Jump to content

Talk:Cliffs of Moher

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

Trivia section

[edit]

Please do not remove the trivia section. Yes, it currently has only one entry under it, but The Princess Bride is a very well known movie (at least in the US), and the Cliffs of Insanity are very famous cliffs in the movie. I did not know until I read this article (prior to the removal of the trivia section) that the Cliffs of Moher were the Cliffs of Insanity, and I was very glad to find this out. So, if you feel this particular piece of information would be better seated under a section other than "Trivia", feel free to move it and remove the (then empty) trivia section. However, please do not remove this information entirely again. The Wilschon 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

[edit]

While the guidelines speak to the possible value of this section, we need to be careful that it doesn't grow out of control and get undue weight. In particular we need to be careful that "fleeting mentions" in pop culture don't expand this section too much. Any such mentions are generally symptomatic of (rather than contributory to) a subject's notability, and so best avoided. Also need to make sure proper refs are provided for any existing mentions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism

[edit]

To say that the commercialization of the cliffs blends in naturally with the surroundings is utter garbage. The entire top of the cliffs overlaid with several meters wide concreted area, there are literally millions of tourists there and it really can't be called a beauty spot any more. there should be a large section on the current state of the cliffs, the commercialization, the atrocious access roads and the fact that anything natural is hard to spot through the concrete! 212.147.132.92 08:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTGUIDE

[edit]

I have tempered the worst of the offending text, but this article still has many issues under the WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NPOV guidelines. As the anon above comments, the statements about the impact of the visitor centre (and the visitors) on the cliffs reads less like an encyclopaedic explanation and more like an advertisement. In fact, it has the appearance of representing the POV of the developers of operators. Without suggesting that the tourist facilities at the cliffs should be dealt with in either a purely "dry" fashion, or as part of some kind of "pros and cons" discursive debate, it CERTAINLY should deal with the facts without subjective terms like "spectacular", "impressive", "carefully-balanced approach", "meticulous planning", etc.

I've also tempered some of the use of "one can do" and "you can see" type language. Per WP:YOU this goes against the MOS. It is better (and easier) to say "visitors can", etc. I may come back to this article at some point and do a more complete review, but attention really needs to be paid to this kind of tourist board/guidebook style stuff. Guliolopez (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Conflict

[edit]

Note that on the description of U2's No Line on the Horizon, it is asserted that the cover art was actually a photo of the Lake of Constance (Bodensee) rather than the Atlantic Ocean from the cliffs.

Retford (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Retford[reply]

Agreed. I'm taking it out. Seems to be pretty well documented that the U2 album art is not Sugimoto's Cliffs of Moher shot, but a different shot of Lake Constance.[1][2] (Sugimoto has a work which features the sea from the cliffs, but this doesn't look like the one U2 used).[3][4] Guliolopez (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGALLERY

[edit]

The "gallery" section in this article is growing too big. Per the relevant guidelines, images should be used to illustrate the text only, and extensive galleries of related images should be left to Commons. (That's what Commons is for). Unless there is a specific "exception" that I'm not seeing here (that would warrant a dozen+ slightly variant images of the same subject), then I'm going to remove the gallery entirely. Guliolopez (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. It's been 2 months since my note above, and in the absence of any other ideas, I've gone ahead and culled those gallery images which don't appear to represent a unique view or representation of the cliffs. (Frankly I think the whole gallery could go under WP:IG - but have stopped short of removing entirely). Guliolopez (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added additional view of cliffs, class project Pink.C2021 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure what the goal of the "class project" is, but if it's to "add additional views [to articles]", then perhaps consider focusing on articles which don't already have well over a dozen views/images already. Per WP:NOTGALLERY and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, there is such a thing as having too many images. (MOS:IMAGES; "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting".) Guliolopez (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting! It was not my intention to cause a disturbance or issue on this page, but your commenting and questioning my image addition has actually helped prove my point in my college course on Digital Stewardship. I was assigned to add an image to an article and discuss my experience with this. Your comment/question on my addition has supported the argument that Wikipedia is not filled with false information or easily tampered with despite what many people think. Instead you have helped me prove that Wikipedia and its editors are using ideal digital stewardship practices as they keep information accountable and concise! Prior to my addition I did see the discussion here about wanting to limit the number of photos. I recognize that my photo is very similar to others. Still, I added it to fulfill the first part of my assignment. I never meant to cause a disturbance or issue on this page and I apologize. I am turning my assignments in tomorrow. Please delete this image if you feel it is in the best interest of the article. Pink.C2021 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. OK Pink.C2021. I've removed the image. I may not be understanding the goal of the college course or this particular course project, but you may want to highlight (for the course administrators) that editors aren't expected to edit as a way of proving a point or hypothesis and that editors aren't expected to edit for the purpose of impressing parties outside of Wikipedia. If someone has asked you (or implied to you) that edits should be made ("without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't"), purely as a means of testing or proving Wikipedia's content policies and controls, then you might want to highlight the project's editing policies and controls for them. The community is here to build an encyclopedia. The community is not here to be guinea pigs in some college experiment. Certainly I'm not. Thanks all the same. Guliolopez (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highest cliffs in Europe?

[edit]

I visited the Cliffs of Moher many years ago and was told (or maybe I read it there) that the cliffs are the highest in Europe. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, it would be worth adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmagiles (talk • contribs) 09:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Moher cliffs are high and the vertical drop dramatic, they are not the highest in Europe. (Enniberg on the Faroe islands, or Hornelen or other fjord cliffs in Norway are much higher). Moher isn't even the highest sea cliffs in Ireland. (While not as "vertical", several sites in Mayo are higher - like Achill or Benwee Head). So, in short, no, that shouldn't be added here. Guliolopez (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not by far the highest in Europe. But I will believe that they are the best accessible and the most sacrificed-to-tourism cliffs in Europe. But at least the Slieve League in Donegal and Croaghaun on Achill Island, Mayo are higher (checked by WP:OR). The Banner talk 00:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cliffs of Moher. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cliffs of Moher. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

The Cliffs of Moher are actually closer to Liscannor than to Lahinch (as noted in the box). ICE77 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refuge

[edit]

The wiki on Liscannor claims area around(?) the Cliffs is listed (since 1988) as a Refuge for Fauna. Can someone who understands what that means decide if it merits inclusion here? Thanks!207.155.85.22 (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entry fees

[edit]

The article contains this section:

As of 2022, the centre charges €10 per adult or €9 for students and seniors, when booked in advance online, with children under 12 admitted free. This covers parking, access to the visitor centre and Atlantic Edge exhibition, and a contribution towards conservation and safety at the cliffs.[15]

I have severe doubts about this. For an article about the cliffs, the entry fees seem utterly irrelevant. WP:NOTATOURISTGUIDE. The Banner talk 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the detail is too specific, and can age too easily, but the fact that the centre charges has been much-covered, and is worth mentioning. SeoR (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cliffs_of_Moher&oldid=1206722158"