Talk:Afsluitdijk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Boys?

There is a small piece about school boys who cycled across the dike. Seems not relevant. People cycle across the dike on a daily basis, including schoolkids. 145.58.16.64 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

this'll need some grammar and spelling checks...

Is "Suydersee" an alternate spelling of Zuiderzee or a typo? --Brion 00:36 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
What I find on Google would suggest it's an alternate spelling. Hephaestos 01:27 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)
Nope, it's probably an archaic spelling variant. Jeronimo

From what I've heard, "sluit" is pronounced not "sloot" (which would be "sloet") but somewhere between "slight" and "slout". Can one of the Dutch transliterate it better? -phma

Best approximation would be French "l'oeuil", without the l sounds. Jeronimo

It should be slœyt according to Dutch phonology

Try saying the the English word "slate" but make your lips rounded and pouted as you say the "a", that is I think the best way of explaining it if you don't know the IPA.

Booshank 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the text the original author added, I think he/she followed a link to "Afsluitdijk" and added the text, without realising that the article on the Zuiderzee Works actually contains far more info on the dam than this article does. Furthermore, the second paragraph has nothing to do with the Afsluitdijk and the transliteration is indeed incorrect. I propose to delete the text and make this article a redirect to the Zuiderzee Works. Anyone object? Scipius 18:49 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

The second paragraph is indeed irrelevant, but I think we need a separate article on the Afsluitdijk - it's not the same as the Zuiderzee Works (though an important part of it though). If there's a lot of information at Zuiderzee Works, why not copy it from there? There's no problem with having some duplicate information around. Jeronimo
Duplication would also be possible, but we would lose most of the context into which the info is embedded in the Zuiderzee Works article. Also, it's not some information that would be duplicate at this point, it would be most (nothing will likely be left of the current article), but that may not be a problem of course. I guess this kind of ties in with the debate on m:Consolidating v/s breaking up, I'm not sure if we want to create separate pages for each of the polders too, and related to this, whether Oosterscheldedam will remain once I've written a similar article on the Delta Works. Scipius 19:54 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
But just because understanding Operation Market Garden requires (extensive) knowledge of World War II and lot of other articles, doesn't mean we should just redirect everything there. Having a separate article on Afsluitdijk seems useful; we can refer (by links, or more explicitly) to Zuiderzee Works for detailed information and context. If somebody wants to put in more detail, copied or not from Zuiderzee Works, that is fine. If not, the context can be read there. Jeronimo
Well, I've copied the info from Zuiderzee Works to here and though it now seems a more informative article, I still don't see much use for it. I will remove the link from Zuiderzee Works to here, since it now contains virtually the same text. Also, suppose someone adds info to either text, should the other text then also be updated? I remain of the opinion that a redirect or an in-page anchor (should it ever be implemented) would be an easier solution. Scipius 12:38 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Pronunciation questions seem to spring up from time to time in Dutch-related articles. It may seem like overkill to add IPA everywhere though... Maybe a quick-reference chart for Dutch names could be created? Maybe it already exists? In that case only irregularly spelt names would need IPA.

Another idea: replace Netherlands category by a template which can include both the category and a link to such a reference chart. Search and replace in 25 pages is doable. (It's the sub-categories I'm worried about. But they won't all need the reference chart - I hope.) Shinobu 01:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Afsluitdijk (1940)

I've read somewhere that there was a great battle of Afsluitdijk in 1940 between Dutch and German forces and that this was the only battle during all the Blitzkrieg operations between 1939 to 1942 where the German forces couldn't defeat the other forces. Anyone who knows something about this?

You are right, there was a battle. I've found a (formerly mispelled) stub-article about Kornwerderzand, the place of the battle. Stefan Jansen 10:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landsat image?

The satellite image should be properly accredited. It is probably a Landsat TM image, and thus copyrighted by NASA. I can, however, not be sure of its origin.

[edit] Dike / dam naming issue

As mentioned in the Dutch version of this article: Although this structure is name the "Afsluitdijk" ("Closure Dike"), it is actually a dam, because it doesn't protect a body of land from a body of water, but rather separates two bodies of water. Maybe it's worth noting this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.150.41 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)