Talk:Yosemite Falls

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers: Waterfalls Low‑importance

	Geography portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Waterfalls task force.

Comments

(I would like to submit images I took of these areas for inclusion if possible. diegodude13@hotmail.com)

Wish I'd seen this note before I collected the NOAA's photo. Since I've done the work, I'll go ahead and paste it in, see if your shots are better. For a visual subject like this, multiple illustrations from different angles are very desirable. Stan 04:57 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sers!!!!

Tallest?

According to the World Waterfall Database, there are at least 2 falls in the US that are taller: Colonial Creek Falls (2584 ft) and Johannesburg Falls (2465 ft). However, a lot of this depends on how you define "waterfall". Colonial Creek looks like a long series of smaller cascades that tumbles a total of 2,600 ft or so, while Johannesburg has a nice 800 ft plunge combined with smaller cascades. There also may be questions of the viability of both of these falls, as to whether they are at enough reasonable volume to maintain their flow year-round.

A similar situation exists east of the Rockies, where the official highest waterfall is Upper Whitewater Falls in NC at 451 ft. However, there are a couple of contenders to the claim: Glassmine Falls (also in NC) claims to be 800 ft high, but A) hasn't been well-explored; and B) is usually little more than a drip or a bunch of wet rock. However, we can always go back to Whitewater Falls and combine the upper and lower falls into one giant waterfall that's nearly 900 ft high in total drop distance. There's also a few slides and rapids that could qualify. It's a difficult definition either way, which is why I inserted the term "arguably".

In other words, I've just typed 3 paragraphs to defend adding one word. I need a life... User:5minutes 11:39 AM 24 Aug 2006 EDT

Consistency is hard

According to Yosemite National Park, Yosemite Falls is the "third highest in the world", according to this article, it is the 6th highest, and according to the image caption in this article, its "World Height Ranking" is 18th. That's awesome. I'm sure the inconsistency is about how one defines the height of a waterfall, but it sure we be nice if there were less confident "it is the Nth" kind of statements. -- Cjensen 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

I'm reverting this edit because the previous picture showed both upper and lower falls and provided better perspective to indicate the scale. I like the newer photo a lot and would support its inclusion as well, if the article were long enough to fit it neatly in. Rivertorch (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! How'd you do your photo? I can't do mine! It just shows me the link, but no photo! How did you do yours? Podruznik (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to answer your question, which you've asked in at least three places, here. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third highest; sixth highest; 20th highest

Trying to specify ranking of Yosemite is problematic. First, we'd need a reliable source that specifies the ranking. Next, that source is likely to be out of date very quickly -- so it's not clear if it's truly reliable for such a purpose. As currently written, the claims are unsustainable. I've taken a crack at removing the claims, and rewording the lead. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a big mea culpa. In my note for the change to the article previous to the above, I left out the word "not" in the summary. The article change summary should have said: "Wikipedia may NOT cite itself as a reliable source, per WP:CIRCULAR. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yayav (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yayav (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]