Talk:Flood control in the Netherlands

Clean up and NPOV

This article needs a serious work through and edit. It is poorly formatted and contains many POV-statements and speculation. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you give examples of these "many POV-statements" ? Sander 10:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Henk 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

last rv

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.Bridesmill 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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.Bridesmill 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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 result of the debate was Move to "Flood control in the Netherlands". —Wknight94 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• 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:Angr 09:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First survey (closed)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as requester. User:Angr 09:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment. With Rex's comment in mind, why not a compromise location, such as Flooding and flood control in the Netherlands, or something similar to that? I don't think the current title works at all. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this name is better. FairHair 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support anything but the current title which sounds like the title of a bad action flick. -AjaxSmack 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but even better would be something with "flood control" or "water infrastructure" or something indicating that it's about the engineering history. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and restart the survey using {{moveoptions}}. There's more or less consensus that the current name is bad, but the suggested one is off the track: the article is more about the history of flood control attempts than of flooding itself. As Hitbull said, Flooding and flood control in the Netherlands or, simpler still, Flood control in the Netherlands would be better. Duja 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Second survey (moveoptions format)

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:Angr 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch fight against water

History of flooding in the Netherlands

Flooding and flood control in the Netherlands

• Mild support, acceptable, but prefer the simpler version below. Duja 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support (second choice). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Flood control in the Netherlands

• Support as proposer. Duja 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support agree w/ Duja this one is betterBridesmill 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support (second choice). —Ruud 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Infrogmation 17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks for the suggestion, Duja. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Most descriptive, easiest to understand. --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. - AjaxSmack 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Water management in the Netherlands

• Support (first choice). —Ruud 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support  Rex  20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Infrogmation 17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like this, as a more progressive term, but I think most people would not immediately grasp it. --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's fairly OK too, more precise but maybe less obvious, as Dhartung said. Duja 06:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

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...Bridesmill 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydraulic engineering in the Netherlands?Bridesmill 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on History of flooding in the Netherlands either; I only suggested it because it already existed. I'm quite open to even better suggestions. User:Angr 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "water management in the Netherlands" ?  Rex  15:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I could get behind that. User:Angr 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To me it implies a connection to sanitation and water usage - I rather like the Flooding and flood control in the Netherlands idea; a bit lenghty, but I think better than my suggestion which was technically correct but not many non-engineer types would use it.Bridesmill 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Duja 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Those titles however, do not mention the reclaiming of land ...

 Rex  17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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.Bridesmill 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with this suggestion. The "Notorious floods" and "drowned villages" could be combined in another article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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.Bridesmill 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

===>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, mail 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

Delta Works

Why is everything (or almost everything) in the articles Delta Works, Oosterscheldekering, and Maeslantkering repeated here word-for-word in the "Delta Works" section? I suggest an abbreviated description and put the reference template {{main|...}} at each subsection. -- P199 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge back into other articles

• 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. Klparrot 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  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. Duja 07:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  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. Klparrot 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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 Appleyard 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  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). Duja 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Many of Flood control in the Netherlands's sections were not summaries but bulk carbon copies from the separate articles. I have replaced them by summaries with pointers to the separate articles. Anthony Appleyard 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  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. Duja 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

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)

Suggestions

• 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)

• 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)

Removing of a map

File:Netherlandsbelowsea.png

This map contradicts the other one.

Some areas seem to be below the sea level and not vulnerable to flooding ! The map shown here is wrong and should be removed.

--Laurentleap (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

To my point of view, the region around Utrecht contradict the two maps.--Laurentleap (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

This map (pdf) is much clearer. It shows all the areas surrounded by dikes and higher ground (Dike-rings) that are protected from flooding with their flooding risk. (Source) Reboelje (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about testing

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)