I want to delete 3 places Kushinagar,Nanakana Sahib and Medina.Though these are spiritually important but not show ouv in architecture.

Varanasi and Sarnath are different sites.

I support this process but instead of Khuft's list #62, I want to include some more sites from jonathanfr's, Assif's and my extended lists which are extremely deserving and still could make into the list (like as vantcj1 commented e.g. on the Pharaonic Temples of Kom Ombo and Edfu, Gobeklitepe, Vatnajökull, Petrified Forest National Park, Kuhikugu, Monteverde, San Lorenzo de Tenochtitlán, Karoo Desert, Lena Delta, Tempelhof, the Dilwara Temples at Mt Abu, Meenakshi Temple in Madurai)

cultural sites

Dilwara temples
Meenakshi Temple
Speicherstadt and Chilehaus

Natural sites

Kangchendzonga National Park
Forests of Southern New Caledonia
Okavango

UPDATE

Is there anything I missed? I feel there are some overlooked sites Bojboj posed for the Philippines. Are any of them Top 50? I did not want to exclude his only suggestions, but we were trying to not suggest sites from home countries. Everything Khuft and I included here has been either entirely new non-national suggestions, seconded suggestions, or original. Including the original Top 50, we now have 112 candidates to vote for
on Survey Monkey. Any progress on that front, I am not sure who said they would develop a survey? Assif or Meltwaterfalls?

I think we will have a great inventory of sites to vote on. Maybe we should close suggestions very soon, unless there was any last minute suggestions from people who have not really proposed much?

I just made the updates Kkanekahn.

I thought it is a Cultural site due to presence of fossils.Though it contains extinct Karoo vertebrates, it does not deserve in top 50 missing sites. I am sorry about my mistake.

Similarly San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán is not so authentic. Colossal Head are now located at Museo de Antropología de Xalapa.

So I want to remove Karoo Desert and San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán from my suggestions.

I also suggested Ephesus(Turkey) which is not in the list.

I am ready for voting.

I was just waiting for a full consensus on how we were setting up the vote and on what list then it should only take a few moments to set up the survey.

One thing if we go down the route of selecting a top 10:
Having gone through and tried my top 10 I realised that very quickly I just ran out of space voting for the obvious ones. I think there are at least 10 in the list above that would have 90-100% support from all members who will vote.

Is it worth us just getting a top 10 that are obviously going to make it through and then voting on the remaining 40? Otherwise we run the risk of having everyone putting forward 8-9 or 10 identical sites. We could potentially have a Top 50 missing consisting of 9 sites voted for by everyone and then a few randoms with one vote that have been included due to personal preference/ tactical voting.

--List of sites redacted by Meltwaterfalls--

We could extend it to 15, but I would not vote for the same 10 as you mentioned above

You can delete my proposals, Si Phan Don and Mergui Islands, since I already mentioned that these two sites are not in the same league with Top 50 Miss, but just to raise the concern for their lack of protection. But before we vote, can we ask the nominator to explain what are OUV of the sites they bring up? Many sites are less well known so before I decide I want to know some indept information not just wikipedia. This may make more fairness to certain site, and delete the site that don't have reasonable OUV .

That is fair enough, at least everyone knows my top 10 now :)

Just wondering if those that may be added soon are worthy of some thought.
I was tempted to not vote for them, purely as they would be wasted votes, but perhaps others have different ideas. Maybe it is a way of showing success that our selections are actually going to be viable WHS?

That's the point of rounds of voting. Round 1 Top 10. Most people will vote for the almost universal agreed sites. Round 2, another top 10 of remaining sites that have near universal agreement. By Round 3,4,5 I feel we will have some differentiation, but some basic agreed sites.

Round 1 - 10 Selections

Round 2 - 10 Selections

Round 3 - 10 Selections

Round 4 - 10 Selections

Round 5 - 10 Selections

*If we feel we need to extend the list past 50, we can discuss it.

This voting suggestion had several members (Khuft, Clyde, Winterkjm) who liked this format. Everyone gets plenty of votes (equally) and members can vote for the most deserving in the first couple rounds, which promotes general consensus. And in the later rounds, members can vote for that deserving site that not everyone may know or agree about. Thoughts?

It would not be that difficult each round to remove 10 sites that were selected for the voting to continue. Exp. Round 1 - 113 sites to vote for, Round 2 - 103 sites to vote for, Round 3 - 93 sites to vote for, etc. I think this is a good way to maintain list integrity while giving everyone a great deal of equal participation in the voting process. This also would ensure no wasted votes. Each round would last about a week to make sure everyone got a chance.

Certainly open to suggestions for voting, but it is difficult to come up with a voting framework that meets: 1) Equal voting, every vote is worth the same 2) Equal & significant participation, every participant will have 50 total votes 3) No wasted votes, if some of your votes fail, try again in a later round 4) Appropriate Length, 5 rounds (a week each) provides ample time for participation

I think that the process can result in a list everyone is happy with, because participants will have plenty of voting opportunities to be heard. And if a certain candidate site fails to reach the appropriate number of votes in any of the 5 rounds, it probably is by consensus that it is not Top 50 Missing.

So far we've had 16 active participants. If all participated in the voting, there would be 160 votes cast for Round 1, with some sites perhaps reaching 16 votes. I think this would suffice for a tally that would sustain a certain level of consensus. Granted in later rounds, 3-5 votes may be enough to include a site on the Top 50 Missing list.

Considering one of the potential areas of concern, a draw. If (2) candidate sites end with the same amount of votes, what is the rule or procedure? Not sure about this, perhaps a tie results in both candidates being not selected for that round. Example, if there were 8 frontrunner sites with the most votes, and 3 other sites with the same amount of votes, then only the first 8 would become Top 50 Missing. The other 3 sites would remain open for voting in the next round. Only an idea for a potential issue.

Ah ok, I didn't think that was the consensus but I guess it makes reasonable sense, though it may require a fair few rounds and bring up other issues.
However in true democratic terms it seems to be the least worst approach.

As such I may redact my suggestions above so as not to sway peoples votes.

Monte Verde is in Chile not in Costa Rica.
I would also unite both proposals for Papuan forests. Otherwise the votes won't sum up. You can't truly argue that a vote for the extended version is not for the original version either.

Couple updates. I don't want to repost yet, until everyone has no more alterations, deletions, additions to the Inventory (voting) list.

I support the method. However I would like to include 11 sites rather than 8 if there is a tie.