Talk:Kakabeka Falls

Canada: Ontario / Geography C‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Rivers C‑class 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Waterfalls task force.

Could Kakabeka have a different meaning in the Ojibway language, other than "steep cliffs" as suggested here? At Saint Anthony Falls, the Ojibway used the term Kakabikah (the severed rock)...

That seems to be more descriptive of this falls. W W 00:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Kakabeka Falls Provincial Park here[edit]

I propose to merge Kakabeka Falls Provincial Park here. This article on the falls covers its physical features, surroundings, history, and other info. A separate Park article has hardly any more info that can't be included here. And since the park itself is all about the falls, it is an overlap. -- P199 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is only enough material for one article covering the falls, the village and the park. Keep [[Kakabeka Falls] Provincial Park in the category Parks in Ontario, but link only to Kakabeka Falls.BrentS 00:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, articles are about different things (falls for the geographical feature, provincil park about the park, it could incorporate information about ecology, tourist numbers, etc). --Qyd 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct but as noted above the Park article will never have enough info just on the park itself. In the event that lots of park info is added (highly unlikely seeing other park articles), then we can split it. -- P199 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the merge, it would make more sense to just have one article rather than two fairly thin ones. -- User:Canuckman55 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge completed as per above. -- P199 14:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major revision[edit]

I re-wrote the article, expanding on the sections about the falls, the park, and arts related to it. The sections about Green Mantle and the paintings could be merged into one section with two subsections, but I can't quite figure out a way to do that. (Maybe tomorrow?)

I removed the portion about the generating station. I am working on a separate article about it. I also added infoboxes for the falls and the park, and added categories. I added IPA pronunciations for both Kakabeka and Gakaabikaa, however, I used the pages that each pronunciation links to to make those charts, they may be wrong. I would suggest they be revised by an expert.

I do not think that there is enough info on either the falls or the park at this time for the articles to be re-separated. I re-routed the Kakabeka Falls Provincial Park redirect to the park's section in this article.

So umm.. yeah. :)

vid 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pics in Commons from British Library[edit]

There's a number of them, I'm not sure if they're all categorized but a search for Kakabeka will find them all; here's a nice one

.Skookum1 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kakabeka 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704002118/http://www.start.ca/users/mharris/waterfalls/kakabeka-falls.html to http://www.start.ca/users/mharris/waterfalls/kakabeka-falls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kakabeka 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) 03:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]