Talk:River Mahon

Improvements needed

Information that could be added:

The source and references

The course of the river in more detail

align to the style and content of other similar size rivers

Munstertom (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy unhelpful edits

Firstly ... It hadn't "been a day" less than that. I am an amateur volunteer trying to build knowledge and experience in this area.

Secondly - I was in the middle of editing as you could probably see - I had added the infobox, and was adding more information.

Thirdly - "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it."

I think I will work on a version of this offline. I am reminded of the "motivational speech" from the movie Office Space. I am now starting to think how to frame my edits so they are not dumped on by one particular experienced editor.

Feeling demovitated.

Munstertom (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. While I am sorry to hear you are "feeling demotivated":

1. Mine were not "speedy" edits. I noted you added uncited text (and tagged it yourself as such) at around 12:00 yesterday. I decided to give time for you (or someone else) to add the required refs. And I left it until ~11:00 today (23 hours later) to summarise the uncited text. 23 hours later is not "speedy".
2. "hadn't 'been a day' less than that". 23 hours is, indeed, less than a day. But it is "a day or so". Which is what I said in my EDSUM.
3. "I was in the middle of editing". There had been no edits, in the prior 22 hours, before I removed the uncited text. You restored it, without explanation, relatively speedily however. Within 8 minutes. Without providing a ref.
4. "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself". Yes. Editors are encouraged to "Preserve appropriate content". Which I did. I retained the "there are various walking trails [here is one of them]" text. I wasn't inclined, however, to retain the "as detailed below" text (as it is instructional editoral not in keeping with the related guidelines). Or the "In Kilmacthomas there is a path alongside the river" text. As it wasn't clear what path was in question or how encyclopedically relevant it was/is. If there are refs covering this, feel free to add them yourself.

Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Height of the Mahon Falls

Most sources list the height of the Mahon Falls at 80m, however some sources refer to 300m and the drop down the side of the coum is over 200m.

I think we should describe the Mahon Falls as a series of drops and cascades including some of 80m, but I don't want to Synth or OR

Thoughts? Munstertom (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. We should definitely avoid OR and SYNTH. However, as it stands, the 80m number isn't supported by a ref. You note that "Most sources list the height of the Mahon Falls at 80m". Which sources are those? And, working from the refs forward, we can figure out how to reflect those sources? Guliolopez (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.discoverireland.ie/waterford/scenic-area-mahon-falls 80m

https://www.alltrails.com/trail/ireland/county-waterford/top-of-mahon-falls 80m waterfall

https://www.theirishroadtrip.com/things-to-do-in-waterford-this-weekend/ 80m

and so on...

Books that I am reading on the area do not mention the height specifically ...

What is the best way to accurately cite the height of the falls? Munstertom (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that the sources (all seemingly reliable and all seemingly in agreement), just describe it as "an 80m waterfall", then I expect that's what we should do. "The main drop of Mahon Falls is 80m". Or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)