Talk:Wonders of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bold text

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wonders of the World article.
Article policies

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Most spectacular man-made constructions"

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)

[edit] 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 do not agree if the web search only 7 is the ancien wonders of the world its 8 it also have rice terrecess in beunguet in the philippines