Talk:List of longest streams of Oregon/Archive 1

How much is enough?

The list is pretty slow to load, and it's getting slower as it gets longer. Furthermore, it's harder to find RS data about some of the desert creeks than it is about the rivers. To improve the load time and reduce the difficulty of finishing the list, would it make sense to increase the cut-off length to 50 miles (80 km)? We would lose some of the short rivers like Marys and Minam, but we'd also lose most (but not all) of the creeks. Alternatively, would it make sense just to do streams that are officially called "rivers" and leave out all of the creeks? I originally tried to do everything from 25 miles (40 km) up but scaled back as I developed the list. The cut-off is largely arbitrary. My main idea was to create a sortable list that would add value to the big-stream fraction of List of rivers of Oregon, but I don't know of any standard definition of "big stream". Where should the cut-off be? Could we deal with the creeks by adding a sentence to the lead explaining that the list is just a list of rivers, not creeks or sloughs or anything else, and that some creeks in Oregon are longer than X miles? Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Raising the cut-off to 50 miles sounds good, though it doesn't take long for the list to load for me. Are 'river' and 'creek' official designations, or just names? There are some fairly large creeks and some very small rivers... If they are just names, I'd leave all of them, but if they actually are official titles based on the stream's size, just rivers would be fine. Anyway, that's my two cents. LittleMountain5 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The names are assigned by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN), according to this page. The page says: "GNIS Feature ID, Official Feature Name, and Official Feature Location are American National Standards Institute standards as specified in ANSI INCITS 446-2008 (Identifying Attributes for Named Physical and Cultural Geographic Features (Except Roads and Highways) of the United States, Its Territories, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated Areas, and the Waters of the Same to the Limit of the Twelve-Mile Statutory Zone). The standard is available at the ANSI Web Store." The web store sells this particular standards manual for $30. It may be available through libraries; I haven't checked. I don't know what the ANSI attributes for "river" are, but they would likely give us a reliable source for a definition of "river". That would certainly be helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the ANSI standard mentioned has to do with data formatting and such, not definitions of "river", "creek", etc. The GNIS FAQ, question 17, basically says that there "are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to geographic features". In most cases the BGN didn't really "assign" names but just made "official" pre-existing names. I'd be very surprised if there was an official definition of river vs creek. Even if there was, it's unthinkable that the BGN could have enforced a general nationwide change in stream names to some standard, overriding local and historical usage, without causing huge resistance. From what I've read, their attempts to enforce standards ended with Pittsburgh's battle against being renamed Pittsburg, back around 1920 or so. Pfly (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find! In that case, we should probably add all of the 50+ mile streams, no matter what their names are. LittleMountain5 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the title of the article and think the Rivers WikiProject generally uses stream to cover all rivers, creeks, runs, etc. (and not just the occasional Pleasant Stream). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfly, I'm glad you stopped me before I succumbed to the temptation to buy the manual. And I agree with Little Mountain 5 that we might as well go forward. This will also save the article title as is. Does anyone object to scaling back to 50 miles rather than 40? If we do that, Pfly, do you think that would resolve the Kings River question, or might it be as long as 50 miles? Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Raising the cut-off to 50 miles will most likely eliminate Big Sheep Creek and the Kings River. I'm not sure about Rock Creek, it's very close. Willow, Jordan, and Silver creeks should still be well over the limit. LittleMountain5 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Big Sheep Creek is 38.6 miles long. LittleMountain5 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thought. In cases of streams that look close to 40 (or 50) miles but for which no reliable data can be found, could we simply not mention them in the list? In other words, at some point is it OK to say nothing at all but to leave these unsolved mysteries for future generations of stream lovers? Or could we relegate the mystery streams to a footnote? Finetooth (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'd be for that (not mentioning them). There's actually quite a bit of information about Silver, Jordan, and Bully creeks, but no length that I could find. I haven't found any info for Rock Creek or the Kings River, however. Perhaps we could move that section of the table here to the talk page, in case someone else miraculously finds something about them. LittleMountain5 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Here they are: Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

List of streams of between 40 miles (64 km) and 50 miles (80 km) in Oregon

Name	Mouth	Length in miles (mi) and kilometers (km)	Watershed area	Mouth coordinates	Mouth elevation in feet (ft) and meters (m)	Source coordinates	Source elevation	Remarks
Joseph Creek	Grande Ronde River	49 mi 79 km	635 mi2 1,640 km2	46°03′09″N 117°00′20″W	889 ft 271 m	45°42′52″N 117°09′26″W	3,242 ft 988 m	Source in Wallowa–Whitman National Forest, mouth downstream of Hells Canyon
Alsea River	Pacific Ocean	48 mi 77 km	466 mi2 1,207 km2	44°25′21″N 124°04′51″W	0 ft 0 m	44°22′34″N 123°36′09″W	278 ft 85 m	Source in Central Oregon Coast Range, mouth near Waldport
White River	Deschutes River	47 mi 76 km	368 mi2 953 km2	45°14′01″N 121°04′03″W	764 ft 233 m	45°20′47″N 121°41′40″W	6,927 ft 2,111 m	Source in Cascade Range, mouth near Tygh Valley
Minam River	Wallowa River	46 mi 74 km	239 mi2 618 km2	45°37′17″N 117°43′14″W	2,536 ft 773 m	45°10′07″N 117°21′28″W	7,684 ft 2,342 m	Source in the Wallowa Mountains, mouth downstream of Wallowa
North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River	Middle Fork Willamette River	44 mi 71 km	246 mi2 637 km2	43°45′30″N 122°31′27″W	1,033 ft 315 m	43°46′01″N 122°03′11″W	5,439 ft 1,658 m	Source at Waldo Lake, mouth near Oakridge
Kings River	Quinn River	45 mi 73 km		41°30′54″N 118°08′55″W	4,114 ft 1,254 m	41°59′05″N 118°13′36″W	8,382 ft 2,555 m	Source and mouth in Humboldt County, Nevada
Metolius River	Deschutes River	41 mi 66 km	316 mi2 818 km2	44°35′51″N 121°17′13″W	1,949 ft 594 m	44°25′39″N 121°38′07″W	3,261 ft 994 m	Source at Metolius Springs, mouth at Lake Billy Chinook
Whychus Creek	Deschutes River	41 mi 66 km		44°27′35″N 121°20′07″W	2,106 ft 642 m	44°05′21″N 121°41′36″W	7,605 ft 2,318 m	Source near Broken Top, mouth upstream of Lake Billy Chinook
Coast Fork Willamette River	Willamette River	40 mi 64 km	666 mi2 1,725 km2	44°01′23″N 123°01′25″W	436 ft 134 m	43°35′44″N 123°04′04″W	990 ft 302 m	Source in Calapooya Mountains, mouth near Springfield
Marys River	Willamette River	40 mi 64 km	310 mi2 803 km2	44°33′20″N 123°15′41″W	207 ft 63 m	44°39′24″N 123°33′39″W	659 ft 201 m	Source in Central Oregon Coast Range, mouth at Corvallis
Middle Fork Coquille River	Coquille River	40 mi 64 km	310 mi2 803 km2	43°02′01″N 124°07′01″W	26 ft 8 m	43°06′17″N 123°39′51″W	1,558 ft 475 m	Source near Camas Valley, mouth near Myrtle Point

Minor variations among sources

I just reverted a small change by Shannon1 to the length of the Columbia River, not because Shannon's number is wrong but because the source I cited for the original figure used the original figure (1,249 miles (2,010 km). As I worked on this list, I found small variations from source to source for the lengths and basin sizes. Rather than attempting to list all the variations in a note or elsewhere, I chose one variation and a source to support it. (My choice of which source was better was arbitrary; it relied on no definite standard.) I don't know of a way to pick a "most reliable" source or number for these lengths and basin sizes, though it appears that the USGS topo maps with the river mileages marked on them from mouth to source are more accurate than, for example, a fishing guide. Does a "most reliable" source exist? Finetooth (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the National Hydrography Dataset is probably the most consistent / authoritative sopurce for lengths (since it is a federal work and applies to all US streams). I have only used data from it that Kmusser kindly looked up for me - see here for a discussion of what is involved (you need GIS software and then have to request the data and read it with the software). As far as I know, this does not include watershed areas though. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note to Kmusser about the Illinois River (Oregon) length and mentioned general difficulty finding the lengths of the desert creeks. I think he is traveling and may not see the note for a while. GIS software is a tempting thought. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the federal sources (USGS, Army Corps of Engineers) in general would be considered more reliable than a fishing guide. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I only used the fishing guides when I couldn't find federal sources and I blushed every time I did it. With the new hands on deck, though, good stuff I missed is turning up. Makes me wish I'd moved the article from my sandbox to main space a bit earlier. :-) Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cow Creek drainage

Shannon, my source for the drainage splits the watershed into two parts and gives the area of the parts as 102,537 acres and 47,483 acres. I added those to get 150,020 acres and converted the total to 234.4 square miles (607 km²). The USGS source you cite is certainly reliable, but since the gauge is at river mile 6.7, the basin above the gauge is considerably smaller than the whole basin. The basin size for each gauge is 100 percent of the total basin only for gauges at the mouth. I've sometimes used the lowermost gauge basin for the whole basin if the gauge is very very close to the mouth, but the difference in this case is large. I'll revert to the size I originally had, but I'd be glad to discuss further if you think I've got this wrong. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, belay that, matey! Something is amiss with my reasoning; there's something I'm not seeing. I'll blame the lateness of the hour and take another look at this tomorrow. Looks like the gauge basin is much bigger than the whole basin; somehow I don't think so. That must mean my calculations are way off or my sources aren't saying what I think they are saying. Eeek! Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I used the Riddle gauge which is probably no more than a mile from the mouth of the river. Might have to add in a few square miles or two because the river extends a bit further. But actually I believe that the USGS gauges always give figures that are too small. The Snake River gauge for Anatone gives 98,000 square miles but the Snake River basin is almsot 110,000 squares miles. Still I don't know how to find watershed sizes manually. Further more I found this in the website you used for the Cow Creek drainage. I'd bet that there's a "Middle Cow Creek Watershed" page somewhere. Eyeballing it the lines for the upper and lower maps don't seem to fit together. The upper map seems to terminate somewhere around Glendale… Shannon^talk _contribs 04:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there sure is a Middle Cow Creek here, but I missed it. That adds another 133,000 acres. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. I think the Riddle gauge is at RM 6.7, but I must go to bed before my head falls onto my keyboard. Finetooth (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Riddle is only about a mile from Cow Creek's confluence with the South Umpqua, so I doubt the Riddle gauge is farther up... There is a gauge at the mouth, but it doesn't have the watershed area. If we do switch to 50 miles however, Cow Creek won't be on the list; don't stress too much over it. :) LittleMountain5 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wider awake, I thought to check the topo maps this morning and discovered that the river miles are marked on the Cow Creek quads from the mouth to RM 73, about 2 miles (3.2 km) from the source. I corrected the length, added the citation, and moved Cow Creek way up in the list. I deleted my "pieces of the jigsaw" citations, which had led to my incorrect summing of the creek's length as well as the creek's basin size. I left the USGS gauge at Riddle as the source for the basin size; maybe we should add a note explaining that this represents X percent of the total basin. Good catch, Shannon! Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom

I expanded the lead a bit and nominated the article for a DYK just now. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

I added one of Little Mountain 5's Rogue River images to the article just now to brighten up the page. We might include a small gallery of images either above or below the table, and the article might accommodate a wide image, probably below the table. There are lots of Oregon stream images to choose from even if we stick to streams longer than 40 miles. Any suggestions, preferences, favorites? Finetooth (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice first pick. :) I looked at some of the river articles, and several pictures caught my eye (in no particular order): Sandy River, McKenzie River, Willamette River, Rogue River, and North Umpqua River (←slight COI on that one. :) ) There are many other great images; those are just my suggestions. Working away on the map... LittleMountain5 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Added five more images per your suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

Great catch, Little Mountain 5, on the Coquille forks. How did I miss those? To return the favor, I finally found the Joseph Creek basin size on page 7 of a long Bonneville Power Administration document. We are now up to 63 streams by my count, and all of the boxes have something in them and support that varies from highly reliable to ballpark reliable. I'll try to find better sources for lengths relying on fishing guides, and Kmusser may be able to help with better data for a few stream lengths. Finetooth (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! It's getting there. :) LittleMountain5 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the North Fork Malheur River. I found an RS for the length, 59 miles (95 km), and moved the entry to the article proper. Now we have 64. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took a quick look and I think you may actually be missing quite a few - especially in the eastern part of the state, I'll try and compile a list. Kmusser (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally finished the map—at least the base map. I still have to add labels and other mappy things, but the hardest part—getting all the river courses right—is done. I agree, we probably are missing quite a few eastern streams that rarely contain water at all... Several are listed above, but no sources have been found for them so far. Cheers, LittleMountain5 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for doing the map and for finding several missing desert creeks. The map will be a great addition to the article. I hope you will be a co-nominator when we take this to FL. Finetooth (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be honored to co-nom. :) I've added labels and other things to the map; this version would be better very large at the bottom of the page like Ricketts Glen State Park, or I could make one with only the major rivers that could be placed at the top. (Or somewhere else as a thumbnail.) Suggestions for improvement are welcome, as always. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Great about the co-nom. I was getting tired of hunting for data and thinking about letting the list sit in the corner for a while, but then you got involved and have made major improvements. The map is swell, and I agree with you that it would be better very large at the bottom. That means we can keep your Rogue River image, which I like a lot, at the top. The map caption should include something that explains the pink (?) areas. Finetooth (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe we can move the panorama up beneath the gallery of four smaller images and let the map have the whole bottom to itself. Finetooth (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Added the map; now I have to update it with all these new additions. :) LittleMountain5 14:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So far I've confirmed the ones above do all belong, except Kings which doesn't quite reach Oregon, and I've found a few more, should have lengths with sources for you soon. Kmusser (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I don't think we were going to find all of the lengths without you. The Kings is an odd creature in that it starts and ends in Nevada but noses into Harney County, Oregon, for a mile or so as shown on the USGS topo map here. I think it did that just to annoy us and make compiling this list a bit harder. Finetooth (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

More streams

Ok, I went hunting through the National Hydrography Dataset for more streams and found the following. Lengths can be cited to the NHD (http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html). I've found that NHD lengths tend to be a little longer than other sources, so I'd only use these for where another source can't be found, some of the streams the NHD puts right at the cutoff may really be shorter. NHD lengths are probably also more precise than is really justified, I'd recommend rounding them off. This was a manual process, picking individual streams that looked long enough and then measuring them, so I could have missed some, but this should be close to comprehensive. Also the NHD was missing the coastal area so I couldn't check that as thoroughly, but judging from a regular map it didn't look like any were missing from there.

From the above list:

• Kings River 67.009 km (Quinn River) was missing a segment in NHD, probably about 6 km longer. Added
• Jordan Creek 158.658 km (Owyhee River) Added
• Silver Creek 135.159 km (Harney Lake) also missing a segment in NHD, probably about 5 km longer. Added
• Rock Creek 131.639 km (John Day River) Added
• Bully Creek 98.947 km (Malheur River) Added
• Rattlesnake Creek 91.943 km (Crooked Creek, intermittent) Added
• Warm Springs River 84.734 km (Deshutes River) Added
• Trout Creek 82.234 km (Deschutes River) Added
• Crooked Creek was a special case - more on it below. Added

New finds:

• Dry River 142.028 km (Crooked River, intermittent) Added
• South Fork Crooked River 123.076 km  Added
• Luckiamute River 98.761 km (Willamette River) Added
• Long Tom River 91.592 km (Willametter River) Added
• Rock Creek 89.518 (Catlow Valley, intermittent) Added
• Fifteenmile Creek 87.301 km (Columbia River) rather misleadingly named Added
• Dry Creek 86.344 km (Crooked Creek, intermittent) Added
• Chewaucan River 85.608 km (Lake Abert) Added
• North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River 82.233 km Added
• Cow Creek 81.768 km (Jordan Creek) Added
• Camas Creek 79.382 km (North Fork John Day River)
• North Fork Crooked River 74.411 km
• Big Antelope Creek 72.826 km (Owyhee River, intermittent)
• Dry Creek 70.325 km (Owyhee River)
• Buck Hollow Creek 68.854 km (Deschutes River, intermittent)
• South Fork Malheur River 67.998 km
• Guano Slough 67.547 km (Catlow Valley, intermittent)
• Whychus Creek 66.203 km (Deschutes River) GNIS name, labeled on USGS topo and hydrologic maps as Squaw Creek Added
• Metolius River 65.831 km (Deschutes River) Added
• Thomas Creek 65.463 km (South Santiam River)
• Eagle Creek 65.247 km (Powder River)

For Crooked Creek (Owyhee River, intermittent) according to NHD and GNIS was less than 40 miles, but they only had it going to the confluence with Wildcat Creek. USGS topo and hydrologic maps and Vector Map had it going much further so I'd include it. A length of 51 miles can be cited to Vmap0 (http://gis-lab.info/qa/vmap0-eng.html). Kmusser (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That is awesome! I suspected some of those small Willamette tributaries would end up longer than I expected. Finetooth, would now be a good time to raise the cut-off to 50 miles? :) Thanks, LittleMountain5 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you very much for this, Karl. And, yes, Little Mountain 5, the 50-mile cutoff makes even more sense because we'll be adding about 30 more streams from the lists above otherwise. Maybe we should pull the streams between 40 and 50 into the talk-page list and keep it organized in case we want to use it some day. Finetooth (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. But I'm not sure about pulling the 40 to 50s. So much work stuck in a closet. Shall we add them all and see what happens? We can always move some later if the monster gets too big. Finetooth (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But flip-flopping after seeing how unwieldy the thing already is, I've moved the shorter ones to the reserve list on this talk page. Finetooth (talk)

And I removed the panorama (which didn't look so good above the table). I thought you might enjoy adding the big map, so I did not attempt that. Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it although it was a lot of work (for you mostly) to get all the information for those streams, if we add them the list will just be too long. It's already approaching 80 kilobytes as it is. In other words, good decision. :) Also, I added the map; see what you think (updating in progress). Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>The rest of the new finds are shorter than 50 miles and can eventually go into the reserve list. Finetooth (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nearing the end

Looks like we are getting close to the finish line. Some thoughts and questions:

• (1) I doubt that we will be able to find all of the missing basin sizes; do you think it would be OK to write "No reliable source" in the empty boxes?

I might have found a source for all missing basins--will make a new section about it below. Pfly (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• (2) Should we create a companion list consisting of the reserve list of streams above that are between 40 and 50 miles long?
• (3) I think it would be a good idea to run this list through PR before taking it to FL. If you agree, I could list it at PR in a day or two even if we are not quite done with the final tweaks. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the companion list... seems like it doesn't really warrant its own article. (List of streams between 40 and 50 miles long in Oregon?) If you think it's a good idea however, I'm fine with it. And we should definitely put it through PR first; maybe they'll find some things we've missed, or need to improve. :) LittleMountain5 15:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of creating a separate sortable list with an awkward title, perhaps I could add a sentence to the lead of the "longest streams" list that simply named this next group, i.e., "Streams in Oregon that are 40 to 50 miles (64 to 80 km) long and therefore slightly too short to include in this list are: A River, B River, C Creek, D River, E Creek... ". In that way we might make use of some the information we so carefully gathered on those shorter streams. With a little more work, I could move the rest of Karl's shorter new finds into the reserve-list table, in the proper order (longest to shortest), and the A, B, C, sentence could list them that way. Does this seem like a good idea? Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a single sentence will be a bit too long (I count over 20 streams between 40 and 50 miles in length). The best way is probably just to keep the table here on the talk page, and maybe add a sentence to the lead about streams that are nearly long enough, e.g. Joseph Creek, Alsea River, Camas Creek, etc. But... now that we have access to the lengths and watershed areas of nearly every stream, we could always consider adding them all back to the main list. I just don't know. :/ LittleMountain5 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Me either. We can ask at PR and see what others think about the reserve list. The process so far has been full of interesting surprises. There may be more. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Basin sizes

Finally found some time to see if I could help out on this page. I thought there might be GIS data--the NHD Karl used or something similar--with basin sizes at a sufficient resolution. So I searched and found the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD). The "12-digit hydrologic unit delineation" (so called "subwatersheds") provide more than enough resolution, so I downloaded the data for Oregon, along with some NHD files, and forced poor ArcExplorer Java Edition for Education, on Mac OSX, to open the files. Here's the basin sizes I calculated for those missing on this page. I should double check all this since it is late and I was learning a little as I went. The subwatersheds are defined finely enough that I had to add a number together to get the full basin size for our streams. The Chewaucan River, for example, required finding and adding 19 subwatersheds. So there's the chance I made a dumb arithmetic error somewhere. When I double check I'll figure out a better, more automated way to calculate things. There's also the question of whether all the subwatersheds I added up should actually be considered part of each stream's drainage basin (intermittent desert streams appear to be "poorly connected" in some cases). I relied on the "10-digit" hydrologic units, which were pretty clear about being part of a given stream's basin (and shout CLOSED BASIN for those that don't connect). Still, if anyone wants to double check it all, I can post the names of the subwatersheds I used for each stream (eg, "Coffeepot Creek" appears to be part of the Chewaucan River basin, etc). Anyway, here are the results for now (the WBD uses acres for basin sizes--I've tossed the acres into a convert template for square miles--rounded off):

• Warm Springs River: 170,543 acres (266 sq mi)

Pfly's new calculation of 541 square miles looks right. Finetooth (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Chewaucan River: 416,599 acres (651 sq mi)
• West Little Owyhee River: 182,576 acres (285 sq mi)
• Dry River (Crooked River): 481,004 acres (752 sq mi)
• Rock Creek (John Day River): 324,020 acres (506 sq mi)
• Rattlesnake Creek (Crooked Creek): 177,808 acres (278 sq mi)
• Dry Creek (Crooked Creek): 191,224 acres (299 sq mi)
• Rock Creek (Catlow Valley): 184,797 acres (289 sq mi)

I haven't thought about how to do the citation. There's vague "recommended data citation" page here. The full metadata is here. Probably it can be cited essentially the same way the NHD is, except pointing to the WBD instead. I can think about it tomorrow. Also, now that I have the data and have figured out how to use it, it would be straightforward to determine basin sizes for other streams if anyone wants. Like, any stream...in the whole USA, I think. A number of years ago I discovered that this "12-digit" data was being assembled, but it wasn't until now that I've checked again and found out it is basically all done. The WBD status map for the USA makes the point clearly. It's all done! Pfly (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

One last comment: While plowing through this data I was amazed as the sheer number of Oregon streams named Rock, Dry, and Crooked. I guess the stream-naming pioneers called 'em like they saw 'em. Pfly (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great find! With this and NHD, we can potentially find the length and watershed area of any stream in the US! The areas sound good, although it seems like Warm Springs should be a bit larger... maybe not. And yes, there are tons of Bear, Rock, Dry, Trout, etc. creeks in Oregon. Plugging Rock Creek into GNIS for Oregon yields 255 results! Sincerely, LittleMountain5 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's great, Pfly. I was not sure that anybody had ever calculated the basin sizes for every stream. Your additions, coupled with Karl's, means that we can actually have a comprehensive list, which seems so much better than an almost-but-not-quite comprehensive list. Finetooth (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oop, you're right about Warm Springs River. I didn't include its tributaries Mill Creek and Beaver Creek, since the watershed names implied they were not part of the Warm Springs River basin. I should check everything against topo maps, it looks like. Recalculated basin for Warm Springs River is 346,264 acres (541 sq mi). Does that sound about right? I'll recheck the others later today. Pfly (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I've got nothing to base that on. Thanks, LittleMountain5 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a USGS stream gauge on Warm Springs River at RM 4.6. The basin size above the gauge is 526 square miles. The whole basin must be slightly larger (but not much larger) than this. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment that both the NHD and WBD do still have some pockets that are missing, but yeah, together you should be able to find the length and basin size of most streams in the U.S. Kmusser (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad you think so, Karl. I kept thinking you might point out some fatal flaw in the data or method, heh. The USGS gage seems close enough to confirm. I assume that different methods of determine drainage basin sizes are going to inevitably differ to some degree. I'm not sure how the drainage areas are calculated for the USGS gages, but I'd be amazed if it agreed exactly with the WBD, unless it came from the WBD. Anyway, I should be able to recheck the basins for this page tonight, or at least this weekend. Pfly (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just added basin sizes for all but Rock Creek (Catlow Valley) and West Little Owyhee River. I'll finish those tomorrow. There were a few minor adjustments after double checking, but nothing major. While looking at maps of the Catlow Valley, it looked like Guano Slough was at least as long as Rock Creek, if not quite a bit longer. But I guess its name changes along the way from Guano Creek to Guano Slough, which let's us off the hook? It seems like a more important stream in the area--there's even a Guano Lake in Guano Valley bordered by Guano Rim. Strange name. Does it really refer to guano? Seems almost a shame to not include Guano Creek/Slough for its name alone. And to be bested by a mere Rock Creek! Ah well. Pfly (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Creek and Slough are different streams, I did check those and while it looks like there may be a hydrologic link at Shirk Lake they flow in different directions, Guano Slough goes NE towards Catlow Valley and Guano Creek goes S-SE to Guano Lake. Kmusser (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PR

Looks like the basin sizes and everything else are filled in. Thanks Little Mountain 5, Kmusser, and Pfly. I started this list but would have bogged down 30 streams ago without you. If I can ever return the favor, please let me know. I'll add the article to the WP:PR list on Monday to see what others think about going to FLC. Any suggestions about what kinds of advice to seek? Finetooth (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Two reviewers have made a series of interesting suggestions here for improvement. I've responded to several suggestions by making changes to the lead and by re-adding the wide image. Here are some remaining questions:

• (1) What do you think about adding four more images to the existing gallery of four or adding a second gallery between the end of the table and the map? If yes, which images, and where should they go?
• (2) Does the wide image look OK where I put it, or would someplace else be better?
• (3) Is everybody OK with the existing article title?
• (4) Can we add the information about the summing of subbasins? If so, where should we put it?
• (5) I'm content to stick with the 50-mile limit. Is everybody OK with this?
• (6) Should we ask for more input from the Rivers WikiProject, or do you think it would be better to forge ahead with what we've got? Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great reviews. (Thanks Ruhrfisch and H1nkles!)

• (1) Presently the gallery seems a bit too large; maybe five or six in one row would look better? (Nice choices on the new images, though.)

I'll try Shannon's idea first to see how it looks. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (2) I'm glad you re-added the panorama, it looks nice. Maybe it would look better directly beneath the table, so it isn't in the 'Map' section?

Good idea. I moved it just now, and I agree that it looks better. Finetooth (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (3) I'm fine with the title; 'major streams' wouldn't exactly work, because there are some large rivers in Oregon that aren't long enough to qualify (the Santiam River comes to mind), and some long rivers that aren't major. And I seriously doubt there will ever be a list with all Oregon streams under 50 miles long... that would be hundreds, if not thousands! 'Rivers' wouldn't be right either, because they're not all considered rivers; quite a few are creeks.

Yes, "length" is specific and quantifiable. "Major" is vague and not quantifiable. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On the use of the word "stream", in the title and the main text: Would it help to link to stream? I'm not sure if the word is naturally understood as a general term for rivers/creeks/brooks/etc. It seems quite proper to me, but I can imagine it might sound odd to some people--calling the Columbia River a stream, for example. The stream page right off the bat provides a list of terms, including river, creek, brook, run, etc etc etc. I almost just added the link myself, but wasn't sure--perhaps it would be "overlinking" the obvious. Also, if linked, I wasn't quite sure where such a link would make the most sense. Not in the bolded first sentence text. The second use of "stream" didn't seem like quite the right place either. Pfly (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that most readers of English know what a stream is, so linking it would violate WP:OVERLINK. A river is a stream, and a creek is a stream, and so are a lot of other things. Calling Cow Creek a "river" would sound odd too. "Stream" works for both rivers and creeks, I think. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, good. The stream page is not Wikipedia's best page, I realized after commenting here. ...the term bourn is used in "Cascadia"? Huh. Pfly (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! If someone can find a bourn in Oregon, I promise to do an article. (The DYK hook would be easy.) Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (4) I don't think that adding info about summing the subwatersheds is absolutely necessary. That being said, if we do add it, it should probably go on a subpage to reduce clutter.

OK. I don't know enough yet to be able to do the summing for the subbasin sizes that came from the Watershed Boundary Dataset, and I haven't investigated subpages of this sort. Can't quite imagine what they look like. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this have to do with comments I made earlier on the talk page about adding up subbasins from the WBD? If so, well, I realized at some point I had been making a lot of unnecessary work for myself. Looking at the data tables more closely, I saw that the subbasins were already "summed". I was looking at a level too finely detailed for my own good. In addition, it's quite easy to have ArcExplorer automatically calculate "sums" and other statistics. The only thing I can think of that might be a problem is that most people are not familiar with GIS and ArcExplorer, and so might not know how exactly you'd use the citation info to get the numbers listed. But it's basically like using a simple database or spreadsheet program. Can Wikipedia pages reference something like an Excel format file without explaining how to use Excel? I'm a bit of a spreadsheet idiot, and might have trouble extracting simple info from a standard spreadsheet file, but I wouldn't expect a problem on Wikipedia with a citation sourced to a spreadsheet file. Anyway, if citing the watershed boundary database and ArcExplorer comes up as a problem, I'm sure it can be addressed and resolved without too much trouble. Pfly (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The question came up in the peer review by Ruhrfisch. I'll quote the comment here: "I know some of the basin areas were arrived at by summing the areas of subbasins. I wonder if at least the names of the basins that were summed should be noted somewhere, perhaps on a subpage (Chemistry articles sometimes have a sources / data subpage). My thought was that it would then be clearer how the area was arrived at in each case (allow for checking more easily) AND it would allow editors working on articles on the subbasins to find those areas more easily. Just an idea and may be too much work." I think Ruhrfisch had probably read your comments, Pfly, on summing, and I was also assuming that you had to do them that way, bit by bit, but it's good to learn that that is not the case after all. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (5) Yes, 50 miles sounds good. I agree with Ruhrfisch; it's a nice round number in English and metric units.

Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (6) You can if you want, but I think it's fine as it is, with the PR and all. (We've already got quite a few of the major WP Rivers contributors to help out here...) LittleMountain5 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm eager to nominate at FLC and see what happens. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Put the 2nd half of the gallery below the list might work... Also I would suggest splitting the list into two sections. Above and below 100 miles long.Shannon^talk _contribs 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try moving half of the gallery to below the list. However, splitting the list would reduce the value of the sort function. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, splitting the list would break up the sortability of the table. (Hmm... new word. :) ) LittleMountain5 03:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried Shannon's idea of moving half the gallery to below the table, but I don't think that improves things. Little Mountain 5, would you be willing to try your idea of 5 or 6 images in a row above the table and picking the one you like best? I think Ruhrfisch is right about keeping the Columbia and the Snake in the mix. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? LittleMountain5 03:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Looks better than four across. I like it. Finetooth (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall I nominate on Monday morning unless something else comes along in the meantime? Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Duly nominated. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Column headers

Does it really need to say "in miles and kilometers", when the units are included in the table itself? If someone doesn't know "mi" means "mile" and "km" means "kilometer" it's just as likely they don't know what mile and kilometer mean. :P --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most people probably know what they mean. However, to be on the safe side, I follow the Manual of Style guidelines on abbreviations at WP:MOS#Acronymns and abbreviations. It says in part, "When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets." Finetooth (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a new term. Miles and kilometers are introduced in the very first sentence. :) And I'd be willing to look away if you got rid of the expansion of feet and meters, too. I think removing the bloating of the top of the table outweighs the minuscule achievement in understanding that would be granted by keeping the explanation. --Golbez (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead be something like "In the table, total lengths are given in miles (mi) and kilometers (km), and elevations are in feet (ft) and meters (m)." Then the table columns could be simplified to just "Total length" and "Mouth elevation". Just an idea, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Golbez. I like the compromise suggestion by Ruhrfisch and applied it. The revised look makes me wonder if the "Remarks" column, which was changed to "Source and mouth locations" during the FLC, is not also bloated. Would it be better as "Remarks"? Finetooth (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If the notes on lengths within Oregon were moved to that column, I can see renaming it as Remarks. Since all the remarks are currently on source and mouth locations, the name Source and mouth locations seems OK to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave it as for now. Perhaps if we find the missing three in-Oregon lengths, something tidier than nine notes will spring to mind. Maybe, for example, the in-Oregon lengths would make sense added to the colored boxes in the second column so that readers wouldn't have to click to the notes for this information. I'm open to suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing lengths within Oregon

We've been able to find reliable sources for the lengths of 8 of the 11 streams on the list that flow partly in Oregon and partly in other states. Would it satisfy the requirements of WP:RS to estimate the others by using a ruler to estimate distances on topo maps? We already did this for small upstream segments of streams that had reliable sources for most of their total lengths; in those cases, the measuring errors are not significant. Streams don't usually follow straight lines, so it's not possible to accurately measure them on maps with a straight-edge device such as a ruler. But the notes for the three streams could explain that these are "rough estimates". I don't like to leave the sublist 8/11 finished. Finetooth (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to get accurate lengths of most of the streams and then estimate the rest? With Plunketts Creek, I had the length of almost all of it from the river mile of the fuerthest upstream tributary, and then estimated the remainder with a ruler (as you describe). I think the NHD dataset can find lengths between tribs, so if there are two that would give almost all the lengths, perhaps the rest could be estimated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the NHD could be used to get stream lengths within Oregon. The streams are divided into numerous line segments. I'm pretty sure one of the places they are split is at state lines. If it's necessary to figure the lengths out this way, I can take a stab at it. Pfly (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance to try that, Pfly, that would be swell. The three missing ones are Jordan Creek (Owyhee River), Succor Creek, and Cow Creek (Jordan Creek). They all are split between Idaho and Oregon. Finetooth (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got them right. If there are any problems let me know. I used wording similar to the other notes, eg, "Only so-many miles of such-and-such Creek flow through Oregon...". Pfly (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's terrific. Thank you so much. I have one question, though. Since Jordan Creek is 99 miles long in total, should one of the two numbers in the note be something other than 52? Finetooth (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pfly! Jordan Creek looks fine to me (it enters at RM 52, so there are 52 miles in Oregon), but Succor Creek seems a little off... if it enters at RM 23 and leaves at RM 5, there would be 18 miles in Oregon, not 39. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh, yes, of course. The first 23 miles are in Idaho, so I should have written that it enters at river mile 44, not 23. Fixed now. I think it adds up correctly now. First 23 miles in Idaho, enters OR at RM 44, flows through OR for 39 miles, leaves at RM 5; 23+39+5=67. Pfly (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks again! LittleMountain5 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Double d'oh. I was in a hurry this morning when I forgot that river miles start at the mouth; thus 52 and 52 for Jordan Creek. Finetooth (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)