Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ports

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.
NA rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale
NA rated as NA-importance on the assessment scale
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Image Request

Does anyone have any Port images for the Port of Manila, Port of Subic, Port of Iloilo? I'm working on improving their status. Judging from the amount of people on this project, we could do with a lot more help if we want to bring Ports to attention. Thanks, Lovebus 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forwarded comment re: New York Harbor

This comment was posted to Maritime Trades. Since it's squarely in the ports baliwick, I wanted to forward it here. Cheers HausTalk 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The articles about ports seem to be heavily influenced by port authority or economic development online blurbs. These tend to be a bit feel good and corporate oriented. My sense is that port articles are low priority, but New York Harbor already has specific reference to maritime trades. rmo13 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(reposted from WP Maritime Trades)
(A belated response) True. Ports articles tend to get overwhelmed by the economic and infrastructure stats (trade volumes, berth depths etc). Corporate cheerleading is also easily introduced via port authority webpages, while industry publications and other independent sources tend to be dry as dust and/or subscription only.
As a start in fixing this, I'm trying to introduce a "History" section to each ports article to give them a flavour other than simply a recitation of trade stats. Most ports are associated with a city or region so there are also opportunities for sections on the influence of one on the other in terms of employment, character and development. This is a long process but there are rewards - the history of the Port of Singapore for example, adds a great deal to the overall article.
In summary - you're completely correct but with a bit of collaboration and research there's maybe hope for improvement. Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CFD Port categories

Hi. I have kicked off a serious CFD about port categories. Any comments/input appreciated. Frelke 07:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard format

Earlier discussions on standard formats didn't lead anywhere, so I would like to propose the following:

  • Lead section - port name, location and size ranking (where available), followed by a short outline of major activities and any notable points (eg. oldest port in region, most berths) and name of Port Authority.
  • History - a short outline of the history of the port. This should be no longer than 3 paragraphs except where the port is particularly old (eg Port of Malaga) or has some unique historical aspect.
  • Port Operations - a detailed description of trade types and volume. Subheadings for each type of trade (containers, bunkering, ferries, cruise etc) including key features, principal users and shipping lines, logistics, contribution to economy
  • Port facilities and services - number, design and use of terminals, ancillary port facilities, road and rail links. A subheading for the Port Authority (structure and services)
  • Future works - any confirmed plans for expansion including an outline of works, controversial issues and expected compeltion dates
  • (other) - Any relevant material not included in the above.

This roughly correlates with the format used in the port articles on Los Angeles, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Where an established article is in a completely different format it should be left alone for now - let's refine the proposed format across the ports stubs before changing perfectly good established pages.

Any comments, suggestions welcome. I will start implementing the above on some of the port stubs and see how it goes. Euryalus (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ยจ

Lead Section followed by history is logical. I'm okay with that. In fact the entire lead section giving the most salient details of the port could be contained in a graphic box.
I'm not sure about port operations as third, because it seems to me that one could get an awfully long and detailed and possibly tedious/tendentious section before moving on to firmer ground with the port facilities.
What I do to some extent object to is to what has happened to the Dutch version of the Port of Antwerp article, where each different dock has a separate wikipedia page. An essential aspect of all port operation is geographical position. Why is there a port in this place and what sustains it, position near sources of cargo, proximity of hinterland, deep water access, import or export, availability of space (might Singapore run out of space for example, like Rotterdam at present). This might justify a heading Economic Considerations before proceeding to discuss actual performance and facilities. Future Expansion (and constraints) is definitely worth including.
Use of pictorial material. A satellite or aerial view should be included with each article. The pictures should be displayed in a sufficiently large size to prevent loss of viewing detail. Maps can be effectively used to illustrate growth. Pictures of stacks of boxes are pointless, pictures of stacks contextualized by other objects indicating scale are instructive.
Just some thoughts for now Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Should we start with your suggestion of the Port of Le Havre and see how it looks? Euryalus (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some views on the "Importance" assessment

I have been busily tagging and assessing Ports articles over the last few days and am interested in other's views on the relative "importance" each should be assigned.

The system I'm using has been this:

  • Top - the article on ports.
  • High - the following:
    • the top 30 seaports by any of annual TEU's, passenger handling, bulk or break bulk volumes or sheer trade tonnage. Where there is dispute (eg a port rates 19th on containers according to the AAPA but 21st according to Lloyd's) I have marked it of High Importance anyway.
    • the major shipping companies; and
    • the essentials of port equipment (eg container terminal)
  • Mid -substantial seaports other than those mentioned above. Less fundamental (but not trivial) port equipment. Separate articles on port authorities. Minor shipping lines.
  • Low - minor seaports and fishing ports. Historical seaports (eg. Byblos Port). Peripheral articles that fall within the project in a trivial way (eg. Port marine safety code).
  • None - Lists and project pages.

Obviously these are rules of thumb. Seaport importance isn't always measured on trade volumes. Some historical seaports might be of vast importance to the overall development of shipping and/or nationald evelopment, and so on. Anyone should feel free to itnerpret the [scale] in other ways. Any other points of view or discussion is as always welcome. Euryalus (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shipping lines

I've (at least temporarily) removed shipping lines from the list of articles:

  • They are an inheritance from a previous version of the WikProject, and are a little peripheral to the main theme of ports articles;
  • They risk overwhelming the place - there are 450 shipping line articles and around 350 ports ones (plus a few hundred ports redlinks which should be a higher priority); and
  • most of them are covered by WP:SHIPS, so inclusion here is something of an overlap.

Let me know if you disagree - I'm happy to reinclude them if there's a consensus to do so. Euryalus (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed: "Category:Redeveloped harbourfronts"

I've proposed a new category for historic city harbourfronts that have been converted for recreational use. Not quite sure about the name, though. Please see discussion here Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)