Talk:Dredging

message: Dredgers was a messy article that didn't seem to contain anything that this article didn't have, and it included a link to a commercial website that seemed to be spam, so I redirected it and Dredging here.  If anyone disagrees, they can revert my changes, I suppose. GregoryWeir 19:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dredgers

message: That last revert wiped out several of my editing sessions. I also found in Altavista many more "dredge" than "dredger". But most of the uses of "dredge" did not mean "dredger ship/boat", even after weeding out cases where "dredge" meant cookery / pop musicians / a golfer / etc etc etc. Anthony Appleyard 18:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Googe very clearly indicates that "dredge" is the more common term for the ship.  Dredge yields 827,000 results, while dredger yields 91,100 (both without quotes).  Attempting to weed out as suggested, "dredge" "ship" returns 173,000, and "dredger" "ship" returns 39,000 (all terms in quotes).  Sorry about screwing up the later edits, but the article does need to reflect the common usage of the word. siafu 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't search "dredger ship" it was "dredger" and "ship" given that it's less likely to have the two words in one phrase as it is in seperate places on the page. The pop musician is "dredg" without the final e, and if you search on google with the terms "dredge" -"dredg" you still get over 800,000 results, and amost all that pop up refer to the ships.  The word "dredger", as far as I can tell, is much more rarely used-- I've certainly never heard it, and all the folks over at GLDD (both American and British) use the word "dredge" exclusively. siafu 21:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: dredge versus dredger

message: *One compromise on the learned internet babble above might be to focus on the output--dredging-- the process of getting a deep channel. Terms for machines can then be redirected to the article on dredging in general without needing to slight either societies variant.
*Splitting the article seems contraindicated. I agree that it needs a severe style and organizational overhaul. I'll add it to my TO-DO list, but it'll likely be a month or two.
*It would be helpful to have a list of percieved shortcomings below, as we all don't see with the same eyes.  So I'll add a section for that discussion below now as well. <B>Fra</B>nkB 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would someone who knows what they are talking about please split this article via a disambig page?
Maybe:
* Dredging
* Dredge (device)
* Dredger (vessel)/Dredge (vessel)
+ assorted other definitions.
-- TheMightyQuill 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Splitting, Clean Template and Such 

message: #Focus the article on the process of dredging and it's importance to world wide navigation, not on machines. <B>Fra</B>nkB 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Shortcomings (We can 'S'-thru) during A Clean Effort 

message: Could someone add a section highlighting the controversy surrounding the practise of dredging and its impact upon marine habitat? Tug201 06:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes this article is very unbalanced....really just a treatise on dredging hardware. needs a lot of work on worldwide occurrences and environmental impact, disposal, controversy etc. Anlace 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have now added a small amount of information on environmental effects. article is still highly unbalanced toward the hardware of dredging.  by the way wouldnt a better name for the article be Dredging?  Another idea would be to create a subarticle on the hardware of dredging. regards. Anlace 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental effects 

message: *Support name change. This seems like a logical move, since the article should be about more than the hardware. Anlace 05:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Please see WP:RM for help. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 05:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed article name change to [[Dredging]]

message: I cannot say I understand the objection to links to commercial dredging sites. Most of the world's dredging knowhow, with the exception of that portion held by the US Army engineering corps is in the hands of commercial companies. Persons wishing to inform themselves about dredging as an activity or the international dredging industry as a whole find such links helpful. Augusta2 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not specific to this article. If we allow commercial links for no other reasons than 'they might be of interest', then any and all could claim a right to be noted in Article X (do you really want all joghurt manufacturers worldwide on the joghurt article?). Therefore, links are acceptable only as part of references (i.e. if the commercial site has relevant data cited in the article). Otherwise, the only option is to produce a Wikipedia article about the company (for large companies, establishing notability should not be difficult) and then link per Wikilink in 'See also'. MadMaxDog 06:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be absolutely encyclopedic, so long as appropriate sourcing is found and used. siafu 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify siafu - even on a page about commercial dredging, commercial links would be at least debatable - unless the 'summary article' contained data which shows the notability of the linked companies. As noted before, if you would like links to specific companies themselves, creating Wikipedia articles about them individually would likely be the best way to go. It is absolutely acceptable to place a link to said company on a correctly referenced article about them. MadMaxDog 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, but if one were to create a List of dredging companies article, external commercial links would be appropriate, but only in cases where a wikipedia article does not exist. siafu 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought lists without articles (or other accompanying content) were discouraged? MadMaxDog 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, lists for which all the entries have accompanying articles are better rendered as categories.  In this case, of course, some of the entries would indeed have articles  and some would not. siafu 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just removed a load of links to dredging companies that had probably accumulated over time, if one is there then other people think it is ok to add more. I've left the three that have their own articles but to be honest I'm not sure if they should stay either. Using the example cited above of yoghurt only Danone is linked (because they industrialised the process) but no other companies are. I'll wait a while to check no one has strong feelings but I think that they should probably all be removed. Smartse (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial links

message: Please include in the article that new innovations in dredging have come up (new teeth based on bionics). They were developed by John Videler and Eize Stamhuis and are inspired on the teeth of snails.
81.246.142.27 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New dredge-innovations 

message: On 9 October 2007, User:Hagueacad added a large section of material to the introduction: edit 1, edit 2 (both marked as minor edits). This chunk of text seems to have been pasted from somewhere, but I can't find a source by web-searching phrases. It hasn't been edited to match Wikipedia style or become better integrated into the article in any way since then, so I think it's best to copy it here, remove it from the article, and let people sort out whether the information can be re-included in some way. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pasted material? 

message: This section appears to be written from a point of view that is sympathetic to the dredging industry (without discussing any other viewpoints). This content was inserted into the article in this revision. Jarble (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure that "sympathetic to the dredging industry" makes much sense here, as there isn't really a large conflict between dredging and some other group.  The section in question is definitely uncited, and also written in an non-encyclopedic tone (lots personal pronouns, e.g.), but the facts are indeed true.  Is there some opposing viewpoint that is not being considered?  If not, the concern should be entirely on sourcing and style, and not POV. siafu (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: thumb|right|300px|I was told this before, but forgot. Is this a dredge ship? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ID

message: I'm removing the section "Others [sic] types of dredgers". It contains only one subsection, "Suction dredger", just one paragraph in length, which is redundant in topic with the long and detailed section Suction dredger, and poorly written or translated (possibly from Brazilian Portuguese; see its links). I've "nowiki"ed its markup here, to avoid messing up this Talk page TOC and to show the links:
:==Others types of dredgers==
:===Suction dredger===
:A dredging technique consisting of cleaning, clearing, removal, demolition and excavation of material from the bottom of rivers, lakes, seas, wharfs and bays. Suction dredgers are widely used to remove sludge, sand, oil, and other detritus. Dredging, by result, can be applied on dredging's works of contaminated material or not, deepening, widening or expanding port areas, lakes, canals, basins evolution and anchoring, mooring berths, etc.
:
Thnidu (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  § Others types of dredgers 

message: The Spanish Word "DRAGA", which corresponds to "DREDGE" has a link to the English page (in "Lanaguages"), but the English page does not have a link to the Spanish page. Can anyone correct this? I don't know how to do it. 213.229.182.138 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the corresponding Spanish page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dredging. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nio.org/past_events/inchoe/dredging_eia.jsp#dredging_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dredging. 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/20070928020541/http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/7869/DredgeandSpoil.pdf to http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/7869/DredgeandSpoil.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731081854/http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil:80/dredge/dredge.htm to http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/dredge/dredge.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) 22:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dredging. 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/20110604060413/http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/bertha/21/bertha to http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/bertha/21/bertha
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604060413/http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/bertha/21/bertha to http://www.worldofboats.org/boats/view/bertha/21/bertha
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) 09:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is in need of some help- but noone is doing very much. You have to work on an article of this level a few times to appreciate the complexity. To help, I will be going where angels fear to tread- apologies in advance for bruised feelings. (Invite me round for coffee to discuss it, or just revert.)--ClemRutter (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing some of the obvious errors

message: Oppose: It seems to be a form of biological surveying tha just happens to have dredging in its name. This article has too many issues to solve first.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging in [[Ocean dredging]] 

message: This article's treatment of dredging as a form of placer mining is poor enough to be considered false and misleading. It is categorized in the Other section among trash and peat moss collection. It is contextualized in the introduction with sand and gravel values and, in an outright comical statement, is associated with "Hobbyists" (i.e. recreational miners).
Gold dredging has a solid WP article already, and I will work on the redirect in conjunction with improving this article. But fyi: the use of dredges for gold recovery has has a global impact on geography, anthropology, economics, and science - just to touch the surface. Dredge recovery of gold, just in the Western United States easily exceeds $50 billion dollars. I guess I better get to work!Luke Kindred (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuable Mineral Recovery 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion