Seventy-six rivers and creeks of at least 50 miles (80 km) in length flow through or entirely within Oregon. I am nominating a sortable list of these streams for featured status because, in addition to meeting the criteria, it is unique and might serve as a model for similar lists for other states. I could not have completed this list without a lot of help from others. Little Mountain 5, the co-nominator, created the map and found many missing bits of data that eluded me. When we had gone as far as we could, Kmusser and Pfly tracked down the rest of the missing data in national GIS datasets. Ruhrfisch, whose List of tributaries of Larrys Creek served as a good model of a stream list, contributed high-value advice before and during a peer review. H1nkles also helped with a peer review, and Shannon1 helped with advice on the article's talk page and created a sidebar article, Cow Creek (Oregon), that turned one of the list's red links into a working link. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Support - as noted above, I peer reviewed this and find it more than meets the FL criteria. I am already working on research for a similar article for Pennsylvnaia streams. Very well done and a nice example of collaboration, Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words and support as well as your PR and earlier help. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments (all minor, and I didn't participate in the PR, so apologies if I cover already-covered ground)
Not sure you need to force the bold lead, especially as it means a quick repeat of Oregon just so you can link it sooner rather than later.
Good point. Yes, I forced the syntax a bit, thank you. I have removed the bolding and slightly modified the next sentence to avoid repeating "Oregon". Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I might be slow (and I am tired) but are the lengths quoted the absolute total lengths or the lengths of the streams within Oregon? Like, if a stream cuts a tiny 1-foot corner of Oregon but spends the remaining 2,000 km outside, is that classed as one of the "longest streams in Oregon"?
You are not slow. I have added the word "total" to the first sentence in hopes of eliminating this ambiguity. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I added "Total" before Length in the column header too (and then Little Mountain 5 fixed my capitalization error). Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Malheur Lake is linked only once (e.g.) and as it's a sortable table, it should be linked every time. Same with anything like this.
Quite right. Thank you for catching this. I have now added links throughout that entire column. I wasn't sure whether or not to link Pacific Ocean, but I went ahead and did it. If you think that violates WP:OVERLINK, I can remove the ocean links. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Map is a bit of an issue in that it says "Major cities are shaded in pink." and (even though I think I'm just mildly colour-blind), I find it hard to see these, and I'm sure this fails WP:ACCESS by denoting something with colour only...
I should confer with Little Mountain 5 about this one. My thought is that we could simply delete the pink areas and not mention the cities at all. Would that solve the problem? Finetooth (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the inclusion criteria (i.e. which stream is considered long?)
Any stream that flows at all within Oregon and has a total length of at least 50 miles (80 km) has been included in the list. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And why 50 miles (80 km)? Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The choice is arbitrary, but it was also thoughtful and deliberate. I first intended to include all of the streams that are 25 miles (40 km) or longer. I picked 25 and not something like 23 or 27 because 25 seemed easier to remember and somehow more natural. Well into the project, I realized that the list was going to be so long that it would grossly exceed 100 kilobytes, which I consider to be the practical upper limit for Wikipedia articles. I cut back to 40 miles (64 km), and eventually, with a lot of help, compiled a complete list. The data for all of those that did not make the cut is on the talk page of the article. There are 21 streams of 40 to 50 miles (64 to 80 km) in length that flow wholly or partly in Oregon. Eleven of them appear in the sortable table on the talk page, and the other 10 are in the "new finds" list further down on the talk page. I did not want to discard the work that had gone into these additional 21, but we could think of no way to include them in the main list without making it monstrously big and clumsy. In addition, we noted that 50 miles (80 km) has a nice memorable symmetry in that the tidy 50 converts to the tidy 80. After deliberation, that's what we settled on. Finetooth (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not like (that was a bit strong) am not keen on the gallery, and they are generally discouraged unless they really add something.
I'm sorry you do not like it. I agree that galleries are generally discouraged. It seems to me that in this case the gallery contains information that is not possible to convey in words alone. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What don't you like about it? We've been trying to get it right for a while now... LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If a gallery is used, they usually go in the end of the article, as the list of streams is what it's really about (and more important than the images). Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that galleries are often misused and are generally discouraged. I have often pointed that out to editors during peer reviews. However, galleries are not banned outright, and they can be effective if used with good reason and judiciously. I also agree with you that the usual place for galleries is at or near the bottoms of articles. However, this also is not an ironclad rule. The choice depends on the context and what the images are intended to convey. The placing of images is something that the group of editors who worked on this list gave some thought to. We tried a panel of four placed above the list, a panel of eight placed above the list, and a panel of four placed below the list, before settling on the panel of six above the list. The was the combination that looked best to us and that included images of the Columbia and Snake, the two longest streams. WP:IG has gallery guidelines; in one place it suggests looking at 1750–1795 in fashion as an example of a good use of galleries. The galleries in that article are placed where they are most useful, not stuck at the bottom as a kind of afterthought. The decision about where to place images is in part subjective, and it's natural that different people have different subjective tastes. All I can say is that the editors who worked on the list didn't entirely or immediately agree on the images or where to put them, but we reached consensus, and we don't think our consensus violates any Wikipedia rules. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the coordinates have a globe next to them, some doesn't?
They all have a globe next to them on my computer screen. I'm not sure what could cause them not to appear on yours, but I suspect it has something to do with the size of the article. Does anybody reading this know the cause or what to do about it? Finetooth (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what could cause that; they all show up for me. Probably the list's massive size. LittleMountain5 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In Internet Explorer on my computer not all of the coordinates have globes - Mozilla Firefox shows them all. I suspect it is a size of the list in IE issue. Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I am using IE aswell so might just be a browser thing. Sandman888 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
are all of the creeks really notable?
Yes. The fact that we were able to find the data, published by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, establishes their notability. That is to say, outside experts find them notable. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
what's the source for cities shaded in pink and how large is "major"?
These are good questions. Thank you. "Major" is vague, and we have not provided a source. I am thinking of recommending to Little Mountain 5 that we remove the pink from the map and not mention cities at all. Does this seem like a good solution? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Support though I wd like gallery in bottom (if you must have it) and prefer the title to be "List of streams of..." avoiding longest. That would open for complete lists of streams of oregon to be recorded. Eventually. Sandman888 (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support. Just as an aside, I'll mention that there is a List of rivers of Oregon (probably mis-named). It is already quite big, and the Oregon project's hope is that someday it will be a complete list of named streams (creeks, sloughs, etc., as well as rivers) in Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Support and comment/question I trust that the red links will be blue soon. Is the body of water in southeast Oregon Donner und Blitzen as it says on the map or is that a typo? Lovely galleries. I am a fan. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was right, I just wanted to make sure. I suppose I could've checked myself. Another question that I forgot from earlier. Is there a reason why you have so many links to the same rivers, specifically the Snake and the Columbia in the table. I think one link to each river in the table should do the trick, but that's up to you. Other users might call it overlinking and get fussy about it. Dincher (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. It would be a neat trick if a sortable table could automatically make the link closest to the top the only link in the table for the particular article. I imagine it could be done, but certainly not me. Dincher (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Support; as I paged down I was thinking, "Surely there'll be a map, right...?" and then there was, and it was of such high quality I nearly applauded. Seriously. And as Dincher, supporting on the assumption that the redlinks will be fixed. Good job, Oregon project :) --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words and support. Little Mountain 5 gets all the credit for the map. Finetooth (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm flattered, thank you! :) (Finetooth gets all the credit for having the idea for the map.) LittleMountain5 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
*Question would it be possible to have an extra column with the length within the state? The map might be more useful if used near the intro. Also, it is quite unusual to have a gallery before the table. Why is the "Remarks" section not named "Source"? It is a really nice list otherwise. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
An extra column would certainly be possible, but it would take a lot more work; I don't think there are many reliable sources for that kind of information. (We could barely find the total lengths for some of the streams, let alone how much of them are in Oregon!) I think the map is a bit too large to move farther up... it would look odd. Thoughts? And yes, the gallery is unusual, but does it look bad where it is? We've been trying to fit the pictures in somewhere, without them all being lumped in one place. The 'remarks' section should probably be renamed to 'location', or something similar (the mouth location is also included). Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Nergaal. I agree with Little Mountain 5 about the extra column, the map, and the gallery. However, you make a good point about "Remarks", which I originally meant as a catch-all. It turned out to have only two kinds of information, source and mouth. Would "Source and mouth" be better than "Remarks"? Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I boldly changed the column head to "Source and mouth locations". Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of a whole column, why don't you add a third row to the two coordinate columns. I don't think having the exact length within Oregon for all of the streams is necessary, but if the last column is moved to the coordinates ones, then it would allow for some extra space: here you could have the exact length for say the first 20 ones (the ones above 100 miles) while for the other ones it would suffice to say either "all within Oregon" or "only partially within Oregon". If you cannot find even the length of the say first 20 ones, then at least take a look at the map, and color all the length boxes with some color for the rivers that are not completely within Oregon; even then, the first two tough should have the actual (at least approximative) length within Oregon as a footnote. The gallery is a bit unrelated as is, so try to at least add some informative caption such as "Snake River (the second longest river in Oregon) in Hells Canyon"; otherwise the pictures don't add much to the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
One more little thing: having some 15 red links is a bit much for a FL. Try to fix at least a few of them. Nergaal (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. Changing the list in the ways you mention might be possible but, in my opinion, would not make the list more readable or useful. It is already possible to look at the map to see which streams cross state borders, and, as Little Mountain 5 has said, we know of no reliable source that breaks the stream lengths down by state. As for the gallery and the red links, we have already discussed these matters above. We like the gallery we have, and we are working on the red links, but it will take time to create useful articles on all of the remaining ones. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is not to look at the map and guess which one is within the state, but to have that information provided... by a featured list! I have provided a model for the Columbia entry. As for the breaking down by state, I am sure that if you look (i.e. google) both Columbia and Snake have such sources for their length within Oregon. Redlinks: if the creeks do not deserve an article then do not link them; if they do, at least provide a redirect the the relevant mouth or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but is this (break down by state) absolutely necessary? We already have source and mouth location information that provide details about which state each stream begins and ends in. And—not to be harsh—we are most likely never going to be able to figure out the how much of the streams are in Oregon. (Maybe the Columbia and Snake, but what good would that do?) As for the redlinks, Shannon1, Finetooth, and I have written at least eight nice articles, and more are coming. I think all the streams deserve an article; but, as Finetooth said above, it takes time. I've redirected the forks to their parent streams for the time being. Cheers, LittleMountain5 14:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing Nergaal's latest comments, I realized that I had not understood the colored boxes suggestion but thought it referred to coloring bits of the map again. I've now colored the appropriate nine boxes and added the special symbol, which I assume is to allow the key to work for people who can't see the color of the boxes. In the course of doing that, I noticed that we had not mentioned in the right-hand column that the Applegate River starts in California. I added that bit of information. Also, I noticed that the map shows the Illinois starting in northern California, but, although its forks start there, the main stem begins in Oregon. Little Mountain 5, could you tweak the map accordingly? Thanks for the suggestion, Nergaal, and for showing how it's done. The example was necessary for me to see what you were getting at. Finetooth (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not notice the coloring/symbols example before my last comment; I like it. (Thanks Nergaal!) Tweaking the map in progress, nice catch. LittleMountain5 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The Illinois is now shorter. :) LittleMountain5 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Little Mountain 5. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep about the color scheme. I hate when I the editors refuse to do the work, but here is the reference for how much of Columbia and Snake are within Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/DSL/NAV/navigwaterways.shtml. You should consider using it for other of the rivers. Another thing: I counted 12 rivers not completely within Oregon, but only 11 are colored now. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The 11 are Columbia River, Snake River, Walla Walla River, Grand Ronde River, Succor Creek, Jordan Creek, Owyhee River, Applegate River, Klamath River, Lost River, and Cow Creek. The 12th was probably the Illinois (unless I have missed one), which was a minor error on the map and has now been corrected. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The source you cite, Nergaal, for the Columbia and Snake lengths within Oregon is a good one for checking the navigable lengths of Oregon streams. Since the Columbia and Snake are likely navigable for their entire lengths within Oregon, those numbers would be correct for the total lengths within Oregon. However, none of the other nine streams on the list of 11 are navigable for their full lengths (if at all). Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We red-linked all of the streams in order to encourage editors to expand the encyclopedia. All of the streams in the list deserve articles, and, as we have said above, we are working to create them. Would it be better for us to delete the red links from the article and simply maintain a private list? Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, Nergaal, I have added position data to each of the image captions. Is this better? Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Support once you add the two notes to the Columbia and Snake. Everything else looks nice, and the position in the images looks good. The 12th one that you missed is Cow Cr. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank your for your advice and support. Meanwhile, with the help of Ruhrfisch, we have created stub or start articles for all of the remaining red links except Catlow Valley, which I unlinked as unlikely to have an article any time soon. All of the links in the article are now blue. Also, before noticing your support, I decided to try to reach consensus on the gallery location by moving it to near the bottom. If somebody reverses that decision, I don't mind. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)\
I have added the notes about the Columbia and the Snake. Finetooth (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I added the URL for the ref used in the Columbia and Snake notes, and was bold and moved the gallery back to the top as I thought the gallery and panorama together looked bad (poor layout). Ruhrfisch><>°° 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Much obliged on both counts. Using your calculation and Nergaal's source, I have added a note giving the length of the Klamath River inside Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ucucha. I switched the source to BC Geographical Names, which gives the same coordinates for the lake as the Canadian national database. I don't know why the larger site wigs out from time to time, but the provincial one seems stable. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)