Talk:Reichenbach Falls

Switzerland Mid‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

What about the falls?

This is an article about Sherlock Holmes. Shouldn't that be a piece of trivia near the bottom of the article about the falls? See Niagra Falls for examples of FA quality articles regarding waterfalls. Padillah 18:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should certainly be in a section of its own. If you've got any more information about the Falls themselves, feel free to add it. --McGeddon 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well call this Reichenbach Falls (Sherlock Holmes)

I disagree strongly with this assessment. While I would love to see more information added to this article, the location is far more notable as the site of the fictional Sherlock Holmes's (possible) demise than it is as a real-world waterfall, as Holmes is easily the best-known fictional detective in history and probably one of the top 50 best known fictional characters, having been adapted and re-adapted dozens of times.[1] To compare Reichenbach Falls' article to that of Niagara Falls is a bit silly, and ignores the point that any discussion of the falls without heavy emphasis on why it is most broadly known is, by definition, a heavily non-NPOV approach. Reichenbach is the fourth highest waterfall in Switzerland.[2] while Niagara Falls is the most powerful falls in North America[3] and probably the most widely known waterfall in the world (one could argue the point, with Angel Falls coming at least a close second and regionally, I'm sure it varies around the world). The latter has a rich history in terms of its cultural and regional impact on the development of that part of the United States and Canada, having been the source of myths, legends, much of the early work on hydro-electric power, and a thriving tourism industry, while the former... is kind of tall, as these things go.

As a point of reference, the third-tallest building in Switzerland is the Sulzer Building.[4] It has no article. -Miskaton (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved by strong consensus. No support at all in fact. Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reichenbach Falls → Reichenbach Fall – It is singular; German: Reichenbachfall (sing.), not ~~Fälle~~; https://s.geo.admin.ch/741a0492ad ZH8000 (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). ZH8000 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contestion is not valid: there are indeed singular usages of fall with the meaning of a watterfall: "fall sg., usually in plural: falls - waterfall". -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

German usage is utterly irrelevant. What is it called in English? 216.8.145.227 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an utterly stupid remark. Of course it does. Well, at least as long as seriousness, proved sources, factual history, objectivity etc are considered as major attributes of an ecyclopedia. In other words: as long as WP is not just another source of fake news. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – In the absence of strong evidence showing that English-language reliable sources primarily use the singular form, the title should remain as "Falls", as the article says that the topic is "a series of waterfalls" (and since we shouldn't change the title without a good reason). The practice in other languages is irrelevant. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I aknowledge that there are many, or even a majority of English sources, which use the plural form (probably just out of habit). According to all English dictionaries there obviously are also singular applications, even in English language. I just take the stance that potential errors, even if they were made centuries ago, or even reproduced by many or even the majority (the majority is not always right), shall not be kept alive just for the sake of conformity.

Your argument that the topic is "a series of waterfalls" is IMO not valid and not used that way by geographical experts, since – even in German – this is not the reason to call a current of water over a series of cliffs in plural form "Wasserfälle", but rather the fact that waterfalls have several inflows (not necessarily called differently). In the case of the Reichenbachfall this is clearly not the case, since only the single Rychenbach feeds the fall. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. English language sources ~~never~~ [rarely] use "Reichenbach Fall". Station1 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply and very easily falsifiable: Tate Modern title about works of JMW Turner: "The Reichenbach Fall" (a very serious source), even JWM Turner called it that way The Fall of Reichenbach, British Museum: "View of the Reichenbach Fall, people coming from haymaking in the foreground" (sic!), in books, e.g. The Reichenbach Problem by Martin Allison Booth: "“The Reichenbach Fall!” Holloway had to shout above the water's clamour to be heard", just to name a very few. Even the two shown paintings in the article by Sidney Paget and JMW Turner speak a different language!! – Holy sake: just try a simple google search "Reichenbach Fall -sherlock -wiki" -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the first 2 external links you cite, the phrase "Reichenbach Fall" does not appear, but "Reichenbach Falls" does. The British Museum does use "Reichenbach Fall" in describing a circa 1830 Swiss print titled La Cascade inférieur du Reichenbach, but in other cases they use "Reichenbach Falls"[5][6][7]. In The Reichenbach Problem, a work of fiction, "Reichenbach Fall" appears once in a quotation, while "Reichenbach Falls" appears four times elsewhere. Nevertheless, I've altered my comment to be more literal. Station1 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon-me, but there is something incomprehensible in your response (In the first 2 external links you cite, the phrase "Reichenbach Fall" does not appear, but "Reichenbach Falls" does.). Tate Gallery titles a collection of paintings by Turner with "The Fall of the Reichenbach" (singular, not plural). Turner calls several of his paintings "The Reichenbach Fall". The British museum does the same. SO there is obviously a reason why they did so. You can't neglect that. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find "Reichenbach Fall" anywhere on the Tate Gallery web site, even when searching for that phrase. I do see "Reichenbach Falls" in several places.[8] There are some early 19th-century Turner works titled "The Fall of the Reichenbach" or similar, but even most of those use the plural "Falls". Station1 (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1) Google ngrams shows that falls is definitely more popular, per WP:COMMONNAME. 2) OED lists only falls as a synonym of waterfallNoun 5. Chambers, OED, Merriam-Webster, and Randomhouse/Dictonary.com list falls as the preferred usage. So using a dictionary as an argument is inconclusive (but leans towards falls). 3) As a series of waterfalls, falls is still more appropriate. Very few falls are ever without the s Ribbon Fall, Bridalveil Fall, Illilouette Fall, Nevada Fall, and Vernal Fall are the only ones I can find, and for some reason they're all in California. menaechmi (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a look at the history of those five articles, it appears that in some cases they were created with "Fall" originally, and in some cases they were moved to their current titles by someone saying they should use "Fall" because of official names given by the U.S. federal government. I didn't notice any common authorship among the people who conducted those actions. Wikipedia, of course, cares more about common names than official names, and there is presumably no official name for the Reichenbach Fall(s) in English. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All 5 falls are in Yosemite National Park. Illilouette is definitely an error[9] and I'll move that once this RM closes unless there's an objection. The other four got their official USGS names on June 30, 1932 based on decision cards prepared by the same person on August 19, 1931. In each case the "recommendation" shows only the first word ("Vernal", etc.), with the word "fall" appearing on the line for "thing named", so, rightly or wrongly, they seem to be exceptions to the rule. Station1 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By differentiating the singular from the plural case it is hardly relevant to count how often they appear in any text, isn't it?! -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.