Talk:Iguazu Falls

message: 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)
Such facts can be interesting, keep. 72.231.18.127 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. "Correct" names in Spanish or Portuguese would be Iguaçu or Iguazú, BTW. —Nightstallion (?) 10:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iguazu Falls in fiction 

message: #-Mariano(t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iguazu Falls

message: #-Mariano - first choice (t/c) 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iguassu Falls

message: Support
* —Nightstallion (?) 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iguazu Falls

message: Who really cares about whether or not the falls were in a soap opera?  That is the tackiest thing I have ever read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.184.65 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brought from main article by: Mariano(t/c) 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iguazu Falls in television 

message: 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.) Rivertorch 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, usage must match article's name. Mariano(t/c) 09:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nov. 5 edits (spelling) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This rocks my sox! 

message: The article currently has no discussion of the geology of the falls.  See for example the Niagara Falls article.  Geology could be grouped with other aspects of a natural history survey.       --Figsyrup 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: 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. Ekem 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livingston de Chutes? 

message: 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? Nigholith 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Rivertorch 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boselli? 

message: 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.
Let me know if it will be added. --Mitchipr (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we use this image? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "The park shares with Iguazú National Park in Argentina one of the world’s largest and most impressive waterfalls, extending over some 2,700 m." Official World Heritage Website, about Iguaçu National Park, in Brasil. -- S23678 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text:  A MAP! Worth a thousand words. Geo-coordinates are nice, but nothing beats a picture.76.88.1.215 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In [[Paraguay]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Rivers rise. It's absolutely standard terminology and can be found in any good dictionary. Rivertorch (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Devil's Throat 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: also may make sense in terms of navigating by boat 2603:8001:7F00:4808:B07D:16A0:1EDB:956F (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Upper and lower" Iguazu? 

message: These falls are near to the Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil).Agre22 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  IMDb etc 

message: Just a quick note--this book seems like it might be a useful source. There's a chapter on the falls, starting on page 76: Waterfalls, p. 76. Have to run, more later. Pfly (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I've been poking around a bit but hadn't found that one. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source? 

message: 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, , 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)
thread_title:  Copyedits 

message: What do you thin about this map? I think, this one show the distribution between Argentina and Brazil....
--El rrienseolava (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think much of it. It doesn't even indicate the border, as far as I can see. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Iguazu Falls in Argentina and Brazil 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625065838/http://www4.icmbio.gov.br/parna_iguacu/ to http://www4.icmbio.gov.br/parna_iguacu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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•t 08:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The junction of the water flows marks the border between Brazil, Argentina, and [[Paraguay]]." 

message: a very used sex site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.116.100 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  comkmjjkl