http://www.kurdishglobe.net/displayArticle.jsp?id=778E7CD731D446B894C84B44019172BA
One of the most interesting new attempts. Erbil in Iraq wants its citadel on the list. Appears to be somewhat like Aleppo

Argenteuil et al - Impressionist Landscapes
Nb the use of the Le Havre inscription as an inspiration.

http://www.lejdd.fr/cmc/paris/200850/classer-les-sites-impressionnistes_170584.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5337656.ece

I came across this Web site which lists the various possible sites which were/are being considered for the revised Tentative list of The Republic of Ireland (The Web site is pushing for the Hill of Tara and presumably put up the full list to show what the "competition" was like!). To the best of my knowledge a revised T List still hasn't been published as all the entries on the last one on the UNESCO site are dated 1992.
Note that Ireland hasn't done a woderful job since then at getting sites inscribed - it has only had 2 inscriptions (Bend of the Boyne 1993 and Skellig Michael 1996) leaving 8 sites as yet uninscribed

http://www.hilloftara.info/?page_id=134

There are a number of "new" ideas here among the 24 potential sites identified - I noted particularly "A cultural route - The Kings of Munster to France"!! There are also a lot of Islands!! Some of the current T List sites (e.g The Burren) are mentioned again but others (e.g The Rock of Cashel and Killarney NP) are not. However, another link on the site leads to a presentation on a proposal for a serial "Royal Irish Sites" site
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/taralitigation/message/1981
This does include the Rock of Cashel as well as the Hill of Tara and others so perhaps that is the way in which Ireland is moving.

About Ireland's upcoming new Tentative List: http://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/WorldHeritage/IrelandsTentativeList/

Yes the "Hill of Tara" list in my earlier post came about as a result of the "public consultatation" process referred to in the Ministry of Environment's site so is the "latest" information available on what the new list might contain

There is a bit more detail on the new Irish tentative list on this page on the Irish Times website. It seems that after the consoltation it has been whittled down to five sites.
It seems that the Burren and Cashel have been left out, two of the stronger sites from the 1992 list. Glendalough is a good addition, and Clonmacnoise is a good site, though I wouldn't say either would drastically enliven the list.
I haven't been to the other three sites though I am informed that Durrow is a pretty baffling addition to the list and my searches have turned up nothing particularly remarkable. Inis Cealtra is on Lough Gur from the Hill of Tara list.

I wonder what ICOMOS/UNESCO would think of all those crosses at Monasterboice being removed from their proper location and being brought inside to protect them from the elements! Presumably they would be replaced with fibreglass copies? Where would that leave the site's integrity?
Surely however ICOMOS/UNESCO must take a realistic and "preservatory" view on such matters and allow it in certain circumstances? At what point however does removal of artefacts which were not meant to be moved and their replacement with "copies" detract from a site's integrity/authenticity?

Do we know of any/many other sites where signifcant items have been replaced with copies to protect them - either from the elements or vandalism, theft etc etc (A possible "Connection" here methinks - sites which have had a "significant feature deliberately removed and replaced by a replica"??)
The first which comes to my mind is Monte Alban in Mexico where a significant number of carved stones known as "Los Danzantes" (The Dancers) have been replaced by fibreglass copies.
We already have a connection for "Restored by Anastylosis" but that is only supposed to utilise what is "on site" and not actually to take anything away. Sometimes what has happened moves beyond that - e.g the Caryatids at the Acropolis are replicas - albeit not fibreglass - 1 replaces a statue taken by Lord Elgin and now in the British Museum but the other 5 were deliberately removed to the Acropolis museum to save them from further erosion!!
Any others??

PS.
I guess Michelangelo's "Statue of David" in Florence could count as the third "Connection" for "Deliberately moved and replaced by a replica" - even though it was moved and replaced a long time ago. The orginal was moved in 1873 from the Piazza della Signoria to the Accademia Gallery and a replica wasn't put in place in the Piazza until 1910.

Another potential Tentative Site: Schwerin Castle in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern / Germany:

http://www.svz.de/lokales/schwerin/artikeldetails/article/217/welterbe-bewerbung-stoc kt.html

The whole project seems to be advancing slowly, though.

Two more:
Main European Passages and Galeries
Les Marches de Bretagne

Also:
Stećci (medieval tombstones) from ex-Yugoslavia

And another one: Tempelhof Airport in Berlin

http://www.tempelhof-weltkulturerbe.de/cms/

ohh, I like the idea of Templehof, again another one I toyed with propossing for the 50 missing but don't think I did.
It would make great sense to be twinned with London Croydon and Paris le Bourget, though I am not sure how much of them are left. These were the three iconic pre WWII airports in Europe. It would make a really good inscription I think.

A typically business-like approach from Singapore to the task of identifying and preparing any future nomination!
It will be interesting to discover if the process finds any site with "potential" beyond the Botanic Gardens - they are certainly a fine feature within the city and have historic associatations but one couldn't imagine them meeting the OUV criteria without a large degree of "rule-bending" on the part of the WHC so as to give Singapore its one site. But would that be anything more than has already been done for San Marino! No doubt they would be beautifully presented and have superb documentation.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100415-0000050/A-World-Heritage-Site-in-Spore

PS. This post contains a list of other ideas from Singaporeans - but most seem underwhelmed with the idea. Nevertheless I would expect UNESCO eventually to agree to 1 for "inclusiveness" reasons
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100415001432AAcKtXX&r=w