Comment: It would be nice if all the tables had the same width. You also have a saturation of images near the bottom of the article itself which makes the whole thing look ackward. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ12:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just trying to add some images to a blank page. The main table is to wide to feature pics next it. Joe I14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom two tables same width. Resized one pic, not sure what else to do bout them, except take em out, which I don't want to. Joe I09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the placing of the images to some extent. However I cannot support until you sort out the copyright status of the the aereal photograph next to lead. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, I tried to give the bottom two tables the same width in terms of pixel size but they still look different. Must be an issue with Explorer. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the lead pic, so I don't have to worry bout it. The bottom two tables look the same to me, I'm on Firefox. As far as the main table and pics, I really don't believe it's better like that. The table looks squezed, and theres a blanck space below the pics. I could add more pics, but, I still don't like the table that narrow. The notables column - The lines are split now, so you can't even really tell what one is without dragging your mouse over it. But, I will go with what everyone feels is better. Joe I11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The table width issue was due to IE (I just checked in Firefox). Regarding the pics, maybe an alternative could be creating a gallery of notables at the bottom of the list. That way you get to keep the pictures in some sort of order (and even put a few more!) and avoid the "crunching" of the main list. -- RuneWelsh | ταλκ17:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - I am sorry, but that picture gallery has to go... It's not commons here. If you wish that much, there is some space along the table in "list by coutry" section. Also, I would like to see references for number of visitors and costs. Otherwise, good list. Renata01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced costs, visitors and area, all of which came from the BIE, but seperate pages from the frame on the left. A few(2-4) did come from [1], but I'd have to find them. Joe I03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant object. It's a fantastic topic, but I don't see the great distinction between this and List of world's fairs. I'm afraid we're going to have bring a much larger merged list up to featured quality.--Pharos08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A World's Fair is any of various large expositions held since the mid-19th century. The official sanctioning body is the Bureau of International Expositions (usually abbreviated BIE, from the organization's name in French, Bureau International des Expositions). BIE-approved fairs are divided into a number of types: universal, and international or specialized. They usually last for between 3 and 6 months. In addition, countries can hold their own 'fair', 'exposition', or 'exhibition', without BIE endorsement.
First, these are only BIE santioned, second they are of the universal, international, or generalized categories, resulting in the largest, most widely attended, most expensive, most memerable in the world's eye, and most innovative. There are many country or region specific fairs, horticulture fairs, environmental fairs, etc... Few people not in the fair or immediate surroundings remember these specialized events. If you look at List of world's fairs, there are well over 100 fairs, just on that list. I found more in my researching. I see no other way of subdividing this list with any real accuracy. Joe I09:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the Bureau of International Expositions was only founded in 1928; how can one then justify including the majority of the list, which took place before that time. There have also been quite significant world's fairs not sanctioned by the BIE since 1928– notably the 1964 New York World's Fair. Yes, it would take a major effort to feature List of world's fairs, but that's just what has to be done. We can't just fork off the easy ones into a different list.--Pharos09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been few international standardizing organizations over 100 years, and almost all today assert themselves on what would have been their territory in the past. As to why the 1964 New York World's Fair wasn't sanctioned(at a time the BIE did exist) "only one exposition may be held in any given country within a 10-year period". Seattle had one in 62. If they had waited 8 years... Yes, it was a large fair, but it did not get the international support for a long lasting world veiw.
It was hard enough to dig up dirt on these sanctioned fairs, doin so on List of world's fairs is near impossible.
BIE has a list of universal fairs on its website - which we have copied into our article on World's Fair. It should be no problem to bring this list up to a complete list of "universal" fairs (39, I beleive) and possible rename this list to something like "List of univeral world's fairs". The list is only a few short of having them all already. Rmhermen15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's mainly the list I used, but problem is, when you click on, say San antonio '68 from the menu on the left, it says it was a special exhibition. I took that to mean specialized. Meaning it wouldn't belong in such a list. Joe I19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems most people would like to see more in there. I'll add them all in tonight, if they haven't allready been added in. Joe I01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't like the format used in the Visitors and Cost columns. Add "(in millions)" in the title cell and use only numbers (instead of 6m). CG14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change to the visitors column, but cost, there some in there in the billions and one even at 300,000, that change would be alittle more confusing in those instances. Joe I06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - pending improvements which I am happy to help with --- 1. Article doesn't clearly define its scope. 2. Article accepts BIE's selected list of expositions as being valid. 3. Article clashes with List of world's fairs without adequate explanation. 4. Article title need deciding -- if it is to be List of world expositions, then this implies that the main article on the subject is "World exposition" whereas it is currently World's Fair. 5. Current intro to article is muddly, with unnecessary footnotes and side comments e.g. BIE has own article, so don't need big explanation here. --mervyn10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
