Talk:List of rivers of Minnesota

Readability

 * Perhaps the list of Minnesota Rivers page would be easier read if it was divided into a table or columns. Maybe the state could be broken into regions, and have a seperate table for each region.  It is easy to lose your place when you have to scroll so much.  Unlike others have mentioned below, I think all rivers and steams should be included in the list.  I know this is a tedious tasks, and I don't expect it to be accomplished anytime soon.  Only as more people begin to contribute their personal knowledge about individual streams is this likely happen.  I have only just begun contributing to Wikipedia, but these we a few of my thoughts.  --Andercee 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are actually two lists: List of Minnesota rivers and List of Minnesota streams. CJLippert 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

West Branches, South Forks, etc.

 * I'm not sure these branches need be included on the list, and certainly not in wikilink format. (Black text would suffice.)  Generally, headwater forks and branches are dealt with in the main article (there are some exceptions that can be found on wikipedia, which I think should generally be merged, but even the fairly major upper branches of the Potomac River are dealt with in the Potomac River article).  Listing these forks as wikilinks that all link to the same article may leave some readers with the expectation of separate articles (and the resulting annoying discovery that they don't), and also makes the list more difficult to read.  If they must be included, I'd propose changing them to black text and using double asterisks for an outline format. Malepheasant 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, carrying this to its conclusion by including the likes of the North Branch of the Middle Fork of the Zumbro River and its several brethren would seem to overwhelm the list.  It would be a lot of text to wade through. Malepheasant 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in a list, the list can become extremely extensive, especially in Minnesota. I do like the idea of the outline format. This way, the branches and forks can be a sub-entry, while in the case of West Portage River and East Portage River each can be kept as a primary entry (since the West Portage flows into the Sandy River while the East Portage flows into the St. Louis River). However, what about the North Vermillion River and the South Vermillion River, which as you go upstream merge to be just the Vermillion River. (This is a rare case where a river has two mouths, and not just a slough!) CJLippert 23:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "North Vermillion River (distributary)" under Vermillion River? (I'd add Vermillion to the list but I haven't checked out the naming/disambig issues.) The "distributary" article is a stub and I don't quite trust some of its wording (in particular the assertion that it applies only to "major" rivers), but I think it gets the point across.  Also thanks for the format change (outline format with black text for headwaters forks) -- I think it looks much better. Malepheasant 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Other Streams and HUC
So far, the List of Minnesota Rivers is growing. However should the rest of Minnesota streams be added, possibly as a separate page "List of Minnesota Streams" encompassing brooks, creeks and rivulets? Should all these rivers (and streams) pages also include the USGS HUC (Hydrological Unit Code)? If HUC were provided, should a list given by HUC be given their own listing pages as well? CJLippert 18:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see from other State listings that though HUC were not specifically given, the rivers are listed alphabetically and by watershed. I will go ahead and add Minnesota HUC.  After all the rivers have been entered in the "alphabetically," will work on filling in the HUC sorting.  Any ideas yet for the Streams? CJLippert 08:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with HUC codes... perhaps you could write an article about them? What might the average reader be able to do with the HUC codes provided?  As for smaller streams, if you're proposing to list every stream in the state, I think that should definitely be done on separate pages. Malepheasant 23:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I was filling in the list by tributaries for the St. Croix River basin, I've noticed the HUC goes from headwaters down and not the other way like the rest of similar list for other States. We may have to flip the HUC listings to conform with the tributary order. CJLippert 17:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Updates
I moved the alphabetical list section after the watershead sections, since that is the way it is done on other states. I added a note to explain watershed versus drainage area. I also added asterisks for the rivers and streams that are designated trout streams. There is a category for these streams but it made sense to add it here too. I also used the List tree template so that there are lines connecting. This was done on several other state listings and added to the readability. I also added an intro that shows the total number of streams in Minnesota and introduces the watersheds. -- Talk to G Moore 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)