The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. The decision was to delete the category.
Note: This category was previously nominated and listed as unresolved. For the November 2004 discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Wonders of the World. - Aranel ("Sarah") 03:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hopelessly POV and arbitrary. - SimonP 23:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
The follow discussions come from Category talk:Wonders of the World:
The basis for the category is the Hillman's list of 100 wonders (see Wonders of the World article). It is, of course, not limited to that list. Other notable lists are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the ASCE, the Seven Natural Wonders of the World by CNN, etc.
Below are articles that haven't been included in the category yet, grouped by status:
Existing articles are either too general (there is Fjord, which is not specific to Norway) or too specific (there is Grand Canal of Venice).
These articles are missing from Wikipedia, but I haven't checked if they exist under other titles.
These articles exist and are most likely appropriate for inclusion. Need to be checked and added to the category when time permits.
The Seven Wonders of the World article lists many wonders from different sources, some of which were not included in the category yet. These are listed below:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
Other candidates commonly cited (from Seven Wonders of the World):
From Seven Wonders of the World:
And why should Wikipedia endorse his POV? Anyone may make a list of as many wonders of the world as one wishes and put whatever one wishes on such a list. It's always arbitrary, and as such, against the NPOV policy. Unless we rename the category to Category:Hillman's Wonders of the World or Category:Wonders of the World according to Hillman. -- Kpalion 01:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. This category is inherently POV. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 17:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
With two people arguing to delete this category and one arguing to keep, there was technically a 2/3 consensus to delete. However, I don't think that literally two out of three is a very solid consensus, so I'm choosing to err on the side of caution. It has not been decided that this category should be kept (or deleted), but it will be allowed to exist for a little while longer.
The CfD discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved#Category:Wonders_of_the_World. As with other items listed on that page, the hope is that we will later be able to bring it up again and will then come to a consensus. In the meantime, the category can continue to evolve. If you want it to continue to be kept, I suggest working with the folks who disagree with you to see if you can come to a compromise that everyone can accept. -[[User:Aranel| Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If this is voted for deletion again I will strongly support. The main problem as I see it is that this is not merely a POV category, but entirely arbitrary, and therefore essentially useless as a category.
Virtually every user will have a different opinion of what should be included, and I'd say edit wars are quite likely. The only ways to include all viewpoints are to include every notable place (which means every article out there, because it shouldn't be out there if it's not notable!), or none.
It also seems superfluous to categories which are definite and not arbitrary, such as, for example, Category:UN_World_Heritage_Sites. I don't see what we gain over that category by including this category. Worldtraveller 17:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. The decision was to delete the category.
Note: This category was previously nominated and listed as unresolved. For the November 2004 discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Wonders of the World. - Aranel ("Sarah") 03:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hopelessly POV and arbitrary. - SimonP 23:16, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
The follow discussions come from Category talk:Wonders of the World:
The basis for the category is the Hillman's list of 100 wonders (see Wonders of the World article). It is, of course, not limited to that list. Other notable lists are the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the ASCE, the Seven Natural Wonders of the World by CNN, etc.
Below are articles that haven't been included in the category yet, grouped by status:
Existing articles are either too general (there is Fjord, which is not specific to Norway) or too specific (there is Grand Canal of Venice).
These articles are missing from Wikipedia, but I haven't checked if they exist under other titles.
These articles exist and are most likely appropriate for inclusion. Need to be checked and added to the category when time permits.
The Seven Wonders of the World article lists many wonders from different sources, some of which were not included in the category yet. These are listed below:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
From Seven Wonders of the World:
Other candidates commonly cited (from Seven Wonders of the World):
From Seven Wonders of the World:
And why should Wikipedia endorse his POV? Anyone may make a list of as many wonders of the world as one wishes and put whatever one wishes on such a list. It's always arbitrary, and as such, against the NPOV policy. Unless we rename the category to Category:Hillman's Wonders of the World or Category:Wonders of the World according to Hillman. -- Kpalion 01:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. This category is inherently POV. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 17:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
With two people arguing to delete this category and one arguing to keep, there was technically a 2/3 consensus to delete. However, I don't think that literally two out of three is a very solid consensus, so I'm choosing to err on the side of caution. It has not been decided that this category should be kept (or deleted), but it will be allowed to exist for a little while longer.
The CfD discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved#Category:Wonders_of_the_World. As with other items listed on that page, the hope is that we will later be able to bring it up again and will then come to a consensus. In the meantime, the category can continue to evolve. If you want it to continue to be kept, I suggest working with the folks who disagree with you to see if you can come to a compromise that everyone can accept. -[[User:Aranel| Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If this is voted for deletion again I will strongly support. The main problem as I see it is that this is not merely a POV category, but entirely arbitrary, and therefore essentially useless as a category.
Virtually every user will have a different opinion of what should be included, and I'd say edit wars are quite likely. The only ways to include all viewpoints are to include every notable place (which means every article out there, because it shouldn't be out there if it's not notable!), or none.
It also seems superfluous to categories which are definite and not arbitrary, such as, for example, Category:UN_World_Heritage_Sites. I don't see what we gain over that category by including this category. Worldtraveller 17:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)