175:'s book "Names on the Land" there's a couple pages on this. There was a "great river of the west" on many old maps, named something like "Oregon", and located more or less where the Columbia River turned out to be. Stewart points out, "Over the source of this name more controversy has raged than over any other on the continent," and goes on to list some of the theories, but thinks the "most likely" source is the one he tells at some length: "Among the French explorers of the west was the Baron Lahontan. He was not a man of integrity, and told a tale of a certain Long River which did not exist. But he wrote charmingly and his book with illustrations and maps was published in French and English in several editions. Most of these contained a map on which appeared Wisconsin River, spelled in French fashion Ouisconsink. But for the French edition of 1715 this map was redrawn by a careless engraver who made many mistakes which names, such as Magara for Niagara. He wrote Ouisconsink as Ouariconsint, and he broke the word with a small hyphen because the map was crowded, and put "sint" beneath. So anyone looking at the map a little carelessly would think that there was a river Ouaricon, flowing toward the west." ...then, summarizing, in 1760 the British soldier Major Robert Rogers went west to receive the surrender of the French posts at Detroit and elsewhere, where he heard the old tale about a great river flowing to the Pacific Ocean through a break in the Rocky Mountains. Whether or not he believed the story (the French were fairly skeptical themselves), in 1765 Major Rogers petitioned the King of England for a commission and money for searching for the Northwest Passage by way of this river. At the time the (still wholly mythical) river was generally known as "the river of the west", but in Major Rogers' petition he added that the river of the west was called by the Indians Ouragon, Ourgan, and Ourigan (spelling back then was pretty loose), supposedly taking the river Ouaricon from the French map and mistaking it for the "river of the west", and spelling it in a slightly more English style, substituting the French c for an English g. Rogers was denied the commission and was instead posted to command Michilimackniac. From there, Rogers sent Jonathan Carver to explore west, and the word "Oregon" was firmly established by Carver's 1778 publication "Travels through the Interior Parts of North America", a work that has often been called a "work of fiction".
423:
over-stated. Gray himself does not seem to have made much of it, beyond that it afforded him some good trading, and
American territorial claims on its basis were not mooted at the time -- at least not that I have read. The whole idea that this one bit of exploration by a private trader should have given the U.S. territorial claim to so vast an area, an area that was being much more extensively explored by other nations at the time, seems preposterous, and all the more so considering that the U.S. only extended east to the Missisippi at the time, the Louisiana Purchase being over a decade away, as yet. American territorial claims in the era a little afterward were not always conspicuous for their reasonableness, and a hagiographic, hindsight over-emphasis on the effect of Gray would not be out of character for them, but this needs to be presented for what it is. I've added some material on George Vancouver's explorations, which balances matters out somewhat.
31:
442:
discharge. The stream gauges below The Dalles are not as useful, and the USGS points out the problem of tides affecting measurements anyway. I also mentioned the historic high measurement of 1,240,000 cfs. Since the 1950s and all the dam building, the peak flows at The Dalles have never reached above 700,000 cfs, according to the Atlas of Oregon.
911:
664:
614:
577:
466:
396:
357:
299:
256:
131:
1003:
Verruckte, I would be surprised - and a bit disappointed - if there's a broad policy on whether infobox details need to be included in the prose, since the content of infoboxes varies so widely on different articles. I'd hope these questions can be resolved on their specific merits, rather than by an
989:
Pete, if I'm not mistaken, the general guideline for infoboxes is that any information they contain should also be stated in the text of the article. I can't remember where I read this off the top of my head, but it seems to me a good policy. the infobox serves as a quick summary of the information
492:
I edited the volume. For this time of year mean flow is over 300,000 cfs. Total yearly mean flow is somewhat lower, but not less than 284,000 cfs, which makes the
Columbia larger in Volume than the St. Lawrence and Mackenzie. Tides can affect the gaging, as when water is inflowing the discharge will
1013:
I don't feel strongly about whether or not it's included in the article, but I do feel strongly that the details don't belong in the introduction. I came to that conclusion after showing the article to a friend - who's not a WP editor - and she stumbled on all the detail in the intro, and commented
441:
Just updated to a "Geobox River" style and edited some stats. I changed the average annual discharge from 262,000 cfs (unreferenced) to 192,100, as given by the USGS and the Atlas of Oregon. The stream gage at The Dalles is the oldest and seems to be the default for measuring the
Columbia's total
94:
The article starts off with: "situated in
British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest of the United States."... think it odd that British Columbia is mentioned first, given that the majority of its length, including the stretches best known, are in the PNW US". Probably just quibbling though. --
1084:
160:
I'd like to see a reference for this. I'm a local and have never heard this. As I recall, L. McArthur in "Oregon
Geographic Names", does not ascribe the name "Oregon" to a native american name. That would seem the obvious choice if "Ouragan" was the original name for the Columbia. It would be
799:
the article. Personally, I just instantly thought it looked rather bizarre to have a French translation on an article for what is primarily (in terms of area covered and ratio of volume) a U.S. river which has its headwaters in a
Canadian province that isn't known (to me at least, correct if I'm
739:
and it just says French. I'm crroius how exactly that would look, plus what the point of that would be. And should we start adding notes for
American vs. British English pronuciation like "about"? The fact that Canada has both languages and the river is just as much their's as ours I think would
186:
Stewart's book is a classic on placenames, but getting a bit old now, so maybe there is new information about the origin of the name. But I suspect it is still a bit of a mystery. Whether or not
Stewart's story is true, it is a good one -- that a misspelling of the French spelling of Wisconsin
180:
A complicated story! Other theories are simplier, like, as
Stewart puts it, "wild guesses" that "Oregon" comes from Spanish "oregano", or "origen" (origin); or from the old Spanish kingdom of Aragon; or from the French "ouragan" (storm); or the Shoshone "ogwa-peon" (river-west); or the Chippewa
650:
No worries, the layout could use some fixin', but your changes looked bad at some resolutions. The table to the left of the images had images was partially obscured. Right now I don't like the big white space where you tried to put the images, that certainly needs to go. I think the dams and
449:
I changed the river's length very slightly, with a reference (there was none before). I also slightly changed the stats on
Columbia Lake (which also were unsourced). Finally, since it seems unlikely that a page for Columbia Lake will be made anytime soon (if ever), I unlinked it -- the redlink
1082:
Dredging of the Columbia has been a major political football in recent years, though I don't know the current status. The Port of Portland has pushed for the river to be dredged between Portland and the ocean, to make it deep enough for newer container ships, that they say will otherwise pass
937:
I removed the following details from the main prose, it's all available in the infobox, or is an easy calculation from those numbers. I think this makes the article read better, and especially makes some points more readily apparent to readers who don't happen to be interested in the specific
506:
The 284,000 cfs value is not supported by the reference link you provided . . . unless you're referring to the median value given in the link, which is only for May 1. The 265,000 cfs value is referenced, and it's consistent with the value obtained during the 1941-70 survey (262,000 cfs).
445:
I left the basin size as 258,000 sq mi, as was already on the page. A reference source for that would be nice. All the US government sources (USGS, EPA, etc) give the drainage basin size for the US only. The USGS GNIS page goes as far as citing the river's "source" as the Canada-US boundary!
422:
The history section seems to have somewhat of a pro-American slant, or at least to be written too much from an American (non-neutral) viewpoint. In particular, the assertions about the effect of Gray's entry of the Columbia River on American claims to the whole "Oregon Country" seem much
893:
articles, so I say nix any suggestion that just because this is a Canadian river it has to have French content. yes, there were Quebeckers here, among other kinds of French most were Metis from the Prairies who had never seen Quebec) but there were also Norwegians and Hawaiians
761:
I don't see what harm there is in including the French name. Since Canadian sources come in French and English, it may help to provide the river's French name. On the other hand, the French name is not unusual -- the spelling of "Columbia" is the same (unlike the French name of
804:
French-speaking population. It just seemed superflous. You're absolutely right about the Quebecois distinction though, I don't see it anywhere else on Canadian articles. Sorry if that was just the knee-jerk Francophobia of an American, but it looked out of place to me.
979:(Note: I was thinking about putting it into a box like above, until I decided to just cut it.) Also, I'm wondering if we should do away with the "Tributaries" section, in favor of a bit of prose mentioning the biggest 4 or 5, and a link to the list. Thoughts? -
713:
The Pacific Northwest was originally settled by both U.S. and Canada. Canada was much more French-speaking back then. The idea that it would have a French name, and that it would be notable, does not seem like much of a stretch. VT, why would you revert
603:
The geography section although i believe is all accurate does not flow logically. It jumps from beginning to end to middle and back to end again. When describing the flow you should start at the headwaters and flow all the way to the mouth.
651:
tributaries image should be moved out of the infobox and into this dead space. That might help some. I'm short on time right now, maybe I'll mess with it later. Feel free to try something else, I appreciate your efforts to improve it.
990:
available more in depth in the article. For example, the text you removed mentioned the date of the max flow. Trying to include such facts in the infobox would make it unwieldy, and best left for the text. Let me know what you think.
766:, "la Colombie-Britannique"). So, while I'm ambivalent about the inclusion or exclusion of the French name of the river, I guess I'd come down on the side of inclusion, unless someone can explain how including it harms the article.
343:
That would be important, and yes they didn't switch ships until June 24. Now had that been in 1792, then it would be worth mentioning. However, if you read the article you referenced it says the switch was in
286:
The photo of the gorge in this article is somewhat deceptive...it is a photograph of the extreme west end of the gorge and thus is not very representative of how the gorge looks. This should be fixed...
383:
Some of the pairs of figures given for imperial and SI units do not tally: while "1,232 miles (2,044 km)" can be considered a rough approximation, "258,000 square miles (415,211 kmĀ²)" is a long way off.
453:
If I get around to it, I'll check the discharge stats for the tributaries and provide references. The Atlas of Oregon provides some stats and I think they differ from the ones listed here. That is all!
700:
Yes, but the river doesn't start in Quebec, it starts in British Columbia. And if it's Quebecois French we're talking about, why didn't the parenthetical translation mention that to begin with?
233:. I find it odd that there isn't more information close at hand: one would think that with all of the settler's memoirs & detailed records on various aspects of Native American life like
187:
could be the origin of Oregon is pretty amazing. Unless there is a good source of the origin, references to it should probably say something about the controversy and uncertainty about it. -
865:/river; it's an irony of Canadian political linguistics that French preserves the name of the river in its Latin form, but when the river's name, by way of its being a namesake for the
877:. Which to me is just another typical misapprehension of BC history by Central Canadians, though in this case it's the French Central Canadians. But we don't have "
157:
The article states: "Ouragan" is the original name for the Columbia River. Native American and First Nations stories hold the "Ouragan" as a very spiritual place.
333:
article, he was given command of the Columbia Rediviva on June 24th. As I understand it, the Lady opened the Columbia a few days before Rediviva showed up.
516:
791:
First off, it isn't being "aggressive" to make edits (I didn't "revert" anyone's recent edits brashly, I made my own) and then reasonably discuss them.
861:
page, about the inclusion of the French name. Myself, in this case, I think it's irrelevant, as the French name is the smae as the English except for
740:
warrant the inclusion. On this side of the border we get accussed enough of nationalism that I don't think we need to throw more fuel on the flames.
213:
As for what the natives called the river before the rest of us happened along, I don't think they called it "Oregon". According to Lewis McArthur's
640:
Sorry Cacophony - the image rearrangement looked good on my small laptop monitor. Out of curiosity, what was the problem? Thanks for fixing it. -
119:
Well, the river does START in BC does it not? How about "stretches from British Columbia into the Pacific Northwest of the United States"? -
221:, written 1817. As for a native American name of the river, all that McArthur supplies that some thought for a while (ca. 1793-1810) it was
690:
Unless I'm mistaken the river does start in Canada, a bilingual (English/French) country. So I'm thinking the French name should go back?
1113:
1023:
If you want to include it in the prose, could I suggest either the Hydroelectric section, or a new section devoted to statistics? -
554:
Did the Missoula Floods form the river, or did the Columbia River Gorge exist, cutting through the Cascades, before the floods? -
972:
81:
76:
71:
59:
1083:
Portland by, damaging the economy. But environmental groups have strongly opposed the efforts. I just found an article
494:
38:
795:
people. But feel free to revert it w/o starting an edit war. per Pfly's comment, I don't particularly see how it
735:
Where on Knowledge (XXG) does it mention "Quebecois French" in a parenthetical translation, since I'm looking at
1101:
918:-- Skookum's point seems valid, that the river's name is identical except for the word "river"/"fleuve". -
120:
96:
162:
1109:
923:
676:
626:
605:
589:
478:
408:
369:
311:
288:
272:
143:
334:
515:
discharges are both well over 300,000 cfs at the mouth (see their wikipedia article links as well as
512:
792:
497:
47:
17:
899:
385:
217:, the first person to call the river "Oregon" was the poet William Cullen Bryan in his long poem
1041:
991:
866:
172:
1040:
Moving the information from the intro section sounds like a good move, I'll give it a shot.
857:
there was a similar discussion on either the WikiProject British Columbia page, or about the
1105:
1088:
1062:
1024:
980:
919:
858:
827:
763:
741:
719:
691:
672:
641:
622:
585:
555:
474:
428:
404:
365:
345:
307:
268:
264:
139:
564:
The river existed before the floods in essentially the same form as today, gorge and all.
508:
326:
652:
234:
110:
895:
844:
806:
701:
330:
1117:
1091:
1065:
1044:
1027:
994:
983:
927:
903:
847:
830:
809:
770:
744:
722:
704:
694:
680:
655:
644:
630:
593:
568:
558:
541:
525:
500:
482:
458:
431:
425:
A couple of other points seem doubtful to me; I've tagged them as needing citations.
412:
388:
373:
348:
337:
315:
291:
276:
245:
191:
165:
147:
123:
113:
99:
890:
886:
522:
242:
230:
1087:
on this topic, but some research should be done into more recent developments. -
736:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
200:
There's a fairly detailed discussion of the proposed sources for the name at
767:
565:
538:
455:
188:
534:
869:, became the basis fo the colony's name, and afterwards the province's,
826:
Hey Van, I'm sorry about that remarkā¦you're right, I was out of line. -
966:
area drained: 258,000 square miles (668,217 kmĀ²) (about 15% in Canada)
958:
201:
1014:
that it distracted from her ability to grasp the important points.
229:, but that it was later learned this name properly applied to the
961:
25:
948:
elevation drop: 2,700 feet in 1,232 miles (822 m in 1,982 km)
957:
highest recorded flow was 1,240,000 ftĀ³/s (35,113 mĀ³/s), on
537:, a USGS report -- much better than raw stream gage data.
954:
average annual flow: about 265,000 ftĀ³/s (7,500 mĀ³/s)
437:
Updated Infobox to Geobox and various edits and stats
873:it was deemed necesary to render "Columbia"-: -->
364:-- apparently a misunderstanding of the source. -
940:
181:"owah-wakan" (river of slaves); and much else.
8:
138:-- phrasing utterly changed at this point. -
241:of the native names for this river. --
321:History - Captain Gray on the Columbia
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
800:wrong here) as having an influential
718:discussing? Seems a bit aggressive. -
7:
403:-- using conversion templates now. -
535:Largest Rivers in the United States
621:-- section rewritten since then. -
24:
909:
662:
612:
575:
464:
394:
355:
297:
254:
129:
29:
951:length: 1,243 miles (2,000 km)
325:Captain Gray was still on the
1:
1118:23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
432:01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
418:Troubles with History section
389:15:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
349:00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
292:20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
338:01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
329:on May 11: according to the
671:-- completely rearranged. -
246:00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
192:01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
1134:
608:02:28, May 27, 2007 (UTC)
459:01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
282:Columbia River Gorge photo
928:23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
904:08:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
848:14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
831:07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
810:07:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
771:04:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
745:03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
723:03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
705:01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
695:01:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
681:23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
631:23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
594:23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
483:23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
413:19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
374:19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
316:19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
277:19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
237:, that someone preserved
148:19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
124:12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
114:23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
100:15:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1092:22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1066:19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
1045:13:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1028:22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
995:23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
984:00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
656:06:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
645:01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
166:05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
569:20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
559:07:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
542:15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
526:13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
501:05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
215:Oregon Geographic Names
1061:I like what you did. -
977:
933:Removed some specifics
584:-- thanks for reply. -
97:User:151.132.206.146
42:of past discussions.
161:exciting, if true. -
121:User:142.179.156.118
1004:overarching policy.
153:History - "Ouragan"
109:from improving it?
18:Talk:Columbia River
606:User:24.22.158.233
289:User:71.56.139.167
1120:
1104:comment added by
867:Columbia District
507:Furthermore, the
493:read much lower.
335:User:66.93.40.145
173:George R. Stewart
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1125:
1099:
975:
917:
913:
912:
859:British Columbia
764:British Columbia
670:
666:
665:
620:
616:
615:
583:
579:
578:
472:
468:
467:
402:
398:
397:
363:
359:
358:
305:
301:
300:
265:Oregon (toponym)
262:
258:
257:
137:
133:
132:
105:What's stopping
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1080:
976:
971:
935:
910:
908:
688:
663:
661:
638:
613:
611:
601:
576:
574:
552:
550:Missoula Floods
490:
465:
463:
439:
420:
395:
393:
381:
356:
354:
327:Lady Washington
323:
298:
296:
284:
255:
253:
223:Tacootche-Tesse
155:
130:
128:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1131:
1129:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
998:
997:
969:
968:
967:
964:
955:
952:
949:
943:By the numbers
934:
931:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
836:
835:
834:
833:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
728:
727:
726:
725:
708:
707:
687:
684:
659:
658:
637:
634:
600:
597:
572:
571:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
520:
519:
498:User:Peckvet55
489:
486:
438:
435:
426:
424:
419:
416:
380:
377:
352:
351:
322:
319:
283:
280:
251:
250:
249:
248:
239:at least a few
235:Chinook Jargon
208:
207:
206:
205:
195:
194:
183:
182:
177:
176:
154:
151:
117:
116:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1130:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1077:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
988:
987:
986:
985:
982:
974:
965:
963:
960:
956:
953:
950:
947:
946:
945:
944:
939:
932:
930:
929:
925:
921:
916:
906:
905:
901:
897:
892:
888:
884:
883:fleuve Skeena
880:
879:fleuve Fraser
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
849:
846:
843:Thanks Pete!
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
832:
829:
825:
824:
823:
822:
811:
808:
803:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
772:
769:
765:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
746:
743:
738:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
724:
721:
717:
712:
711:
710:
709:
706:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
685:
683:
682:
678:
674:
669:
657:
654:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
635:
633:
632:
628:
624:
619:
609:
607:
598:
596:
595:
591:
587:
582:
570:
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
557:
549:
543:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
517:
514:
510:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
487:
485:
484:
480:
476:
471:
461:
460:
457:
451:
450:bothered me.
447:
443:
436:
434:
433:
430:
417:
415:
414:
410:
406:
401:
391:
390:
387:
378:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
350:
347:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
332:
331:John Kendrick
328:
320:
318:
317:
313:
309:
304:
294:
293:
290:
281:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
209:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
193:
190:
185:
184:
179:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
164:
158:
152:
150:
149:
145:
141:
136:
126:
125:
122:
115:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1096:
1095:
1081:
1042:VerruckteDan
992:VerruckteDan
978:
942:
941:
936:
914:
907:
891:Skeena River
887:Fraser River
882:
878:
874:
870:
862:
856:
801:
796:
715:
689:
667:
660:
639:
636:Image layout
617:
610:
602:
580:
573:
553:
523:User:Myasuda
521:
513:St. Lawrence
491:
473:Good work! -
469:
462:
452:
448:
444:
440:
421:
399:
392:
382:
360:
353:
324:
302:
295:
285:
259:
252:
238:
231:Fraser River
226:
222:
218:
214:
159:
156:
134:
127:
118:
106:
93:
65:
43:
37:
1106:Peteforsyth
1100:āPreceding
875:la colombie
742:Aboutmovies
737:Nova Scotia
692:Aboutmovies
429:Lonewolf BC
346:Aboutmovies
267:for more. -
219:Thanatopsis
36:This is an
793:WP:Be bold
379:Statistics
1085:from 1990
938:numbers.
894:here.....
653:Cacophony
599:Geography
533:See also
509:Mackenzie
227:Tacootche
111:Wahkeenah
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1114:contribs
1102:unsigned
1078:Dredging
896:Skookum1
845:VanTucky
807:VanTucky
702:VanTucky
90:Situated
885:in the
243:llywrch
39:archive
959:June 6
863:fleuve
802:modern
716:before
686:French
386:Tonyho
263:, see
202:Oregon
163:Jill K
881:" or
797:harms
488:Flows
344:1789.
16:<
1110:talk
1097:DONE
1089:Pete
1063:Pete
1025:Pete
981:Pete
973:USGS
962:1894
924:talk
920:Pete
915:Done
900:talk
889:and
871:then
828:Pete
768:Pfly
720:Pete
677:talk
673:Pete
668:Done
642:Pete
627:talk
623:Pete
618:Done
590:talk
586:Pete
581:Done
566:Pfly
556:Pete
539:Pfly
511:and
479:talk
475:Pete
470:Done
456:Pfly
409:talk
405:Pete
400:Done
370:talk
366:Pete
361:Done
312:talk
308:Pete
303:Done
273:talk
269:Pete
260:Done
189:Pfly
144:talk
140:Pete
135:Done
95:AAA
427:--
225:or
171:In
107:you
1116:)
1112:ā¢
970:ā
926:)
902:)
679:)
629:)
592:)
518:).
496:-
481:)
411:)
372:)
314:)
275:)
146:)
1108:(
922:(
898:(
675:(
625:(
588:(
477:(
407:(
368:(
310:(
306:-
271:(
204:.
142:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.