Talk:Columbia River

The Yukon is almost twice the length of the Columbia (2000 mi vs. 1250 mi), but is not nearly as developed and harnessed. While it is larger in area drained, the Columbia has a larger total volume. See http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF9/929.html -- BryceHarrington

Only hydro projects in the U.S. are listed. I'm pretty sure there are Canadian ones. -- Dmbaguley 11:56, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Found 3 canadian dams, added them -- Dmbaguley 07:18, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The tributaries are listed going upstream, the cities alphabetically, and the dams going downstream. Should they all three be upstream, downstream, or something? Dmbaguley 13:24, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't noticed. When I added several tributaries to the Columbia (as many as I could find from my atlases), they were already in order going upstream, so I left it in that order.

Giving this a moment's thought, I'm tempted to arrange all of these lists in the order of going upstream. IIRC, one talks about the left & right hand sides of a river as if one is standing at the mouth of the river & looking upstream. (And the longest list -- that of tributaries -- is already in that order.) However, if this causes too much confusion, I vote we standardize on alphabetical.

How are the other river articles organized? -- llywrch 22:30, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Mississippi River article lists the states and cities going downstream, which seems like the most natural choice to my taste. It is the way the river flows, after all. And one generally (and in this article) starts describing a river by saying where the headwaters are. Dmbaguley 00:09, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've done some trib lists, but have consistently waffled :-) - sometimes alphabetical, sometimes in upstream order. Alpha would be better if there were so many tributaries that readers are likely to miss the one being looked for, 20 or more, and there are plenty of rivers with that many "top-level" tributaries, but upstream order is more esthetic, that's why I would do if I could only pick one. (Hmmm, back to hack on Ogooue then...) Although downstream order does match with narrative description, the lists are in a separate part of the article, and on the average both downstream towns and tributaries are more important; so upstream order has the nice property of tending to list the most important ones first. Time for a WikiProject! Stan 00:16, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I've removed 2 entries from the tributaries list:

• Scappose Creek - There are actually 2 Scappose Creeks, neither of which are significant enough for inclusion. Let's focus on adding more important tributaries first.

However, I left Multnomah Creek in, because Multnomah Falls is part of it.

• Salmon River - The only Salmon River in the Columbia drainage area I have been able to identify is a tributary of the Sandy River. Let's keep the list to streams & rivers that directly empty into the Columbia. -- llywrch 22:30, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Fact that Hanford has contaiminated the Columbia River, Epa Link title (http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/nplpad.nsf/0/a0d0a740285af3de852565920078b58d?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-1000) -- Woofles

The internal links list I found on the Columbia River is interminable.  It was hard for me to see a connection between the Illinois River, in Soutern Oregon, and the Columbia.  It obviously doesn't abut it.  Finally I realized the category might be "Oregon Rivers" or maybe "NW Rivers."  Other entries baffled me, as well.  Being an Oregonian helped me to sort out some things.  But few persons who wanted more info would bother to look up that whole list.  

I certainly wish it could be sub-topiced: as, Tributaries of the Columbia; towns on or near the Columbia; other rivers. Or state the reasons why these links are given.

Marilee