You raise a really interesting point for discussion! > when is something a thing, rather than a collection of things? That's a false dichotomy--a collection i

You raise a really interesting point for discussion! > when is something a thing, rather than a collection of things? That's a false dichotomy--a collection is itself a thing, of course. And most things are made up of other things. A building, after all, is itself a collection of structural system, building materials and individual. A city is listed. For a thing to be listed on a list of wonders, I'd submit that it has to have a well-accepted, reasonably unambiguous name for that thing. So "the international road network" is a no: but the U.S. Interstate Highway System--maybe. Although the lighthouse at Alexandria was one of the original wonders, I'd submit that the Library of Alexandria could also be named as a wonder, despite being the most literal collection of things you could imagine. So why not the Internet Archive? That one, in particular, is wondrous because it's a collection--it doesn't simply contain the wonder of some other thing. I'd also submit that a category or type of thing (so "the typewriter", "the lightbulb", "computers") are not a wonder, in this sense. To be inspired by the wonders of the ancient world, they probably also have to be constructed; others have posited wonders of the natural world, but they do feel like they fall into a different category.