|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Dredgers
- 2 dredge versus dredger
- 3 On Splitting, Clean Template and Such
- 4 Specific Shortcomings (We can 'S'-thru) during A Clean Effort
- 5 Environmental effects
- 6 Water injection dredging
- 7 Proposed article name change to Dredging
- 8 Commercial links
- 9 New dredge-innovations
- 10 Pasted material?
- 11 Conflict of interest
- 12 ID
- 13 § Others types of dredgers
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)
dredge versus dredger
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)
- 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)
A dredger is a sort of ship, so the combination "dredger ship" is less likely to occur because it is tautological.
I have just searched in http://www.altavista.com for "dredge", and in the first 100 entries I found only one where "dredge" certainly meant the ship rather than the digging gear that it carries, plus many where "dredge" was a verb gerund (dredge pump, dredge site), and cookery - and an astonishing amount of pop musicians and competitive sportsmen. Anthony Appleyard 20:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
Using http://www.altavista.com/ I have just found 216000 for dredger and ship, and 367000 for dredge and ship. Of the 376000, many were with "dredge" as the verb, or verb gerund compounds (dredge gear, dredge pump, etc etc), or definitely meaning only the submerged digging gear, and a few were definitely with "dredge" meaning the ship. GLDD = Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company. Here in England the television news etc always seems to call the ship a dredger. Anthony Appleyard 22:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
We seem to have yet another case where British and American word usages differ. Americans and British people meeting likely can keep on arguing about the difference between potato crisps and chips and French fries, and likely similarly here. Anthony Appleyard 05:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm a long-time employee of GLD&D, and I would say that the article now has it right, Dredge is the US usage, while european usage uses both dredge and dredger to indicate the vessel. - Robert Ramsdell
On Splitting, Clean Template and Such
- 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. FrankB 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest splitting the article. I edited the page somewhat to improve (I think) the descriptions of the various machines, added and reorganized links, etc. However, the types of dredging, and types of machines probably each deserve their own pages, as much more could be said about them. I don't think that it is helpful to argue about terminology, rather we should note where US and European (and others, although I'm not familiar with them) usage differ. - Robert Ramsdell
- Would someone who knows what they are talking about please split this article via a disambig page?
+ assorted other definitions. -- TheMightyQuill 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Specific Shortcomings (We can 'S'-thru) during A Clean Effort
- Focus the article on the process of dredging and it's importance to world wide navigation, not on machines. FrankB 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe this should be the first split. One article to focus on the types of dredging, benefits, etc, and another to focus on methods and machines. I suspect that the article is presently weighted towards machinery because the authors (including myself) are from the dredging industry, thus practitioners of dredging rather than 'consumers'. - Robert Ramsdell, 16:22, 4 April (CST)
- Do not split this page. But, if e.g. someone writes a long description of bucket dredgers, it can go in a separate page Bucket dredger which would be pointed to from dredge#Bucket dredger. The main reason for splitting a page is if it gets too big, like I had to do with frogman. Anthony Appleyard 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Water injection dredging
"Water injection results in a lot of sediment in the water"
This is not normally the case. Quoted from document in link below..
"The interaction between the density current and the surrounding physical environment has also been monitored during the research. It confirmed that the density current, that actually transports the particles, stays relatively close to the bottom and creates virtually no turbidity higher in the water column. It can be stated therefore, that dispersion of sediment into the surrounding water is negligible."
- 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)
- Support MadMaxDog 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've completed the move request, and swapped the history previously at Dreding with the history at Dredge, because there was some material there that was previously merged into the current article. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Maybe it would be possible to write an article about the commercial dredging industry as a whole? Or would that also exceed the wikipedia remit? Augusta2 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would be absolutely encyclopedic, so long as appropriate sourcing is found and used. siafu 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- I thought lists without articles (or other accompanying content) were discouraged? MadMaxDog 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
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)
Evolution of the definition of dredging Definitions of dredging usually emphasize the excavation and removal aspects, because originally the almost exclusive purpose of dredging was the deepening or widening of silted waterways and harbours in order to improve navigation ("maintenance dredging") or the creation of new waterways like the Suez and Panama canals ("capital dredging"). In the 1980's and early 1990's definitions of dredging started to include the removal of contaminated sediments from marine environments ("remedial dredging"), as this became an important additional function of dredging. At the end of the 20th and the early 21st century, following a technical revolution in the dredging industry, large land reclamation projects (for instance: the creation of artificial islands) were initiated. Today's definition of dredging therefore speaks of the "repositioning of soil" and not just of the "excavation of soil". In this context dredged material is seen as a reusable resource.
The main economic reasons for dredging. Maintenance and expansion of ports and harbours to accommodate waterborne transportation for a growing world trade is perhaps the best known dredging activity. Coastal protection and flood control, especially in the context of climate change, is of growing importance – after all almost half the world’s population lives in a coastal zone. Since the world’s population is increasing, there is an accelerating demand for new land for urban and industrial expansion, leading to large land reclamation projects, e.g. waterfront development and the construction of artificial islands for airports. At the same time, growing global energy consumption leads to dredging projects related to offshore drilling platforms, submarine oil and gas pipelines, and offshore wind farms. Another dredging activity is mining for the recovery of minerals, gems and precious metals. The increase in water-related tourism (beach vacations, yachting, cruises) often depends on dredging for beach replenishment and the construction of new marinas and deep-water cruise harbours. And finally, of course, there is a growing need for “green�? dredging solutions, in the context of sustainable development, including remediation of contaminated waterways and habitat restoration.
Sources, reference material and organizations The above definition of dredging and its economic significance are based on information in “Dredging for Development“, a joint publication of the International Association of Dredging Companies and the International Association of Ports and Harbors (2004) and "Terra et Aqua" magazine (www.terra-et-aqua.com). Also information has been gathered from the World Dredging Association (WODA, www.woda.org) and its sister organizations CEDA, WEDA and EADA. Other useful sources are the publications of PIANC (www.pianc.org) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP, www.gpa.unep.org). For in-depth technical information see Bray et al. (1997), “Dredging. A Handbook for Engineers�? and Herbich, John (1992) “Handbook of Dredging Engineering�?.
Conflict of interest
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)
- 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)
§ Others types of dredgers
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.
]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.
[[Image:Dragagem Luschi.jpg|thumbnail|Suction dredger]]