Talk:List of waterfalls by flow rate

	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.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Waterfalls

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Waterfalls, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Waterfalls 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.WaterfallsWikipedia:WikiProject WaterfallsTemplate:WikiProject WaterfallsWaterfalls articles

[Untitled][edit]

Why is Yosemite Falls listed on the table? The description above the table is 'This is a list of waterfalls of the world by mean annual flow rate, height and width' but the mean annual flow rate of Yosemite Falls is listed as 'unknown'. Either the flow rate should be listed or the line for Yosemite Falls should be deleted I would suggest.

Also, it says the list "excludes rapids, such as Inga Falls", and yet the second entry in the list is Inga Falls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.41.12 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guaíra flow rate[edit]

How is it that the quoted flow rate of Guaíra waterfall is nearly three times the flow rate of the Parana river? (And the river flow rate is taken at the mouth!) 157.182.105.1 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I was just looking at the same thing. Unless there is an objection, I would like to change it to <15,000. There are many rivers entering downstream of the dam, it looks like the largest has a flow of 1700. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.202.252.87 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted flow rate for Guaira from maximum to average, per the main source for the list. Additional sources would, of course, be good, since it's still a very large number. 96.241.148.200 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got sorting features to work right[edit]

I added coding to the tables. The feature to sort the falls by flow rate, by maximum drop, and by width were not working right. Now it works. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of waterfalls by flow rate. 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://www.webcitation.org/6F8bwNLDA?url=http://www.worldwaterfalldatabase.com/waterfall/Guaira-Salto-del-103/ to http://www.world-waterfalls.com/waterfall.php?num=139

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: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall heights[edit]

Heights of waterfalls are notoriously difficult things to get right - various definitions are used since water heights vary with flow, some are not single but double or multiple drops, the actual measurements may be made inaccurately, longstanding inaccurate ones tend to persist in the public realm even once superseded and, as would appear to be case with images of many in this article, various drops are better considered as rapids rather than waterfalls. I'm not offering a solution to this problem (is there one?!), just a warning to the unwary visitor to this and other waterfalls pages to treat the info with caution. That said I've changed or removed the most glaring inconsistencies. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khone Phapheng Falls[edit]

These falls are part of an archipelago in the Mekong River that may be 11 km wide, but the actual width of these falls is much narrower, I guess not more than 200 meter. Sorry for the proud Laotians. The falls are impressive anyway - as long as they are not exploited for hydroelectricity (which is a common problem in the area). Rbakels (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dam Impacts and Unreliability[edit]

I think we need to revamp how dams are taken into account here. Jog Falls is listed as having over 150 m^3/s flow rate, but I find this shaky at best as most pictures clearly don't have that much. Paulo Afonso Falls only runs even close to its listed 2.8k during water discharges, and I have my doubts about the listed flow rates for the Great Falls of the Missouri, especially Rainbow Falls. The site listed for all of them states "[the flow rate] may be a very, very rough estimate at best" without USGS data. I'm aware droughts exist and such which may contribute to the low flow rates shown for some of these (e.g. Jog, as the pictures shown is during monsoon), but I think we should revise this in the name of being true to the actual average flow rate and potentially find sources that don't admit to having "very, very rough estimates". User:CelestialDalek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.25.74.250 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Waterfalls Database[edit]

I think the source used for most of the page should be severely reexamined. They admit to their stuff only being estimates, not being reliable, and talk frequently about "guessing" on pages. A lot of the waterfalls only have their high flow rate listed - Hogenekkal Falls is downstream from Shivanasamurda after multiple more rivers fall in, yet all sources I've found gives its flow rate as far under 934 m3/s. Augrabies is CLEARLY not 314 m3/s in most the pictures you can find online too, only reaching anything visually close during floods. We need actual, probably published, data for these.

By these grounds, I'd also suggest changing the minimum to 100 m3/s. The 150 m3/s is only the basis because it's the minimum that World Waterfall Database lists. 100 m3/s is a much more natural number, and 150 m3/s excludes plenty of waterfalls known for their flow rate. I believe it would also allow us to keep most of the waterfalls that would be deleted by finding more accurate sources than the World Waterfall Database only listing the highest flow rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.70.4 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]