This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Iguazu Falls, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The English term is Iguassu. In Portuguese, it is spelled "igaçu" without an accent; words ending in l, u, z, i, or r in Portuguese have the emphasis on the last syllable unless they are accented. See www.fozdoiguacu.pr.gov.br.
Three different spellings are used in the article n the title, text, and photo captions). Obviously these need to be regularized, but which should be the official encyclopedic spelling? Lee M12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Brazil is the bigger country and maybe the article should reflect the size of the 2 main countries (both very large) but I have only ever seen Iguazù used in English (with or without the accent depending on the author's laziness or not being able to find the key on their keyboard). The status quo with 'Iguazu' seems quite sensible. Luckily I have 'ù' on my keyboard as it's Italian.--217.203.166.113 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty easy on a Mac—three keystrokes: option + ` then u. Fortunately for a Windowscentric world, the consensus here is to for the accentless Iguazu.. Rivertorch (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
In Portuguese, it is Iguaçu (with a c-cedilla and no accent on the "u", though putting an acute one on it is a very common spelling mistake among Brazilians themselves). In Spanish, it is Iguazú, with an acute accent (that is, slanted to the right; "ù", with a grave accent - slanted to the left - does not currently exist in either Portuguese or Spanish).
Both spellings are troublesome for English speakers. The Portuguese one has a c-cedilla that many will not know that it is to be pronounced as an "s", rather than a "k". Likewise, Spanish has the letter "z" but not the sound of it in English and other languages; it is also pronounced as an "s" (the Portuguese and Spanish pronunciations for this name are nearly identical).
So, I believe Iguassu would be the most appropriate spelling for the English Wikipedia. In fact, the Brazilian city of Foz do Iguaçu is considering changing its official name to "Foz do Iguassu" because of the foreign tourists who come to see the falls, but it is finding legal problems to do so (since Portuguese spelling in Brazil is officially defined by the Brazilian Academy of Letters), as well as some opposition from upstream towns with no tourist traffic which don't want to change. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I support the current consensus for Iguazu per several discussions "upstream" on this page. In a context where all of these spellings are widely used, this spelling here has led to a stable version of the article with neither Spanish- nor Portuguese-language devotees crying foul—nor, for that matter, anyone else crying foul. (I misspoke above, btw; it's option + e then u on a Mac. The cedilla is easy: option + c.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, whatever spelling you choose, please make sure it's coherent in the title and the article itself. Right now, "iguassu" and "iguazu" are both used, confusingly. --84.154.132.24118:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, what you gave is not necesarilly all. For instance, Britannica also uses Iguazu Falls and Iguazú River] as main titles. I'm more for Iguassu or Iguazu, but I would prefer a native speaker to give his/her point of view. Mariano(t/c) 14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's the third item. Btw, until the native speaker appears, you can consider those as the opinions of 5 native English speakers, namely the editors of those encyclopedias. They mostly seem to favor Iguaçu. --193.86.75.12414:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, in the links I gave its the first item, not the third. Please, at least take a look at them before answering. your reasons are no better than mine, so I don't know why you replaced all the words saying that the decision is finnal. I hope the survey clears things out. Mariano(t/c) 07:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am a native English speaker and favor Iguaçu. The redirect of Iguacu should exist because the ç normally is not on our keyboards. I strongly believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. (note: many place names in the US and UK are translated in Portuguese and I don't like that hehe). However, Iguazu is Spanish and it is equally valid, since the falls are international.--KungfuAdam(talk)12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Someone asked my opinion here, but as for where the article should reside, I don't really have one. All the redirects should exist; all the common spellings should be listed in the lead section of the article; other than a mention of alternative spellings or in direct quotations, the article body should consistently use one spelling; but beyond that I have no opinion. - Jmabel | Talk16:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a native English speaker but want to make my comments anyway. I also believe that place names should not be translated when all possible. The original name of the falls is not Portuguese and not Spanish, it's Guarani. Though Guarani was not a written language it became one with a complete grammar and spelling rule since the Spanish Jesuits used it to instruct the natives hundred's of years ago. The real name of the falls in Guarani is Y'Guazú. Paraguayans, which actually speak Guarani name them Yguazú which is the nearest to the original Guarani term. I think it's important to notice the letter "Y" is also a word that means "water", so I think it's not a matter of spelling, it's a matter of meaning. LucasAntuna15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Lucas, and thanks for your information on the Guaraní name of the falls, I'll add it to the article. Nevertheless, the naming conventions in wikipedia ask us to use wither the English name or the most commonly used name. The guaraní version is clearly not any of those two, so I would say it wouldn't be such a good idea to change the page's title. Take care, Mariano(t/c) 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi Mariano, your right, it's already there. I vote for Iguassu as the English term because it's easier to type (without accents and wierd characters that are not available on American keyboards).
The comparison with other famous falls is excellent, I'm going to link my related site page http://www.iguassu-misted-falls-vacation.com/iguassu-falls.html to this page. Maybe you find something interesting there to publish here (of course, your authorized) or want to include it as an external link. 201.217.22.111:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The name of the article has already been extensively discussed, and the Iguazu has been chosen as the most common English name. The site you point to seams to me fine enough to include it among the external links. Mariano(t/c) 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why does one name have to be used throughout consistently? When writing an article about 'Derry' in the north of Ireland one editor may prefer this name and another may prefer the unionist Londonderry. Deciding between the two would be a very political decision to make and this is demonstrated in British and Irish newspapers which often use Londonderry in the first mention and Derry from then on (or viceversa). As long as the article indicates in the opening paragraph that Iguazú, Iguazu and Iguaçu (and what ever strange name someone suggested was the "proper" English name - Igussu, was it?) are the same thing then it doesn't matter what's used in the rest of the article. If a reader is too stupid to read the opening paragraph then they should probably get back to playing video games.--217.203.166.113 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is the convention not only at Wikipedia but in most media to be consistent throughout. Most of our readers are far from stupid (even the ones who play video games), but we serve everyone from native English speakers to those just learning the language and children and people with visual and cognitive disabilities. Few people would be confused if we seesawed back and forth, but it would be potentially confusing and definitely look amateurish. Rivertorch (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
The current Guarani spelling used throughout Paraguayan schools (Guarani is an official language there, alongside Spanish) for "big water" is "y guasu" . Olga Troxler Vda. de Maldonado’s "Gran Diccionario", 2004 Edition, renders "yguasu" as "sea, water in abundance" and translates the Spanish "catarata" into the Guarani "ytororõ". In the other hand, there is an academic consensus that proper names retain their traditional spelling. Indeed, the "Map of Paraguay. Political Division. Scale 1:1 000 000. 1996 Edition. Reprinted in 2004." published by the Paraguayan Military Geographical Service Directorate, spells "Cataratas del Yguazú" Aldo L (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Like in the Antarctica article, I suggest we remove the Iguazu Falls in fiction section of non-important trivial facts. Please see Antactica's talk page. -Mariano 07:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 18 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion
As shown in #IGUAÇU, the preferred Englush name is Iguaçu. I don't understand why Marianocecowski refuses to move, what does he mean by this comment, or why he thinks that a random English-speaking Wikipedia editor's opinion should have more weight than three encyclopedias and one dictionary. Anyway, since he doesn't want to move, I can't move, and nobody else is here, I put the request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I don't think a survey is necessary; but just in case... --193ypico21:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I stated enough reasons to doubt of which name should be used, and given the fact that the name of the article has been a controversial topic is enough reason to take the time to decide this with more than one or two users. And the fact that you seam to find your way so smoothly in the Wikipedia as to create move request minutes after your account was created makes me wander about your good will.
The survey is not necessary; three encyclopedias and one dictionary agree. For some reason you think that your opinion is more important. I created the account for the sole purpose of moving this page, but moving is not allowed to new accounts and I was directed to Wikipedia:Requested moves. I supposse it's personal for you now, and you will fiercely defend anything else than Iguacu (there are you, choosing Iguassu over Iguacu (!), as if it were a preference survey), so I don't expect a quick resolution of this anomalous situation. It's a shame. I'll try to move it when my account is old enough. It was my mistake calling you to see the case in the first place; I judged you wrong. --193ypico09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The three encyclopedias and one dictionary where your finding. I can list you more examples with other spellings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. I believe that the English name is Iguassu (W:English names), the Portuguese is Iguaçu, and the Spanish one is Iguazú. Many encyclopedias try to make use of the local names, so they might choose to use Iguazú, or given the size of Brazil Iguaçu. Now, I would prefer to restore the previous consented title of Iguassu Falls, which a user changed to the Spanish spelling, but wanted also to point out that Iguazu Falls is the most used term of the three, at least as I showed with the google hits (W:Common names). Given the fact that this is the English wikipedia, it would be hard for a English speaking user to type either Iguaçu or Iguazú, I think Iguassu should really be used for the articles name, of course pointing out the local spellings. I also whant to point out that I left messages asking people for their oppinion in this talk page in the Argentine, Brazilian and Latin American WikiProjects. Mariano(t/c) 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll sum up your links for you: (1) 3 of them use the same dictionary: WordNet (uses Iguazu or Iguassu w/o distinction, and doesn't know anything about Iguacu), (2) I didn't find anything related with the falls in the "Encyclopedia of Conscientology" (?), (3) Collier's Encyclopedia (if we believe that 2nd or 3rd hand citation) uses Iguassu (and thinks the falls are in Argentina alone), (4) I strongly suspect that thefreedictionary also uses WordNet, (5) the Concise Britannica article was linked before.
So, merging your findings with mine, we have:
Iguacu: Britannica, Concise Britannica, Encarta, Webster, Columbia
Iguazu: Concise Britannica, Webster, WordNet
Iguassu: Encarta, Columbia, WordNet, Collier's
(Small type means alternative accepted name.)
(The contradiction within Britannica itself is a little startling...) So, in reference works we have: 1. Iguacu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguazu. In google: 1. Iguazu, 2. Iguassu, 3. Iguacu. Probably we'll end up compromising on Iguassu, as you say. --193ypico13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I hope so. In any case, we should wait for a week to end since the beginning of the survey since your first vote, that is, late June 8th (normal proceedings). Mariano(t/c) 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Seattlenow00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (first choice--most common and seems like a better transliteration)(English words rarely have diacritics--"Iguaçu Falls" is Portuguese, not English)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
And just to clarify, "normal voting time" is five days after the move has been listed at WP:RM; that is today, so I've closed the move above. This run-off is an attempt to come to a decision, as Mariano claimed this was not a no consensus result. —Nightstallion(?)10:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This is incorrect the waterfall that appears in this episode is Gullfoss, located in Iceland in Hvítá river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.69.158 (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An unregistered user has changed most but not all of spellings in the article from Iguazu to Iguaçu. This was done despite a vote to the contrary (see archives below) and with no recent discussion. It was also done inconsistently. I have reverted the page. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other but have an aversion to sloppily executed edits by unregistered users on controversial topics without prior notice.) Rivertorch23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is the coolest waterfall ever! I love it soo much! I have to do a report on this, and it was so helpful to have a page that is so informative! :)
Thanx,
Anyonoumus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.108.21 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am unable to find any non-wp related google reference to such named falls? However "Livingston Falls" is an alternate term to "Victoria Falls". If there is another "Livingston de Chutes", please reinsert with reference or link. Ekem00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I can find no explorer by the name "Boselli" on Wikipedia, per the sentance in the introduction, "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli at the end of the nineteenth century, and one of the Argentinian falls is named after him.". Could somebody please clarify? Nigholith17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can't find anything on Boselli online, at least in English. Perhaps someone fluent in Spanish or Portuguese could Google Boselli and Iguazu (with alternate spellings) and make sense of what comes up; there are a lot of hits. Or maybe someone has a written work to cite. In the meantime, I added an inline citation tag (redundantly, since there's already a template on top). Rivertorch05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I uploaded a picture I have of Iguazu Falls to Wikipedia. It's entirely my own work, and I thought it'll be great if you guys can use it or add it somewhere in the article.
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
When I visited Iguacu falls in 2003, I was told that the falls are located on the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, although I did not visit the paraguayan side, because apparently there is a shopping mall there.
Is it true that the falls lie between the borders of 3 countries? If it is true then we should change this in the article. 86.163.117.233 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The junction between Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina are situated a few kilometers down the Iguazu River from the fall, when the river merges into the Parana river. Iguazu falls are clearly outside of Paraguay.S23678 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's my understanding, too, although some quick Googling for detailed maps was unproductive. The terrain is a bit confusing in the vicinity of the falls. A large-scale map or an aerial view with the national borders overlaid would be a valuable addition to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
To clarify: For having spent 3 days in the area going from Argentina to Brazil to Paraguay, Iguazu falls AND river is, without a single doubt, outside Paraguay -- S23678 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
You and I know that; unfortunately, our knowledge doesn't meet WP standards for verifiability. The article is correct as it stands, but since the question has been asked it would be nice to be able to point to something definitive like a clear map. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"The semicircular waterfall at the heart of this site is some 80 m high and 2,700 m in diameter and is situated on a basaltic line spanning the border between Argentina and Brazil." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguazu National Park, in Argentina. -- S23678 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Terrific. Let's see if we can work one or both of those citations into the article. (It looks like some rewording will be required, which is beyond me at least until tomorrow.) The Access section looks like a problem, too; it should specify that access to the falls from Ciudad del Este isn't direct access. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
An editor reported (within the article, not on the talk page) that "Some of the numbers cited in this [Comparisons to other famous falls] section do not agree with the ones given in the reference (i.e. references 4 and 5, data from world-waterfalls.com). Should be reconciled." Anybody have time to check this out? I probably can't get to it for a couple of days. Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
First paragraph of article: "The Iguazu River rises near the city of Curitiba." --- rises? really? As with anti-gravity? Please edit. Suggest "arises", at least, or better, "originates". 76.88.1.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There's an understandable tendency for specific editors to switch Spanish phrases to Portuguese and vice-versa, but it doesn't serve the article for this to happen. I am changing the article to use "Devil's Throat" rather than "Garganta do Diabo" or "Garganta del Diablo" throughout the article except for the first occurrence, where I have the other forms in parentheses. This would seem to be the best solution, since this is the English Wikipedia and it's awkward and confusing to switch back and forth from one language to another when referring to the same thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Further note: there should be a similar consistency to the spelling of "Iguazu", so I'm doing something similar along those lines. ("Iguaçu" is perfectly legitimate as well, but let's go for consistency rather than randomness after the lede.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following statement seems to have been completely invented, because I have never seen it anywhere else: "The falls divide the river into the upper and lower Iguazu." Considering that the Iguaçu/Iguazú river is over 1,100 km long and the falls are only about 30 km upstream from its mouth on the Paraná River, this extremely uneven division does not make the least sense in geographic terms. I strongly suggest that it be removed. --UrsoBR (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
A quick Google search indicates that the phrases "upper Iguazu" and "lower Iguazu"—particularly the latter—are in common use. (I tried to remove WP-based results from the search, think I mostly succeeded.) It makes sense geologically, if not geographically. Rivertorch (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding Crech's edit of earlier today: If I understand correctly, IMDb is deprecated as a reliable source except in certain limited areas, none of which involve content of a film (e.g., setting or location). See Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb and Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb for discussion on this topic. It's not a policy or even guideline, as far as I can see, so there's probably plenty of wiggle room. Also, including the year of each movie's release seems a bit unnecessary. It's nice to know, but why stop there? Cast and director would be cool too, but it's all off-topic. In any case, that info is a mouse click away in each case and doesn't need to be in an article about a waterfall. Finally, the bulleted list format seems unnecessary for so small a group of films and distracts from the flow of the article. Rather than simply reverting, I thought I'd shoot for consensus. Your thoughts, Crech? Anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
A little bit of detail about the significance of the waterfall in each movie would be good. I would prefer to have some prose as opposed to just the bullet lists. But eh, I dunno, I'm just passing by really. I've been watching the article for only a little while. Dawnseeker2000 05:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Clarifying, per a request on my talk page: on Dec. 14, I placed a "contradiction" tag in the first paragraph of the Geography section. The last two sentences in the paragraph seem to contradict each other:
The Devil's Throat ([Garganta del Diablo] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) in Spanish or [Garganta do Diabo] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) in Portuguese), a U-shaped, 82-meter-high, 150-meter-wide and 700-meter-long (490 by 2300 feet) cataract, is the most impressive of all, and marks the border between Argentina and Brazil. and The Argentine side comprises three sections: the upper falls, the lower falls, and the Devil's Throat.
If the Devil's Throat marks the border between the two countries, then is it really one of the three sections on the Argentine side? Conceivably, yes, if the border lies just past the Devil's Throat, but then the phrase "marks the border" is imprecise and shouldn't be applied to a 700-meter-long cataract. My reading of "marks the border" suggests that at least part of the Devil's Throat belongs to either country. A large-scale map of the falls (from a reliable source) clearly showing the international border would be helpful . Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link. While the source isn't quite impeccable, it does tentatively help to clarify where the international boundary (the brown dashed line, I presume) lies in relation to the falls. The precise boundaries of the Devil's Throat aren't clear from the map, though. You wrote above that "the limit border is the Waterfall 'Union', which is the beginning of 'Garganta del diablo'", and I'm not sure what the Waterfall "Union" is.
Regarding your proposed text, it has multiple problems. Aside from its being in nonstandard English and somewhat confusingly worded, it appears to be sourced to a travel company's website and two blogs, which don't meet the guidelines for reliable sources. Some of your proposed wording also seems to conflict with the map you've provided. If the map is to be trusted, then far more than 80% of the falls—including all or most of the Devil's Throat—are in Argentina. Also, only the Devil's Throat area, not the falls as a whole, appears to be in a horseshoe shape, and judging from the map, the views from Brazil should be significantly more panoramic than the views from Argentina. In any case, I'm making too many judgments based on incomplete information. We cannot afford to allow original research or synthesis into the article, so I'm afraid we need to leave it as it is, pending better sources. I am reverting, and I will reinforce my earlier comment here about edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is all interesting. What a complicated waterfall system! A good map made for Wikipedia would do wonders. I'm adding a request for one now. Maybe someday I'll attempt one myself. Pfly (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
@ El rrienseolava No, it isn't enough. Sorry. I can search Google Images, too, but that's not the way to find reliable sources. I agree with Pfly—it is all very interesting—but as I advised you on my talk page, there are rules about original research and reliable sources. Thanks, Pfly, for requesting the map. Rivertorch (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Rivertorch n' Pfly. I will do some research on it later as well, maybe I can turn up something good. In the meantime, I requested speedy deletion on that map. It is clearly a copyright violation; the watermark on the map is a clear giveaway, aside from the source website.--NortyNort(Holla)04:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hmm . . . didn't realize El r. had uploaded it. I found an article in The UNESCO Courier (I don't have link at hand but it's the Nov. 1995 issue, pp. 40–43) that has me thoroughly confused. It places the Devil's Throat in Brazil and says that "it is only from the Argentinian side that it is possible to get a panoramic view". If I had the cash, I'd say the heck with this WP:NOR stuff—I'm flying there next week and see for myself. In all seriousness, though, there seems to be a dearth of readily available reliably-sourced info on the falls, and that's just weird. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok! then... good luck in tour trip, I hope you enjoy it. And when you see through your eyes that I said is the truth, please remember the nick "el_rrienseolava". And when it happens, please, write here (again) that I wrote a few days ago, thanks.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm trying to do a general overhaul/copyedit of this page and just made a relatively simple first pass. A few points: I noticed one of the sources I had used recently was an exact duplicate of the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry about the waterfall, so I changed all those refs to Britannica (and added a few more). There's a good number of references now so I took off the "refimprove" tag--although like most pages it needs additional work. I took out the "Name" section because it was not just about the name but also touching on history. It made sense to include in the lead. Also, I took out the sentence "The falls were rediscovered by Boselli." This sentence was referenced to a blog website, [9], and I have not been able to figure out who this "Boselli" might be, when he or she lived, or anything about this "rediscovery". So, pending further info, it seemed best to just remove the sentence. The blog website ref is used elsewhere on the page, but probably ought to be replaced with something more reliable. What else? I guess that it about it for now. Perhaps over the weekend I'll do a few more copyedit passes. Pfly (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I can imagine it, all right. Problem is, imagining things doesn't work very well when determining content for Wikipedia. Only when we can verify what we imagine does it get to go into an article. (Incidentally, I can imagine the border being elsewhere just as well. Lots of rivers aren't split down the middle.) Rivertorch (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iguazu Falls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I nominate this sentence for our list of incomprehensible WP(-presented) CONCEPTS. Seems to me that borders are indeed between, and therefore not defined for triplets of anything. And a junction is either a point, or an 2- or 3-dimensional region, whereas borders are 1- (or 2-) dimensional demarcations between adjacent pairs of regions on a surface (or of surfaces where volumes are in contact). (I fully endorse the elimination of this travesty, tho my own priority is harnessing it as an object lesson. An ideal editor to repair it is one who sez "OMG, that equine posterior is right, and I could have been the one who wrote it, if the opportunity had presented itself to me to make the same error." But as always, I endorse the concept of every WP editor being their own assignment editor. The negative example does not highlight a problem whose solution is trivial, and I'm grateful for both the opportunity to think it thru myself, and the occasion that I hope colleagues will take to likewise polish their editing -- and other, related, analytical -- skills.) --Jerzy•t08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
