica Cave of Chauvet".
- Late Baroque Towns of the Val di Noto. -> I would expect the historic centers of these towns to be included. I know the part in Catania is very limited, and as you say, only very small parts of Modica and Scicli towns are included to the core zones. Others are more extensive. So YES, I think we could add this.

Revisiting the originals:
- Upper Svaneti: YES, still the most fragrant example
- Vegaøyan – YES
- Yakushima (Japan): YES
- Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): as mentioned by Solivagant, the full title is too flowery to know what is included (and it certainly isn't all). Still a YES for me.

And then we have the "Pars pro toto" inscriptions, where a specific part of a large area has been inscribed to represent the whole (in the best protected circumstances):
- Belize Barrier-Reef Reserve System (Belize): the reef is a well-distinguishable feature that can be seen all along Belize's coast. Here the nuance lies in the 'Reef Reserve' in its name: seven protected sites have been selected.
- Pantanal Conservation Area (Brazil): the 'Conservation Area' gives it away a bit, but this site covers much less than the region that is known as the Pantanal in Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. Four adjacent nature reserves/parks that are seen as representative of the whole have been chosen.
- Western Ghats (India): the Western Ghats is a huge mountain range, however the WHS is limited to 37 very specific parks and reserves which require some effort and formal entry.
- Lake Malawi NP (Malawi): the WHS uses the same scoping as the National Park, but both cover only the southern part of the lake.
-> The main question here for all 4 for me is whether the full name in any way reflects that not the whole natural feature is included, but a significantly smaller part of it. Western Ghats and Lake Malawi do not show these caveats at all, while Belize Barrier Reef and Pantanal do that a bit (using 'Reserve System' and 'Conservation Area' respectively as specifiers).

I still have an issue with the Pantanal, as it could have easily been named "Pantanal Matogrossense National Park" (as that is what it is, plus 2 adjoining private reserves). The Pantanal Conservation Area is a term that only is used in the WH context and is vague. There are many protected areas in the Pantanal, so which one is this specifically? Also, from a visiting perspective, the area is very small. As far as I have researched (not extensively I must say), even the popular Jaguar trips from Porto Jofre do not enter the core zone.

To be continued with the Lower Valleys of the Omo and Awash

intermezzo
I just discovered this in the Sundarbans NP AB ev: "The name of the site as proposed by India is "Sundarbans" which is too general. The ideal name for the property would be "The Sundarbans Mangrove Reserves of India and Bangladesh" but as the Government of Bangladesh has not yet formally nominated the adjoining reserves, the most descriptive name would be the Sundarbans National Park, India."
-> It eventually got inscribed as "Sundarbans National Park", which I think we can qualify as a misleading name (at the least because there is hardly any difference between the names of the Bangladeshi and Indian WHS, which always confuses me when I have to make an adjustment to their site pages; also, the core zone is a very limited area".

"The Land of Frankincense" is both grandiose and vague - yet is its full title!!!
The Nomination File had the catchy title of "The Cultural ensemble of Shisr, Khor Rori, Al Balid archaeological sites and the Wadi Dawkha Frankincense Park in the Dhofar Region"
The original ICOMOS evaluation called it "The Shisr, Khor Rori, and al-Balid Archaeological Sites and the Frankincense Park of Wadi Dawkah in the Dhofar Region"
and the inscription decision in 2000 (24 COM X.C.1) stated "At the initiative of ICOMOS, and with the agreement of the State Party, the name of the property was changed to "The Frankincense Trail".
My review of our visit in Jan 2005 "complains" that there appeared to be no such thing as a "Frankincense Trail" and in Sept 2005 the WHC at Durban recorded that it approved "the proposed name change to The Frankincense Trail as proposed by the Oman authorities. The name of the property becomes The Land of Frankincense in English and La terre de l'encens in French."

Even that seems somewhat unclear - but I can't off hand think of a short title which captures both the subject and extent of the site - which is actually a rather "small" 849.88 ha and, IMO, seems a bit "short" of the "LAND of Frankincense"??

It sounds like an Epic Subtitle where they forgot the main title. Good candidate.

"Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras" is another whose title seems to promise something bigger than it is.

The very thin AB evaluation states "The terraces, which spread over five present-day provinces, are the only form of stone construction from the pre-colonial period." but the inscribed terraces as we are able to discover them (see our map) certainly don't spread across "five present day provinces". The AB lists 4 "clusters" but we have mapped 5, since the Banaue cluster, as described in the AB evaluation, is made up of 2 separated elements - Battad and Bangaan. None of this seems to support the comment about the number of Provinces represented and, indeed, the UNESCO description for the site only mentions Ifugao Province within the Cordillera Region.

Here is the Wiki Article on the Cordillera Region showing 6 provinces (plus the City of Baguio) and a map. It will be seen that Ifugao Province represents quite a small part of the Cordilleras!

I have just checked the "Report on Mission to the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras" of 2001 and it states "The rice terraces occur in the mountains of the northern part of the island of Luzon, mainly in the Province of Ifugao, and are the creation of those people"
Indeed it goes on to say "Except where the context requires otherwise, the term used throughout this report to describe the site is the "Ifugao Rice Terraces".

Indeed that would seem to be a better title for the site!!!!

Maybe "Frankincense sites of Dhofar"?

It would be good indeed to include an alternative name in the connection rationale.

I don't think this is one for this connection, but just wanted to note that it is a core zone that is smaller than I had imagined, and this is a useful place to document it.
Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) - The name is very specific about it being the Genbaku Dome, but the core zone really is just the remains of the building inside the protective railings, and it doesn't cover the adjacent island which houses the much larger Hiroshima Peace memorials and Museum.

Also a pet peeve of mine (somewhat adjacent to the Sundarbans) is transnational sites that are broken into separate WHS for no discernible reason beyond countries just wanting to up their count.

But that occasionally leave the legitimately named earliest inscriptions with a name suggesting more than it is in reality.

Routes of Santiago de Compostela suggests it is the routes to Santiago de Compostela, when in fact it is only two routes, and certainly not anything in France which is a manifestly different site altogether. <<Edit just noticed the 2015 came with a more specific name to include a subtitle: Camino Francés and Routes of Northern Spain, so again not relevant to this connection>>

Frontiers of the Roman Empire suggests it is tangible things that delineate the former frontiers of the Roman Empire, but we know that doesn't include the radically different frontiers constructed near the river Rhein, which of course are themselves completely different from the frontiers of the Roman Empire built near the river Danube... (which in the fullness of time will be shown to be completely different to those in Dacia... Tunisia ...)

I'm not convinced myself that any of these meet the criteria for the connection, I was just throwing them of as being in a similar vein.

Just thinking about mountains they do feel slightly odd in my mind. Of course an actual protected area needs to be defined, but with something so large it feels like seeing it from a distance is somehow akin to actually visiting, perhaps especially so with Mts. Everest, Kilimanjaro and Fuji.

On Fuji I just looked at the maps and noticed that this forested beach in Miho is actually part of the core zone. It makes perfect sense when looking at the sites full title, but it is a bit of a surprise that it is part of a Mountain WHS. Perhaps there is a mildly surprising exclaves connection, the Historic Centre of Prague's Průhonice park could fit that too. (I'm mostly joking that could be too tough to define and police)

Of your suggestions, I am tempted by Frontiers of the Roman Empire, as it suggests something grander than it actually is. It could have been the umbrella for all Limes sites, but it isn't.

Gorham's Cave Complex
Was nominated, evaluated and recommended for inscription by ICOMOS as "Gibraltar Neanderthal Caves and Environments"
But then, at the WHC on the day of decision 15 Jul 2016)......."At the start of the proceedings in Istanbul today the representative from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre explained the name of the nomination had been changed from 'Gibraltar Neanderthal Caves and Environments' to the 'Gorham's Cave Complex' after Spain raised had concerns." (See the Gibraltar Chronicle - scroll down)

In fact the site had been on UK's Tentative List as "Gorham's Cave Complex" since 21 Jan 2012 having "applied" to be on the T List with that name in 2010. But, one can see why the name got changed during the Nomination process as the proposed boundaries and arguments for inscription were developed way beyond that "complex" alone - e.g from the AB evaluation "There are more than 200 caves occurring on Gibraltar, and 46 of these are located within the property, occurring in two main clusters – the Gorham's Cave Complex (28 caves) and the Main Cliff, Southern Peak (18 caves)". And anyone who has walked the Mediterranean Steps etc knows that it extends (whether justifiably or not is another matter!) way beyond the Gorham's Cave Complex. The arguments for extension beyond the caves themselves are that more than just the caves are required to understand and appreciate the "Neanderthal environment - "The caves, cliffs and related geological formations thus offer an exceptional window into the world of the Neanderthals in a spatial and temporal framework that is unparalleled" (Nom file),,,,, but, if agreeing to go back to an earlier name allows unopposed inscription who is going to disagree...?

But why should Spain have had "concerns" with the name.....? Probably because the word "Environments" could be regarded as including the disputed marine areas around the Rock - "ICOMOS had also recommended the creation of a marine buffer zone but the representative from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre reported it had been agreed beforehand not to proceed with it."

If you do walk the Mediterranean Steps have a look at the notice board at the lower end and you will see that it still (or did when we visited in May 2018!) refers to the Nominated title (I even took a photo for the record!) and must have been ordered/made before the very late name change (or someone just "forgot")!!!

So - we definitely have a "Name change" Connection which is as yet undocumented. Do we also have a "Misleading Name" one since "Gorham's Cave Complex" clearly doesn't capture the extent of the inscribed site or the arguments used to justify its inscription?

With this one, I think you hit the nerve where "Smaller than they seem" differs from "Misleading WHS names" (not saying that we shouldn't adopt the latter name, still brainstorming and seeing what we end up with).

What I would expect from "Gorham's Cave Complex" from its full name and not knowing its history, is a (small) bunch of caves of which Gorham's Cave is the main component. And geographically that is exactly what it is. It certainly isn't made grander by the name (even more limited, but you have to give it a name and the main component is a logical choice which also is common practice at other WHS).

Of course it's not a precise name. Other early hominid sites struggle with it as well. I think here, as with the Lower Valleys of the Omo and the Awash, it should have been made clearer that these are archeological sites.

My argument here was that this site is actually "LARGER than the name" (i.e an example of why I prefer the title "Misleading" to "Smaller"!!) in significant ways which the nominated name (rejected for potentially spurious reasons) DID capture and which the Nomination went out of its way to include -so it wasn't just regarded as a minor aspect.

The issue of precision is difficult in names -the original title of "Land of Frankincense" ("The Cultural ensemble of Shisr, Khor Rori, Al Balid archaeological sites and the Wadi Dawkha Frankincense Park in the Dhofar Region") was too much of a list - but the resultant alternative is too vague and grandiose. I look at e.g "Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret's Church" - that seems to be about as long a list in a title as one would want!!! But if the fact that a site extends beyond just a very small area should ideally be "signposted" in the site name rather than just using the "main component" and it could easily have been achieved here. The result is even "worse" in that the named element is not really "visitable" whereas the un-named parts ARE!

Yes, I acknowledged that in my reply (name is "more limited" than the reality).
But there are many more sites that are slightly larger than they seem - I just covered the Red Fort and it also includes the second (lesser) Salimgarh Fort. There, as well as with Gorham, they've tried to solve it in the name by using 'Complex'.

Based on the examples we now have above, I've come up with the following title (ahum, Solivagant did!) and description for this connection:

Misleading WHS Names
WHS whose official full name is misleading to the extent that a prospective visitor might "miss the point", by not recognizing its core zone and/or its OUV.
It includes, but is not limited to, sites:
· that are significantly smaller than they seem / where the name implies a grander scope than is inscribed.
· where a Natural focus is implied, via the use of solely natural attributes (such as Archipelago, Caves, Valley) in its name, while it is a cultural WHS.

Could this work?