Talk:Columbia River

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Good article Columbia River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Washington      (Rated GA-Class)
Washington portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Washington, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Washington on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Version 0.5 (Rated GA-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Old course

I'm going to try to find some info on the old course of the river, where it followed through what is now the Wilson River valley when it flowed more straight into the Pacific (at least I remember hearing that before). Aboutmovies 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AM, that would be a great addition! -Pete 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More resources for future expansion

  • Jim McDermott introduced this bill (HR 1507) in March '07, which would have the GAO and other gov't agencies study the impact of the removal of four snake river dams. The findings in the text of the resolution may be useful as citations, esp. in the Ecology & Env. section.
  • Raymond, Camela (November 2007). "The Shape of Memory", Portland Monthly. 
Article about Maya Lin's current project, the Confluence Project, enhancing state parks along the Columbia to explore its cultural history.
  • The October Portland Monthly had a relevant article, too.

-Pete 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Another suggestion I have is to look at everything you want to mention in the whole article, then make sure to describe it sequentially in the "Course" section. That way, when you mention Hanford or the Snake River, readers will have some idea or reference as to where these come along the course of the river. Of course my longest FA stream is only 22.9 miles! Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A good suggestion. Working mostly on citations right now, I"ll come back to that if nobody else does. Another thought I had is to merge List of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River into this article, which might accomplish much of what you suggest in the form of a chart. -Pete (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation for "three times size of Great Pyramid" and some other stuff here. -Pete (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for expansion

I gotta stop finding these, the work never ends! But...this 4-part OPB series is awfully cool, and probably has lots of stuff that could be used for this article, and/or related ones... http://news.opb.org/series/2007/columbia/ -Pete (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed, March 2008

I've taken another look at Ruhrfisch's comments from his/her GA review, and believe all the most significant concerns have been met. Not every single concern, but the most important ones. I'm going to re-nominate, and leave a note to Ruhrfisch requesting that he/she revisit the review if time allows. Any thoughts? (I know there are still many improvements in progress, but I don't think any of them will hold this back from GA. I'm convinced by recent comments that FA may be a little further off.) -Pete (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's definitely GA material. Excellent work, Pete (and others)!Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I will review it in the next day or so. My initial impression is also that it is quite good, but I need to carefully read and check the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I read all of the article and the talk page again and am passing it with congratulations. It is obvious much work has been done since the first GA nomination and I believe it is close to FA status. I agree that Wikipedia needs better articles on larger rivers and see this as a potential model FA. Here then are some ideas and suggestions for further improvement, as well as a few typos / things that need to be fixed.

NOTE: I removed several items that have been addressed. Ruhrfisch's full list is still preserved in /Archive3.

  • The footnote for the textbox quote from "Timothy Egan, in The Good Rain" is essentially hidden on my computer (IE) - just the very top shows - I can not tell what number it is.
  • I noted with interest the discussion of tributaries on the talk page. For FA, I think this section needs to be expanded. I think a discussion of the major tribs and a sentence or two on the smaller major tribs and a paragraph on each of the major tribs would be useful. I would also add the size of their drainage basins to the table.

Congratulations and well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian-side resources on the Columbia

turns out there's a Biodiversity Atlas underway funded by the BC Gov with the participation of Selkirk College. The main links off maps.gov.bc.ca didn't work but I found this which gives statistics on the Canadian length etc. and is a spinoff of the main project page. I don't have time to "mine" the article and add relevant contents here, but there was a need for Canadian-side citations/data so this should provide some of hte main stuff.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great find, thanks Skookum! I'll dig into it shortly (unless somebody gets there first.) -Pete (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human paleohistory

i.e. the indigenous peoples section but in ref to Kennewick Man and other early-digs/finds; I'm mostly thinking of only one addition, but I don't know where to find the citation; so many hundred years ago, IIRC about 1500BP, maybe 3000BP, there was a pottery-using culture (presumably also pottery-making but finds are marginal); buried in alluvial ash or whatever, evidently wiped out by natural disaster. Bona fide but I don't know more than that tidbit, remembered from the CHINOOK-L listserve's discussions of various things. Oh, another aboriginal name for th river was Sesotkwa or Tsesotkwa, but nobody knew which language it was from; similarly when Simon Fraser started down the Fraser it was in the hopes to prove it was the Tacoutche Tesse, the Columbia; although once again in whose language I don't know, as that's not a Carrier-looking name (ko=river) nor is it Salishan (meen/een=river). The Chinookan name that turns up is Wihml - Wimhl? - with only one vowel; whether etymologically it means "big"+"river" I don't know. Oh, there's another "ancient" dig in the upper Columbia somewhere; might be in that diversity atlas or resources connected to it...basic drift is maybe there should be an archaoelogical section; won't be large but worthwhile.

[edit] found a resource

I was looking for other stuff about elsewhere in BC and came across a Columbia Basin page on "Living Landscapes", a Royal BC Museum webproject; the Human history page looks like it has some interesting stuff but the natural history page looks like it has some material useful for this page, and for Columbia Basin. Also found this but you probably already know about it (?)Skookum1 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Icefield

Although Columbia Lake is nominally considered the headwater of the Columbia, ultimately the source is the Columbia Icefield, hence the name (as also of Mount Columbia. Which little upper tributaries exactly come from the icefiled I'll have to look at later; I had a vicious stomach flu yesterday and have to mobilate myself for errands and some fresh air right now; though this was worth mentioning, maybe someone can stitch a mention into the article on it? Also found this which if you zoom in on BC is interesting, more for the way the Fraser basin was dealt with; but useful anyway perhaps. The diverted areas shown are, from N to S, the Nechako, Bridge and Cheakamus Rivers; only Nechako changes actual basins, though, so I don't see the point, i.e. there's other basin-to-same basin diversions...I'll have to read up the backinfo on this page to se what's up with that. Not that the Whatshan is a big deal, nor Alouette Lake nor Jones Lake; usually these national-level things are complied with only a loose understanding of BC geography/history, though.....(my stock complaint, no?)_ Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] passing through the Cascades

Along with the Klamath River in southern Oregon and the Pit River in northern California, the Columbia is one of only three rivers to pass through the Cascades.

that line has always bothered me, although the exception to it I'm thinking of doesn't pass through the Cascades from one side to the other; it loops through it - the Skagit River; I guess it never crosses the divide of the Cascades, though....but is such a concept of a "divide" on a range pierced by, or spanning, the Columbia, even relevant?Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor wording issue about steamboats

I'm doing some bits of minor copyediting and am stuck on this sentence, from the Navigation section: The use of steamboats along the river, beginning in 1850... There is a footnote, to this timeline page, which phrases it "1850: Steamboats Columbia and Lot Whitcomb begin regular service on the Columbia River." The thing is there was a steamboat in regular service on the river before 1850, at least to Fort Vancouver: the Beaver (steamship), which arrived on the river in 1836. I thought about rewording the sentence The regular use of steamboats along the river..., but that isn't quite right either because the Beaver was in "regular use", even if its operations were not limited to the river. Anyway, I can't come up with a way to reword this bit, especially given the existence of the footnote, which does not mention the Beaver. So I'm just mentioning it here. It is a minor point to be sure, but symptomatic of an unfortunate US bias present in many history books and web pages. Pfly (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I put two brain cells together and solved it myself. Brain cells are sometimes hard to come by. Pfly (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work for feature article status?

So, this page has been quiet for a while, but after the last burst of activity we got it to good article status with the notion that is was near or at feature article status. Anyone interested in working for FA? I've never been involved in such a thing and would find it interesting. And I don't mean right now per se, but over the next few months perhaps? I also don't know how to go about starting such a procedure, so I thought I'd just toss the idea out. If nothing else it would be interesting to see what criticisms come out in the process. Pfly (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I'm at it, this talk page is getting long, perhaps we should archive most of it? Pfly (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pfly, I would love to work on that with you. I found the GA push took a lot of energy, and I needed a break -- but that's long ago now. I don't think it would be terribly hard. Ruhrfish left a pretty good list (see above) of what he thought it would take to get to FA, which I think is a great starting point; I actually think a lot of that work has already been done.
I'm off to breakfast, but will try to come back soon and archive the talk page -- maybe we can leave Ruhrfisch's comments at the top, to set us off in the right direction? -Pete (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help with a push. For starters, I'd like to revise the course description somewhat to include a few more specifics (river miles/kilometers and/or coordinates) about locations and to move the discharge paragraph to the bottom of the course description section. The logic of the layout part of this is: stream first, basin second. I don't think I would step on anybody's editorial toes by doing this. My impression of the overall article is that it is not far from being FA-worthy. The greatest obstacle to getting there might be the great diversity of editorial opinion that comes to bear. It seems more difficult to develop a group article about a well-known subject than to work alone on something obscure. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style now deprecates autoformatting of full dates in the main text and citations. I can run a script that will remove the autoformatting from all the dates that have been formatted with square brackets. It won't touch the autoformatting that's part of the "cite" family of templates, but if I understand the new guidelines correctly, this will be OK at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The geobox has a parameter for "nickname" and another for "other name". Should we add "Wimahl" and/or "Big River" to one of these places in the geobox? If so, which one? Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth, I think adding Wimahl to "other name" and Big River to "nickname" might be the way to go. Your points about dates and the course description are well taken -- I say "be bold" and do it! I actually think the article is ready to go -- I'm sure concerns will arise, but I think it's clearly of a quality worthy of nomination. Anyone object if I just get "bold" in that regard? -Pete (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Names are done. Dates are unlinked except those not in brackets in the "cite" family of citations. Those will be acceptable at FA and don't have to be fixed by hand. (The script does not touch them.) I need to think carefully before I tinker with the course description. Finetooth (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh curses and mutterings. I didn't quite understand the autoformatting stuff completely. I must make a few more boring tweaks, and I will. Pay no attention to me while I do this. I'll probably be scowling. Finetooth (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this particularly irritating bull by the horns. That stuff is a big pain, and your efforts are very much appreciated! -Pete (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I might have broken my record for nutty low-level fixes this time. I mis-read the fine print on the new MoS guidelines for date autoformatting consistency, and my misunderstanding caused no trouble until I got to this article. The new guidelines don't require complete autoformatting consistency within an entire article. The consistency is divided into two parts: (1) the main text autoformatting must be internally consistent and (2) the citation autoformatting must be internally consistent. What I temporarily did was to get the main text consistent as m-d-y (June 10, 2008, for example) but the citations inconsistent, some as m-d-y and some as ISO (2008-06-10, for example). My effort to hand-convert everything to m-d-y failed because although the "cite web" template will accept substitute parameters that don't autoformat, "cite book" and others do not accept these parameters gracefully. Bummer. I reverted to the only reasonable option I could think of, which was to hand-convert all the m-d-y dates in the citations to ISO. The main text dates are now all m-d-y. The citation dates are all ISO. Exceptions, if any, would be dates that I overlooked. Now the dates should be OK for FAC. If I am wrong, I will fix them again. Whatever it takes. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

As someone who doesn't have trouble (usually) editing articles with lots of markup in them, I have to say that the infobox in this article is really enormous (in the edit mode), and slightly obnoxious. To preserve ease of editing, I think it might behoove us to move the infobox in to a separate template ala Template:ColumbiaRiverInfobox or the like. Any objections? Steven Walling (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea -- I agree that it's really big and cumbersome, but hadn't thought of that solution. -Pete (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Move complete! You can edit it now at Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox. Steven Walling (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nom for FA -- no time like the present?

I have drafted a nomination for FA here: Talk:Columbia River/FAnom

Please take a look, and edit it as you see fit. I'd also love to see a number of us listed as co-nominators, so please add your name. Let's aim to submit this Wednesday. -Pete (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Before doing that, Pete, I'd run the article through PR. This was the advice you gave me on Johnson Creek, and it was good advice. Reviewers at FAC prefer to see articles that have been peer-reviewed partly because it makes their enormous task a bit easier. In my humble opinion, no amount of vetting could be too much. I still see things in the article that worry me. The orphan paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences will likely be challenged. I'm not sure that citations to Encarta will be acceptable; it would be better to replace them with citations to Loy or the USGS or other primary texts rather than derivative texts like other encyclopedias. I don't have any trouble with the new infobox template, but will it annoy reviewers who find it puzzling? Has anybody run a link checker recently? I have a nagging concern about the citations to JSTOR that require a semi-special connection to verify; I've seen a discussion of this somewhere, but I can't remember where at the moment. Taking this to PR would give us a little more time for a few more fixes and cautionary adjustments, and it will probably head off complications at FAC. In all likelihood, some of those will occur no matter what we do, but maybe we can keep the number down to single digits. And then, certainly, go for it. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Finetooth - it often helps to have a fresh set of eyes look things over before WP:FAC. I read the draft nomination and it is OK, a few points though: Featured Article Review is the process whereby current FAs that may no longer meet FA criteria are either fixed up or delisted (it is a common mistake to confuse the two - see WP:FAR); I would decide ahead of time who the nominators are - there are six editors with 20 or more edits (see this, not that all have to be nominators); I understand the last sentence, but am not sure what it has to do with this article at FAC - it might be good to add model articles that are FA that this follows (and dwarfs ;-) ) or to mention that it follows the WikiProject Rivers and WP:WIAFA guidelines. I would also have someone check the images and have Ealdgyth check the refs before FAC. User:Moni3 did an amazing job on the Everglads series of articles and would be a good peer reviewer, I think. I would also be glad to take a look, but am somewhat familiar with the article at this point. I would also run the FAC link checker and dab checker on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe all the eyes on this reduced the need for PR, but respect what you both say. Should I put in the request? You guys? Sorry about the confusion of "FAR" -- please feel free to make edits like that, and the others you suggest, directly to the draft nom…or rewrite from scratch, if mine isn't the right foundation. -Pete (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you would put in the PR request, Pete, that would be good. I'd prefer to work more-or-less in the background on this one as a helper and dust-mouse chaser. (My high edit count is misleading because almost all of it came from meddling with citations. I had nothing to do with the hard work and research that produced most of the article.) After the PR request is in, you might have someone you'd like to approach on the PR volunteer list. If not, I wouldn't mind asking User:Moni3. I realize that I just made a lot of changes to the "Course" section, but I have no plans for the other sections. Meanwhile, I'll try to find another source for the Encarta data and run the link checker. I've never run the dab checker, so I'll probably give that a try. Is there anything else you'd like me look into or do? Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>The half-dozen or so dabs are fixed. "Homestead" was one of them, and nothing on the dab seemed to explain what the word means in this context. My solution was to unlink. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would Wiktionary:homestead work? Linked as homestead, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the dab checker..is that a program you download, or a script..? I submitted the PR nom, so if you want to ask Moni to take a look, go to it! I'm not sure if there's a policy forbidding links that require login -- it's something I've wondered before. The citations should be fine either way; if somebody insists that we unlink them, so be it (though in my personal view, that reduces the value of the citation). Re: Homestead, I think Homestead principle might suffice, but if you don't like it I'm fine with leaving it unlinked..or pointing to Wiktionary. -Pete (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing -- the Tributaries section. A while back Ruhrfisch suggested getting data, for the chart, on the drainage basin areas of the larger tributaries. I agree that it would be good to include, but all searches for a collection of that data have come up short. (I wonder if Kmusser, the map master, might have any ideas?) So if either of you know where that might be found, that would be a big help. Also, I don't see any citations in that section. I suspect it all comes from the USGS table that is cited elsewhere in the article; but we should be sure to put the citation in there. -Pete (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Snake River ~72,000 sq. mi. [1], Willamette 11,460 [2], Cowlitz 2,480 [3]. The sources seem to be out there, maybe a little scattered though. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The dab checker is a website - you enter the name of the article and click a button. Here is the link for this article: [4] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Homestead principle" it is. I'll try to find an answer to the log-in question. I've seen a discussion of it recently, probably on one of the FAC-related talk pages. You are right about missing source(s) for the discharge table. I don't know where the numbers came from. User:Franamax's approach would work for the basin areas; source each one separately if no general list exists that can be cited. Does somebody want to add a column to the table and then fix the layout? Speaking of USGS, I did the stream gauges up to the international border, but I don't know where or if the Canadians have gauges on the Columbia. I can look, but I thought somebody here might know. I'll send a note to Moni. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I was too set on finding the basin areas all on one page...d'oh! Thanks for the links, I'll seek out the rest. And thanks for linking that tool Ruhrfisch, that'll be useful! -Pete (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The USGS has a whole pile of data on river basin areas here. Kind of a detailed listing, but is that what you would be wanting? Franamax (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Just watch out for drainage basins that cross the US-Canada border, as the USGS figures often only take the US portions into account. Sources for drainage basin sizes in Canada are sometimes trickier to find too. Another thing to watch out for is, some river drainage basins have sneaky little bits that cross the border. Like the Pend Oreille River, which not only crosses into Canada near its mouth, but also has at least one distant tributary that flows south out of Canada (the Flathead River). In fact, looking at the Pend Oreille's page just now and looking at the source cited for its drainage basin, it might not include the portion in Canada. This is a topic I can try to look into more. I've collected a number of possible sources while making pages for various BC rivers. Pfly (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, just checking the pages on tributaries such as Okanogan River and Flathead River I'm seeing problems with drainage basin figures cited (as well as broken links). It may take me a while, but I'll work on these things. Pfly (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Good point Pfly, and here's another discrepancy: NRCan shows the Kootenay as Can 37,700, US 12,600, Tot 50,300 sq. km. which I can't match to the existing cited figures at all. [5] Franamax (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I've written to Moni seeking her sage advice. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicking

On first reading of this truly excellent article:

  • 258,000 or 260,000 square miles of drainage - which is the definitive number, and shouldn't it be used throughout?
Y Done Good catch. The 260,000 was sourced to Encarta and the 258,000 to the USGS. Bye, bye, Encarta. Forgot to sign earlier. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • BC used as an abbrev for British Columbia but not shown in brackets after the long form.
Y Done Added BC on first instance. Forgot to sign here too. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The Dalles - overlinked and not linked on first use in the article body.
Y Done -Pete (talk)
  • Tribes vs tribes - is the capitalized use appropriate throughout?
Y Done -Pete (talk)
  • Suggest linking dug-out canoe for the naive reader.
Y Done -Pete (talk)
  • Tri-Cities - possible overlinking?
Y Done -Pete (talk)
  • Would be nice to see brief mention of the War of 1812 thing where the Astor company men wanted to switch to Great Britain but the British captain wanted a victory and insisted on attacking the fort anyway. Result being that after the war was settled, the fort was returned as "captured territory".
  • "One of the main commodities..." - the sentence doesn't explain itself very well.
  • Important crops - got a reference?
  • "much more severe than any in recent memory" - can't make sense of this.
Y Done Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "...could do to the today's regional..." - !!
Y Done Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • aluminum - US produces 17% vs 15% of the world's aluminum - don't see the Columbia catastrophe here, could it be explained better?
Oops, meant to explain this. Yes, I'm sure the article text could be improved. Read it a little more closely, the numbers don't quite line up like that -- the NORTHWEST produced 17% or the world's aluminum, then later the ENTIRE US produced only 15%. Those are the figures that are available in the sources I found, and they don't match up easily; unfortunately, I had a hard time lining them up in a way that tells a compelling story. Suggestions or bold rewriting welcome. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hanford waste - gallons converted to cu.m., would litres be better? I dunno.
I don't think so. The numbers are almost incomprehensible in any form. Changing to liters would mean using a phrase like "thousand billion". Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you know billion is an ambiguous number? A million million means the same thing to everyone though. Perhaps it could be expressed in acre feet with an note of how many households that would serve for a year's water usage (if it were clean). —EncMstr (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I used to know that, but I forgot all about it. Could we entice you to come in and do a hands-on fix to that particular critter? Finetooth (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • bacteria is not a pollutant per se, should it be listed as such?

Massively good article, so I'm not even going to try changing any of that stuff, I'll leave this for your consideration. Great work! Franamax (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos, and for the suggestions! I'll start chipping away at 'em, too. -Pete (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And just to pile on: could the sections be re-organized so that (new) "History" encompasses "Indigenous peoples" and "New waves of explorers". and (new) "Harnessing the river" contains "Damming the river", "Irrigation" and "Hydroelectricity"? This would mean splitting up the "Navigation" section, the first bit would go to History, "Opening the passage..." and "Deeper shipping channel" would go to "Harnessing...". Just an idea, it has a pretty good structure already. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tributary basin areas

I've completed the table based on the USGS and NRCan links I've mentioned above. I would regard the USGS data as definitive, except trumped by NRCan, which shows international figures. The table now needs a metric-equivalent column, n'est ce-pas?

I will invite scrutiny of my changes - for instance did I pick the right Sandy River? Also, there are some serious discrepancies with some of the linked articles - a conscientious editor would follow those up. And I haven't yet compared the USGS numbers with the existing ref's. An even more conscientious editor would infobox up the subsidiary articles with the necessaries - however, I suppose I am not that conscientious editor! Franamax (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I might be that conscientious editor. At least I'll give it a go. I think your source for the Pend Oreille River doesn't include the Canadian portions. And I'm a little suspicious of the nrcan figures for the Kettle River, because it gives figures for the US and Canada portions of some other rivers, but not that one. But I've already begun following up, so it's all good! Except, at the moment, it's time for bed. Pfly (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
And I've asked for help using the {{convert}} template in tables here, so it can be nice and clean. If anyone here already knows how to make it work, please save them some time answering me. Franamax (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The Atlas of Canada has some numbers for the Kootenay and Kettle [here]. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the page I found. It shows the discrepancy on the Kootenay with the current figures, and Pfly has spotted a possible problem with the Kettle numbers, which should be transborder. Curiouser and curiouser... Franamax (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've found the nwcouncil subbasin planning reports to be pretty good on trans-boundary things. They have drainage basin info, but usually tucked away inside some huge PDF. I downloaded them all and will check later to see what I an find. Pfly (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Also just to note, the top 13 largest tribs by length or discharge are not the same top 13 by basin. Eg, tiny Crab Creek has a basin larger than the Cowlitz. Pfly (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement problems still

Screenshot, Firefox in Windows Vista
Screenshot, IE in Windows Vista

By the way, I still have the problem I brought up, now in Archive 3. In Firefox the images overlap the tributary chart. This is on my Mac and the Windows Vista box I'm on right now. Just chekced IE and it looks good there. Here's a couple screenshots from the Windows Vista box. Firefox version 2.0.0.16 on Vista. The archive link has screenshots from Macintosh Firefox. Does anyone else have this issue? Pfly (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't overlap on my screen in Firefox running XP, but it's not pleasing to my eye. I'd show you, but I don't know how to do a screen shot. Further, I have a real-life thing this morning that is whisking me away right now, and I'll be gone until after noon. I'll get back to this as soon as possible. Moni, meanwhile, has said "yes" to doing a PR sometime later today. You all are doing a great job. Finetooth (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of {{clear}} templates might help here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it changed which text the pics overlap anyway. Gotta run.. Pfly (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Before adding the extra columns, this mostly "fit" on monitors as small as 800x600. But widening the table changes that. I think it's time to remove the images from the right side of this section, and get rid of the {{imagestack}} template. What do you guys think? The middle one is sort of the "classic" gorge shot, maybe unnecessary because it's so widely used elsewhere in the world. The other two look very similar to one another (even though they're from very different parts of the river). I wouldn't object to simply nixing all three, though we could also work to move them into other parts of the article. Or, we could set up a small gallery at the bottom of the article. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Moving or removing is a good idea. I think something resembling one image per subsection is about the maximum that looks good. The layout problem with the "Major tributaries" comes down to "too many images illustrating too little text". Come to think of it, these three images don't have anything to do with tributaries. A further thought: I believe that galleries at the bottoms of articles are deprecated. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Columbia River near Revelstoke, British Columbia
Crown Point Vista House, with Beacon Rock and Hamilton Mountain visible in the background
The Columbia River, as it forms the border between Washington and Oregon

Okay, I have removed these three images. I believe you're right that galleries are not encouraged, but there are exceptions. In my view, when there is a wealth of varied visual material related to an article, it's worth making an exception. You may recall that Hanford Site has a very interesting gallery, and made it through FA. However, I'm not sure these images are really that indispensable. I've pasted them at the right for y'all's perusal. -Pete (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you guys want a pic of a tributary, I've always been rather proud of this one, of the confluence of the Deschutes and the Columbia… -Pete (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All good. You are right about the Hanford gallery, which I had forgotten. I really like your photo of the Deschutes, and I hope you can fit it in here. Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tributary section images and content

Your Deschutes photo is beautful, Pete, but adding it caused the map below to totally obscure the chart! I don't know why I have such problems with this section. But in any case, I changed the image placement from right to left, which makes the chart mostly readable, though not fully. Consider it a temporary fix-- I would like to add some text to this section about drainage basin sizes, and the added text might make image placing easier. I figure instead of troubleshooting the images now I should wait until the text I have in mind is added. Make sense? As for the new text I'm thinking of, it would just be something short about the chart: It lists the largest tributaries by discharge, but now that we have added drainage basin sizes to it, there may be the implication that these are the largest drainage basins, even if they are not ranked in order. In truth they are far from the largest basins (well, some of them are). So I thought it worth explaining that, and perhaps mentioning a few of the larger basins that are not on the chart. Like the ephemeral little Crab Creek has a 13,200 square mile basin! Also, some second order tributaries have drainage basins larger than most first order streams, which seems worth a quick mention. For example, the Owyhee River, a tributary of the Snake, has a basin 11,049 square miles large, which is larger than most first order tributaries excepting the 4 or 5 huge ones. Anyway, just to explain my less than idea image edit-- to be made better soon? Pfly (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Text expansion along those lines sounds excellent to me, and yes, something like Crab Creek definitely merits a mention in that context. Your image edit almost entirely obscured the table on my browser -- so I tried a different application of the {{clear}} template, which I think will be sufficient until more text alleviates the problem. Does it work more or less OK for you in its present state? -Pete (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Haha.. oops, can't win! But yes, image placement and obscured text doesn't matter right now. I can always get at the content one way or another. We'll fix it up nice once the content is more stable. Pfly (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have another idea for text expansion in this section. We have a little material here about the watershed but not much. The bottom section might be called "Watershed" and include one subsection called "Tributaries". The "Watershed" material above the "Tributaries" subsection could include the size of the watershed, the names of the big watersheds (and one ocean) that butt up against it, statistics about land use within the watershed, something about precipitation (including seasonal and regional variations) over the watershed, and perhaps something about big mountains or other special geographic features. (Some of this may already be in "Geology" and elsewhere and probably can't be used twice.) This might add a paragraph or two or three to the section, which could then more easily accommodate the graphics. It might also address User:Juliancolton's concerns about geography. If any of this sounds useful, I can help with the research and writing. Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth, that sounds like a mighty fine idea to me. You've done a fantastic job on that sort of stuff with Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and similar articles. Pfly, it may soon become academic, but I can't seem to stop tinkering with the image alignment stuff. Does my latest attempt work well in your browser(s), at various window widths? -Pete (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, Pete, it works now at any window size. The map and chart look a bit awkward, layout-wise, when the window is narrow, but nothing overlaps anything else. Thanks! If we do expand the section along Finetooth's ideas, there's a few things worth mentioning that come to mind right away (assuming they are not already in the article somewhere). The basin's climate and landforms change fairly dramatically from the Rocky Mountain headwaters area to the near-desert Columbia Plateau, to the temperate maritime area west of the Cascades. While the wide range of climate and vegetation/ecology types is hardly unique among rivers, it is unusually striking in places, and was frequently remarked upon by people from the first records. There's something about water temperate too-- how strange it seemed to have such a cold river flowing through the blazing summer heat and near-desert near the Snake's mouth. I'm sure the Meinig book I've often cited from, The Great Columbian Plain, has a great deal of material along these lines to pull from. Precipitation patterns tie into discharge and basin size, helping explain why the second largest river by discharge, the Willamette, has a smaller drainage basin than Crab Creek. I haven't dug up discharge numbers for Crab Creek, but they are tiny. Also, I like the idea of mentioning neighboring river basins, akin to they way pages about states typically mention bordering states. There's an interesting multiple ocean thing, what with the Missouri/Mississippi system to the southeast draining to the Gulf of Mexico, the Saskatchewan system to the northeast draining to Hudson Bay, the Athabasca/Mackenzie system, just touched up near the BC "Big Bend", draining to the Arctic Ocean, and of course the Great Basin to the south not draining to any ocean at all. Anyway, just some random thoughts in reaction to these ideas. As usual I can't predict how much time I'll have in the weeks ahead, but I'm enjoying seeing how the FA idea has played out so far (eg, never knew what peer review was). I have been working on collecting info on various tributaries, esp discharge, basin size, and stream length. If nothing else I'm curious which streams would rank highest in these three ways. My still-quite-incomplete working page for number collecting is User:Pfly/Sandbox2. The process takes so much longer when you try to update/fix the tributary pages themselves, phew. Pfly (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me correct myself. My amazing example of Crab Creek was quite overdone. The basin was given in sq km and I read it as sq mi. It is "only" about 5,100 sq miles. Still big, but not Willamette sized. Pfly (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I worked up the neighboring basin stuff last night and this morning and added it just now as per the discussion above. The prose might need some tweaking; I may have used the word "watershed" a few too many times. The new paragraph might give you some wiggle room with the graphics. I'll be looking for more stuff about the watershed. A basic description of the landforms should be possible. User:Northwesterner1's work on ecoregions might come in handy somewhere here. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Two days later, Im working up something about the population of the watershed. I have found an interesting source document that's about 80 pages long. I'll try to condense it to one paragraph that suits our purposes. Finetooth (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm liking what I see thus far. Population would be good, rainfall might be interesting too…I'd have to say, you're the best expert I know on these matters. I suppose it goes without saying, but in its current state it's a little weird -- only mentions the things bordering the watershed, but not the watershed itself. -Pete (talk)
Over the last few days I've also been slowly roughing up some text much along the same lines as what you added, Finetooth. I got mine relatively polished up before realizing you already added yours. So I took what you wrote and expanded it with some of the stuff I wrote, and reordered some things, and added more footnotes than are probably required. I hate to just replace your addition with mine, but I think I might do just that in a few minutes. Well, it isn't "mine" anyway, since the core of it is the stuff you added. But in any case I thought I should explain a little:
I liked your idea described above for this section, about having info about bordering big watersheds and "perhaps something about big mountains or other special geographic features". That last idea, combined with "major watersheds" led me to writing about bordering watersheds in terms of continental divides. A good part of the Columbia's boundary runs along "the" Continental Divide (Pacific vs Atlantic & Arctic) as well as the Laurentian Divide (Arctic vs Atlantic). These divides meet at named "triple divide points" (like Triple Divide Peak in Glacier National Park, MT), and separate the Columbia watershed from other really major ones (Mississippi-Missouri, Nelson-Saskatchewan, Mackenzie-Athabasca). I thought that was interesting enough to mention, and important enough to mention bordering basins based on "divide importance" order, instead of your counterclockwise order. "Lesser" divides, much noted but unnamed as far as I know, split the Nelson-Saskatchewan from the Mackenzie-Athabasca, and the Columbia-Snake from the Colorado-Green, so I described those next. Their triple divide points are named peaks too (Snow Dome and Three Waters Mountain). Next in importance, it seemed to me, was the Great Basin, so I put that next, adding that it isn't a single watershed but quite a few. I mentioned the larger three that border the Columbia Basin. Finally, there are all those adjacent watersheds that drain to the Pacific just like the Columbia. Of those, the Fraser seems to warrant special mention, being particularly large and sharing a long divide border with the Columbia. That left me with just the Klamath and, I thought worth mentioning, the "Puget Sound Basin". I thought about adding the Rogue and Umpqua basins, but decided my text was already getting long and complex. Finally, I reused the phrasing and words for each major watershed/divide, which might be overly repetitive. The idea was that by writing it that way the logic of describing watersheds based on divide importance would be clearer, but it could probably be written better.
So that's my excuse logic. I fear my additions may be overly long, perhaps unnecessarily complex or dense, and badly footnoted. Please, if it needs it, trim it down, reorganize, whatever is useful. One point: I used the terms watershed and basin interchangeably, assuming readers would understand they mean the same thing. There's a link to drainage basin earlier in the article, so I didn't link and didn't bulk up the text by explaining the terms. On the footnotes.. several sources applied to certain ideas spread over the whole section. I thought about simply putting the bulk of the at the end with a note about how they apply to the section as a whole, but decided instead to place them here and there where they seemed most appropriate. I could have not used one or two of the at all, but I liked how each one seemed to approach things from a different angle. I suspect the Triple Divide Points cite could probably be dropped, since most of it is also covered in Continental Divides in North Dakota and North America. Otherwise, I don't know, perhaps I am overly zealous about citing interesting/diverse sources. Anyway, all this is my long-winded way of apologizing for wholesale replacement of text, and trying to explain the logic.
And one last PS-- Pete's right about it being a little weird in describing bordering watersheds and not the watershed itself so much, although I hope the divide stuff helps as it applies to the Columbia Basin. I've collected some sources and rough notes about climate (precipitation, temperatures, etc) within the basin, as well as things like physiographic regions, ecoregions, land cover and use, and so on. There's a great deal that could be said, the trick is figuring out how to say it tersely. I probably won't get to fleshing those things out for some time yet. ...sheesh, my talk page text about the addition is longer than the addition itself, sorry to go on so long! Pfly (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Pfly, I think the triple divide stuff is interesting and important. If you work up one paragraph about climate and another about ecoregions and land use, I think we might have enough on the basin. I'm finding the combination of the basins and the divides a little too complex, but it's late, and I'll read it again tomorrow. I wonder if we might not have "neighbor basins" as its own paragraph (not my original but your modification of it modified once again) and "divides" as a separate paragraph. We might add some elevations and the coordinates for the big peaks and/or triple divide points. Finetooth (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds sensible to me. It's late here too, and life is chaos of late, so I'm not able to edit my own writing as well as I used to. I too will reread tomorrow or when I get a chance. I'll keep looking into climate, ecoregions, and land cover/use. I found an interesting book online that has a long chapter on the Columbia River. In one part, while talking about the Columbia mainstem itself, the author mentions that there are 13 terrestrial ecoregions in the whole basin, and the mainstem passes through 10 of them. I assume he means ecoregions as defined by the WWF. That's a good lead for more research (the book is Rivers of North America, at Google Books). One other thing I was thinking about, perhaps more under Tributaries than Watershed, is the 2 or 3 tributaries that join the Columbia with nearly equal discharge and/or basin sizes. Some rough calculations suggest that the Snake River and Pend Oreille both contribute close to half the water of the mainstem at their confluences. The Pend Oreille's basin size is something slightly less than the Columbia's basin above the confluence. The Snake is similar I'm sure. Ok, bed.. Pfly (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Pfly, reading this fresh this morning, it seemed to make much better sense that it did late last night when my brain was filled with fog. I tweaked it slightly, clarifying the two different uses of "north" and merging some of the short paragraphs. Shorties are OK for emphasis but at FAC are deprecated by more editors than not, in my limited experience. My own view is that shorties will be hard to defend at FAC unless they are relatively rare. They function like bolding or italics. It's a matter of taste rather than any hard-and-fast rule I can point to. If others here disagree, please revert. Pete, as the main contributor, might have to decide this question for the article as a whole. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rivers of North America looks good. Glad some of it is on-line. Buying it new from a bookstore would cost $114. Ouch. I'll try to work up something rough-drafty and stick it into the section as a place-holder if you don't get there first. Our combined ideas and talents seem to be working pretty well together, although I must say the process is chaotic beyond anything I'm used to. Pete's moving of the population paragraph above the "neighbor basin and divides" material was exactly right, I might add. Finetooth (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Glad it made better sense in the morning! No free time for me today so far (just a slice right now I think). I generally prefer longer paragraphs too. If I wrote "shorties" it was probably just me trying to keep my thoughts organized while writing, then not taking the time to put it all together in the end. Also the way citations, especially templates, make text look much longer in edit mode (and me trying to keep track of sources while writing). So, yes, thanks for improving not-quite-finished text and style. I also agree that Pete's move was right: the "bordering basins" should probably come last. Also agree about this new round of work here being surprisingly chaotic. I have the feeling that while good stuff is being added, various problems are as well. Mostly small things like poorly formatted citations, issues of flow and phrasing and so on, more redlinks, etc. Even so, it's enjoyable so far, even if I should probably be spending time doing real-life chores. Hopefully there's momentum enough to clean up after additions stablize. Speaking of chores, gotta do some. Later I might make time to rough out a list of WWF ecoregions in the basin. Did a very quick look this morning and counted 16, with 2 may not quite counting. By biome the ecoregion count looks like 10-11 "coniferous forest" regions, 2 grassland, 1-2 "desert and xeric shrublands", and 1 "broadleaf and mixed forest". Pfly (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a paragraph on climate just now. I think I will leave the ecoregions to you since you've got a start on them. I don't remember if that covers fauna as well as flora. I've seen some species counts for the basin somewhere. I can probably find them again if need be. Meanwhile, I'll try to do some more clean-up. Yes, we have introduced some new low-level errors. I will get my dust mop back out of the closet. Finetooth (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The Watershed bit is a major addition. It somewhat conflates demography, climate and hydrology, but adds a lot. Two points (I got a little distracted, but I'm back picking nits!):
  • To me, one of the major features of the basin is hydrology in the form of "rain shadows". Some parts are temperate rainforest, some are temperate desert. This is a distinctive feature of the Pacific coast and cordillera and probably explains much of the huge contrast between basin areas and basin outfalls. (Of course, irrigation sways the discharge numbers yet more in the rain shadows - are withdrawals mentioned anywhere?)
  • And as to describing the adjoining watersheds, to me the best flow would be to start at the headwaters (which to a biased Canadian is the "real" triple-point :); then dispose with the right-bank first (it's much shorter), i.e. mostly the Fraser basin; then proceed down the left-bank, encountering the continental triple-point and beyond; then figure out a way to describe the Snake basin watershed, which is a pretty major feature of the basin; then rejoin the main basin and get to the Pacific on the south side. Isn't the most natural description the way the river(s) flow(s)? (PS Sorry for not being around) Franamax (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I added a fairly superficial bit about landforms, flora and fauna, just now with mention of a few of the more spectacular or important in each category. Make bold edits where you see fit, Franamax. Your ideas sound fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subscription required

I found the recent FAC discussion of citations to subscription-only sources here. As a courtesy to readers, two different ways of handling these will probably be acceptable, as illustrated below. The phrase "subscription required" fits nicely into the format parameter in the "cite journal" template. I haven't tested the other members of the "cite" family, so I can't say for sure about all of them. I think the Newsbank links in this article all require a subscription or library card. I doubt that news articles have doi numbers, but I don't know for sure. Shall I attempt to add "subscription required" to the templates for the Newsbank group?

Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the DOI stuff. The second sample looks fine to me, with "subscription required". Thanks for researching this. I use NewsBank a whole lot, so it's good to know the preferred approach…I'll have a whole lot of retroactive fixes to make… -Pete (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The DOI stands for Digital Object Identifier and is one more way of keeping track of things. (Weasel alert!) I think we can forget about it here. I just tried out the "subscription required" in "cite news" for citation 73. Although the syntax is a little odd, it works and is probably OK. Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I am able to see all the Newsbank articles (or at least all four I tried) with no subscription that I'm aware of. Are you sure they need the "subscription required" notation? Franamax (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've never been able to figure this out. Sometimes they seem to need a login, other times not. I can't see the pattern. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gosh. I just finished adding the "subscription needed" lines to the whole set of Newsbank articles before seeing your latest notes here. I don't know what to say about the "sometimes needed" and "sometimes not" pattern. Could it be that once you've logged onto the library site and entered your card number, etc., that your computer does the log-on automatically for other Newsbank instances until you've logged off or turned off your computer? If the "subscription needed" lines need to come back out, I can do that. Finetooth (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What it looks like is that some Newsbank links are open, some are subscription. The Oregonian articles are served up by infoweb.newsbank.com, whereas I tried an article from the News Tribune and it goes to nl.newsbank.com and invites me to spend some money. Do others see the same thing? Franamax (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I figured it out. The Newsbank links that go through the Multnomah County Library are the problem ones. The ones that go straight through to Newsbank are open to everyone. The ones that go through the library system are "subscription required". Citation 92, for example, went through the library, but it didn't have to. I found it with a direct search on Newsbank and replaced the library url with the direct url. So, what I need to do is to go through the whole Newsbank set again, find the direct urls and use them instead of the intermediary library urls, and get rid of all the "subscription needed" lines. In the end, all these links should work for everybody. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that the News Tribune problem noted by Franamax is an odious exception. Yes, I am seeing the same thing. I hadn't noticed that only a teaser article was showing up there. Can you try Citation 92, Franamax, and see if I really fixed it? Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 92 works fine for me. I'll help out if you want, working from the bottom up. Franamax (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Yes, thanks a bunch. I see you fixed at least two of them, and I fixed one more. I've got to disappear for a while, and I may not get back to this until this evening. Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a reward for your impertinence in abandoning Wikipedia to do such trivial things as buying food to sustain your life, when you get back have a look at this:
  • Cite 78, "Judge rips latest plan to help salmon" - the current link is dead. Which is the best way to fix it: use the Wayback link with archiveurl, or change it to the