Talk:Zuiderzee Works

message: I have completed this article on the Zuiderzeeworks and I'm interested in any feedback, but primarily on what the proper name should be: the current Zuiderzeeworks or something like Zuiderzee works / Zuiderzee Works / Zuiderzee project? -Scipius
: To confuse you a little more, the English way of writing Zuiderzee is "Zuider Zee" (and that's also the name of the article). A search for a name yields no name that is always used, and most uses are from Dutch page anyway, so I give as much credit to them as to you. I'd go for "Zuider Zee Works" (capitalised since it's a proper name). Jeronimo 23:37 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)
::I know, I've also seen "Zuyder Zee", another archaic Dutch spelling. The foreign forms seem to always come straight from Dutch. Problem is of course that the Zuiderzee no longer exists, so even though the Dutch spelling has now standardised to "Zuiderzee", foreign uses of the word can lag behind this development because they're not aware of it. The reason why I do prefer "Zuiderzee" to "Zuider Zee" is primarily because there seems to be no standard English spelling and the subject in intrinsically Dutch anyway, so I feel "Zuiderzee" could be the preferred English spelling as well, but I would like to know how native English speakers feel about it. If "Zuider Zee" is to be preferred, we can easily change it around. The name of the article itself is already Zuider Zee, but I suspect that may be just because that was the spelling in the encyclopedia topics list, rather than a deliberate decision. Where did those topics come from? -Scipius
: Don't know, it was created by some IP number on May 22, per the history. You can change either of the names, I don't really mind. Jeronimo
::Well, I'm still waiting for a possible Anglophone to show up ;), but otherwise I'll leave it as it is and make the above options into redirect pages. -Scipius
:In English we always use a two words constructions for the names of seas: Bering Sea, Aral Sea, Black Sea, etc. I guess because Zee sounds enough like Sea no one bothers to translate it. It may eventually change to Zuider Sea but not to Zuiderzee. So it should probably be Zuider Zee Works, however the very few references on google seem to favor Zuiderzee Works (18 to 2). --rmhermen
::The reason it didn't change to "Sea" is probably as indicated above, that the subject is too Dutch to warrant a proper anglification, and since it no longer exists anyway it's not likely to ever have one ;) Thanks, but I think I'll leave it at "Zuiderzee", since it does feel more natural to me and most current writing in English about the subject (due to being written by Dutch writers) seems to have Zuiderzee. I will change Zuiderzeeworks to Zuiderzee Works, since both of you also suggested to separate that (it was also my original preference, but I wasn't sure whether or not "Works" should be capitalised). I'll change it over later, should there be no further comments. -Scipius
Usually names are not translated. So it has to be Zuiderzee.--MathPaul 09:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: Any idea what would be the cost of a project to protect Bangladesh from the regular disastrous floods they experience?
:More than the country's worth...Start imagining a trillion dollars and then multiply it by five. Trying to protect this region is extremely foolish. You have to tame both the Ganges system and the cyclone-infested Bay of Bengals. Protecting some areas will vastly increase problems for other regions. Besides, flooding makes the land go up; turning it into a polder will make it go down. It is better to implement the system the Dutch used for thousands of years before feodal lords nearly destroyed the whole of their country: throw up artificial hills for refuge and never ever connect them by dikes. Let the water run free.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dikes for Dhaka 

message: I came here thanks to this article being a featured article. I found it to be interesting, I knew little about the subject. Some questions that came to my mind readily were not answered by the article:
* How long did it take for the new lake to lose most of its salt content (This is just a curiosity, really. I do wonder how long it would take for the rivers and rainfall to do their work?).
* Were ecological issues considered before the project was implemented? I suppose nowhere near as much as they would be if this was done today, but I'm sure people realized that they would be killing a lot of animals (in possibly cruel ways, too), most particularily saltwater fish, but other animals too as the ecosystem completely changed, and that might not have been ethical. this page mentions that the area does have a healthy ecosystem today and this paper has a lot more detail, including information about problems requiring corrective intervention that the new ecosystem had when it was still new, but I did not really find the answer to the question.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could add what they know? Thank you! Celada 03:22, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
:It took about six years, despite the fact that the lake is very shallow and the water was brackish to begin with. After 1934 saltloving species died out and thus a unique ecosystem was destroyed. This was widely lamented - but they did it anyway. Typically Dutch, I'm afraid: crying all the way to the bank. The fate of the animals as individuals was disregarded however, with the exception of a starving group of purpoises trapped in the Wieringermeer. Killing a lot of fish in a cruel way and then selling them is quite Dutch...
MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I listed then delisted this on Featured article removal candidates. I see the previous request for references from several months ago (above) wasn't answered. In any case, I'll leave this here for a bit since I started... Here's the problem summary:
:The article fails to meet: 2(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). No Reference section and no inline citations. The only candidate for a general reference source available in the article, from External links, is not in English. The article is detailed and the writing is OK, but there are numerous interpretations and conclusions beyond simple facts that should have some source, e.g. Though agriculture was initially again the main purpose of the polder, it had not yet been decided, the post-war period saw a shift in the design goals.--Tsavage 09:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs upgrade to maintain FA standard: Jan-2006 

message: The article says "As with dike buidling, making polders was tried out with the experimental polder at Andijk". But the Netherlands had already built many dikes and polders. So was this a new type of dikes/polders? An explanation would be in place. DirkvdM 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dike and polder experience 

message: I imagine that as the afsluitdijk grew and the gap shrank, the tidal currents would grow ever stronger, so the last bit must have been done very fast during 'dead tide' (or what is that called?). I probably won't be the only one who wonders about this. DirkvdM 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing the afsluitdijk 

message: The map of the Netherlands shows a water connection from the north of the Nooroostpolder to Delfzijl and the IJsselmeer also connects to the North Sea through the IJ and Noordzeekanaal. Are these also used for drainage? A word on this would make sense. DirkvdM 20:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drainage 

message: The use of the word administration is a bit confusing. It can mean several things, but I assume that it was used in the sense of 'government', 'government body' or 'governance' in the 'new land' section, so I changed that, not only because it's an ambigous word, but also because it's American English, whereas the article is written in English English. But in the last paragraph I'm not sure how it is meant. DirkvdM 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: Could someone tone down the last paragraph? As it's currently written it sounds like the voice-over for a WWII era propaganda film. Encyclopedia articles don't need to have an inspirational conclusion. In fact, they don't need a "conclusion" paragraph (in the sense of a five paragraph essay) at all. -- 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cue Inspirational Music 

message: The zuidersea and the new ijselmeer are parts of the waddensea en not from the north sea.
The zuidersea and the ijselmeer are not directly conntected to the north sea. 82.168.234.91 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wadden sea 

message: Zuiderzee Works or IJsselmeer Works ?
 
The Zuiderzee became the IJsselmeer and most works have been made after this lake became a fresh water lake long after the "death" of the Zuiderzee; why refering to that ancient sea and not to the IJsselmeer ?
--Laurentleap (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: The Bay is at 52°50′N 5°20′E but it would be good to get a more accurate location for the works themselves in the article. WilliamKF (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need coordinates added 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zuiderzee Works. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20021001182551/http://www.waterland.net:80/rdij/index_uk.htm to http://waterland.net/rdij/index_uk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The caption on the Sentinel-2 aerial photo doesn't make any sense.  What purple?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear photo caption