This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
I've tried to improve the article by restructering paragraphs and focussing on the subject at hand. I have done this by e.g. deleting informations that should be under windmills and not be (repeated) here.
Blue Henk18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, not sure what you mean ; German link isn't neccesary. Add it to the main article on the matter.) There is no main article on this flood on the en wiki; might be if I have a chance to trans the German article, but untilthen this is all that is avail on this flood outside the nl aspect touched on in this article.Bridesmill17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The German link isn't neccesary indeed, not in this article and not on that place.Of course this article focuses on the Dutch perspective (Hence the title) as for your claim of the fact that there is/was no separate article, try:Christmas flood 1717
The reason I put the link in was for the reader to get context on the issue. Neither 1717, nor this article, nor the german weihnachtsflut article mention the existence of the article you point out; my ESP obviously wasn't working. The title might specify Dutch, but the whole point of any encyclopedia and esp WP is to link things together. Therefore 'isn't necessary' is a contradiction - the German one isn't only because an en one exists.Bridesmill19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the wikipedians on the English wikipedia do not speak German, why would they need a German article link right in the middle of a text?
A wikilink to the Christmas flood should be on that specific article, not in this one and certainly not in the middle of it.
Also, I'd really like it if you'd put some extra work in your english.It's not my native language although I think even natives would have some problems knowing what you mean.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Dutch fight against water → History of flooding in the Netherlands … Rationale: The current name starts with the definite article, against Wikipedia's naming conventions, but even "Dutch fight against water" sounds silly. Its original name was "Dutch fight against the water", which is just as bad. It was moved to "History of flooding in the Netherlands" briefly in May, but the name was changed to the current one with the reasoning "in many (Dutch) encyclopedias it's called 'the fight against...' not 'history of flooding...'". But this is an English-language encyclopedia, and the current name just sounds bad in English. —User:Angr09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I agree that the title isn't everything it could be, this is the term used for this topic, also history of flooding does not cover the waterworks, justt flooding. Rex 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but even better would be something with "flood control" or "water infrastructure" or something indicating that it's about the engineering history. --Dhartung | Talk07:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duja's suggestion of moveoptions format was very good, so I'm restarting the survey portion. Please support one of the choices below, or add your own suggestion. Opposing choices is not necessary. User:Angr09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that The Dutch fight against water is not a good title; in Dutch prose it works well (as did the section titles that where here previously) but in English all the arguments proposed by nom apply. History of flooding in the Netherlands OTOH only covers half the issue, as per Rex. I'm therefore holding off on voting - as I'm For getting rid of the current title but Against the currently proposed one - the title must cover both the continual struggle against flooding/salinization and the extensive land reclamation. I have no suggestions at this time, but I am racking my brain...Bridesmill13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that somewhat simpler Flood control in the Netherlands might be better; it's fairly obvoius that an article about control of foo would contain the information of what problems foo has caused, so there's no need to complicate the title. Duja08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those titles however, do not mention the reclaiming of land ...
Which was why Hydraulic engineering in the Netherlands was suggested; it's the technically correct term that deals with all aspects of engineering in remediating flood damage, preventing it, and reclaiming land. But not sure how many people know that. Please note my concerns with water management above - it includes more irrelevant stuff than 'flood control' leaves out relevant.Bridesmill02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bridesmill about the ambiguity; if I saw an article with that title, my initial expectation would be an article on sewer systems and water treatment and such. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)20:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any title that really covers the information in this article ... so I was thinking, maybe we should splitt this article? One with all the floods and drowned villages, and another one containing all the efforts that have been made in reclaiming land and preventing floods?
Rex 21:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "more progressive"; the problem is it's inaccurate. The floods and the measures to control/prevent them are also so very inextricably linked that I'm not sure how you'd do a general overview article (which this is) without mentioning both - the floods in many cases being the sole "why" for many of the engineering ventures.Bridesmill13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
===>Suggestion for the name Since the article isn't strictly about flooding, how about something Water policies of the Netherlands? In case anyone wants to respond to this comment, tell me on my user talk, as I will not be monitoring this discussion; just throwing in my two cents. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I just added a whole bunch of mergesectionto templates throughout the article. Virtually every section in the article should be merged back into the appropriate main article. I know someone went to a lot of trouble to copy all the information from those articles into this one (and add some new information too), but it's not a good idea to maintain the same information in two different places, as the articles will get out of sync with each other. Also, consolidating so much information into one article has made this article too long; see Wikipedia:Article size. Klparrot01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common and sanctioned Wikipedia practice: see Wikipedia:Summary style. A summary article like this one should briefly explain various aspects and point to the articles with more detail using {{main}} or similar. If we merge everything as you suggest, this article wouldn't practically exist, while I'm sure you'll agree that it's quite useful, especially for readers that do not want to get into details. What makes this article overlong, actually, is the list of drowned villages; I don't think it adds to the article and I'd like it at least moved to a separate article if not outright deleted. Duja07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this article should provide brief summaries of its many subtopics. However, there are some full articles that are duplicated within this article. I don't think that copying a whole article can count as summary style, even if the article is only a couple of paragraphs. To me it seems like duplication, and as I mentioned previously, it's hard to keep the content in sync. If there is a canonical article for information about a subject, the the article is likely to be of better quality, since contributions are not split across multiple articles. To reiterate, though, I do agree with brief summaries of the subtopics, and links to the main articles; I do agree that this is a useful article, and I'm not suggesting reducing it to a point-form list of links to other articles. Klparrot08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say that these merges should be done. Having to switch between versions of the same information in two or more places is annoying, having to refer to both, and, as Klparrot said, these versions get out of step as people edit one or the other. Anthony Appleyard07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed merging from here to there is the wrong solution. As outlined in Wikipedia:Summary style, this article should contain brief summary of the outlined features. If the linked-to "main" article is just a word-for-word short copy of this one, it should be either deleted & redirected here or expanded; or, if a section in this article is overlong, it should be moved to a separate article with a brief summary here. This article is pretty much accidentally on my watchlist (due to WP:RM above); I'm not competent on the subject at all. While I agree with your and P199's comment above that it's not as it should be, please be bold and make an order in the articles; you don't need voting for that. I'm just pointing you to the style guide and common practice—short summary here, details in individual articles (if they justify detailed descriptions; for example, Terp hardly does at the first glance). Duja08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but I think you over-shortened a bit. Now, it's hardly seen what Afsluitdijk and Delta Works are about, unless one goes to the respective articles. E.g. (Afsluitdijk) "This was built in 1932 to 1933"—this what? Duja
OK, I put up my sleeves and did some reorganization instead of just reproaching; my Gosh, how many duplicate information is still in the other articles. Duja09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone notice that the name of the article suggests that there has been a centurylong rational and nationwide operational (approach) in preventing area's to flood? In history, the Netherlands consisted out of more than 1 provinces which each had their own ways to prevent flooding. In order to get a nationwide approach they made the 'waterschappen' which was based on terretorial boundaries (and were the first political institutions which bounded the Netherlands.
My suggestion is to change the name of the article, because there has only for a few century's been a nationwide 'controll' of flooding. I have two arguments. One is stated here above. Second is that there has not always been a state of 'controll' but also a state of 'batteling the water and making new land out of the sea'. The Dutch have got many polders and this is also described in the articele. This was mainly done because of the fact that the country was in need of more good farmland or to place new city's that could help other big city's from their overpopulation. In fact, that is not controll but a real 'battle' against the water. GeograafEN (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (dutch user)[reply]
Actually the current article doesn't tell anyone very much. Dikes are hardly mentioned, dunes not at all, neither are 'waterschappen' though these are all a necessary part of the sea defenses in the Netherlands. Drainage Methods on the other hand is a strange inclusion as it does not describe the reasons for drainage (land subsidence) and is not directly connected to sea defence. I think we should keep the defense against sea floodings and the drainage of surplus inland water separate. The header 'currently' could mention the 'basiskustlijn' (base coastline) and the continuous sandsupplementing works as well as future projects such as extra pumping stations.The 'Notorious floods' list is a summary of the same list on deltawerken.com. If a flood had a major influence on the development of sea defenses in the Netherlands than it should be mentioned in the text. I think the list in itself has little function in this article. I'm willing to rewrite the article if I can find some sources (pointers anyone?) and the time and motivation. Reboelje (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I acted on my own suggestions as there were no other comments. History section largely done though still need to add something about the waterschappen (waterboards) and it could use some on topic images. I'll clean up 'modern developments' next and expand the 'currently' section. I also plan to add something about the use of inundation as military defense (Dutch Water Line), with a pointer to the main article. Could someone check and improve the work done so far, or at least improve the language as I don't have a high hat on of my language skills. :-) Reboelje (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the other map is a bit vague and incorrect, I improved it. That map actually shows the part of the Netherlands above NAP (which I think is actually now 10 cm below mean sea level). This (red/blue) map shows which parts of the Netherlands are vulnerable to flooding from storm surges and overflowing rivers, so includes areas that may be way above sea level. It's imprecise but I don't see where it contradicts the other map or were it is wrong (except for the file name). I actually like it better than the other map as it is clearer and more informative. However it would be much better if both maps could be combined and the information on it properly sourced. Reboelje (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the two maps I did a quick merge of the two maps to find any discrepancy but it seems to be fine (though the result is not exactly wiki-worthy). Utrecht is above sealevel and protected from floods. Reboelje (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The required standard is proof against a 1 in 10,000 years flood in the west, and 1 in 4,000 years in less densely populated areas. This capacity is tested every 5 years. "In 2010 about 800 km of dikes out of a total of 3,500 km failed to meet the norm [standard]". So far so good. But the next sentence, makes no sense: "This does not mean there is an immediate flooding risk, it is the result of the norm becoming more strict from the results of scientific research on for example wave action and sea level rise". What it should read is "There is limited risk of flooding, as the risk of a 1 in 4,000 year flood in any one year is only 0.025%, and the required standard for dikes to meet these norms has been increasing as a result of scientific research on for example wave action and sea level rise".Royalcourtier (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
