Talk:New 7 Wonders of the World

message: I wonder among these all historical memorial we can't see Buddhas of Bamiyan in Hazarajat which can question the importance and value of thse selections. Despite the two Buddhas are destryed but they still can be in seven wonders of the world.
    [reply to the above] You cannot seriously expect a pile of dust to go on the list.
    171.4.218.255 (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Bamiyan

message: The article reads like a brochure. This is an encyclopedia. There is no information about the history of the non-profit, who started it, how it is funded. There are no sources listed. What exactly is the relationship with the UN. etc.. this is a historical document, not an advertisement for the Jan 1 2007 announcement. -- Stbalbach 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Detailed information about the non-profit isn't really relevant to this article, but it might be collected into an article about the organization itself, if that's deemed important enough. As for the wording, I've taken a shot at rewriting much of the article (actually, mostly rearranging the information). I don't think it reads like an ad anymore (if it ever did), so I've removed the tag. - dcljr (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you did was re-word what was there, it's still an advert. The problem is, this organization is (likely) a scam. They charge money for votes, and can drop the free votes at their discresion - thus wealthy patrons can ensure one of the seven wonders with enough money (all of which goes to NWOC). And is NWOC really a non-proft? I don't know. They present themselves as being "official" and connected to UNESCO, but I have seen no such evidence, other than what they self-proclaim - I have not been able to find a neutral source or anything that gives them neutral legitimacy. It's like a "Who's Who" service where you can "purchase" an entry in the Who's Who catalog. It would be like Wikipedia allowing vanity articles "for a small fee". The whole thing looks and smells bad. I've added a POV tag because none of the sources are neutral. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree the entire article reads like an advertisement and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Virtual circuit 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Stbalbach, I totally agree. Not just the article but the whole campaign is deceptive.--Snjv 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new7wonder site reads like a travel agency site (date 7-7-7). However, many entries on Wikipedia are hijacked by interested parties. As long as Wikipedia explains to itsSomething of the form: users that this is a possibility, I do not see a problem. It is not an encyclopedia but an open-to-all Wikipedia! (LostPassword) 80.127.228.131 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really think this does not fit in wikipedia at all. WillTheHedgehog 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "alternative to the Seven Wonders" should stay "proposed alternative to the Seven Wonders" because it is not clear at all yet if the list is going to have the historic importance of the original list, nor is it clear what the impact of the list will be, or what is going to be done with it. Till now, all we know is, that it is a multimedia event by NOWC and Deureka Ltd., 50 % of the profits of which will be spent on restoration projects in the world, and that they will try to make the afghan buddhas one of these projects. 80.127.234.149 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert tag

message: I received this [edited] email from "WH-info" <wh-info@UNESCO.org>
Dear sir,
Thank you for your message. There is confusion but UNESCO does not participate to the seven wonders campaigns. Federico Mayor who was the last UNESCO DG is associated to the project but as an individual, not in the name of UNESCO.
Kind regards,
Souhila Aouak
World Heritage Centre
198.3.8.1 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think it would be fair to mention that there have been consultations with UNESCO in the earlier stage http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/29/011029ta_talk_reincarnation_dept 80.127.225.54 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNESCO

message: The article states that the list has been narrowed down to 21, but the list in the article has 22 items.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) .
:Of course, this is Wikipedia, anyone can change the list to reflect what they want it to be. Also, don't count on the 21 being the correct 21. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 21 or 22

message: Please don't stick references to this for-profit project in articles about every place that it likes to be associated with. Lots of folks have developed new "wonders of the world" lists. - DavidWBrooks 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Being a finalists is not notable. I've further removed it from other articles. This article and organization has been a constant source of wikiturfing for months.  -- Stbalbach 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  close to spam 

message: Do we really need to mention that in the introduction? It's worth mentioning because of some past confusion, but that seems overly prominent, borderline argumentative. - DavidWBrooks 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how they promote themselves, yeah, I think it is needed. Plus the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article. -- Stbalbach 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does seem very abrupt and argumentative, as if we're saying "don't be fooled by these charlatans!" Is there some context we can add that explains why this unusual statement is so prominent, without making the lede too long? Maybe something along the lines of: "Despite confusion about its history (((link to a cite that says it is UNESCO-sponsored))), it is not related to UNESCO" - DavidWBrooks 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what it said originally basically. -- Stbalbach 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good reason for making sure those statements are included in the opening. We don't need to editorialize about it in the article, however. - DavidWBrooks 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no connection to UNESCO 

message: very interesting your link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6434001 nearly 5 lines and  advertising banner.Alexlot 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Your English is significantly better than my Italian, but unfortunately I do not follow what you are trying to say. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: very interesting link by kralizec

message: According to the website, the Pyramids are no longer in contention with the other candidates to be one of the chosen wonders, according to the page on the site . Should they be removed from the list? Morhange 19:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a discussion about that, but the wording will probably have to be tweaked. - DavidWBrooks 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramids 

message: The bottom paragraph of the "criticism" section sounds like personal bias on the part of the author to me (although I don't entirely disagree with it).  Maybe that should be edited.
24.247.10.212 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's gone. - DavidWBrooks 00:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Bias

message: : Is the Corporation Swiss-based, too ? I did not see the corporation name in the Swiss Commercial Register. The only entry I find is the New7Wonders Foundation one. I think registering is not obligatory for the NewOpenWorld Foundation, but for the NewOpenWorld Corporation it would be if it were Swiss (cf. eg. registration requirement). The Swiss registration data are at https://www.shab.ch/shabforms/servlet/forms/SearchView?lg=EN&TYPE=HR and there is a bit at http://www.zefix.ch/ 80.127.225.54 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss or not ? 

message: Now that the Pyramids in Egypt have been made an honourary new7wonders candidate, does that mean that there will only be six more nominees chosen out of the remaining 20, thus making a total of 7 new wonders or will they still go ahead and choose seven more nominees out of 20, thus making a total of 8 new wonders?--Just James 07:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there are 8 new wonders (see article). I think that is weird that there are 8 new 7 wonders. Nocturnal Wanderer Sign here! 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pyramids are not a 'new wonder' as they are already on the list of classical wonders. Bever (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 or 8 new7wonders?

message: Seems wikipedia pages for the sites elected to this new list are being updated to mention that each of them has been elected as one of "the" New Seven Wonders of the World.  I would suggest, if it be mentioned at all, that it at least be stated that the site was elected as one of "New Open World Corporation's" (rather than "the") New Seven Wonders of the World.  The mentioning of these sites being elected seem not to lend weight to the historical or cultural importance of the sites, but more to boost the perceived relevance and importance of this new list.  It should be clear that this is not "the" list; there can and certainly are others, and this is just one companies creation.  Let's not create the impression it has any of the weight of the original Seven Wonders of antiquity.  It is not "the" new list, but a new list, and from a private corporation.
I agree Paldiski 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point 90.192.147.214 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Finnish language Wikipedia this is done indeed so, using the name fi:NewOpenWorld Corporationin uudet maailman seitsemän ihmettä. The current name here is in any case misleading. -91.32.234.73 22:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not let it be called "The" New Seven Wonders of the World 

message: According to CNN's report on the results (see here) the entire Giza pyramid collection was given the honorary status, not just the one Great Pyramid. Did CNN get it wrong? 68.146.8.46 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only one pyramid or pyramids, plural?

message: In a day or so, when traffic dies down, I think the list of the other 14 finalists should be shrunk to just a list - removing photos, flags, etc. to save bandwidth of those visiting the article. (I have removed the 7 winners from it, the avoid duplication) - DavidWBrooks 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduce size of non-chosen finalists 

message: These need explanation. Brutannica 00:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributes

message: I request that user L stops calling my edits vandalism and removes the ridiculous threat to remove my editing rights that he added to my personal page.   I believe my contributions are documented and well founded, no reason to call them vandalism. Schicchi 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not. They are not WP:N complaints, they are not from a WP:RS. If I made threads on a forum talking about how I thought shoes were being used to oppress the masses, would that go into Shoe? Of course not. When Reuters or AP or hell, Fox, anyone who's actually established in the media makes a mention of it, you can add that. Otherwise, it's just internet chatter. --Laugh! 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: L, threads were NOT started by myself, do not imply I have done so.   I will revert to last version, you'll need to understand wikipedia is made by several points of view, not only yours.   I never stated that complaints had come from any other source but opinion of internet users, who happened to be who elected the seven wonders in the first place. Schicchi 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't care who started it. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please see the policies I have already directed you to at WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:N. RANDOMINTERNETPEOPLE ARE NOT NOTABLE CRITICS. NOR are they RELIABLE critics. Like I've said at least three times now, if the media proper covers it, THEN you can add it. Random forums are ALMOST NEVER reliable sources --Laugh! 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I apologize if this is idle and worthless chatter, but I feel it needs addressing...
Chichen Itza and Machu Picchu are the ONLY "new wonders" that are actually cities.  Machu Picchu is said to have been home to 25,000 people - in effect, it's a city.
None of the other "new wonders" are cities - they are monuments, statues, buildings and incredible effigies.
I don't know - perhaps this is all moot because it's been "officially" decided that Machu Picchu and Chichen Itza are the winners.  But does anyone else think it odd that those two wonders are cities?
And not to mention two VERY notable pyramids of antiquity at each site.  Why weren't the Temple of the Jaguar and the Kukulcan (sp?) Pyramid the finalists?
64.48.149.46 03:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record Petra was a city too. GraemeLeggett 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over Chichen Itza & Machu Picchu 

message: I just added the China remark and fear, the brief ancient history of the original list from herodotus to aid researchers on the flashbacks regarding the original 7 wonders.
--Florentino floro 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No header

message: :tr:Dünyanın Yeni Yedi Harikası--Uannis 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  İnterwiki 

message: is the DUBAI ISLAND listed as one of the 7wonders of the world
:No. It doesn't fit the criteria for having been completed before 2000. In any case, this forum is not a place for discussing whether or not the final list is right. Whippletom 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seven wonders of the world, DNS_KARIUKI@YAHOO.COM 

message: The section on Cambodia has had a spammed blog linked to it as a reference. In fact the entire Cambodia section relates the outrage of this one 'prominent writer' who also seems to have a single purpose account here. I mean forget any reaction from the Cambodian government - that wouldn't be notable. I've been reverting this blog spam elsewhere, , , , , , . In fact we now have almost exactly the same paragraph in the Angkor Wat article. Considering AGF and all that, I've been trying to explain that spamming blog links is not ok on their talk page User talk:Khmermusic - but apparently to no avail. Rather than me reverting the lot, Could one of the good Guardians of the Wiki above rewrite the Cambodia section or remove it entirely to avoid giving this spammer any more hits. Cheers, Paxse 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to rewrite it, but it's just one pissed-off guy, so I remove it entirely. - DavidWBrooks 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done David! Paxse 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming blog links 

message: : Isn't the first section of the article getting a bit too negative ? First: If the Foundation makes some money, part of it will go to "good causes". There is no mention of that (ok, it may need a qualification as for the money flow through the NOWC, and a second is, whether that is a good way to finance restoration; all that is a valid point of discussion). Second, in six years Weber has reached 100,000,000 voters (if proven). That is smart marketing, you may like it or not. Third, a lot of people have had fun in thinking up lists: the number of viewers of the event (if proven) also is an achievement . These are relevant things for an entry in the category Tourism Corailrouge-eng 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, as a side issue (and I'm getting to be a bit of a pub bore on this) they claim they make zero profit - a lot of people here choose to not believe that, but no one has yet provided a link to contradict itWhippletom 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, most of the third par in the intro is only covered in the intro - so it is not even a summary. Can it be moved to the criticisms section, with a short pointer if necessary ("NOWC have been criticised however for a perceived lack of transparency and fairness in the voting process" would do - although, as a side point, I'm not sure how people expected them to conduct a vote except through the internet and telephones. The Amazonian tribes may feel disenfranchised, but that seems pretty inevitable)?Whippletom 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (Sorry for putting my previous text on top, I had put it elsewhere) I do not think anything needs to be taken out of the first section but some positive things could be put in: the number of voters, viewers of the event and the 50% to good causes (only from N7WF/NOWF, not NOWC, okay) are all things which have made all the newspapers, after all. I noticed the Portuguese translation calls the event "recreational", and i think they have put things nicely into perspective that way. I agree "thoroughly" can be omitted from the UNESCO line. The shortcomings in the voting deserve mentioning, but it isn't clear yet if this is something important: it is not clear at all what is going to be done with the list. The n7w have stated that the money earned, can be spent on any other project. Corailrouge-eng 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If nothing is taken out of the intro, then something has to be added elsewhere. Surely the intro should only summarise - and at the moment it states stuff that is repeated nowhere else.Whippletom 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose to change the second paragraph in the introduction to something like: N7WF/NOWC claim more than 100 million votes were cast. The vote was not a representative one. Multiple votes could be cast, for example, and there were big differences in awareness of the campaign between different regions in the world. and move the information with these and all the other shortcomings in the current 2nd paragraph, to a separate section, or the criticism section, with an appropriate header. Corailrouge-eng 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless this can be cited to a published, reliable source, it sounds a lot like original research.  Remember that as per WP:VER, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all in the current Wiki. The first sentence is almost unchanged. The second sentence contains a conclusion which follows from the third sentence and the criticism section. For the 3d sentence: Multiple voting is in the current text already. The regional awareness thing is in the Newsweek and LATimes articles (Jordan&Brasil big thing, Italy never heard of it, Chili and Britain indifferent etc.). There is nothing more in the sentence than there is in the Wiki already. It is just resuming/rewording and shifting the details to a later section. Corailrouge-eng 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with your sentiment, I would be extremely hesitant to add verbiage like "The vote was not a representative one" to the article's introduction without a specific, direct reference.  It just sounds too much like WP:OR.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The deduction has to go. Corailrouge-eng 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, something like N7WF/NOWC claim more than 100 million votes were cast. Major shortcomings of the vote were the possibility of multiple voting, and big differences in awareness of the campaign between different regions in the world. and move details and the other shortcomings down. Corailrouge-eng 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I propose to add to the first paragraph in the introduction something like: announced in a televised event ... .  Organizers say that, they will use part of the revenue from this and subsequent events, to set up, or contribute to, restoration projects in the world. The criticism section can contain the info that these projects, except one, are yet to be specified. Corailrouge-eng 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That all makes sense to me - the par at the moment certainly belongs in the criticism section rather than the opener.Whippletom 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly negative 

message: Does this really fit in the criticism section? If anything, this reflects the 'successfulness' or 'popularity' of the campaign in Jordan -- the fact that people liked it and were enthusiastic. I understand where that comes from -- that a lot of votes have been made from a single country, which might mean the results are biased, etc.. but that's just not the way to do it. I don't know, it just seems.. weird. Maybe a section completely dedicated to concerns about the accuracy of the results? Eshcorp 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your perspective, "success" is not the word that comes to mind when I read that a country of under seven million people made fourteen million votes.  --Kralizec! (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed "Criticism" to "Reaction" as the header. Does that cover it? (By the way, I'd love to take the UNESCO quote out of that box, which is visually jarring and gives too much weight to it, IMHO - but I'm afraid I'll screw up the reference). - DavidWBrooks 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with you on the quote box.  I moved it to a  tag; how does it look now?  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, in my humble opinion. - DavidWBrooks 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Kralizec, I understand what you mean and I agree with it. But if that is to really be considered criticism, maybe the phrasing could be changed to something like "Some people are skeptical since.." or something. Eshcorp 08:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan part in the criticism 

message: "I am distressed that the list of the seven so-called new wonders of the world, revealed in Lisbon on Saturday, is being taken even semi-seriously, with the media running stories as if the result were some kind of legitimate decision by legitimate people. It's not. It is a total unmitigated phoney, and yet I fear and predict that this list will soon become a fact and find its way on to Wikipedia." Marcel  Berlins, The Guardian, 11 July.  Paul B 22:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where has Mr. Berlins been for the past nine months?  This Wikipedia article was created back in October 2006 .  Regardless, as indicated by WP:VER, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  --Kralizec! (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlins article

message: One should point out that only one of the competing "new wonders" of the world has the attributes "civilization" and "democracy", the Parthenon of Athens. These are attributes that everybody should cherish and respect nowadays but, however, it appears that play no significant role to those that voted for this completely unjustified and commercial project. 
I believe that in the article should make at least a passing statement to that effect and users should express their own opinions as to how the results reflect on the current state of the world affairs.
Metron.ariston 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you, by any chance, Greek? Dear God, lighten up. It's just a bit of fun. And this is just an encyclopedia - have your debate elsewhere. Do you really think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to say "These are the seven that won, but actually that shows that the duplicitous people of the world don't care about civilisation or democracy because if they did the Parthenon would be in the top seven"? Whippletom 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not related opinions - that is definitely not the role of wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributes of competitors 

message: *Comprehensiveness is the main problem. This event has been widely covered across the world, so in short, 6.5k on main text is quite short. Moving onto specifics,
**Needs to discuss the procedure for starting with 177 candidates, and then shortlisting to 20. The explanation about the rules and criteria are very sparse.
**Later part of history section consists of a few standalone sentences. These need to be expanded on as most of these are notable parts of the info
**"Federico Mayor, a former UNESCO Director General, is the president of project's expert panel as an individual" does not make sense and seems out of place
**Needs to include reaction from a wider range of countries, not just a few.
**Some more data about the nominees in the table would be good.
**Since you seem to have some data on the actual votes, this needs to be expanded. Vote stacking, campaigning, advertising  campaigns that are notable. 
**Need more about social impact.
*References are not in order
**Some are before, some after the punctuation mark. Needs to be immediately after
**Full reference with dates, author etc, need to be used.
Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy toledo - that's not a wikipedia "good article," that's a six-month investigative piece for The Atlantic! But since the whole flash-in-the-pan is over, I predict interest will fade quickly and nobody will bother doing much of it. - DavidWBrooks 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LMAO I agree with DavidWBrooks, this article shouldn't even be named New Seven Wonders of the World since it not official and unrecognized by the United Nations or any governments. It should bee renamed "New Open World Corporation's 7 Wonders People with internet access or a cell phone and paid a fee voted for and a wonder that already existed but it'd be dumb if it didn't win so they already had an automatic spot. So it's really the 8 New Fake Wonders." AMAPO 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: I added the following in June and it was deleted a few days later with comment "Is this even relevant? A shortlist of sites! It takes a huge chunk out of the article's spaces. Maybe it should get its own articles."
I think it's relevant as, from the 177 recognized nominees, the 77 sites with most votes were what the 21 shortlist was drawn from:
"At the end of December 2005, a panel of experts, headed by the former Director General of UNESCO, Professor Dr. Federico Mayor, will look at the 77 global highlights with the highest number of votes and pick 21 to go through to the final round." Sep 2005  I also suspect the list is in vote order, but I can't see any way to prove that.   
On other matters, I think 
*the other-13-from-the-shortlist-of 21 should be reduced by getting rid of the pictures.  They currently share the same prominence as the 8 winners, which is inappropriate.  Including images in an article for prettiness rather than information is a Bad Thing.  Or just use the 77 table instead of the 13 table which is a subset of it.
*the cheesy "attributes" assigned to the 21 finalists should be reinstated.  The fact that they're a load of hooey is in this instance not an argument to exclude them as unencylopedic, since it provides evidence of the marketing/PR aspect of the whole enterprise. 
*it needs information on how the longlist of 177 nominees was done: seems to be an unstated minimum email count to get listed as an official nominee "150 nominee sites, from all over the world, are already listed online at www.new7wonders.com. However, the same number of sites again are pending, awaiting the required number of nominations from members of the public to be opened for voting." Jan 2005 jnestorius(talk) 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should dump the photos of the non-winners, as they just slow down the loading time for no reason. I don't think the "attributes" should be added to the table, since it bulks it up unnecessarily; perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the text, talking about them to convey the PR aspect of it, but who cares which ones were assigned to which monuments. And personally I don't think we need to list the 77, which seems gross overkill, but if we decide they need to be in there, let's do them in paragraph form - otherwise the page is humongous! - DavidWBrooks 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share your concern about the size of the page. Is it motivated by concern for people with slow internet connections?  There are plenty of much bigger pages.  Is it motivated by a desire to have the size of the article commensurate with the (in)significance of the topic?  I don't think that's ever been a consideration in Wikipedia.  I find the list of 77 interesting. For example, quite a few sites in India were nominated that I (and probably most Westerners) have never heard of.  And I don't believe paragraph form is suited to this kind of information: the gain in compactness of layout comes at a cost in readability.  (Having previewed the below mock-up, it's not as bad as I expected—I could live with it—but I stand by my comments.) jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include shortlist of 77? 

message: : I agree we should dump the photos of the non-winners, as they just slow down the loading time for no reason. I don't think the "attributes" should be added to the table, since it bulks it up unnecessarily; perhaps a sentence or two could be added to the text, talking about them to convey the PR aspect of it, but who cares which ones were assigned to which monuments. And personally I don't think we need to list the 77, which seems gross overkill, but if we decide they need to be in there, let's do them in paragraph form - otherwise the page is humongous! - DavidWBrooks 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share your concern about the size of the page. Is it motivated by concern for people with slow internet connections?  There are plenty of much bigger pages.  Is it motivated by a desire to have the size of the article commensurate with the (in)significance of the topic?  I don't think that's ever been a consideration in Wikipedia.  I find the list of 77 interesting. For example, quite a few sites in India were nominated that I (and probably most Westerners) have never heard of.  And I don't believe paragraph form is suited to this kind of information: the gain in compactness of layout comes at a cost in readability.  (Having previewed the below mock-up, it's not as bad as I expected—I could live with it—but I stand by my comments.) jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Well, nobody responded, so I've removed the photos from the finalists and dropped that list below the country reactions (which, IMHO, is much more interesting). I've also added a sentence to the text mentioning that the group made up "attributes" and assigned them to each. - DavidWBrooks 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finalists cont'd 

message: The intro says the group is a non-profit - I've never seen any evidence for this. Can anyone confirm? 71.191.42.242 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-proft? 

message: The first footnote to Newsweek is a dead link, it goes to the Newsweek homepage. It is the most referenced footnote in the article. Seems to be a problem, no way to verify. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek footnote #1 

message: Current references neither provide head office credentials nor evidence that the organizers are non-profit. I've placed a template asking for trustworthy information about.
Regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References badly needed 

message: In addition to the current criticisms on the talk page, all the edits, counter-edits, and accusations of vandalism seem to suggest removing this article till more facts seem forthcoming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.238.242 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't spend much time on wikipedia! This is standard operating procedure. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove? 

message: Was thinking of raising a discussion about this on the templates talk page, but this is perhaps better. I can see this honorary status and all, but this article also says it is not reflected on the official list []. 
Isn't the entire point with the New Seven Wonders it should be other wonders than the original seven? And isn't the point with Seven Wonders it should be seven? Ok, this is not Wikipedias fault if it is a problem with it, but they definitively not picked Giza as one of the new seven wonders. 
I think the Giza Pyramid Complex should be removed from the template. At least, it should be marked as honorable, but best would be to have it removed. Greswik (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giza Pyramid Complex and the template 

message: I added a composition with the seven winners(Own work). Cauê2 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very nice, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article - it's more like a magazine illustration. Sorry. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New composition with the seven winners 

message: Somebody puts up a website to poll what the The New Seven Wonders should be and now it deserves a Wikipedia article?  I vote for speedy deletion.  There's nothing noteworthy or useful about this list.  The results are nothing more than a popularity contest among people who've not even seen these places.  Imagine choosing Rio's Christ statue as more wondrous than Angkor Wat.  Ridiculous.  I've been to both places several times and choosing Rio's Christ over Angkor Wat is simply laughable.  People can reasonably disagree on which is a more beautiful, but Angkor Wat has the distinction of being perhaps the most awe-inspiring ruins on earth.  In comparison to Angkor Wat, Rio's Christ is utterly inconsequential.  Gavin (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you disagree with the results, but the polling, as silly as it was, drew major coverage around the world and is certainly worthy of an article. (And as long as we're being travel-snooty, what about Tikal? It certainly gives Angkor Wat a run for its money.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthy? 

message: I noticed that the formatting on the entire article following the "Winners" section title is completely messed up. The table only seems to include 5 of the winners, ostensibly leaving out Chichen Itza, Taj Mahal, and the Great Wall of China. The table also encloses all the other sections of the article, including the references and external links. The Great Pyramids of Giza seem to have a subtable in a cell of the giant, messed up table, and hence has been entered wrongly. Also, the Christ the Redeemer link needs to be corrected. I am not a frequent contributor, and wouldn't really know how to fix this, but I thought I would just put it out there.
GiantDanish (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up formatting 

message: Hi everyone! I just wanted to tell you that in my opinion it's necessary to create an article titled "New7Wonders Cities", in which it's said about the winner cities of this year (2014), and also show some pictures of every city, such as the way it was made on "New7Wonders of the World". Thanks, waiting for an answer asap. JD3rulo (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you thik it's a good idea, then go ahead and create it! That's how wikipedia works. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New7Wonders Cities 

message: While the lack of spaces in New7Wonders is kind of stupid and annoying, it's within the acceptable context of wikipedia style for names and should not be turned into "New 7 Wonders" ... which happens about once a week, usually by anonymous IPs. I wonder if it's just the same person doing it over and over and over? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. The latest IP's who have added spaces:  geolocates to Massachusetts and  geolocates to Dubai. A third, , from Athens, Greece. So it is very unlikely they are the same person. I really don't have any explanation other than the lack of spaces just looks like something needing to be fixed, to a lot of people. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I admit that it does LookVeryWrong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially given the first line? When it states nothing about why it's styled that way, and also uses contradicting stylings for the New 7 Wonders Foundation? Umm... yeah. Samsara 20:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - contradictory spaces/nospaces spellings of the foundation have been left in during all the back-and-forths. Sigh. As for why it's styled that way, why is iPod styled that way? Why is FairPoint Communications styled that way? They just are. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Why leave it inconsistent? I don't really care which way around it ends up but it should be consistent. No wonder people try to change it if it's not consistent. - Clonkex (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No spacing in "New7Wonders" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New7Wonders 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/20130326001211/http://world.new7wonders.com:80/new7wonders-of-the-world-page/new7wonders-of-the-world/voting-analysis/ to http://world.new7wonders.com/new7wonders-of-the-world-page/new7wonders-of-the-world/voting-analysis/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809024705/http://www.indianexpress.com:80/sunday/story/206200.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/206200.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055950/http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2007/07/10/LUCPRDI04LU1007.htm?tipoPantalla=1024 to http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2007/07/10/LUCPRDI04LU1007.htm?tipoPantalla=1024
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New7Wonders 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/20131211223818/http://world.new7wonders.com/interesting-questions-and-answers/ to http://world.new7wonders.com/interesting-questions-and-answers/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Please update the title from "New7Wonders of the World" to "New Seven Wonders of the World".
Thanks 72.82.4.129 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. See the discussion above as to why: it's the name, whether we like it or not. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Danski454 (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018 

message: I have given up on the New7Wonders vs. New 7 Wonders debate - the organization itself can't seem to make up its mind, judging from the website (https://new7wonders.com/), although originally there were very definitive about the lack of spaces, so who knows what is right any more? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested a move since the website now uses the correct spelling most of the time (even the logo uses correct spacing now). Given that we have two official variations now, I think everyone will be glad to stick to the grammatically less hair-raising one. Cslk (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Also let it be noted that they sometimes use both spellings in the same sentence. I hope I'm not the only one irrationally bothered by this. Cslk (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  That name again 

message: Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone fix the Colosseum in the photo? 

message: The image is showing the monastery, where it should be the treasury, a completely different structure. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image for Petra 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New7Wonders of Nature which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I kindly request to change India map and show full map of India 205.254.171.159 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong India map