Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bernd das Brot Team

New Category Proposal - Seven Wonders

9 posts in this topic

I recently discovered a Life Magazine Book called "Wonders of the World." It made me wonder how many "Seven Wonders" lists there are in addition to the antique "original" one. The list is endless, ranging from the semi-official "New7Wonders of the World" to things like "Seven Wonders of the Buddhist World" and "Seven Wonders of Texas Architecture"

 

Bottom line: after one night of google research, I had located 98 sites in 43 countries, as well as in antarctica, at the bottom of the ocean and in outer space.

 

I went the extra mile and created a little presentation.

 

Overview:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHFKP_Seven_Wonders_Introduction

 

Detailed description of lists of Ancient Wonders

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHFNY_Seven_Wonders_Ancient_Wonders

 

Detailed description of lists of Natural Wonders

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHFW9_Seven_Wonders_Natural_Wonders

 

I think the biggest problem will be to decide what qualifies and what does not. I'm inclined to say, anything with a website is OK but we would have to draw the line somewhere to not to end up with "The seven wonders in my grandma's garden" (Which is something my sister and I did 45 years ago as a birthday gift).

 

Looking forward to comments, input and criticism.

0

Share this post


Link to post

That is an interesting idea. It reminds me of the 1,000 Places to See Before You Die category, and that makes me wonder how much duplication there would be with that category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Could be an interesting category. It might be a little broader than you thought though. Just for Kansas you have the following:

 

8 Wonders of Kansas

8 Wonders of Kansas Architecture

8 Wonders of Kansas Art

8 Wonders of Kansas Commerce

8 Wonders of Kansas Cuisine

8 Wonders of Kansas Customs (not really "Waymarkable")

8 Wonders of Kansas Geography

8 Wonders of Kansas History

8 Wonders of Kansas People (again not really "Waymarkable")

0

Share this post


Link to post

That is an interesting idea. It reminds me of the 1,000 Places to See Before You Die category, and that makes me wonder how much duplication there would be with that category.

 

Of course there is going to be some overlap. With 1000 Places, with Tourist Destinations, Castles, you name it. And of course with Wikipedia Entries. But all these categories somewhere overlap each other, still leaving enough room for unique targets.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Could be an interesting category. It might be a little broader than you thought though. Just for Kansas you have the following:

 

8 Wonders of Kansas

8 Wonders of Kansas Architecture

8 Wonders of Kansas Art

8 Wonders of Kansas Commerce

8 Wonders of Kansas Cuisine

8 Wonders of Kansas Customs (not really "Waymarkable")

8 Wonders of Kansas Geography

8 Wonders of Kansas History

8 Wonders of Kansas People (again not really "Waymarkable")

 

Now, why does Kansas have eight of each and not seven?

 

But we could of course just call it "Wonders of the World"

 

I have thought a little bit more about where to draw the line and would suggest to accept anything posted by a credible group, institution or organization, but not to accept lists created by a single individual.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A nice idea.

 

It's global and interesting. I have only seen about twenty lists so far, but I am confident that there are many more; prevalence should not be a problem.

 

In my opinion there is no redundancy. Redundancy is when all potential locations of a new category would also be accepted in a broader existing one, and I mean "One". When all potential locations can be posted to a variety of existing categories but not all to the same one, then this is not redundancy and I see no reason to deny a category for that.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure with this idea.

These wonders would fit also in existing categories. e.g. waterfalls, old restaurants, odd-shaped buidlings, touristic sites, roadside attractinos, 1000 places, mountains, bridges, caves, castles, wikipedia,.......

If the waymarkable thing is something near a wonder we have a category. (95%) So these wonder lists are only something like bookmark lists with interesting/special places.

If we need a category to mix all these things together, I'm not sure.

-lumbricus

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think the biggest problem will be to decide what qualifies and what does not. I'm inclined to say, anything with a website is OK but we would have to draw the line somewhere to not to end up with "The seven wonders in my grandma's garden" (Which is something my sister and I did 45 years ago as a birthday gift).

 

Looking forward to comments, input and criticism.

 

Well, you are right of course.

Still, it is an intriguing idea.

 

The approach I took when creating the Engineering Landmarks category and the Superlatives category was simply that it had to appear on an objective list somewhere as being identified as such. So, a site may indeed be an engineering marvel, but it qualifies only if has been designated in some way be an engineering organization. For superlatives, any documented claim - a sign, brochure, web site, book, etc. is accepted. We often end up with competing claims, but that's okay; makes the category interesting. This approach keeps the category from being too subjective.

 

So, for "Wonders of the World," you might allow anything that appears on a list of "wonders." Bully for Kansas, I guess. Even this is a bit arbitrary, because "wonder" is a subjective designation and all sorts of things might be included or excluded just based on the terminology used. I suppose one could maintain a list of approved lists.

 

Of course there would be a lot of overlap, which is not quite the same thing as redundancy, but that's fine. If it adds interest to Waymarking, which I think it does, then why not? It just provides another viewpoint, another way of organizing and looking at these sites.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I recently discovered a Life Magazine Book called "Wonders of the World." ...

 

I like how passionate you are about the topic, all the prep-work and investigation. For sure it can be interesting category, if you'll manage to set reasonable criteria for approved lists of wonders, so interesting ones won't be lost in between those from Grandma's garden. I'd say if you will have 500 waymarks in the category after 1 year, then there's something wrong. Of course it is necessary to think of it now, not after year B)

 

I personally share Lumbricus' view and I'll probably stay abstain, depends on final description. It sounds not so redundant as Wikipedia entries (!!!) or There's book about it for instance, ... I just don't know if I want to see more categories of "mixed" type on Waymarking. (OK I know, it's just another view to categorization. Don't know if I like it.)

 

EDIT ...

To be understood correctly - I'm between yes & abstain, depends on right balance between inclusion and exclusion which wonders will be accepted and which not / how it will be determined in category listing. Fingers crossed.

Edited by Rikitan
0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0