Talk:Wonders of the World/Archive 1

Empire State

why isn't the empire stae in there?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.27.97 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 September 2007

If you are referring to the Empire State Building, it is. See #3 on the modern world list by American Society of Civil Engineers: Wonders of the World#Wonders of the modern world. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Filling white space with images

Added pics to fill white space and provide as much support as possible for the listed items. Couldn't find pics for all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk • contribs) 09:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While your enthusiasm is a great addition to the project, too many images and too many large images brings the article out of compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Likewise, all of the white space need not be filled with images, as it makes the article look really cluttered. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; it was unreadable with all the big, clumsy photos that you added. Wikipedia is not a picture book, after all. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please show me in the manual of style where this is covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmithsonian (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another way to explain it is via example. If you are not already familiar with Featured articles (FA), they are considered to be the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer. Examples of historical FA articles similar to the Wonders of the World include Vijayanagara Empire, Confederate government of Kentucky, and Yellowstone fires of 1988. All contain multiple pictures, but not enough to overwhelm the article's text, and the images present are, with a few exceptions, generally "thumb" size. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

list of lists

I have removed a "wonder" list compiled by a single travel writer. Travel writers compile similar lists all the time - it's a good way to sell books - and we can't possibly start listing the opinions of single individuals, even if they published really long NY Times articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I will conceed to your very valid point, it had been in the article for a very long time. (That and, you know, WP:ILIKEIT.) --Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, you failed to show how the material violates Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. In fact, it doesn't. The opinions (and creations or accomplishments) of single individuals are published all over Wikipedia, and there is no policy or guideline barring the works of individuals. The lists of Travel Wonders are notable in their own right and qualify for an article of their own. Their scope is worldwide, which makes the items in them world wonders. They are excellent geography lists and are a fun and entertaining way for students (and everyone else) to learn about geography, and serve well Wikipedia's missions to educate and inform as well as provide an alternative way to browse geography on Wikipedia. They (and the links that go with them) also exemplify that lists of wonders don't always have 7 items in them, and therefore they serve to make the article neutral per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so space isn't a concern either. And since they have been in the article for so long, and therefore have long-established consensus, you should have discussed their removal here first rather than removing them directly. Wikipedia is not subject to being censored, which is what you are attempting to do by not seeking consensus before removing something which has consensus simply because you don't want it included. What else have you censored from Wikipedia? Have you been going around removing articles on the works of individuals, like Stephen King novels or books by travel authors? Please don't. Wordsmithsonian (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the new arrival who sees disagreement as "censorship" and "consensus" as meaning "I have to agree with it." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having gotten that snide comment out of my system, you're right; I should have discussed it here before removing it. (But please, don't use the word "censorship" - it gets tossed around incredibly often on wikipedia, to the point that it has lost all meaning.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see disagreement as censorship, and I don't believe you have to agree with anything (though maybe you are due for a reread of Wikipedia's policies, especially its content policies and WP:SNIDE). :) Your removal of the section appeared to be you forcing your will concerning material which you personally find objectionable, in the face of established consensus, and over material that meets Wikipedia's various content policies. I can't find a better word than "censorship" to describe your action, can you? Maybe you should look more closely at your approach to editing articles. Wordsmithsonian (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My removal of the section is an example of how wikipedia has works, and has worked for the five years I've been around it - somebody does something, it draws a response, there's follow-up discussion, and as long as nobody gets on a high horse and over-inflates the argument - such as by pretending that a minor disagreement is an important as, say, censorship - eventually it ends up at a state known as "consensus" ... until the next person comes along and does something, of course, and then it starts again. I'm not sure what you're expecting, but that's how it works.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Or as some of us like to refer to it, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Most spectacular man-made constructions"

Dear “ Wiki” Members,

I wonder if you ever ignored voting for one of the most expensive construction and greatest building of the 21st century on earth: The LHC (Large Hadron Collider)?

If so, I would strongly suggest that we should vote for LHC the Eighth Wonder of The World, considering the following facts and reasons:

· The LHC is the most advanced engineering machine in the world. The cost to build LHC is estimated at nearly 10 billions, the highest price for any single building on earth. It has also broken many engineering records: (http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html)

· Each of the current wonders usually stands for one of our past and great civilization. For instance: The Giza Pyramid Complex for Egypt (African) Civilization; The Colosseum for Roman (or Mediterranean) Civilization; the Great Wall of China for Chinese (Asian) Civilization. So, the LHC should be a very good symbol for European Civilization standing for the past 300 years of advanced technology and scientific research for the human kind.

· Within the next 10 or 20 years, LHC will be the most attractive place on earth for tourism in Europe. Any good investor should think of at least a billion $E. annual income for the region.

Thank you for your consideration and your votes.

Regards, Phucuong (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Cuong Nguyen, P.E.

Who decides this? What organization is this? No doubt its comprised by the US (empire state building, a wonder, really??). -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What gave this particular list away as having originated in the United States? Was it the fact that it is under a section titled American Society of Civil Engineers Seven Wonders of the Modern World, or that it was created by the American Society of Civil Engineers? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are Stonehenge and the Colosseum in the Medieval list?

Stonehenge is obviously stone age - definitely prehistoric and the Colosseum is also ancient (e.g. Roman) so why are they in the Medieval wonders???

Cambriohistoric chick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.140.117 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You would probably have to take that up with the sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Comment relocated from Talk:Wonders of the Middle Ages) Stonehenge?? Middle Ages?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.74.151 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 31 March 2008

There was a long discussion about this a year or two ago, after I made the same comment. I can't find it in any Talk page - it seems to have been lost amid all the merging and moving of varous "wonders of the world" articles that occurred in the past year.

The summary of the discussion is that these lists were popular during the Medieval Ages, not lists of things that were built in the Medieval period. Looking at the section, it's been edited into semi-incoherence, though. I'll tweak it a bit and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the references, basically that section says that two or possibly three Victorian-ish authors wrote at least once each about supposed wonders of the medieval world. It's not like thg ancient world list, which has been well known and cited for centuries, or the modern lists, where we have very specific sources. There's no evidence such "lists" existed in the medieval world, and since they're not exclusively *of* the medieval world, it's not really clear why these authors called them "medieval" lists. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see why stonehenge etc are in there. But why is the Taj Mahal? I can see a reference (which I haven't been able to check) but the Taj Mahal was constructed around 1660. It is much too late to fit into the medieval world. I propose to delete it fom the list.--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? As per WP:VER, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." — Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if it's verifiable? We cuold stuff this article with 1000 pages of verifiable gunk. It is not relevant so it should go--212.74.26.3 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion above - if we include these lists at all (and it's not entirely sure that we should) we need to include all the stuff that was put on those lists, even if these days we don't think it makes sense. These are a (admittedly minor) historical artifact; we shouldn't edit them after the fact because they don't strike us as relevant. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: these are not "Lists of items approved by Wikipedia editors". ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Another note: you're responding to a 3-year-old conversation. The section in question has been edited and (more importantly) retitled since then, which dilutes much of the confusion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Perhaps old and/or resolved stuff should be archived (I didn't notice dates.) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

herodotus & callimachus

RE: "The historian Herodotus (484 BC–ca. 425 BC), and the scholar Callimachus of Cyrene (ca 305–240 BC) at the Museum of Alexandria, made early lists of "Seven wonders" but their writings have not survived, except as references."
I think this should be clarified, as there are certainly extant works by both of these dudes. didn't want to change it myself as I'm not familiar with references to the seven wonders, but I think more detailed info on the source of these references and who attributed them to Herodotus/Callimachus would be nice, if someone could supply it. Also aren't there other sources? I know of ancient sort of guide books but can't recall names/details just now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.164.249 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlsbad Caverns

Carlsbad Caverns always used to be in the Wonders list. What happened to it?Robmissy (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not according to either of our source lists ([1], [2]). Perhaps you were thinking about a different list than any of the ones presented here? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders Listed Incorrectly

{{editsemiprotected}} According to the New7Wonders site, the Alhambra in Spain did not win and Christ the Redeemer did win.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrflesch (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2009

Good catch! Vandalism reverted [3]. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

dhvaudsfgvuafuvya tat is fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.4.211 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of "thaumata"

Thaumata, the Greek word, means "miracles". It translates more accurately to miracle than "things to be seen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikikall (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I second this comment user:Gickaria 16:13, 29 July 2009 (CET)Gickaria (talk)

In popular culture

Not only do popluar culture references refer to the 7 wonders, but some like megaman starforce 3 make fun of them. I think this needs it's own section for both types. 96.229.162.122 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition all of the aforementioned architectual structures, Amber Jackson of Monterey, TN is also a wonder of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.106.67 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Niagara Falls

How is Niagara Falls New York not considered a Natural Wonder of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.150.103 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting date Zuiderzee works

The table gives 1950 as a starting date. That is incorrect.

The Deltaworks follow a great flooding in 1953, but the Zuiderzeeworks are the results of a 1916-flooding.

These are the important milestones of the Zuiderzee works: June 20, 1920: contract signing on the first part of the Zuiderzee works concerning the Amsteldiep dam near the former Wieringen island. June 24, 1924: Amsteldiep dam completed 1926-1932: the Afsluitdijk is being constructed; completion is on May 28, 1932, official opening on September 25, 1933. 1927-1930: the Wieringemeerpolder is being constructed 1936-1942: the Noordoostpolder is being constructed (works continues in the first years of WW-II) 1950-1957: the polder Oostelijk Flevoland is being constructed 1959-1968: the polder Zuidelijk Flevoland is being constructed

Hillman Wonders

The Howard Hillman's site list of wonders, which the 'Travel wonders of the world' section is based on, have changed since said section was created - possibility of the section being updated?

--81.147.98.96 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have always wanted to kill it from this article - one guy's list isn't worthy of mention here, in my humble opinion. If he's going to jerk it around to spike his book sales, then I say we definitely should dump it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed him, because checking his Web site finds that he has made 7 - seven! - lists of "wonders" that he has put together. There's no point in listing a couple of them, particularly since the "natural" wonder list has changed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the natural list should be updated, but not completely removed. The list has been on this article for quite a long time. Without some sort of consensus, I don't think it should be just taken out, given Howard Hillman is a widely read travel writer and his website is one of the most visible of its kind. As for the "other" lists Hillman put together, those are of sub-categories and regions, such as "European wonders", "Asian wonders"; as far as I can tell there is only one list of man-made wonder and one natural wonder.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I still dislike it - he's the only individual (as compared to institution) with a list here, and there are much better known travel writers - also, he has more items listed that anybody else because he splits it into "man made" and "natural". I think it gives him way too much weight and credence. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)