Talk:Victoria Falls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early threads, including proposed name change[edit]

Orders of magnitude links need adding. I'll say this about "dual unit" articles -- they're a mess to read, all parentheses everywhere :( -- Tarquin 17:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am not aware that anybody has agreed upon what the "seven world wonders" are. I only know the old ones. Pls clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.105.63 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a flamewar here, but I think we should consider moving this article to Mosi-oa-tunya and doing a redirect from Victoria Falls. The falls are no doubt best known as Victoria Falls in English, but this is purely a colonial name bestowed by Dr. Livingston. A colonial name bestowed by an outsider after a foreign monarch should not be considered the proper name for a great landmark that already had a proper name when Dr. Livingston "discovered" it. Ntk 04:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and go ahead and move it rather than just throw the question out there. Ntk 04:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, cut and paste moves are bad, and violations of the GFDL. If in the future you want to move a page, please use the "Move" button at the top of the page. I have reverted the two pages to the previous status quo, until more discussion can be had. Being bold is fine, but please let the community have more than 20 minutes to reply to such a drastic change. I've copied this discussion from Talk:Mosi-oa-Tunya, and think further discussion should take place here, for clairity. Gentgeen 10:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about not using the Move button, that was my mistake, although from what I have read it is debatable whether it "violates the GFDL," but thanks for correcting me on that. I won't go ahead and move it properly now because I don't want to start a mess of reversions, so I will open the discussion presenting an argument for both names, and why I think that Mosi-oa-Tunya is the best choice. I will reconsider moving it after some discussion takes place (or fails to take place).
Victoria Falls—this is much more widely used and known worldwide, at least in English. Futhermore both Zambia and Zimbabwe have English as official languages, and the name used and recognized locally as well.
Mosi-oa-Tunya—this is the original name of the falls in the local language. It is still locally used and recognized. Furthermore the park in Zambia containing the falls is called Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park, not Victoria Falls National Park. Mosi-oa-Tunya is already often used along with Victoria Falls, and often in preference to Victoria Falls, by many organizations including UNESCO. Victoria Falls, on the other hand, is a colonial name given by a foreign explorer in honor of a foreign monarch, and is thus a relic of colonialism and cultural imperialism. Furthermore, the greater prevalence of the name Victoria Falls is not a strong argument in favor of it—for instance Myanmar is still much better known as its colonial name Burma in English even though it has long been independent. Lastly, I do not feel this is a terribly drastic change and it certainly does not make the article less useful or easy to find, since my revision prominently retained both names and Victoria Falls would still redirect to the same article. Ntk 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I ment to get back to this sooner. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), the most common name used in English is the proper title for an article. If the efforts to change the commonly used name to Mosi-oa-Tunya result in it becoming the most common name in English for the falls, then the page can easily be moved to that title.
A similar situation to this one, a well known geologic feature named in English after a distant head of state while the native name is still known and used, can be seen at Mount McKinley. Mount McKinley is named Denali in atleast one of the native languages of Alaska, is located in Denali National Park, Denali is the name of the mountain used by the state government, and is widely known to many speakers; yet the mountain's article is still located at a title named after an American president, as that is the most common name for the mountain in the English language. However, Denali does redirect to that page, as is appropiate. Gentgeen 00:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, the Denali example is not parallel. While it is true that Denali was the native local name, Alaska has long been part of the United States, and even so, Inuits are a minority people in Alaska today. So it would be unreasonable to suggest at this point that we should not call Mt. McKinley after an American president, because even if a person were to disagree with the United States's possession of Alaska, it is a fact. It's not like someone is trying to call it Mt. Lenin or something like that. Whereas Mosi-oa-Tunya is an African falls in an African country. The only reason it is called Victoria Falls is because of a foreign explorer and some colonial history--and these countries have long since been independent of imperialism.
That said, I will not attempt to move it again. Although the policy you cite does mention some uncertainty (i.e. "There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name."), if we are following that policy it would certainly indicate towards using Victoria Falls. I do not completely agree with this policy--when people call something by the wrong name, the only way a better name will be established is if they see it. To cite an example, for hundreds of years white people called Native Americans (or First Nations), "Indians." Now most Americans call them by "Native Americans," and this happened not because people liked it better, but because this was introduced top-down in texts, books, media, government and schools. But this is not the place to debate policy, so I won't push for moving the name unless or until the policy is changed. I will, however, make some slight modifications to the article to NPOV it a bit. Right now it makes it look as if Mosi-oa-Tunya is no longer used at all. NTK 03:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In English, the place is called Victoria Falls. I doubt more than a handful of English speakers ever even heard of Mosi-oa-Tunya. Leave it at Victoria Falls. RickK 01:10, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, moving it to Mosi-oa-Tunya is not going to confuse anyone, thanks to the magic of redirects and the fact that I included the name Victoria Falls prominently at the beginning of the article in my modified version. And as I said just because it is most prevalent doesn't make it the best name. Again I cite Myanmar, which the great majority of Westerners know as Burma. Why should people who know hardly anything about the country or the place anyway get to decide what to call it? Why not look at the local people's interest? What about places that don't have an "English" name? There are plenty of other precedents for changing to more appropriate, NON-English names. i.e. Formosa (Portugese) -> Taiwan (Mandarin Chinese). But as I said I will not contest this unless there is a different consensus developing on the policy page. NTK 03:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well that is all very nice, but is not how articles are named on Wikipedia. They are not named according to what they should be called, which is inherently POV, but what they are called. It's not Wikipedia's job to tell people what things should be called. Taiwan is at Taiwan because that is what is mainly known as these days. If Victoria Falls becomes known widely as Mosi-oa-Tunya then let it be moved but not before. Booshank (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to voice my support for a name change to Mosi-oa-Tunya. I am not Zambian by descent, but I was born in Livingstone, lived there for 16 years and visit regularly. So I hope I can give a more local POV. Zambians have great respect for Dr. Livingstone and his work, and this is why Livingstone is the only town in Zambia to retain its old colonial name. Every other town was renamed. The same goes for Victoria Falls town on the Zimbabwean side. People in both countries are very lenient and accommodating and use both Victoria Falls and Mosi-oa-Tunya interchangeably. Zambians, especially in Livingstone, prefer the Mosi-oa-Tunya but tourists sometimes do not know of the local name prior to visiting and so, out of courtesy, Zambians will use Victoria Falls. As for confusion, I don't think there will be a problem. A quick Google search with both names shows that there is a 50:50 split among the top 10 results as to which name appears first. Of course this article is the first and if we were to remove it, then Mosi-oa-Tunya appears first in 5 links while Victoria Falls in 4. In the end I believe the Zambians and the Zimbabweans should decide which name to use as they have been blessed to be the custodians of this true wonder of our world. --Drsjlazar (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion is over, but I must have my say in that moving to Mosi is just plain stupid and absurd. The situation would be the same as moving the Orange River to Gariep, or (as you said) moving Mount Mck. NTK you are very ignorant in some respects, but this is not your fault, you say the falls was named after a 'foreign explorer'. Well first of all the 'native' black inhabitants' were more foreign than the 'explorer' since the 'black natives' only reached the location a few years earlier. Also, who ever said that Mosi is that native name? NTK, there are some people called White Zimbabweans, and I guess in your case, they are foreign. I guess you could then say that all Chinese Americans are foreign, and any Chinese person that has been to Australia is just a Foreign explorer??! These White Zimbabweans (who are of mostly 19th/20th century English decent call the Falls almost exclussivly VF. As for Mount McKinley, although Alaska has a white majority (which by the way is only about 65%), the surrounding area has a Native American majority, so why is it still at McKindley? We don't we call China by it's native name (Zhonghue, or something like that?), afterall, a FOREIGN EXPLORER probably gave it that name??? And lastly, Victoria falls is OFFICIALLY called Victoria Falls and Mosi-.., so why don't we call Derry, by it's official name: Londonderry????? Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, the situation is that the Zambian side is officially Mosi-oa-tunya and the Zimbabwean side is officially Victoria Falls. This is reflected in the naming of the national parks (zm, zw), the town on the Zim side and in the UNESCO designation (which uses both).Babakathy (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't know that. If we have RS to that effect, shouldn't it be in the article? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UNESCO is cited in world heritage infobox, the parks names are referenced on their pages. Babakathy (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Babakathy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been over for a while but, why does nobody bring up the point that calling it Victoria falls is essentially typical british arrogance and culture erasure during the colonial era. This is Africa, regardless of how many english speakers, or how shortly before it was named victoria falls that the natives moved into the area, the british never had a right to name it. As NTK brings up, changing terms to more culturally sensitive ones is something that must be done actively. It`s not just gonna happen. Part of that active change is to rename pages like this to the primary cultural name, Mosi-oa-Tunya. I mean, the page does a good job of explaining the name, and Mosi-oa-Tunya brings you to this page, but that`s the problem. When I search for Mosi-oa-Tunya, this is all that shows up. The primary name is Victoria falls, and Mosi-oa-Tunya falls out of the spotlight. In the interest of undoing british colonial era cultural erasure sites like this need to take the lead in being more culturally sensitive. Starting by renaming this page Mosi-oa-Tunya with Victoria Falls being more of an afterthought. Only listed as clarification for people looking for Victoria falls who don`t know that it`s actually called Mosi-oa-Tunya. -S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.157.115.143 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion not only has been over for a while; it began almost 14 years ago. (Time for a little archiving, I think.) Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. We are not complicit in perpetuating the lesser evils of colonialism; our content and our titles simply reflect what reliable sources say about the world, warts and all. Bottom line: the title of this article is fully in line with Wikipedia policy and will not be changed without changing the policy. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Falls--why the move?[edit]

Victoria Falls (as opposed to Victoria falls) appears to be overwhelmingly the most common English formulation of this name, according to both Google and its entries at Britannica and Encyclopedia.com. Any particular justification for moving it to "Victoria falls"? For now I'm being bold and moving it back according to the consensus above, but if anyone has a sourced explanation for why it ought to be here, post a note here and we'll figure it out. Cheers, --Dvyost 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

________________

However much some posters try to dress up their justifications, the proposal here is very simply political correctness. Wikipedia should avoid PC at all times. It matters not what the locals call it. What matters is what the place is UNIVERSALLY KNOWN as. Danzig is a good example. The Poles now insist everyone calls it Gdansk, but ask a man in the street to describe where it is or if they've even heard of it and he won't know. Wheras Danzig was universally recognised. We British do not call Rome 'Roma'; we don't call Brussels 'Bruxelles';we don't call Munich 'Munchen'. i could go on but you get the point, I hope. As someone else said above, this is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE edition of Wikipedia. Again, we should be using the universally known appellations, not obscure ones.

86.139.185.234 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. One doesn't get the same argument for moving the title on the Niagara Falls talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaping water[edit]

The part of the Falls I thought was "Devil's cataract" (and have called so in a caption), is named as "Leaping water" under the sub-head "The Falls. It's probably me that's wrong, but anyone know about this? JackyR 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's cataract is the official name as per signs in Victoria Falls National Park. Babakathy (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Spectular?[edit]

I believe this goes against NPOV, isnt it a matter of opinion? Give me insight... --217.129.205.214 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (AKA Chaos Reaver.... I lost my pass, please bear with me as I look for it... LOLOL ;) )[reply]

The article actually says "one of the most spectacular", which is pretty woolly. It's also hard to disagree with given the Falls keep cropping up on naff "seven natural wonders of the world lists" [1]. But yes, true WP style would be, eg, "described by source X as one of the most spectacular...". If you wanna research it - the job's yours! JackyR 23:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

water flow units of measure (per second or per minute)[edit]

The section Victoria_Falls#The_falls currently uses the 'per minute' water flow rate whereas other parts of the article use the 'per second' rate. Other wikipedia waterfall articles also use 'per second', e.g. Boyoma_Falls and other sites as well, e.g. http://www.world-waterfalls.com/database.php?s=N&t=W&orderby=avevolume&sortLimit=5000. IIRC, most waterfall articles I've seen use the 'per second' measure. Maybe the entries in this section should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaze0010 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto milestone[edit]

The Esperanto version of this page is the 50,000th Wikipedia article written in that language. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed expansion and reorganisation[edit]

I have been looking at this article with the aim of rectifying the lack of in-line references and expanding the info on how the falls formed, the gorges, and the wildlife. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the article needs a bit of reorganisation. There is duplication, for instance flow rates are in separate paragraphs under ‘The Falls’ and 'Below The Falls’. Secondly, some of the flow rate figures aren’t supported by references from good hydrology sources. The statement ‘During the wet season the falls have over 500 million litres . . of water falling over its crestline each minute’, which is on the UNEP website, is contradicted by this hydrological reference (see Annex 13) which gives a figure one-third of this (and I agree with the comment above that flow rates should be cu m/sec, with cu ft/sec in brackets. The article tries too hard to establish the Falls’ credentials as bigger than Niagara and Iguazu Falls. Lastly many of the measurements are inaccurate eg the height of 128 m/420 ft is contradicted by references which give 108 m/360 ft as the greatest height (Rainbow Falls). I have also checked some of the horizontal distances on Google Earth and come up with some different figures. I propose this reorganisation:

Introductory section emphasising right up front the three most notable features of the falls, ie size, gorges, wildlife. Then get the ‘world’s largest issue’ out of the way in 2-3 sentences, then give location details. The use these headings/subheadings (latter indicated by indents):
Physical features
— Flood and dry season flow rates
The Victoria Falls Gorges
How the Victoria Falls formed
History of the area
— Up to 1900
— Since 1900
— Victoria Falls Bridge
— Tourism
National parks
— Vegetation
— Fauna
References
External links
Rexparry sydney 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions and additions made, 11 March.[edit]

As flagged above, I have revised the article with in-line references, and added material on how the falls formed, on the gorges, on historical backgrounds to tourism at the falls, and on wildlife/vegetation. I have moved some details (such as measurements on the bridge) to that article. I have tried to avoid duplication. If I have not carried over any previous points it may have been because I couldn't find a reference for them, if they are still pertinent please re-instate; and accept apologies. I have not put in a lot of specific information about visitor facilities because this changes, and is quite well covered on the websites of the Zambia & Zimbabwe tourist boards listed at the top of external links. Rexparry sydney 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Link[edit]

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=173 concerning environmental issues at the Falls, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

I have uploaded a victoria falls video to wikimedia commons. File name is Smoke_that_thunders_victoria_falls_1.ogg. Please add it to this article. Uttam H — Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flood and dry season flow rates[edit]

Text is hiding behind the table and video, but I don't know how this can be corrected. Myriam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.67 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes on Livingstone being first European to see the falls[edit]

A couple of times recently edits have been made by anonymous users claiming that Voortrekker (Boer) hunters visited the falls before Livingstone and were the first white people to see them. There is no written evidence for this, whereas there are ample documents for Livingstone's visit and that is why he is credited by academic geographers and historians as having 'discovered the falls for western science'. Furthermore numerous authors have addressed the question, and in particular the claims by or for:

  • Karel Trichardt in 1838
  • Jan Viljoen, Erasmus Jacobs and Engelbrecht Viljoen, 1851
  • W H Pretorius and Stoffel Snyman in 1855.

In 1939 the Afrikaaner author Servaas Le Roux wrote "Pioneers and Sportsmen of South Africa 1760-1890" (Salisbury, S. Rhodesia, 1939, published by the author and printed by The Art Printing Works). Le Roux's purpose was to highlight the discoveries of Afrikaaners, but on p119 he wrote: "I have no hesitation in saying, after many years of careful investigation of the claims of all the possible visitors to the Falls before Livingstone, that there are no grounds whatsoever for believing that anyone but Livingstone was the first European to see them". So I suggest that if anyone else wants to put in any material claiming DL was not the first European at the falls they should first put it here on the talk page saying who, when and what the reference is so that it can be discussed before being put in the article. Rexparry sydney 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that Swedish historian Christer Blomstrand in 2004 unearthed a map in the archives of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. Drawn by Swedish explorer and trader Charles John Andersson, it is the first known map of northern Namibia. It was drawn in 1852 during Andersson's expedition with British scientist Francis Galton. The map includes Victoria Falls, identified by its indigenous name of Mosi-oa-tunya, and predates Livinstone's visit to the falls by a few years! Tendrody (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC) <Blomstrand, Christer: Two Early Maps of Southern Africa - A Discovery in Sweden; Macmillan Namibia, 2008>[reply]

Picture of turists swimming to their deaths[edit]

What is this picture about? Is this practice endorsed by the authorities? Unfortunately, I've never been at the Victoria Falls (yet), but I've been at the Iguazu Falls and I know that tourists have died at its bottom when their authorities-sanctioned boat trips went wrong, etc. I mean, I don't see the point of showing dangerous conduct in order to depict the natural beauty of the place. Are we being responsible enough, considering Wikipedia's young audience? Aldo L (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo is authentic, it should remain. Wikipedia is not censored. Individuals are allowed to do stupid things. —EncMstr 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relatively safe practice that is actively being advertised by travel agents and websites. I could not find any news article of people dying by going over the edge. This of course does not make it proof of being safe. It is however one of the major attractions when going to Victoria Falls. It is only done during the low water season to ensure relative safety. If your objection due to a danger factor, please keep in mind some of the other attractions apart from the falls themselves at Victoria falls :
  • White Water Rafting
  • Bungi Jumping
  • Abseil, rap jump, zip line, and gorge swinging
  • Helicopter flights
  • Microglider rides
  • Elephant back safari
  • Walk with young lions
  • Tandem skydiving
You may notice all these are relativity safe as well.Bain (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming in the pool is allowed for about 4 months of the year when the river is low. No one has died doing this. Yes people do occasionally fall off the falls when to close to the edge but its NEVER happened at Devils pool despite the article saying it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.124.125 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the idiot who said 'PLZZZ ADD CLIMATE'[edit]

Do your own research! Wikipedia is not your personal on-demand information source. If it's there, it's there. If not, find it and put it there. People like this contribute to Wikipedia's lack of general acceptance by many members of academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.232.245 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Continental/Country maps to locate features[edit]

The latitude and longitude coordinates are very useful, but the depiction of a location within a larger context is valuable, as well. Thanks to anyone that can help with this. HomeBuilding 70.130.33.25 (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media section[edit]

I suggest incorporating the media withn the article itself like the pictures rather than having a section all by itself    Juthani1   tcs 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone gone over it and lived?[edit]

like in a barrel or whatever? TCO (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. However, I have heard of many who have fallen into the falls and died, their bodies only being recovered much later (days to weeks) at either the 'Boiling pot' or kilometers downstream.--Drsjlazar (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Many' have not fallen of the falls. About 1 every 2 years. Others have jumped or fallen into the gorge. I have lived there 20 years and know of only about 5 people that have gone over the actual falls.

No one has gone over and lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.124.125 (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old drift link[edit]

The Old drift link links to a page about glacial morainic landscapes not about the Geographic location in Zimbabwe or Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 07:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Largest in the World???[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tallest waterfall by far is Angel Falls since it is one kilometer tall. According to the table in this page, Iguazu is longer and sees a larger flow. So, where does the claim of "The Largest in the World" come from? Javierggt (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC) dunnno[reply]

--68.146.38.146 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The article has some rationalizations for it, but I'm not sure they hold water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the biggest single, coherant drop (Niagara and Iguazu are divided), and has the highest volume for such a waterfall (Angel Falls has only a fraction).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given those qualifications, it would qualify. Angel and Niagara obviously do not, no matter how you slice it. Angel is tallest, but it's just a creek spilling over a high ledge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old drift link[edit]

The Old drift link links to a page about glacial morainic landscapes not about the Geographic location in Zimbabwe or Zambia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Babakathy (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah wood[edit]

No one bothered to mention Elijah wood on this page, and yet on his own bio page...states he crossed the victoria falls. Majinsnake (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a reliable source I don't see why this is worth including. Zarcadia (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was widespread coverage I could see including this in a section similar to Niagara Falls#Walks. --NeilN talk to me 23:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was not moved. As noted, the current title is the common name used to refer to this topic in English language reliable sources and we give little weight to official names.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Falls → Mosi-oa-Tunya – I have, 9 years later, moved the page from Victoria Falls (or so I tried). The government of Zimbabwe has indicated that it shall rename the falls to "Mosi-oa-Tunya" (source). In Zambia, the falls are already referred to as such (source). It seems to be fairly Bad faith to continue using the phrase "Victoria Falls" when it is neither the official name nor the local name. Even the page for Burma/Myanmar's largest city is Yangon, not Rangoon.

This is not about "colonialism" or the relative merits of Queen Victoria or Robert Mugabe, it is about the common and official names. Although I cannot help but feel there is something disconcerting about people feeling entitled to determine what things ought to be called in contravention to the relevant authorities and people themselves. But if one wants to bring up the example of Burma, it is that there is controversy over what the country is to be called in English and between Burmans. This is quite different, there is no one (of relevance) claiming the falls should be called "Victoria Falls" and there is no authority that refers to it as such. The article should at least follow suit.

In the event of a changed name "general English language sources" obviously cannot apply because the name is new (furthermore Mosi-oa-Tunya is the English name). Furthermore, unlike an example of Nelspruit, there is, as said before, no real opposition. The usage will change. I recall how quick Wikipedia was, far quicker than any other impartial news source, to start referring to Bradley Manning as Chelsea Manning despite no common usage, and no legal basis to the name. If that is the standard that such a high-profile name change can pass scrutiny for, it certainly should here. Simfan34 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I added to your talk page before tossing out accusations of bad faith. --NeilN talk to me 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. --Simfan34 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – WP follows common usage, not official renaming. When the new name becomes widely used we can consider changing the article. In the mean time, the article should mention the renaming, but not move to follow it. If you recall the Manning case, you should know that the quick change was reverted until after the new name caught on widely in the press. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer decision – If both state parties (Zambia and Zimbabwe) officially refer to the site as Mosi-oa-Tunya, then that is a very powerful argument to change the title. But as yet Zimbabwe has not gazetted any change of name and officially still refers to the falls, town and National Park as VF. Currently some statements have been made by the president and various politicians but no action has been taken by government to change the names. Wait. Babakathy (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Common name in English-language reliable sources is Victoria Falls. It's irrelevant what a government wants to call it as we are not obliged to use an official name. Zarcadia (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, wait. Once the name change is official, universally accepted, *and* in common usage, then you will have an argument for moving the article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we do not break news. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per too soon. A search of Google News indicates Victoria Falls is the common name by far right now. This situation seems similar to Mumbai which was officially renamed by the government in 1995 but Wikipedia's article title changing in 2005. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that speedy and undiscussed move of the Manning article was reverted after a lengthy discussion and only reinstated after yet another long-winded discussion. Why? Because we follow reliable sources. Red Slash 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The smoke that thunders" indeed[edit]

I object to the translation of "Mosi-oa-Tunya" as "The smoke that thunders" because it's not idiomatic, is not how names of things are generally formed in English, and sounds too much like Bwana-speak. Why not just translate it as "Heap big smoke loud boom-boom" and be done with it for cryen out loud.

When things are named in English, by native English speakers, "The X that Y" is very rare (I can't think of any examples, in fact.)

The literal meaning of the individual words in ""Mosi-oa-Tunya", whatever they are, are not important. Translation is not done word-by-word. When I read a translation of an Albanian novel, I want to read "Dutch jammed his gun barrel against the teller's forehead", not "Dutch against the teller's head top pushed his gun tube", notwithstanding that the original Albanian sentence might have been formed that way.

If I discovered (let's say) a geological formation consisting of a hot rock (and I wanted the name to convey that quality), I would name it "Burning Rock" and not "The Rock that Burns" because that's how English speakers roll. On the same principle, the idiomatic translation of "Mosi-oa-Tunya" should be "Thundering Smoke". "The smoke that thunders" simply reinforces the otherness of the people who named it, and not just otherness but, by implication, lack of sophistication.

I mean, I can translate "Je, si kushughulikia kwamba, rafiki yangu; ni haramu" as "Don't handle that, my friend; it's forbidden" or "Bwana! No touch! Taboo!". Which translation makes the speaker sound smarter, and which makes him sound like an ignorant savage? Same deal is in play here, granted a lot more subtly.

I reluctantly haven't made this change (although I propose to absent objection) because as we see here it's not just a Wikipedia problem. Reliable sources are mostly ignorant and unthinkingly blockheaded too. How much we're obligated to follow reliable sources in mistranslating things to make local people sound like illiterate savages ought to be an open question, though. Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection having been raised over the eight-year window allowed, I have gone ahead and made this change.

caves in the falls?[edit]

I was browsing google earth and browsed the 360 images of the Zambia side of the east end of the falls. It showed that during low river levels there may be caves in the cliff but that it may not be possible to get to those caves. anybody care to comment on this? are they caves or simply dark squarish, smooth lined spots on the side of the cliffs? these spots have perfect right angles, straight sides and top/bottoms leading one to think they were carved out and not from natural erosion patterns. 24.29.193.138 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs more references[edit]

There are paragraphs without citations in the following sections:

  • Size
  • Formation
  • Pre-colonial history
  • Zambia's independence and Rhodesia's UDI
  • Tourism in recent years

Please add references before removing the maintenance tag. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria 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:

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) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Victoria Falls, Zambia[edit]

I think the renaming of the article from Victoria Falls to Victoria Falls, Zambia is ill-advised. The falls lie between Zambia and Zimbabwe, this change of name seems to imply that the falls "belong" to Zambia and not Zimbabwe. I do understand the problem of disambiguation but the falls in Scotland Victoria Falls, Wester Ross are not well known. The falls in Africa certainly are the Primary Topic and all the other uses of Victoria Falls need to be qualified. I would like the present page Victoria Falls, Zambia to be returned to be Victoria Falls and the the page presently Victoria Falls moved to Victoria Falls (disambiguation) Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. This water feature is the prime usage of the term, and is never referred to with a qualifier. IdreamofJeanie (talk)
After discussion with Fsmatovu, I agree that Victoria Falls, Zambia may not be the best title. The (African) waterfall has a good claim to being the primary topic, with ten times more page views and incoming links than the town. I was responsible for sneaking the Scottish waterfall into the dab, and I agree that it's much less important. Certes (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all,how about Victoria Falls (waterfall)? Fsmatovu 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
On further reflection, I concur with Wayne Jayes. Let us do it. Fsmatovu 20:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Victoria Falls (disambiguation) exists but can safely be overwritten as it's a redirect to the falls with no history. Certes (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the undiscussed move and returned the page to its stable title per WP:RMUM. If necessary, please initiate a move request through WP:RM to see if there is consensus for moving the page to another title. The disambiguation page is at Victoria Falls (disambiguation). Dekimasuよ! 22:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is absolutely no call for titling this article anything other than Victoria Falls. Except in a couple of rare and limited contexts, the waterfall is what everyone means when they say or write the phrase Victoria Falls. The situation is roughly parallel to that of Niagara Falls, which also needs no disambiguation in its title (although in that case there are a couple of sizable cities bearing the name). RivertorchFIREWATER 17:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of paragraph on drainage history[edit]

This addition is really interesting. I've been trying without success to source it, and I've tagged its first sentence in the meantime. I found several good sources, including a couple of PDFs 1 2, and this article, which is detailed and seems sensible (I'm not quite sure it's an RS), but I was unable to verify the content per se. Pinging User:Lumos3. Do you have a reference we could add? RivertorchFIREWATER 03:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources.The main story is in the Botswana governments tourist guide, and this is backed up by scholarly journals. Lumos3 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Victoria Falls[edit]

It is already stated near the top of the lede that the falls are located on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe. I suggest "Border between Zambia and Zimbabwe" is a reasonable description for the location parameter in the infobox. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to use this article as source for location: Makuvaza, S. 2012. Who Owns the Special Area at Victoria Falls World Heritage Site? Political, Organizational and Governmental Interests. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 3(1): 42-63. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Falls&oldid=1193954193"