Since the start of the Connections, there has always been a soft rule against adding connections that solely consist of sites in one country.
This has been done to avoid uncontrollable growth of the number of connections (as sites that lie close to each other will have many things in common). But still, a few have been added: In former GDR is a good example I think.

To make it clearer when I am inclined to add a "one country connection" and when not, the recent discussion about various River Basins can serve as an example. "International relevance" would be the key.
- We do have Volga (Russia only already), and I'd be happy to include a Yangtze (China only) connection. These are major river systems on a global scale and everybody will have heard of them.
- The Weser, on the other hand, is relevant to Germany only.

Another example: if we could think of a NL-only connection covering sites relevant to Rembrandt, I would include it. But I would not include one that links 3 WHS to a Dutch prime minister from the 1970s.

I will double-check the ones we already have.

So, to summarize:

One country connections are generally discouraged, but can be accepted when they are about:
- globally important geographical features (e.g. river basins)
- well-known artists (e.g. painters, writers) of global importance
- former states that are nowadays part of another single country (e.g. "In former GDR")

Or other subjects that transcend national levels or not just connect a few WHS that happen to be close together

I think we are all after the same thing on this but perhaps it merits a bit more discussion – and it doesn't have to remain "closed" if someone thinks of an interesting connection which doesn't meet the then current guidelines.

The purpose of Connections is to identify aspects of interest about WHS .... we don't want to prevent the identification of "interesting connections" unnecessarily. It seems to me that the downside of allowing too many 1 country connections is less than that of having none at all (or even too few)! How many innocent people is one prepared to see in jail to avoid the possibility of letting a guilty person go free! Is it not better (within reason) to err on the side of allowing such connections?

The country count rule is only a proxy to avoid excessive "local" connections. It actually privileges areas of the World with multiple "small" countries (Europe, Middle East, C America!!) at the expense of those with fewer large ones – and the Indias, Russias and Chinas of this World. Why should the fact that the Scheldt (435kms long) with 5 very "Flemish" WHS be regarded as more interesting the Magdalena (1523kms long) with 4 rather more culturally diverse ones? IMO we should place "interest" above "country count"

Would a connection for sites solely in the NL linked to a Dutch PM of the 70's become more interesting if the guy had also visited a WHS in Antwerp Belgium?? I would look at how "interesting" the subject of the connection was before ruling it out for lack of multiple countries

I recently proposed the "Desman" connection for sites in Spain/Andorra and Spain/France – all close together in the Pyrenees/Cantabrian mountains. Would it have been less valid if all the sites had been in Spain? Yet we do not have a Connection for the Koala Bear – which is to be found in 3 Australian WHS (and not outside Australia of course!). I would have thought that highlighting that aspect of those 3 WHS trumped the fact that they were all in Australia and thereby lacked "International Relevance".

Yes, I would agree that if there were 3 WHS in NL which could be linked to Rembrandt then it should be done.....but what about e.g Constable in UK? Botero in Colombia? There is no way of avoiding "judgement" about what is "interesting", "significant" etc etc and we will all vary in our assessment ....Apparently, as per our current rules, being depicted in "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is more so than being situated within the Thames Basin because the former involves the use of WHS situated in multiple countries by a US movie company whereas the latter only covers WHS as widely diverse as Greenwich and Avebury (all of which gain a part of their OUV from their Riverine connection) which are situated only in England

I would suggest that we particularly apply the "Not in only 1 country" rule where it involves Connections which are associative/intangible..... this is likely particularly to involve those relating to individuals..... "places visited by", "written about by" etc.

Across the years I am sure we have all been surprised at the range of connections which have been identified. We don't know what we don't yet know......how big a dam would we release if we stopped restricting single country restrictions?? I suggest we allow suggestions and discuss them here ... that would enable us to develop "guidelines" based on real examples rather than trying to foresee the, at least partly, unforseeable!!

I would start the ball rolling by suggesting that ANY "Primary" river system (I.e NOT a "tributary") which has 3 WHS which lie within it is is worth having a Connection for irrespective of whether it exists in only 1 country or not. So – include the Yangtse, Yellow, Magdalena AND the Thames, Seine, Garonne AND Weser. What do we lose/gain???

I also side with Solivagant in not being against one-country connections.

I understand the rationale, but I put forward the following reasoning. Borders are the result of human activity and are a socio-political phenomenon; geography does not care for borders. So, I agree that it wouldn't make too much sense basing a connection on some artistic or political currents peculiar of a country, and which end up connecting only sites in that cultural-political sphere. But any connection not based on social human activities should ignore the one-country restriction. Could it be a compromise?

The "in former GDR" connection is interesting. In a sense it does not appear so meaningful, as of course everything in it lies in modern-day Germany. But the key is diachrony: The GDR was in a context of different political entities than we have now. It is equivalent to the Roman empire or the Moluccan sultanate (which apparently I just made up: I had to check)!