Talk:List of longest streams of Oregon

Post-FL changes
With respect, the layout at the time this article was promoted to FL looked much better than the version as of February 23, 2011. Here are three objections to the changes: (1) The six stream images looked better in a single row than in two rows. The two-row arrangement is unbalanced and creates too much white space. (2) The two new titles, "Rivers and creeks of Oregon" and "Longest streams of Oregon" are repetitive and redundant. (3) The reference and note numbers look misplaced when they are moved to a third line in each row of the columns. I know you mean well and are very busy and in a rush to meet a deadline, but I'm cringing now when I look at the page. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I'm gathering, a number of the changes were made so the list would meet WP:ACCESS. Template:Image gallery meets all accessibility concerns, and it better adapts for differing screen resolutions. For the main list, the title isn't redundant: the section heading merely says, "Rivers and creeks", while the heading above the list portion states "Longest streams of Oregon". However, I'm really not too particular about the titles and I'll let someone else comment about them. And on my computer, the references don't actually appear on a new line, and all of the pictures for me appear on one line as well. Maybe it's just me, but the new formats look fantastic, but it may have something to do with differences in our screen resolutions. I'll message User:The Rambling Man and User:RexxS and ask them to comment, as they were the ones who made the changes to this list. Nomader  ( Talk ) 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will respond directly to Finetooth, with obvious apologies! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) I just compared the latest version and the Feb 1 version (Finetooth's last edit) and they looked virtually identical on my comupter (IE 8, screen resolution is 1680 x 1050). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can explain what was done between the version of 15 February and the current version.
 * The six stream images were increased in size by about 10% to 20%, so the pictures are bigger. The old version changed from one line to two at a browser width of about 1180px, the new one changes at about 1320px browser width. I agree that it means those using screen resolution of 1280x1024 will see a change from the old version to the new, but all other common resolutions are unaffected (1024x768 and below will always see two rows; 1366x768 and up will see one row). If you wish to have the pictures smaller again, so that they display on one line on your screen, I'd be happy to see them changed back once others have had a chance to voice their opinions, in case some people actually prefer the larger images.
 * The "titles" are actually table captions and are there because a blind viewer using JAWS can call up a list of the table captions on a page and jump directly to the table that interests them (a kind of index for the visually-impaired). They may be redundant to you and me, but they allow a blind viewer to revisit the page and go directly to the information they want without being forced to work though the other tables before the one they are interested in. If you feel strongly that the amount of redundancy introduced outweighs the benefit to the visually-impaired, then please feel free to remove the captions from the tables.
 * The problem with reference and note numbers occurs because a browser splits the contents of a cell onto new lines when the width of the column is too narrow to accommodate those contents, but will override the column widths set (10% for all in this table) if it can't split something like 2,010 km†[7][n 1] - which it can't, so it unbalances the column widths rather than create a third row. However, the dagger symbol is not read by the screen reader JAWS, so it has been substituted with a image - and of course the browser thinks it's fine to split the line there and make another row. If you prefer the two rows of text with unequal columns, I could rebalance the relative widths of the columns to suit, although no matter what you do, there will be some small screens that break the scheme. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rambling Man and RexxS for the explanations. My usual screen resolution is 1280 x 1024 on my desktop and 1280 x 800 on my laptop. The page looks even better on a third computer, also set at 1280 x 1024. (I don't know why it looks better on the third one.) I suppose it's impossible to create layouts that look good on every screen in every possible mode. I really need to review WP:ACCESS again and to figure out what the "scope" parameters are for. My short-cut method with a lot of things is to imitate patterns that I like, and I don't always understand the details behind the patterns. (I am imitating the methods of this list in another list I'm working on. Anything I learn here, I will apply to the new list.) Should I routinely check the layouts at different screen resolutions? Is any particular setting considered optimum for a wide audience using a wide variety of viewing devices? Thanks, RexxS, for explaining the captions. I had never heard of JAWS and did not know that the captions served that purpose; oh, dear, such complications. I'm fine with the captions, then; I think access is more important than layout. Ditto for the column widths; I can live with the three-way split on some screens. I like the 10% size on the images better than the 20% because the split to two lines really looks odd. The gallery caused quite a bit of controversy during FLC, and it may be that some of the editors who objected to the gallery were seeing something quite different (and less pleasing) from what I was seeing. I think this is the only gallery I've ever assembled for an article, and it might well be the last. :-) Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The gallery and references appear fine to me, although I have my computer set at a relatively high screen resolution of 1440 x 900. The images are exactly the same size as they were before, but with less white space, which is good. I also like the other changes, such as the darkened name column and the scope parameters. The only thing I have a problem with are the two new titles. They seem overly redundant... I mean, obviously the table is going to be about the longest streams in Oregon! And the images have alt text... Why do we need another title that simply says 'images'? But, I suppose if they make it easier for blind readers to, well, read it, then I'll just have to deal with them. (It would be nice if there was some way to hide the titles for regular readers, however.) Anyway that's my thoughts. Sincerely,  Little Mountain  5   00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Link rot
I ran the link checker this morning, and it found six dead URLs in the citations. I've fixed the first of those, citation 28, and I created an archived URL for it using WebCite: citation 28. The other five dead URLs are 81, 97 , 120 , 126 , and 136 , according to the link checker. I'll see what I can do with those and report back here. Finetooth (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the Wayback Machine to find an archived version of citation 126 and used it to fix the dead link. I'm not sure in general what is meant by "archivedate", but I entered today's date, August 9, 2011, in lieu of a better idea. Can anyone explain the logic of "archivedate" to me if I've got it wrong? Finetooth (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already . According to the cite web template documentation, the archive date is the date the page was archived. For this particular citation, it would be December 26, 2004.  Little Mountain  5   17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes sense. I've now fixed citation 120 by using a different source for much the same numbers. I also made an archive URL for the new source so we won't lose it again: citation 120 archive. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Found and added archiveurl for citation 97. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto for citation 136. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. I created an archive URL for citation 81's new supporting document: citation 81 archived.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of longest streams of Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706184119/http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v9/sima_unique_v9?english%3FJATIP%3FC to http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v9/sima_unique_v9?english%3FJATIP%3FC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110034730/http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/WRK/riverforks1.html to http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/WRK/riverforks1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720122806/https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/49/m_maudlin_120700.pdf?sequence=1 to https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/49/m_maudlin_120700.pdf?sequence=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/docs/pdf/plans/mahlr_01_fnlpln.pdf?ga=t

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparent error
The main table has a "mouth elevation" column. I see that the Pudding River joins the Molalla River at 62 feet above sea level, then the Molalla River joins the Willamette at 69 feet above sea level. I think everything about this is right, except the elevations. Perhaps they are swapped, or one (or both) of them is just wrong. Water doesn't flow uphill in this part of Oregon; that happens near Cave Junction, though! Grahamaross (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are right about the Pudding River mouth elevation. The GNIS lists it as the same as the Molalla River mouth elevation. Odd but correct, apparently. The two mouths are very close to one another in a single floodplain. I have adjusted the Pudding River mouth elevation by plus four feet. Finetooth (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)