NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Wonders of the world

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Revision as of 00:26, 11 August 2009 by Drew R. Smith (Talk | contribs) (Seven wonders of the musical world?)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Lists of especially remarkable artificial or natural structures of worldwide importance [d] [e]

Seven wonders of the musical world?

Somewhat different. Results of reader poll, Classic CD magazine, January 2000:

  1. Bach: St Matthew Passion
  2. Beethoven: symphony no. 9
  3. Stravinsky: Rite of Spring
  4. Wagner: Der Ring des Nibelungen
  5. Bach: B Minor Mass
  6. Handel: Messiah
  7. Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro

Peter Jackson 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there an alternate sort of wonderment with "Louie, Louie", PDQ Bach, and "Purple People Eater"? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard of the "Wonders of the musical world", but I guess I could add it. Can you link to somewhere where I could get more information about it?
Personally I think any list that excludes the talents of more modern, popular artists such as Slash, Van Halen, and Jimi Hendrix isn't worth much weight. :) Drew R. Smith 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't give a link; indeed I couldn't find this in a Google search & had to dig out & search through the printed back issues to find the reference. The page numbers I put on Wikinfo if that's any improvement.
Time will tell whether the other things you mentioned will survive. Peter Jackson 09:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
When I say dig out, I should say get the library staff to dig out.
The original magazine gives all the titles in English. I've arbitrarily put some in their original languages. If this is appropriate for inclusion in CZ, it no doubt has its own naming policy. Peter Jackson 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead and add it then. Just be sure to follow the style set by the other "wonders lists". We don't want our article looking like this.Drew R. Smith 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many 7 wonders. Nice article. (Chunbum Park 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Are you saying we need to remove some, or just not to add more?Drew R. Smith 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Always more is better, I think. I was just commenting on how there r too many designations from various publications & not just 1 official one. (Chunbum Park 20:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

There never was "one official one". The first one (wonders of ancient world) where in essence, a tourists brochure. It had many versions itself. Thus the door was left wide open for more, just as authoritative lists to develop. Some of these are a bit too subject specific IMO, but nevertheless, "more is better", as you say.Drew R. Smith 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)