Talk:Port

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ports, a project to improve all ports-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ports-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale
This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Summary style?

Matchrthom has moved the section about United States ports to a new article. This action may be OK if that's what editors here want to do, or may need to be modified a bit; see WP:SUMMARY. e.g. maybe having a short summary about U.S. ports here too. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As a concept it seems fine, though there needs to be a summary of the spinoff article here as well - I will do this later today if no one else does. Euryalus (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Warm Water Port

ZabMilenko has proposed the Warm water port be merged into this article. While he hasn't oputlined why yet, I think the proposal has merit:

  • Warm water port is essentially a two-sentence dictionary definition and is unlikely to expand. It is a commonly-used phrase and the definition should be retained, but there is too little else to say to justify a standalone article;
  • The only notable edits in the last eighteen months have related to Russian foreign policy, which is interesting as far as it goes but would be better placed in one of the Military history of Russia articles or a page on Russian foreign policy; and
  • Including the definition of warm water ports in the overall ports article will assist readers by locating the information in one place, rather than requiring them to go to Warm water port just to get the definition.

As always, any opposing views or proposals are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It should be merged Superzohar Talk 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
After seven days we have support from three editors (myself, ZabMilenko and Superzohar) and no opposition. I have merged the articles and removed the tags. Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Zab (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come in on this late, but I don't think "warm water port" can be assessed at face value. Yes, the issue is presumed Russian/Soviet geostrategy. I'm not aware of the phrase being used in any other context - and yeah correct me if I'm wrong. But Wikipedia links this phrase to "port". It's a non sequitur.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I can imagine an article on the history, benefits and perhaps geothermic attributes of warm water ports which would be worth keeping as a standalone page. The problem is we never had one - over the two-year history of the redirected article it was essentially a dictionary definition and a reference to Russian foreign policy. I'm also not aware of any reliable sources on which to base such a thing.
On these bases it was merged, and the entire text of the most recent version is now included in part of the second paragraph of the "Ports" article. If you'd like to build a "warm water port" article that's more than the above, you're more than welcome. There just didn't seem much point in a continuation of the slightly off-topic stub that we had, for the reasons above. Euryalus (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of ports in article

For some time the article has contained a partial list of seaports. This is despite the fact we have multiple, more comprehensive lists (see Category:lists of ports) that serve a much more useful function in assisting readers and providing a detailed record of Wikipedia ports articles. The list in this article is also completely arbitrary - it contains some major ports (eg Port of Singapore), some minor ports (eg. Sialkot Dry Port) and has mammoth gaps in between.

I don't believe the list adds anything to this page not already provided in a more comprehensive manner by the various formal lsits. I propose it be merged with the overall List of seaports and replaced in this article with a section summarising port activities in each of the major shipping regions.

Other views and comments are welcome. Euryalus (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal to relocate the list has been here for two months with no opposition and with support for its removal from User:Klosterdev below. Given the lack of opposition I have relocated the contents to List of seaports and removed it from this article. This required the removal of some images as they otherwise extended far below the text. I removed those that did not clearly show the port, and those that were generic as far as port facilities go. Obviously, feel free to disagree with my image choices - its a subjective decision.
I agree with Klosterdev that the article is weak. The next step now the lsit is gone is to add actual content on the concept, history and development of ports, standard features and so on. Euryalus (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is really weak

Does there really need to be an enormous list that takes up half the article? It's a very generic article. Klosterdev (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merged from Talk:Warm water port

The following discussions were merged here from Talk:Warm water port

Name: I think this page should be more properly called 'warm water port' as this is the more common term - a fact the article itself indicates. Rampant POV: This page uncritically accepts the 'geopolitical' Cold War analysis in which the term originates. Surely this should be reexamined in the absence of any Soviet documents supporting this rather ludicrous strategic aim (ever heard of Vietnam, people???) and given the changed complexion of Afghanistan (from freedom fighters to global terrorists!). At the very least supply some citations for this guff.--Jack Upland 07:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing done as per above.--Jack Upland 09:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuing references to Russian politics which are unsupported and logically irrelevant.--Jack Upland 09:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My editing has now been deleted on the grounds that it is 'weasel words'. It's not weasel words to say that not everyone agrees with a certain proposition. I've fact-tagged the relevant sentences and if no one comes up with a good response I'll edit again.--Jack Upland 09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now the bulk of the article has been deleted!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about Russia

This article, or perhaps one on the same subject only specific to Russia, would benefit from a discussion of Russia's major ports and why they don't count. Archangel is too cold and gets iced in; I don't know about Murmansk, St. Petersburg, or Krohnstadt; the Black Sea ports don't county because they are too easily blocked off by Turkey. So why does Vladivostock not count, but Port Arthur would have had the Japanese not won it in 1904-5? There are both political and meteorological considerations here, and it would be nice if info on all of them were in the same place. Maybe a chart saying how many days a year, on average, a port is expected to be open, would be useful. (And if I find this out myself, I will write the article!) Boris B (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know this term has always been used in a "geo-strategic" evaluation of Russia/the USSR, but any indication of this has been deleted from the article. As noted in a previous version of the article, Russia/the USSR has always had ice-free ports, but in popular analysis a "warm water port" has always been a goal of their policy. Even if this analysis is obviously wrong, its popularity means it should be acknowledged.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)