Talk:New 7 Wonders of Nature

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New 7 Wonders of Nature article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 22 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from New7Wonders of Nature to New 7 Wonders of Nature. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled comment

Is this the correct title for this page? Should it be New7Wonders of Nature as corny as it is. When the title is determined it needs to be added to the DAB page for Wonders of the World (disambiguation). MDSNYDER 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the committee calls it Natural 7 wonders, so I guess thats what we should to. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Category be tourism or Historic preservation (or public relations) ? The elections serve to raise money for, unrelated, restoration projects. This is private sector (in contrast to publicly financed-unesco) financing of restoration; events and merchandising just bring in the money. Corailrouge-eng 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems,this should be merged with the other articles. Anyway, I added this:The 77 official nominees - of more than 200 - will be considered by the New7Wonders of Nature panel of experts for naming the 21 finalists. The first round of online voting ends on December 31, 2008, after which the panel will list the final 21, from which the last round of online voting will determine the final 7.newsinfo.inquirer.net, Underground river moving closer to top 7 in online vote --Florentino floro (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is definetly New7Wonders of Nature [1]. The name of the article should be changed.1000Fragen (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is definitely not "New7Wonders of Nature"; it is "New 7 Wonders of Nature". Nowhere in the sources does it run the first three words together like that. Bricology (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

skeptical...

... about whether this is noteworthy enough for WP, and whether it will amount to a hill of beans! At present, five of the top seven are almost unknown, and the leading seven omits wonders which anyone with half a brain would think mandatory, such as the Amazon basin (river+forest). Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is "official"

like the junk mail we all get: official notice from <insert sender name here>. It's a collective blog with 100,000,000 votes, but no criteria of who the electorate is, nor any control on the vote early and often crowd. Officious, yes. Official, hardly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New7Wonders of Nature → New Seven Wonders of Nature — Move on the basis of WP:MOSTM. Labattblueboy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current title sounds like the name of a boy band. — AjaxSmack 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

El yunque is NOT United States - Its PUERTO RICO. What a shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.165.54 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ha Long Bay.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ha Long Bay.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Why does the criticisms header include the speech of the Philippine president which I think is not a criticism of the contest itself? -Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 11:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your question has been referred to a team of Panamanian lawyers. seriously, what an odd sentence, something out of hunter thompson. Are Panamanian lawyers known for a particular quality of lawyerness? removed as unsourced.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.255 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8th wonder of the world

Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.58.173 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

The section "Stages of the campaign" seems to have been copied on July 27 2012 (diff) from a blog article dated July 7, 2012 which in turn seems to be a copy with minor changes, of the official world.new7wonders.com website. I am therefore reverting that section to the pre July 2012 version. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New7Wonders of Nature. 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/20130331012028/http://world.new7wonders.com/new7wonders-of-nature/new7wonders-of-nature-voting-procedure/ to http://world.new7wonders.com/new7wonders-of-nature/new7wonders-of-nature-voting-procedure

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New7Wonders of Nature. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title needs to be corrected

For some reason there are three related WP articles that all use the naming convention of "New7Wonders..." However, nowhere in the source materials (i.e., the official website) do they run the first three words of the name together like that; it is always written as "New 7 Wonders..." My suspicion is that all three articles were begun by the same editor who introduced that irregularity. They should be corrected. Bricology (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The organization seems to use both variations (like in their FAQ) but I've requested a move because if given the choice we should stick to proper English. Cslk (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No objections to adding spaces around the 7. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The two pages should be swapped, because the spacing the current page uses is incorrect, and it's inconsistent with the article text. The organization used to stick to the variant without spacing, but now official website uses correct spacing. Cslk (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to omit the spaces, perhaps we should follow MOS:SPELL09 and use "Seven" instead of "7". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that your suggestion is best, but it's the name of a specific campaign, rather than a generic term. If you check the edit histories and talk pages you'll see that the page name has been going back and forth a couple of times over the last decade, so I suggest sticking with the safe option. I feel that the page is just going to end up here again otherwise. Cslk (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be inclined to say New 7 Wonders of Nature is best. The current name has stuck since 2010 it looks like, can you point to where it's gone back and forth over the past decade? This is increasingly not sounding uncontroversial. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. "New7Wonders" is just a promotional name. If moved, New7Wonders Cities should also be moved as well. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as even the first party source uses the space version. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both changes, per pythoncoder, and making the corresponding change to the name of New7Wonders Cities as well. — The Anome (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.