Talk:Gocta Cataracts

message: First off, learn how to use proper English. \
Secondly, you know absolutely nothing about waterfalls. The National Geographic Society is out-of-date in re waterfall rankings. Secondly, neither Ramnefjellsfossen or Mongefossen are considered rapids. Look up the word rapids in the dictionary. The two Norway waterfalls are free-leaping.
:Note I restored the original remarks changed by 200.106.32.160 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gocta Cataracts 

message: Hello, 
as hydrologist I have to say that the two Norwegian waterfalls (as seen in the photos linked above) are not true waterfalls, but cascades; a cascade consists of various waterfalls one after another, and therefore implicates the existence of a number of steps along the whole length/heighth of the fall. Due to this definition, the Norwegian cascades cannot be considered true waterfalls. 
Nevertheless, this discussion is of geological short-term relevance, since waterfalls keep constantly eroding the rock, and therfore a variation in the height has to be counted with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.214.199.51 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2006.
----------------------
Wrong,
The Norwegian 'fossen', both of which are free-leaping, are waterfalls. What in heavens do you mean by a 'true' waterfall? Your comment boarders on the ridiculous. So, without further ado, in respect to the several hundreds of listings, easily accessable on Google, the two Norwegian waterfalls are the third and fourth tallest in the world. Also, whilst I am at it, I would suggest that you compare the thumbnail photo of Tugela Falls, which I photographed (Kinopanorama Music), with that of Ramnejlsfossen. They are both free-leaping falls.--Jslasher 08:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting by [[User:CambridgeBayWeather]] for clarity

message: What constitutes a waterfall? Obviously, a hydrologist may define it differently than a waterfall aficionado, who may in turn define it differently than a layperson--but whose definition is more appropriate for Wikipedia? The term "waterfall" is applied every day, in general usage, to a wide array of instances of descending water. While an instance that involves a series of steps or a <90-degree slide may not qualify as a "true" waterfall (or even a waterfall at all) according to certain purists, I think most people would call such instances waterfalls. By the purist definition, Vernal Fall in Yosemite National Park is a waterfall, while its higher upstream neighbor, Nevada Fall, is not (because it's not quite free-leaping). But writers, naturalists, and park visitors certainly have been describing both as waterfalls for more than a century. It might be interesting to check the OED for the word's history. In the meantime, here are four dictionary definitions of "waterfall":
Oxford American Dictionary: a cascade of water falling from a height, formed when a river or stream flows over a precipice or steep incline.
Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary: a perpendicular or very steep descent of the water of a stream.
American Heritage Dictionary: a steep descent of water from a height; a cascade.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary: a steep fall or flow of water in a watercourse from a height, as over a precipice; cascade.
Note that three of the four specifically use the word "cascade."
I would suggest that, due to the nature of streambeds and riverbeds, there are always going to be some gray areas. At what point do waterfalls become cascades? cascades become rapids? Is it even important? Trying to definitively rank even the top three waterfalls in the world seems like an inevitably controversial endeavor. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Wikipedia would be best served by acknowledging these controversies and presenting various potentially valid viewpoints.
Rivertorch 05:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterfalls, cascades, rapids: a continuum 

message: I've removed the following links from the external links section; they're not appropriate as external links but can be used as sources to improve the article. 
* Gocta From Denver Post
* Gocta in the Seattle Times
* Impressive waterfall found in Amazonas region, Peru
Lennart97 (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links