Jump to content

Talk:IJsselmeer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Diphthong Digraph Capitalization

From the (current version of the) article: 

The internal capitalisation in the spelling is caused by the
fact that IJ is a diphthong in Dutch, the two letters producing
a single vowel sound when pronounced.

Although I don't know Dutch, this seems like at best a very incomplete explanation, and at worst plain wrong. In other languages (e.g., English, Greek, Latin, ...), a capitalized word can begin with a diphthong, but nonetheless only the first letter is capitalized. If the Dutch language ordinarily capitalizes both letters of a diphthong in such cases, that would be an interesting peculiarity of the language, and something that ought to show up in the article on the language, but it's not mentioned there as far as I can tell. There are discussions on diphthongs in both the Dutch language article and the one on Dutch phonology, but there is nothing in either about capitalization, as near as I can determine, nor can I find anything about this matter in the article on Dutch orthography. This would seem a curious omission in an English-language article on the subject, if indeed diphthongs are capitalized atomically in Dutch, since that would be a very notable orthographic difference from English. Is the IJ actually a ligature, as Bz2 seems to be saying (though his statement is anything but clear)? If so, that would explain the capitalization (and the wording in the article should be changed to read ligature rather than diphthong), but in that case also I'd expect to see a single Unicode character rather than the two letters I and J. Can someone who actually knows Dutch clarify this issue, and explain the real reason for the double capitalization of IJsselmeer? --Jonadab

Answering my own question, the article also links to IJ (letter), which explains that the IJ is a digraph and in Dutch often considered to be a single letter. I will adjust the wording of the IJsselmeer article to clarify this.
The IJ capital is a pain, as many spelcheckers do not accept it, but the ij is either ij or IJ, Ij does not exist in Dutch. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typewriters in the Netherlands used to have a separate key (and hammer) for the "ij". Note that the "ij" is also considered the next to last letter of the Dutch alphabet (x-ij-z) (the 'y' is not used in (modern) Dutch except for foreigh words notably from Emglish). While some fonts still contain an "ij" as a separate (single) character, it is usually typed as i+j on computers (two separate characters). But that is just a practical approach that allows internaional keyboards to be used, it is fundamentally a single letter, with its own position in the alphabet, not a combination of an 'i' and a 'j'. Rbakels (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares?
The English language does not have a separate letter IJ and this is this English Wikipedia. WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs and use English orthography.
Of course this should be at Ijsselmeer. The nl Wiki can use the Dutch orthography which, of course, can be given here as its foreign name. — LlywelynII 01:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Google's Ngram viewer is any guide, the most common name in English for this body of water is "IJsselmeer".[1] If you think there are Wikipedia guidelines which say we should use a less frequently used name, you may like to quote what they say about the issue. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ligature

Please note that the ligature IJ (IJ/ij) should not be used in any Dutch word or name. Bz2 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? What should be used instead? Does that change the name of the lake? -Pgan002 07:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who indeed, the IJsselmeer is spelled like that; there is no alternative. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an alternative. It's the Ijsselmeer in English orthography. — LlywelynII 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lansat photo date?

When was the photo taken? -Pgan002 07:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was move to IJsselmeer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never, ever, in much reading on the topic in English seen this referred to as Lake IJssel. The name I have seen used in English-language texts is always, always IJsselmeer. Evidence to the contrary should have been provided before this article was moved elsewhere. Knepflerle (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

google scholar hits:

"ijsselmeer fish": 881 [1]
"lake-IJssel fish": 280 [2]

Yaan (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar

IJsselmeer Netherlands: 1,900
"Lake IJssel" Netherlands: 467
IJsselmeer North sea: 1,100
"Lake IJssel" North sea: 296

UE says precisely that we use what is most used in English language texts. en.wiki readers are best served by using what English readers are most likely to read and use. Knepflerle (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to move it back, let's say in a couple days, give it some time to see if a consensus forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Knepflerle that "IJsselmeer" is used most commonly in English. Olessi (talk) 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a request at WP:RM. ChrisDHDR 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Note that this discussion was only over IJsselmeer vs. Lake IJssel. Both are, of course, wrong but, sure, Ijsselmeer is preferable. Note also that the editors above cited important English sources and transcribed them as "IJsselmeer" although several of them actually use the form "Ijsselmeer". — LlywelynII 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I don't want to edit war over national spelling varieties, but spelling should not be changed to UK in an article simply because the topic involves a non-UK European nation. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean use English in place of Dutch orthography, absolutely.
If you mean use British English in place of American, nah. See WP:ENGVAR. Essex has a strong national connection to British English, even if it's written here at Wikipedia in a dialect alien to most of the inhabitants. People living near the Ijsselmeer might run into more Brits on holiday but they aren't themselves Brits and are just as likely to be doing business with the Americans as with the Brits. I think the national bias—if there is one—would be to support the Canadians. — LlywelynII 01:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial?

The IJsselmeer is said to be an "artificial" lake, a "reservoir". Both qualifications seem inappropriate to me. "Artificial" gives the impression that there was no water before - but the area was covered with water since medieval times. "Reservoir" gives the impression that the purpose of the lake is to store water. But the closing dam ("Afsluitdijk") was built in 1932 primarily to protect the surrouding area from floods, and in preparation for reclaiming land in "polders". The effect was also that the water became fresh water from brackish. Rbakels (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, artificial lake does not cover it. Though lake is widely used for several kinds of natural and artificial bodies of water, it is usually conceived as "surrounded by land", which the IJsselmeer is not. A bay or sea inlet which is protected from the sea by a 20 mile long dike with outlet sluices and locks, is a rather unique phenomenon. 'Closed off inland bay' is a better description. I've adjusted the article accordingly. Encyo (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a disservice. It's absolutely an artificial lake.
"Artificial lake" doesn't give the impression there was no water there before. Nearly every major reservoir in the world was created by damming a river, which is exactly what happened here, just on a fairly spectacular scale. — LlywelynII 01:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhinewater"

This should read "Rhine water" (two separate words). Combining them into a single word is to me pretty clear evidence that the English article was written by a Dutch-speaker who did not bother to have his or her English checked by a native before posting it. Such compounds are generally written as a single word in Dutch (in this case "Rijnwater"), and this is one of the most typical errors made by Dutch-speakers when writing in English: "hotelreservation", "salesmanager" and so on. The link is to the article on "Rhine", not "Rhine water" or the non-existent "Rhinewater". Since this is a link I can't risk damaging it by trying to make the correction myself (if I click there it simply activates the link), so I hope someone with the necessary technical skill can do it for me. For the record, I'm a native English-speaker, and a professional translator, so I do know what I'm talking about.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took a shot at it. Hope that suffices. Llammakey (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this person didn't know what they were talking about. English compounds its nouns all the time. It's still more natural to say "hotel reservation" and "sales manager" as two words but "Rhine water" is just as alien to English as "Rhinewater". If there were such a concept, the second one would be just as native, although Brits might prefer to hyphenate it. A translator who knew what they were talking about would just say "the Rhine" or "water from the Rhine" depending on the use. — LlywelynII 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IJsselmeer to IJsselmeer

Can the page's name be changed from IJsselmeer to IJsselmeer (try to highlight the "I" in the first one and then in the second one and you'll see the difference)? 2601:643:8101:64E1:99BA:DD61:87F6:7849 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) (IPOokap)[reply]

That would be incorrect and a misspelling. The digraph is customarily spelled with two separate characters (IJ), the Unicode IJ is there for compatibility reasons, not practical use. JeroenHoek (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be correct if this were Dutch and the letters were both capitalized because they're theoretically a single letter of the alphabet.
English doesn't have a separate IJ letter and the entire capitalization of the article is wrong, since we should WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs at the English wiki. First letters of digraphs are capitalized and the second letters aren't. — LlywelynII 01:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting message in the images at start of page

Map of the three separate parts of the former Zuiderzee from the Z.Z. article. Is this right or not? If it's right, what's the collective name for the whole current thing?

The two map images showing IJsselmeer aren't showing the same thing, and I believe the one where IJsselmeer is shown in blue is correct. TheOneTEM (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three maps in the infobox and all three are showing separate things.
1st, the pushpin map just seems to show the coordinate being used is either completely wrong or at the far northwestern edge of the Ijsselmeer instead of the center. The coordinate needs to be changed to something less wrong.
2nd, the top map shows the entire former Zuiderzee while the third map only highlights its central portion, excluding the location of the second map's pushpin. The top and third map might go together but the top map's caption should be changed to specify which region in the larger area it shows is actually the Ijsselmeer.
Worse, some text in this article and at Zuiderzee describe the former bay being entirely transformed into the Ijsselmeer. The entire article needs to be rewritten to be inclusive of the Wadden Sea and Markermeer if that's true; if it's not, some of the inexact and misleading maps and descriptions need to be clarified to mention the W.S. and M.M.
Also, if the former Zuiderzee was divided into part of the W.S., the I.M., and the M.M., then what is the current name for the entire inlet? If it's still 'Zuiderzee', all four articles should clarify that. — LlywelynII 02:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Google Ngram Viewer: IJsselmeer,Ijsselmeer,Lake IJssel,Lake Ijssel". books.google.com. Retrieved 19 September 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IJsselmeer&oldid=1246537934"