Talk:Wonders of the World

/Archive 1

OK, silly question...

But why is Stonehenge listed as a Medieval site? Medieval Britain is post-Roman, e.g. 400 - 800CE; Stonehenge is known to date from the third millennium BCE or even earlier. Hunterd is back! 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As the article says: "Many lists of wonders of the world are said to have existed during the Middle Ages, although it is unlikely that these lists originated at that time because the word medieval was not even invented until the Enlightenment-era, and the concept of a Middle Age did not become popular until the 16th century. Brewer's refers to them as "later list[s]"[2] suggesting the lists were created after the Middle Ages. Many of the structures on these lists were built much earlier than the Medieval Ages, but were well known." There has been much discussion about these lists, check above in the Talk. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aah, sorry, probably helps to read the article. lol. I just read that bit and misunderstood it as being a list of wonders that were created in the medieval period, rather than the list being created at that time... Hunterd is back! 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A very understandable error. In the past I argued that the whole section should be deleted, because it's so misleading, but others disagreed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Much later update: I've changed the section title from "Medieval Lists" because it was so confusing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Authorities and Bodies

After reading the Wonders of the World (new section), which I will add has been well written however is misleading and I believe in accurate.

Firstly, and most importantly; there are international bodies/authorities recognised by Gevena and European Conventions involving more than 40 separate countries who HAVE THE INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to make determinations and changes to the list.

Thus my concern is why has this article not been consistent with the authorities it quotes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, and finally; WHY ARE NO AUTHORITIVE BODIES MAKING FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (which in the article gives the impression as FINAL and BINDING). These bodies "American Engineering Society" and CNN??????? The article is BIAS and inaccurate.

e.g. Sydney Opera House is still officially a Modern wonder of the World (Travel - from memory) Under the Dutch Bodies list, This article gives the impression that these bodies have the power to change Internationally accepted lists.

Shame that Wikipedia has not arbitrated this article more closely and unbiased. Please fix or provide more research evidence from Standing International Bodiesx (not American Localised Bodies - - - there is a world outside the US)!

Thanking you in Advance

Regards,

Pablo Anon

Sydney, Australia.

1-1-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.119.203 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats with all this politically correct rubbish?

We have been using BC and AD for hundreds of years and to change it to "BCE" and "CE" so no one feels insulted is just going too far. If anyone is insulted because some one puts BC or AD then you must have a lot of time on your hands. You need to go out, get a job. There are more important things to cry/worry/complain about. Stop all this PC rubbish PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.213.154 (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're asking editors to stop doing what you're doing? (By the way, BCE/CE has nothing to do with PC.) Wikipedia has a policy about which system to use in an article - see WP:ERA. Mindmatrix 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

what is the top desations i the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.147.38 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel

The Old City of Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as being part of Israel. This is discussed thoroughly in East Jerusalem#Sovereignty. The political status of this geographical area is undetermined and controversial, therefore I thought the only safe way of dealing with it is simply to omit "Israel". Specifying "Israel" as the country where the Old City of Jerusalem is located is a political statement and a minority POV. May I ask those who reverted my edit to explain their motives and provide reasonable references for their view?--84.111.117.111 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No country accepts any part of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thats why all embassy's are in Tel Aviv. Also the wonder in the article is in the "Old City" which is in East Jerusalem which is seen by the international community as occupied land. So therefor we can not say in this article that the area is in Israel as its against the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like analysis and/or editors asserting their own POV. Wikipedia's official policy on Verifiability states "verifiability, not truth" and the cited source for the USA Today's New Seven Wonders list says "Jerusalem's Old City, Israel." Personally I do not care either way, but lets call a spade a spade. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Old City of Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem which was unified during the Six Day War in 1967. Israel is responsible for its development, upkeep, laws, and in every way that a country is responsible for one of its cities. Just because some of the nations of the world do not recognize Israel's sovereignty does not mean that Israel is not ipso facto sovereign. Therefore, until some other political status is accepted Jerusalem will be and is part of Israel, Israel's capital city, including the Old City. As an aside which has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article, it is only under the sovereignty of the State of Israel that all religions have free access to their holy sites. Oh, accept for Jews who are not allowed to pray on their holiest site on earth, the Temple Mount. Before 1967 Jews could not even enter the Old City of Jerusalem, a place Jews called home for hundreds of years until 1948 when they were all kicked out. Today all nationalities and religious are welcomed to come and pray, visit, and enjoy this wonder of the world. Simplysavvy (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC) It seems to me the most sensible way to handle this issue is to say that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel, which it is, but to explain the controversy in the footnote, as has been done. I added back Israel as the country in which Jerusalem is found, no matter what its political status might be. For people who want to tell readers that the status of Jerusalem is in dispute, there is a nice footnote to do so. Thanks.Simplysavvy (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFORUM. There is a consensus that the Old City of Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories are not in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe your point of view is neutral? There is no NPOV here and if there is no NPOV then we must use common sense. Jerusalem was annexed by the democratic State of Israel. It is Israel's capital city. Israel administers the Old City, collects taxes there, keeps the peace, etc... For the time being at least, as I said above, Israel is the country in which Jerusalem is found. This is common sense when you are talking about "The Wonders of the World." What country does one fly to in order to visit Jerusalem? I suppose you could fly to Jordan, but no one says anywhere, especially not Jordan, that Jerusalem is under their dominion. And since when does a "consensus" make something true or correct? Why is it so hard for you to say that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel? Have you thought about this? I think its the same reason that if a boat full of citizenless Jews who were German citizens until Hitler revoked their citizenship was trying to land at the shores of your country, you would not let them in because they have no passports. When there is a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians and Jerusalem is either shared, internationalized, or divided again, then we can change the table for the Wonders of the World. But for now, Jerusalem is in Israel, even if the rest of the world does not recognize it. As an encyclopedia with common sense and a supposedly NPOV, that is the best solution. I am not changing it back on the table, but I hope you will think about this issue and realize that your POV leads to hate and war, while my POV leads to true peace.Simplysavvy (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronald W. Clark's list

Ronald Clark's list of 52 items which constitute "Wonders of the World" is certainly longer than most. Nevertheless, I believe a considerable amount of care went into his selection (which is albeit a personal selection). His list is presented in his book "Wonders of the World" - which is of course the title of this article. It admirably fulfils the conditions given in the first sentence of this article, viz: "Various lists of the Wonders of the World have been compiled over the ages to catalogue the most spectacular constructions and natural things in the world." Clark's list is not something just thrown together for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, or some check-list of "spectacular places I hope to visit during the course of my life" put together by some young person and pasted into their blog. This list is a whole lot more thoughtful - and interestingly a lot of the Natural wonders are in the fields of biology. For example, a spider web is a pretty commonplace thing, and we might rather take it for granted. But as a "wonder of the world" there are few things to match it. The point is pivotal in E.B. White's classic book "Charlotte's Web", of course, as the character of the family doctor makes clear: finding writing in a spider web is wonderful, but so was the building of any web in the first place - a point that more or less everybody pretty much overlooks. I might be labouring this point (!) but a list of wonders of the world can fulfil the function, not simply of a checklist of places to visit (or dream of visiting), but a list to stimulate the proper appreciation of something: a sense perhaps of awe before something sublime, either of the natural world - or of human architectural or technological accomplishment: a push to the outer limits of what could be accomplished.

There is a notable generosity of spirit in this list, and for that reason alone I think it ought to remain in this article. Clark's background is to some extent journalistic - but in the best spirit of that word: he wrote clearly and concisely. He was also, as the Wikipedia article on him indicates, a master of several fields: an expert on mountaineering, a very gifted science writer and biographer - his presentations on the history of physics are still very well thought of - and an early steampunk novelist. So, no, Clark's list was not a publicity stunt: he was a prolific writer, but a thoughtful one, and this list is worthy of his talents - so far as I can see.

There is, I think, an inherent interest in this list, which any thoughtful human being would be glad to find in this Wikipedia article and look through.Ottershrew (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Baloney (in my humble opinion, of course) - 52 items, for crying out loud! Regardless of how much effort, thought or generosity of spirit (?) was put into compiling the list, it doesn't belong in this article, which is turning into one of those mens/womens magazines whose cover lines are larded with numbers - 103 ways to make him love you! 66 ways to make her moan! If we want to mention that this semi-notable person is one of many semi-notable folks who have published a list of stuff that he thought was wonderful, then so be it, but don't take up enormous amounts of screen space listing them. (I think the Hillman lists should be removed, too - I think the article should give lists compiled by organizations or notable historical figures). By the way, Clark's list isn't even mentioned in his own wikipedia article!

Anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay David - those are good points, imho. Clark's list is a long one, which I think is your main difficulty with its inclusion in this article. And also, as you say, it's a personal list, not produced by an organisation or by poll-taking. I think, though, it should stay for the following two reasons:

1. It comes from a book with the simple title, Wonders of the World, i.e. exactly the same title as the title of this Wikipedia article;

2. This book was written by a man who is at least notable enough to have a Wikipedia article devoted to him. Ottershrew (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Type "Wonders of the World" into the Amazon.com search bar and you'll find six books (but not Clark's) with that exact title, plus a couple with variations like "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" and "100 Great Wonders of the World" - please don't say we should list all those, too!

My point is that I don't think the list is notable enough to take up such vast amounts of screen space. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about screen space, it's about policy--specifically, WP:NOT, and even more specifically, WP:NOTSOAP (giving the full list here makes it seem like this list is as notable and "important" as the traditional lists) andWP:NOTDIR (we shouldn't be including all possible info). So the list definitely should go. And, in terms of WP:WEIGHT, unless there is evidence that the book itself is notable (has been favorably reviewed, discussed on TV, etc.), it shouldn't even be included on this page at all. Our goal here should not be to include every single "Wonders" List ever included. For this reason, the Hillman lists should also go. I'm going to be bold and remove the lists right now, and keep the prose in an "other" section as a temporary compromise, but unless we can produce reliable sources, even the prose should go to.Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove Hillman more than two years ago and didn't get consensus. Patience is a virtue in wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On balance, I also now think this is the right way to go - though I do think the short paragraph noting the fact that there are various other lists "out there" is a useful datum for someone wanting to find out more. Good work, guys. Ottershrew (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Eiffel tower??? Leaning Tower of Pisa???

These are most certainly wonders of the world but not on this list!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.103.229 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

opinion

OK forget about the empire state building for a second - just look at the entire manhattan skyline - if we are talking about wonders you cant single out 1 building the entire skyline of such a tiny island is truly a wonder of not just the modern age but of mankinds ability to dream beyond what is actually possible if not slightly displaying mankinds egotistical and mareialistic fabric. PS I'm not American ha X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.143.86 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's just your opinion. This is not a collection of what WP editors think are wonders, but a reporting of what reliable sources have already called wonders. As with all article's on Wikipedia, we don't make our own decisions, all we do is follow reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Istar Gate is can replace the Lighthouse of Alexandria or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, also the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is considered a myth because there is no proof that it existed except that it is mention repeatedly in Babylonian legends.

StarlyteFlyte (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide evidence that a significant number of reliable sources have already made this change. Note that your opinion that one thing is a myth is original research. This article is not deciding what the Wonders are; all we are doing is reporting on what sources have already said that they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eighth Wonder of the world

can I present Bangkok Elevated Road and Train System as the eighth wonder of the world? it was called "a Bangkok version of Stonehenge" XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.100.72 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Thousands of things are randomly called "a wonder of the world"; this article documents only the most famous of those. Actually, more accurately, we only show the lists that are the most famous, so unless there is a famous list of world wonders that includes that system, it can't be included here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New7wonders of Nature

I just want to inform that the New7wonders Foundation officially released the declared winners for their search for the New7Wonders of Nature, which include the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park of the Philippines and Jeju Island of South Korea, and the rest are undergoing deliberation. Please include this information in the article (I can do that myself but since i'm an IP Address and this is locked so i'm requesting here in the discussion page)... - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

House of the People should be added

Palace of the Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_Poporului.jpg It is the largest most luxurious palace in the world. The article has a sewage pumping station but is missing the House of the People. What can I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Link 19 of references is an advertising page

Link 19 of the references is a page with advertisements. It could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopoMania (talk • contribs) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I've killed the item; couldn't find another reference. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make this small grammatical fix....

In the second paragraph, the sentence "The number seven was chosen because the Greeks believed it was represented perfection and plenty" should read "believed it represented". Please delete the word "was". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.146.30 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for catching it. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

The name Chichén Itzá is misspelled on this page (misspelled as Chichen Itza). The accents are necessary as the name would be pronounced incorrectly without them. Mxkieran (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. On Wikipedia we generally use the english spelling of a name. For a further explanation, see WP:ENGLISH. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

Niroshaka (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

I want to add somethings that i found to this page. Pls let me edit it. MyNameIsJimBob (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Please replace: One of the many existing lists was compiled by CNN: with: One of the many existing lists was compiled by CNN: to fix the URL.

References

Litdayss (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

There are three sections where all text runs together. I can't see any reason for this type methodology and would assume that there should be spaces in between them. Further, because all other sections spell out the word "seven" instead of place the number, I would suggest consistency here.

• 3.4 New7Wonders of the World -- Change to -- New Seven Wonders of the World
• 3.5 New7Wonders of Nature -- Change to -- New Seven Wonders of Nature
• 3.6 New7Wonders Cities -- Change to -- New Seven Wonders Cities

Kevinludlow (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Unless I'm misreading it, the apparent reason for the section titles being rendered like that is that they refer to initiatives created by something called the New7Wonders Foundation. This seems to be explained in the text, which contains links to articles about the initiatives. Why the New7Wonders Foundation chose to name itself thus isn't clear, although one could speculate. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct. For whatever silly reason, the foundation mushed the two words and one digit together. No sillier than iPod or FedEx, I guess.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

British English

In the second paragraph of "In Popular Culture" section, the British English version of mold/mould is used, can and should this be changed to the US English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim A Potter (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your query. I see no reason to change it; the article uses British English spellings elsewhere. The English Wikipedia is written and maintained by people in various parts of the world, so we try to be open to diverse spellings. It's usual to strive for consistency within a given article, however. For more information, see WP:ENGVAR. Of more concern is that the content in that section isn't supported by reliable sources. By the way, you can (and should) sign your talk-page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wonders of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802060056/http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=2147487305 to http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=2147487305
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721011803/http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/9711/natural.wonders/ to http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/9711/natural.wonders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wonders of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402072318/http://www.asce.org/history/seven_wonders.cfm to http://www.asce.org/history/seven_wonders.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wonders of the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401000851/http://www.aaa.org/dvdlibrary to http://www.aaa.org/dvdlibrary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

Add really fast touhou metal covers, those songs are the only thing that deserves to be a wonder of the world. 92.221.227.62 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaand we see why this article is semi-protected. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

196.215.67.107 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I wanna pop sum tags bro

Possibly, but irrelevant. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

Hello,

I have written an article on my website about the travel destinations recommended by Hillman. I found two dead links on this page which talks about the same. I kindly request you to either add my URL (http://newserd.com/worlds-top-10-natural-travel-wonders) to this article as its relevant to this page or provide me access to edit the following reference links.

The Dead Links are as follows:

Hillman, Howard. "World's top 10 man-made travel wonders". Hillman Quality Publications. Retrieved July 7, 2007.[dead link]

Jump up ^ Hillman, Howard. "World's top 10 natural travel wonders". Hillman Quality Publications. Retrieved July 7, 2007.[dead link] Singole (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This is what we call a conflict of interest. Please use the {{request edit}} template for self-published sources like these. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

69.129.204.212 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

turn in to a wolf

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. HindWiki^Connect 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

Need to change reference link:

From:

18. "Egypt Angered at New Wonders Idea". Home.bellsouth.net. January 1, 1985. Retrieved July 31, 2010.[permanent dead link]

   Link: http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editorial.dll?eetype=Article&eeid=5356431&render=y&ck=&Table=&_lid=332&_lnm=todays+guide+onnet+sevenwonders+tglink&ck=

To:

18. "Egypt Angered at New Wonders Idea". Home.bellsouth.net. January 1, 1985. https://dailynewsegypt.com/2007/04/20/egypts-pyramids-out-of-seven-wonders-contest/ TheSqua.re Serviced Apartments (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

: Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Consistency in Data Presentation

There are several 7 Wonders collections listed in the page, some with tabular layout and others with a bullet list. My personal preference is the tabular layout with the wonder name, its date of completion (and destruction if gone), and the country or countries in which it exists. Making them consistent will make them easier to read on the whole. While some of these landmarks are well known, and all should be linked to their own page on Wikipedia, the ease of access to information is significantly improved with the tabular layout.

• Statue of Liberty
• Eiffel Tower
• Sydney Opera House

vs

Wonder	Date	Location
Statue of Liberty	1886	United States
Eiffel Tower	1889	France
Sydney Opera House	1973	Australia

These structures are not necessarily wonders out of any list, just used as a style reference.

GWCJag (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

agreed the tabular layout is better עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Images on mobile

I don't know to what extent this can be controlled, but all the images of the modern wonders are currently shown in the "Ancient Wonders" section when visiting on mobile. The placement of these images seems weird in general as they appear in a long list with no content in between.

I realise that this isn't an issue on desktop but if there is a way to change this the readibility on mobile would definitely be improved. Swaggernagger (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Taj Mahal Exterior.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

USA Today?

I feel that, while the other lists do have a good amount of clout and significance, the USA Today one is

a) A weird inclusion given that USAT is more or less a 90's-style-tabloid and

b) Strangely inconsistent.

Whereas the typical "wonders" list is meant to signify human constructive accomplishment, the USA Today's features an ungodly mix of natural geology, non-tangible inventions, and vague regions of urban development. It takes all the previous lists of wonders, misses the point completely, and then creates a slashed-together list that neither satisfies the criteria of the traditional "wonders" lists nor subverts it in a meaningful way (as the 7 natural wonders list does.) The only traditional wonder on the list is the Potala Palace which, to be fair, is quite a good entry.

I think it should be removed, but I'll wait a bit in case anyone has objections.

Conkaeso (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

At that time, USA Today was the third or fourth largest newspaper in the country by circulation, probably more by readership because of all the free copies at hotels, and was rivaled only by the NY Times and Wall Street Journal as a nationwide newspaper. And Good Morning America was one of the most-watched morning programs. So they're definitely major public outlets.

I grant you to list is different than any other list, for the reasons you give. Whether that means it shouldn't be listed here is a judgement call. I guess I'd say it should be included just because readers might have heard of it, but I'm not care a whole lot either way. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Books

A quick Amazon search finds more than a dozen people or institutions have published books with "Wonders of the World" in the title that consist of alternate lists. I have removed the specific reference to two of them, which have not proved to be particularly notable over time. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Section "USA Today's New Seven Wonders":"Location"

(Throwaway comment)

Raising on talk page lest a edit war happen:

In the location column, the blue ending words are either:

• Inapplicable as states (polar region, earth)
• Widely recognized sovereign states, with no disputes over the entry (USA, Mexico, Tanzania, Kenya)
• Partially recognized states with or without control over the entry(Jerusalem Old City) (Israel) (+Palestine, even if original sources didn't list it)
• A historical and cultural region somewhat unique within a country (Tibet)(apparently it doesn't link to either Tibet autonomous region or the much larger designated Tibetan Areas)(assume good faith i.e. the source and/or its endorsers on this wikipedia is not trying to encourage secessionists over this)

The USA Today's original wording looks like this:

The new Seven Wonders of the World, chosen by our experts, are: Potala Palace/Jokhang Temple, Tibet; Jerusalem's Old City, Israel; polar ice caps; Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Monument; the Internet; Maya pyramids, Central America; and Serengetti Plain, Tanzania

However in the article this has changed to mentioning countries whenever applicable, with the exception of Tibet. Is mentioning Lhasa is located in China or Barcelona in Spain non-WP:NPOV conformant? Or do we prefer the wording from source unchanged, only adding notes?

I don't think we need to stick to the source wording in this case, it's not trying to be some sort of exact historical document. I agree the "Earth" wikilink is pretty silly, but otherwise I don't see as being any worse than any other chart in this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 July 2021

To the redirect Seven Wonders of the World, add this text:

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from alternative name}}
{{R from move}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 10:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

The section for the New7Wonders of the World lists the Great Pyramid of Giza specifically as the honorary 8th wonder. However, according to the foundation's official website, it's actually all of the Giza Pyramids who hold this distinction. I've already amended this in the page for the New7Wonders of the World, but it should be changed on this one as well, both on the table and the section's opening paragraph.

Other minor errors in this section are that Christ the Redeemer should be italicized, Petra's location being listed as Jabal Al-Madbah (it's actually Ma'an), and Chichén Itzá being spelled without diacritics (which is a consistency error, as the organization includes them). Thank you. 2800:2161:5400:5FD:BCF8:FEAD:D50A:4C80 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All done. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The leading paragraph of that section still mentions the Great Pyramid, everything else is good. 2800:2161:5400:5FD:BCF8:FEAD:D50A:4C80 (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Map doesn’t work on safari

Sorry to be rude but the interactive map like on safari is like yo u can go here dis website real Susie boiiiii (not really but you get my point) sorry again for using your time. Cheers! 2600:6C48:617F:2396:9847:BD9A:17E5:43E6 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If the problem persists, you can contact the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) forums. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Should the Eight Views of Omi be mentioned in this article?

The Eight Views of Omi seem to have a similar concept to the Wonders of the World, so maybe it should be mentioned in the articles, perhaps in the "See Also" section. STIK2009 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I dont think so. The Wonders of the World lists many different objects/places - the Eight Views list many ways to look at a single place. That seems quite different. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Image Preview for 'ruins' link is a picture of vomit on a plate.

Hovering over the word 'ruins' (in the context of Mayan Ruins) in the section "USA Today's New Seven Wonders" brings up an image that Google lens identifies as vomit. Apologies for just bringing this to notice, but I joined specifically to try and fix this issue, and I don't seem to have the skills yet. Criminalarchivist (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I purged the maya ruins page to resolve this. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Wonders Of ..." and "Wikipedia" itself

Is there a list of "7 wonders of the internet" and is/should Wikipedia be on some "wonders" list somewhere? It is wonderful. Thank you! 156.68.36.115 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)