Talk:Mechelen-Zuid water tower

Is it a broadcasting tower or not

I removed this:

A perception as broadcasting tower is false.<ref name="vsl_1" /><ref group="Note">Even respectable sources contributed to a misinterpreted purpose of the tower's aerials. E.g.: The [http://www.baufachinformation.de/impressum.jsp?local=de Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft] published [http://www.baufachinformation.de/zeitschriftenartikel.jsp?z=1980099060019 an abstract of an article in ''Cement''], ''Water- en antennetoren te Mechelen'' ('Water and antenna tower at Mechelen'), erroneously translating the Dutch into German as ''Wasser- und Sendeturm in Mechelen'' ('Water and broadcast tower at Mechelen').</ref>

The source http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf clearly states it was also for TV, etc.Imgaril (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

St. Rumbolds

The tower's original VHF/UHF television signal reception antennas mainly replaced those on top of another city property, the 97 m high St. Rumbold's Tower.

please. — unsigned and undated 'St. Rumbolds' comment by Imgaril (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC), on 2011-09-15 attributed while moving it into the closely related section.

The height of the metal spire

This source claims 20m http://www.baufachinformation.de/zeitschriftenartikel.jsp?z=1980099060019 but the article has had a variety of lengths including 17 and 23m. Is there a reliable consistent height? Imgaril (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you do the maths, total height 143 m from ground level - shaft 120 m above ground level = 23 metres. We can rely on these by several sources confirmed figures (apparent tolerance +0.1/-0.0 m). The source you mentioned, does not appear to give a precise measurement like 20.0 m or so, it may well be a roughly rounded figure. I can't recall where, but I had also read 10 m once, which had to be wrong judging simply on sight (e.g. by the picture). Though there has been an issue about the radio-active (no kidding) lightning rod at the top of the steel peak, there is no indication at all that this device is included in the 143 m and would be 3 m long; thus we can not assume such. Until disproven, I would keep it at 23 m. Else we must explain the missing three metres, and we can't. Also, in case that lightning rod would account for these 3 m, the rod may not be stainless steel, it surely is metal and together with the steel tube would still form a 23 m peak, thus the in that case different metal near the top of the peak would be a minor inaccuracy (like mentioning some 'brick building' that in fact is very likely to include a bit of other materials). But we must still keep that reference until we find a more detailed one. And the sheer size of the very visible shiny peak forces us to mention its length.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-02 05:07 (UTC)

The diagram "construction phases" in http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf (second page) - shows that the metal spire starts at 120m and rises to 140m, and there is a 3m structure on top of that - (probably a pole) - so the 20m figure from http://www.baufachinformation.de/zeitschriftenartikel.jsp?z=1980099060019 is right but there is an extra 3 m structure on top.Imgaril (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Before looking elswehre please read http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf - it gives nearly every dimension for the tower, as well as giving the details of designers, builders, uses, dates etc.Imgaril (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume the 3m strcuture is the lighting rod - though I haven't got a source for that.Imgaril (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why we should keep it at 23 m as I explained: the rod can be regarded as minor part of the 23 m long metal peak. Btw, "peak" (= visible) is better for the lead than "tube" (= an inner structural characteristic, which might fit for the section describing the design, but whether an ornamental peak is made from solid or hollow steel is hardly significant). And only "peak" remains accurate with an included assumedly solid rod. Several of the source's figures can't be clearly read, I had consulted the best version when I wrote the 'design' part, but couldn't be sure of the digits. Surely 143.10, and it looks like 140.10, and that fits the rod hypothesis.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-02 11:34-12:02 (UTC)

"Cement" says (page 109) Een mast von roestvrij staal van 20m hoogte vormte de bekroning van de toren; deze heeft een louter esthetische functie

On (page 113) it says De roestvrij stalen mast Demast bestaat uit een mantel van roestvrij staal (plaatd ikte mm). Dedoorsnede aan de top is 65 cm, aan de basis 170cm.Orn de 5 meterister versti jving een dwarsschotaangebracht. Detop wordt afgedicht door twee deksels (halve cirkeloppervlakte), die scharnierend aan de mantel zijn verbonden. Dooreen centrale uitsparing in de deksels kan een mastjevan 150 mm diameter overeen afstand van 3 muit de mastworden geschoven. Bovenop dit uitschuifbaarmastje iseen bliksemafleider en een rood lichtbaken geplaatst.

The stainless steel cone is 20m in all sources, and from http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf the diagram shows that there is a 3m structure on top, and "cement" says it is a lightning rod.Imgaril (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, it does not... keep on reading carefully:

As you know, the Cement periodical allows only incidentally a peek on one of its pages; p. 113 is one I never obtained access to, so far — not even today, after not having accessed the site for a couple of days. Your above quote most strongly suggests that you had the same problem, which you may have circumvented by reading the short quotes as produced by a search engine (directly listed or from a page as it had been cached in a non-original format): It shows spacing errors that could not be in the original source, thus rather misquotes the publication. We should assume the following though I could not with certainty figure out "(plaatd ikte mm)": Dutch "plaatdikte" appears on multiple Cement pages as (if) "plaat-dikte" and I assume that a conditionally breaking hyphen occurs in the original format's source, thus showing "plaatdikte" unless the word becomes displayed at the end of the line, at which it is forced into a split as "plaat- dikte" to prevent the at first reading bewildering but by Dutch spelling rule correct alternative split "plaatdik- te". But between "(plaatdikte" and "mm)", there should be a figure of one digit (or two digits but even high up in the wind, for a merely 3 m long Ø 1.7 m to Ø 0.65 m tube, 10 mm of as strong a material as stainless steel appears excessive) correction: it is "10 mm" as could be observed in the original source [inserted 2011-09-15 13:15]. With reformatted texts as from caches, occasionally a single character disappears and this tends to occur in particular behind a word with an unusual formatting character such as the special hyphen (or the editor of the periodical's text might simply have forgotten the digit — in this text, it can not possibly be the expression "plaatdiktes in mm" that would make sense only if there were several figures for plate thicknesses without a mentioned unit. With respect for the periodical's usual attention for proper spelling, we should publish the quote as:

"De roestvrij stalen mast – De mast bestaat uit een mantel van roestvrij staal (plaatdikte . mm). De doorsnede aan de top is 65 cm, aan de basis 170 cm. Om de 5 meter is ter verstijving een dwarsschot aangebracht. De top wordt afgedicht door twee deksels (halve cirkeloppervlakte), die scharnierend aan de mantel zijn verbonden. Door een centrale uitsparing in de deksels kan een mastje van 150 mm diameter over een afstand van 3 m uit de mast worden geschoven. Bovenop dit uitschuifbaar mastje is een bliksemafleider en een rood lichtbaken geplaatst."

In case someone (a reader) ever accesses the original Cement page 113, the dot for the missing figure may still be corrected. Update: It has to be 10 as could be observed in that original source [2011-09-15 13:15].

The other quote, from page 109 that I had been able to access directly, was probably typed by yourself with a few misspellings in the for you assumedly unfamiliar Dutch, it should be:

"Een mast van roestvrij staal van 20 m hoogte vormt de bekroning van de toren; deze heeft een louter esthetische functie."

Important: The 3 metres long extension is not the lightning rod! Here is the (not fit to be put in the article's reference because for utmost accuracy and verifyability far too literal) translation for the p. 113 quote:

"The stainless steel mast – The mast exists of a mantle of stainless steel (plate thickness . mm). The cross-section at the top is 65 cm, at the base 170 cm. Per each 5 metres an abutting panel is affixed for stiffening. The top becomes closed-off by two lids (half circle surface), that are hingedly connected to the mantle. Through a central cut-out in the lids a small mast of 150 mm diameter can be slid out of the mast for a distance of 3 m. On top of this retractable small mast a lightning deflector and a red light beacon is placed."

Because the small mast (pole) is seen at all times, and because it is needed in it highest position for the tower to attain 143.10 m (the normally, and also in our article, mentioned height), and because it is a true part of the stainless steel peak (and most likely of that same material), we now must simply mention 23 m for the height of the peak. Else, we would have to mention '140 to 143 metres' and give a lengthy explanation that no-one is interested in and that is irrelevant because it seems that the small mast (pole) is never retracted. (Who would go all the way up there and for what? It does make me wonder why the design allows retracting. Perhaps for some never or after initial installations no longer performed testing of the influence on signal strength capture by aerials?). Also the source describes the small mast (pole) under the heading The stainless steel mast, as forming a whole. It means that the lightning rod or according to the Dutch term in the quote deflector might even be a not unusual bundle of 4 thin sticks: 3 very short sticks pointing out at about 45 degrees from the horizon and ending on the edge of an imagined horizontal circle at points 120 degrees apart, plus one central equally short stick straight up. The deflector is on top of the small extension mast (pole) that is part of the peak, though in general such very thin feature is not included in the height of a construction.

Do remember that for our article, 'peak' or perhaps rather 'spire' [alternative term inserted 2011-09-15 12:23] is the best term for the here above described 23 m high stainless steel 'mast'.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-03 07:38 (UTC)

I read the text on the pages from "cement"

The stainless steel structure is clearly stated as being 20m in that source, and the other source www.vsl-sg.com corroborates that. There is no source that states the 3m structure is stainless steel

The other source www.vsl-sg.com shows an additional 3m structure on top of the 20m structure - this is 3m tall. I will refer to this as a "pole".

Can you tell whether the "lightning deflector" is on top of the 3m pole? Also is the red light on top of the pole or on top of the stainless steel structure?

The "Lightning deflector" may be a Lightning_rod#Lightning_dissipation "lightning dissapator" - but without a photograph or more information it is difficult to tell. These are supposed to dissipate electric charge on the structure safely reducing the risk of lightning strike - however this type of design tends to make a good lightning conductor too.. In the case that the function of the "lighting deflector" is not accurately known a link to "Lightning rod" should be acceptable since this term (in common usage) is used to refer to a wide variety of lighting safety devices.

I would guess that the pole is retractable so that it can be replaced after it has been damaged by being struck by lightning..Imgaril (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the above took me through the entire night until I saved it; you should read what I wrote: It was all there in colour and bold character. Your demonstrating or pretending not to have read even that, does not allow anyone to take your questions seriously, does it? (OK, I know you read my comment, but I can't understand how you missed its most ostensibly visible phrase.) Your "other source" being the same as the VSL source you mention first, does not bother me because as you know very well, I must by now know both by heart, I guess. My comment also explains why it simply is a 23 m stainless steel peak. The article must not spend a word on the lightning attractor or the red light: all tall structures have those and there is absolutely nothing noteworthy about these in particular, because even some slight commotion by a small group writing to the city about the "radioactive" attractor can only be in an article about many other such devices of that time. 'Deflector' is the literal translation from Dutch, by whatever method deflecting lightning from what needs to be protected. (The entrance is more interesting, at least there is something slightly noteworthy about it, but I still don't see the need to plaster all the information from the available sources in the article.)

The lead can only mention a 23 metres stainless steel peak as decoration (or similar phrase). The 3 m pole and the 20 m mast do not even need to be mentioned because, once in place, these form a whole: never taken apart, and one is not more or less decorative or functional than the other. If mentioned however, it would come in the design section; but who would care to know? Contrary to us editors, a reader does not have an unsatisfiable interest in useless details about the topic and the odd exception has the same sources available anyway.

Good thinking about the reason for the retractability of the pole: Dutch "uitschuifbaar" is in an extremely literal sort-of translation "outslidable", but it actually means can be slid outward, not that it can be removed: one would expect a catch to prevent such accidental excessive movement, as for instance with telescopic antennas etc. But I guess the author may have used the Dutch term more literally than its everyday meaning allows to assume; "eruitschuifbaar" would be a fantasy word thus it should have been expressed by e.g.: "die eruit kan geschoven worden", that can be slid out.
You were thinking from English retractable and came up with the right answer, I think; I had been wondering about the original Dutch that I read.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-03 13:57-15:23 (UTC)

I read what you wrote - I looked up about the radiactivity of the lightning device - but I couldn't find a reliable source that said more about it.

We have verifyable sources that say that there is a:

• Stainless steel structure of 20m (with cone shape - dimensions are available)
• A "pole" on top of that 150mm wide, 3m long.

No where have I found anything that says the "pole" is stainless steel.

Though some information is lacking I'm not aware of any more innarcuracies in the article. The description is accurate and passes WP:Verify.

Do you have any sources that state the 3m "pole" is stainless steel.Imgaril (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course not: The sources describe a towards the top thinning stainless steel mast that finally has a pole that can be slid out. There can be no reasonable doubt that if the latter were e.g. plastic, aluminium, or copper, the material would have been mentioned explicitly. And pictures (and for me the real thing as well) show that the top shines exactly like the rest of the whole 23 metres spire. If it were plain iron or if the steel were not stainless, by now it would look quite different.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-05 16:46 (UTC)

We can't use that sort of deduction though. See Wikipedia:No original research.Imgaril (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not a deduction, let alone OR, but all too obvious by the source itself: If you read that some pushbike's frame is made from aluminium, and the source mentions how the rear fork is connected, and it tells somewhere that the naves of the wheels are 1.10 m apart, then you may not explicitly state "the rear fork is aluminium", but you should not hesitate to write, e.g. "The bikes' aluminium frame has 1.10 m between the naves". Do not forget that both the 20 m "mast" and the 3 m "small mast" are mentioned under a single title "4. The stainless steel mast", and not by some title like "4. The stainless steel mast and the small mast" and neither by "4.a. The stainless steel mast" and "4.b. The small mast". The source's title 4. clearly refers to the whole stainless steel mast, which is described as consisting of a tall and a small mast. We too must keep the stainless steel mast 23 m high. This spire's further description does not appear to be interesting enough to say more about it: In fact, I finally got access to p. 113 and it does not suggest that the small mast can be slid out completely: the source describes a much more complex system (including the small mast's vertical rings with hinges, a counterweight, and a vertical axis) and procedure (climbing by a ladder inside the tall mast up to it closing lids, etc, and pulling the small mast down) which I cannot fully understand without any drawing, to replace the beacon light. Far too technical for our article. We can and must have just the 23 m shiny spire without its intricacies. An article on the Ferrari 500 F2 does not elaborate on some part of the gear box that might be made retractable in order to replace a synchromesh (if that would make sense). But it would mention an aluminium engine even if the engine's valves were of another material.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-05 19:25-20:12 (UTC)

It is deduction - the "pole" could be nickel plated copper, for instance. Now please stop this speculation on elements of the design that almost certainly wont lead to the addition on information - there are 1001 more things to do.

I see that there is a red link in Template:Tallest buildings and structures in Belgium, and that there are numerous red-linked articles in List of tallest structures in Belgium - are you not interested in any of these? Have you heard of the "law of diminishing returns" - eg see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law_of_diminishing_returns (1st definition) quote "The tendency for a continuing effort toward a particular goal to decline in effectiveness after a certain amount of success has been achieved." ... Imgaril (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No. The source states what material is used in the section title above the description of the entire mast. Stop being stubborn by fabricating obviously ridiculous 'alternative' materials that are not at all corroborated by any source. And no, you do not own this article and have no right to try and send me elsewhere. And the article is now in much poorer state than it used to be. Don't ask. I'll explain later.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-05 21:31 (UTC)

I'm not taking anymore of this. You've consistently refused to accept what I say - I tried to explain that I was reverting your rewrite of the article because of the quality of your english writing, but you refused to accept that and began reverting - note that an administrator had to rewrite your text. You've consistently accussed me of WP:OWN. You refused to accept simple requests to stick to WP:VERIFYable information regarding the 20m stainless steel cone. If you really think I am doing wrong try wp:third opinion, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or read Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you want to misinterpret my suggestion that you might be more productive working on another article that's up to you, but you need to read WP:AGF too. Good luck. Imgaril (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Correctly understanding the sources' texts about the construction of the 23 m spire, and that constructionstructure [corrected 2011-09-15 12:39] itself, has nothing to do with acceptance of WP:VERIFY.

The administrator had been regarded as an incidentally passing-by assumedly impartial negotiator and well-willing helping hand, though I meanwhile discovered that you had specifically hand-picked him behind my back by a highly offensive multifold WP:PERSONAL ATTACK that does no longer allow "a temper tantrum throwing kid who can't write in english" to assume your good faith; and which administrator then commented that you appeared to have been edit warring more than I, and that your edits in the article had not been the way to go; and whose edits in the article can not have been much better than mine because, apparently, you still "had to rewrite" the admin's. I consistently accused you of behaving as WP:OWNer because that is the behaviour you have consistently demonstrated. Your still consistent 'suggestion' that I might be more productive working on another article, does not allow any interpretation other than WP:OWNership, and such continuing despite your having noticed does not leave much room for WP:AGF either. I realize that you think you're so right — I can't find an indication that anyone else would think so. And your continued accusations of my English writing to lack sufficient quality, despite my repeated requests to specify, still without delivering even a single clarification of what you assumed to be an error, is also a far too consistent WP:PERSONAL ATTACK for continued WP:AGF.

I'm sure to make a few mistakes against the English language at times, but I am also sure that I never managed to make as many errors against style, grammar, and spelling as you accomplished here:

It also seems pretty clear to me that the "somehuman" has a habit of edit warring too. As far as I know they're still under the impression that they have done nothing wrong and there english skills are just great.

Allow me to clarify: "It also seems" makes the ending "too" a style error, and a grammatical flaw because the context shows that you did not mean to say that there had been another edit warring person. A name or pseudonym does not take a definite article. There is no bunch of SomeHuman, only I, to whom you referred in plural twice ("they're", "they have ... and ... are"). The spelling of the personal referrer in case it would have had to be (consistently) plural is not 'there', it would have been 'their'. 'English' is spelled with a capital E. Your misspelling of my pseudonym and your putting it between double quotes demonstrates either a flagrant incapability in English or abusive disrespect — or both. None of these errors can be explained away as a typo, and most occur elsewhere as well.

Good luck to you too.
Unfortunately, 'WP:ATTACK' became redirected to an irrelevant guideline, both links here above were modified for the obviously intended WP:PA. [2011-09-15 18:42]
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-10 01:24 (UTC)

ok I've asked the administrator you mention to speak to you.Imgaril (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower → Mechelen-Zuid water tower – No evidence in sources for such a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

no objection and generally agree, but see Category:Water towers - naming convention ?? Capitalisation possibly in error - in general other sources don't capitalise.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at some of those and don't see any mass move or sign of a local convention. But many editors are not aware of MOS:CAPS, and some are willing to declare any name a "proper name" even without a single source. So, we have some fixing to do. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree - does process required this to be put up for formal discussion? there are numerous titles affected.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started going through and moving ones that are both easy and noncontroversial (in the sense that the names are descriptive, not supported as names by reliable sources). A multiple requested-move may be required for those that someone already moved to caps with some claimed reason; there are a few of those. Mostly, they're caps because they were copied from titles of applications for historic preservation and such; the names were made up for the application, for structures widely known generically as the town's water tower. By now, many web pages have copied the caps from WP, so a web search is useless for finding reliable sources. Books are better. Some, like Chicago Water Tower, are clearly treated a proper names; most are not. Dicklyon (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mechelen-Zuid water tower. 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/20110910000904/http://www.beeldbankmechelen.be/index.php?option=com_memorix&task=result&searchplugin=eenvoudig&Itemid=53 to http://www.beeldbankmechelen.be/index.php?option=com_memorix&task=result&searchplugin=eenvoudig&Itemid=53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202736/http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf to http://www.vsl-sg.com/proj_ref/mechelen_tower.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)