Talk:Niagara Falls

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Many factual errors and very poor writing style. Fixed some, I'll be back later to do some more cleanup! 03:07, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)


What is the difference between this article and Niagara Falls (Ontario)? It looks like the information is duplicated, and we don't actually need both. Where that leaves Niagara Falls (New York), I'm not sure... -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:46, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

So I take it that Niagara Falls is the region article, but currently it contains more detail than Niagara Falls (Ontario). -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:49, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
We have:
That's at least one too many I think. Can we move the relevant content in Niagara Falls into Niagara Falls (New York) and Niagara Falls (Ontario), and then make Niagara Falls a disambiguation page and get rid of Niagara Falls (disambiguation)? That would seem to make the most sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
I plunged forward and made this change as it seems obviously correct given Project:Article naming conventions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

What just happened?[edit]

Whose idea was it to change this from a dab page into an extra-hierarchical region? While the idea isn't inherently unsound, it should have been discussed first. And the implementation has several problems:

  • The banner image chosen is already in use on Niagara Falls (Ontario); we can't re-use it here.
  • The links to the two cities with all of the content are hard to find for the casual reader.
  • The two images exceed the length of the prose.
  • The text criminally minimizes the importance of the natural wonder that is the falls.

-- Powers (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No good? By all means, plunge forward and fix it... just be careful and watch out for the really big waterfall. K7L (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes have been an improvement, though I still think it should have been discussed first. I thought it was all right as a disambiguation page, and I'm curious to know the reasoning for changing it. Powers (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want the disambig put back up? A disambiguation makes sense if the two places are unrelated in all but name (Aylmer, Ontario is not Aylmer, Québec and Springfield (Illinois) is not Springfield (Massachusetts), so an overview of Springfield, Massachusetts and Missouri makes no sense as an extraregion) but Niagara (ON/NY) are geographically the same place, arbitrarily split by a region boundary down the middle of the huge waterfall. K7L (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not exactly arbitrary considering the gorge and river running through it. =) But this is a unique case as the two cities share both a name and a location. Powers (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Unique" infers "only one"; this is rare, but there are likely others which are geographically contiguous across some arbitrary boundary under the same name. I didn't bother looking at Kansas City because I presumed that Everything is Up to Date there. K7L (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we're going to be that pedantic, you meant "implies" not "infers". I note that Kansas City gives priority to the Missouri side, which makes sense given the relative predominance of the two. Powers (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen falls photos?[edit]

The region is currently undergoing a cold snap; Toronto hit -30C (about -35F) last week. I've seen some sensational photos on Facebook of mostly-frozen falls, but cannot find one on Commons. Can anyone else find or take one? User:AndreCarrotflower; you are the closest of our regular contributors. Pashley (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Underground railroad?[edit]

Article currently has:

By motorcar ... By rail, it was one of the few places where a bridge could carry a locomotive across the Canadian border during the Underground Railroad era of the 1850s; Amtrak/VIA still use Niagara as a rail border crossing ...

I know this region was important in that era, but have no idea if the "underground railroad" used actual railroads. Even if it did, I'm inclined to think the historic underground railroad reference does not belong in the middle of a paragraph about current transport options. Put it in a separate paragraph, or a sentence at the end of this one?

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the article could do with sections. Then it would be easier to figure out how to organize the paragraphs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]