Talk:List of waterfalls
|WikiProject Lists||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Charleston Falls
- 2 Magpie Falls in Canada
- 3 Langfoss and Kaieteur
- 4 Hawaii Waterfalls
- 5 Notable or All?
- 6 Cascate del Serio
- 7 List of defunct waterfalls?
- 8 waterfall
- 9 US Listing
- 10 TOC
- 11 Red links
- 12 Duplicate Listings
- 13 Eurasia
- 14 Angola,Tangala Falls, second largest in Africa
- 15 Inclusion criteria
- 16 Bluelinks
- 17 Red links and stub articles
- 18 Removal of all falls for a country or state when a "List of..." article exists
In SW Ohio can be seen a pristine waterfall with a 37-foot (11.2m) vertical drop. I'ts located in Miami County on Ross Road 1½ miles west of SR 202. Nearest towns are Tipp City and Huber Heights. Originating from small underground springs several miles to the east, it flows over Silurian and Ordovician Age rock strata also found in New York State and Canada, it cascades over a cliff and meanders down to the Great Miami River. On the surrounding gorge can be found uncommon plants such as wild columbine, walking fern, purple cliffbreak, and rock honeysuckle. Admission is free, there is off-the-road parking and lavatories. reference: Miami County Park District Musicwriter 23:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Magpie Falls in Canada
I was impressed when we visited Magpie Falls, near Wawa, Ontario. To hear the roar as the water cascades over the granite bedrock of the Laurentian Mountains gives one a transcendental inkling to the aesthetic components of nature. The mist wafts through the air, teases your face and imparts a refreshing sensation. By all means bring a camera or camcorder. Musicwriter 23:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Langfoss and Kaieteur
The WWD lists Langfoss in Norway as the most scenic waterfall in the world, but it doesn't even get a mention here. Any wikipedian (particularly Norse wikipedians) able to fix this?
I removed the mention of Kaieteur Falls in Guyana as the largest single-drop falls in the world. I heard this many times when I was in Guyana, but unfortunately, it's not true. It's the 121st highest. But if you get the chance, visit it - it must be one of the most neglected of the most beautiful waterfalls in the world (WWD lists it as the 26th most scenic, the 19th largest in terms of volume). It's in totally unspoiled land - so refreshing compared to the kitsch of Niagara, you can get up-close and personal with it (no safety railings!) and it is utterly astounding, with a savage, primordial beauty. Camillus (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The list of US waterfalls by drop leaves off several Hawaii waterfalls that are in the worldwide top 10 - see http://www.world-waterfalls.com/database.php?s=N&t=H&orderby=height&sortLimit=300. Olo'upena Falls (2,953 feet) and Pu'uka'oku Falls (2,756 feet) are in the global top 10. This list is seriously flawed - 5 US falls have a drop longer than Yosemite Falls. Peckmeister 05:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- The portion of the list that includes US waterfalls is a sublist of North America. Since Hawaii is not part of North America, it has its own listing List_of_waterfalls#Hawaiian_Islands. A cross-reference to the Hawaii section will be added to avoid confusion.
Notable or All?
Is this just for notable waterfalls or all waterfalls? XD375 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- In looking at the U.S. list, the list seems to include a few waterfalls that may not be notable based upon height, however, those same falls may be notable for other reasons (scenic beauty, historical significance, etc.). The list should probably just include notable falls; otherwise it could become too long. But what makes a waterfall notable? Tlmclain | Talk 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Cascate del Serio
This isn't quite a joke; it's just in adding a few notable BC waterfalls it occurred to me that there are others which no longer exist, mostly due to hydro project. Dalles des Morts is one such, and very historically notable (now under Arrow Lake) but also Ocean Falls, Stave Falls and others.....I'dimagine the smae applies in the US and elsewhere, e.g. the Nile. Think it's a worthwhile list/subcat idea?Skookum1 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That would make the US page the only country not to be included in this list - hardly a vote for comprehensiveness. The UK has a separate page and has the home countries included here, which inevitably means each list is becoming less comprehensive (one list focuses on inclusion, the other on explanation). Instead of separate list pages the answer is to merge. Fanx (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just tried it in Firefox, and not working there either. Anyone know how to fix?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: all red links and non-Wikilinked falls have been removed. Please only add waterfalls that have an existing article specifically about the falls, otherwise they will be removed from the list. When creating new articles, please be sure to include good, reliable references. Hastily-created stub articles (ex: "X falls is Y high and is located at Z.") are not cool and they may be deleted as non-notable. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a duplicate page for Australian waterfalls List_of_waterfalls_of_Australia. I'd like to suggest that this entire list become links to separate countries and that the waterfalls be broken out into their own pages, a similar idea to J.P.Lon US Listing suggestion above. Bruce Llama (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Too many countries don't have enough waterfalls to justify their own pages. Perhaps provide links to pages, like the UK and Australia, when pages like that become available. Perhaps when a country's list gets a little long here, like the US, it would then be worth breaking it out. It might still be worthwhile to list a few of the more significant falls for such countries on this page, rather than just an empty section with a link (Sri Lanka is a pretty good example (highest, widest, most famous), and so would Iceland and Canada if a few more were removed, leaving the most significant ones). Ikzing (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I propose doing just that with the UK examples - the dedicated pages for three of its constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland) are a better place to look for info on them - a note at the appropriate location in this article would dissuade anyone adding more UK examples here in what I'd deem to be a pointless duplication. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Angola,Tangala Falls, second largest in Africa
Have doubts about the existence of waterfalls called "Tangala Falls". No trace in this Wikipedia or other I looked in, No trace in Google Maps, unreasonable for "second largest in Africa", Googling brought Basically only this, Looks like some kind of confusion with Victoria Falls by a touristic commercial site. Does anyone have any other information? שרעטל (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I see precious little discussion of inclusion criteria here. Generally, "List of..." articles fall into one of several categories:
- Exhaustive: Yes, List of mayors of Cleveland includes every mayor of Cleveland, even those who do not have articles. There are numerous similar lists. Though some of them are quite long, they are complete because they are finite and of reasonable length. (It is not reasonably possible that this list will ever list every waterfall in the world. Even if it did, the list would be hundreds of thousands of entries long and utterly worthless.
- Notable entries only: List of people from Montana does not pretend to (pointlessly) list every person from Montana. Instead, we list notable people from Montana. Who is "notable"? Simple: If there is a Wikipedia article about them, they are notable. You know someone from Montana who is notable but doesn't have an article but want to add them to the list? Great! Simply write the article first.
- Sourced, clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria: This is a less-commonly used case where we have reliable sources that outline discrete criteria. This is rare.
IMO, the only reasonable option here is notable entries. Comments? - SummerPhDv2.0 03:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it seems people are still editing the article, but have nothing to say about it here. I guess I'll start yanking a few of the red links and see if anyone comments. If not, I'll follow through with that clean-out before re-populating the list according to my suggestion. - SummerPhDv2.0 07:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No comments on removals and another redlink added today. Going to continue the unfinished work of SummerPhDv2.0 now. Hope no one minds but it is reasonable to limit this article to notable waterfalls only, i.e. those with existing articles. May create some new article list pages, especially to move the massive list of Tasmanian waterfall redlinks so that editor can start some new articles there, if so desired. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up where I slacked off, Brian W. Schaller. There is a related, if secondary issue that I'm opening for discussion (by the hoards of editors reading this page...). - SummerPhDv2.0 18:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is a list of waterfalls, having a webpage in wikipedia do not make them more notable or important. Why not allow all of them and not to limit knowledge and in any case make a new article: list of notable waterfall with whatever critery you may consider notable. blur lines should be in favor in allowing information 09/12/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- You are proposing that we turn this into a list of every waterfall in the world. New York's official page says there are roughly 2,000 named waterfalls in New York. NY is about 1/3,600 of the land are in the world. Thus, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 waterfalls you would have us list here. Such a list would be virtually impossible to create and maintain and utterly worthless when completed. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Now that Brian has finished the removal of actual redlinks, we have a secondary issue. There are bluelinks, then there are "bluelinks".
1) Some of the links point to individual articles specifically about the waterfall in question. So long as the article survives, I have no issue with those links remaining here.
2) Some point or redirect to sections of articles on the river, with the section on the waterfall citing reliable sources. A bit greyer, perhaps, but I think they belong here.
3) Some point to sections like #2, but the sourcing merely mentions the waterfall. This, IMO, is pretty weak.
4) Similar to #2, but with no sources even mentioning the waterfall.
5) A piped link or redirect to an article on the river or a nearby location, with no sourced content on the waterfall. IMO, these do not belong here. The waterfall is clearly not notable.
Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- 100's of daily views of article, very few Talk page views. Looks OK to delete the weak ones, especially #4 & 5 mentioned above. In the longer term, notable definition should include a minimum height or width requirement (say, 50+ ft high or 50+ ft wide), or a very high flow rate (usually high or wide anyway), or any internationally-known historical falls (few small waterfalls would be both internationally-known and historically significant). Each country/state should be split to a new article when it hits about 50-100 falls with just the top 5 or so in each country/state kept in this article. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
All red links and non-Wikilinked falls have been removed. Please only add waterfalls that have an existing article specifically about the falls, otherwise they will be removed from the list. When creating new articles, please be sure to include good, reliable references. Hastily-created stub articles (ex: "X falls is Y high and is located at Z.") are not cool and they may be deleted as non-notable. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Removal of all falls for a country or state when a "List of..." article exists
Hi L Manju, is the ultimate plan that this list be simply a list of list links? Isn't the purpose of this list to provide readers a summary of the most notable falls per country, and if they want all the falls for a country or state, and such a list exists, then they can link there too? The latter seems to make more sense. Btw, the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Colorado and Oregon could also be removed as they all have 'main lists'. You'll need to trim some images if you remove them though, as they are starting to overflow into the 'See also' section on widescreens. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Brian W. Schaller. Initially I removed some whole sections as the exist of their main links. I thought that it would be make the article more easy to read by users as reducing its excessive length. But then I noticed that there were some discussions occurred regarding the content of the article. So then I stopped the removal of contents from the article. However the article name is "List of waterfalls" but in the content it has said this is a "list of notable waterfalls". The word notable has been defined but there is no way to verify that the waterfalls given in the article are actually notable or not. I think your idea is better (provide readers a summary of the most notable falls per country, and if they want all the falls for a country or state, and such a list exists, then they can link there too) than replacing the sections with their main links. Pls correct my edits if I have done unsuitable thing. Thanks for your kind consideration--L Manju (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)