Talk:Port/Archive 1

Hong Kong is not considered part of mainland China, and Hong Kong is responsible for its own economic, immigration and trade affairs, which are not the business of Peking and have nothing to do with the government in Peking.

PRC claims over Taiwan and numerous islands, but has never exercised any power over them. "Mainland China" would be a better way to reflects which's in part of which. -- 19:52, December 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hong Kong is definitely part of People's Republic of China. The uses of the terms have already been discussed elsewhere. I noted that you have attempted to start a discussion anyway and please refrain from changing it all over wikipedia as that article says. -Hlaw 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In terms of sovereignty Hong Kong is part of PRC, like Guam and Puerto Rico are to the United States. Nonetheless under special arrangements of "One Country, Two Systems" of being an "SAR". PRC's ministries in Peking have no jurisdiction and power over Hong Kong affairs. Hong Kong is effectively an independent entity on economic, immigration, trade and many other affairs. In this sense, listing Hong Kong under PRC would induce confusions. Rather, "mainland China" and "Hong Kong" would be much more clear and convenience to readers. -- 09:19, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Your understanding above is flawed. Hong Kong is part of PRC in every aspect. Article 1 of the Basic Law : HKSAR is an inalienable part of the PRC, fullstop. It is meaningless to say this is only the case for foreign affairs and defence. Hong Kong should be listed under the PRC as a general rule.

Hong Kong's separate participation in international organizations where memberships are not limited to states, as authorized under Chapter VII of the Basic Law of the HKSAR of the PRC, would not defy the constitutional, practical and widely accepted fact that Hong Kong is part of PRC. Only in the specific circumstances when enumerating a list of membership for such organizations where Hong Kong participate as a separate entity should Hong Kong not listed under China.

Regardless of the above, edits should not be made to change the names of PRC and ROC with your own style, and to strip reference China as the country over Hong Kong, without any regard to the conventions that others have discussed and reached over the years. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) etc. It is such edits that cause inconsistencies and confusions -Hlaw 10:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your understanding is flawed. Hong Kong is part of the PRC in terms of sovereignty. But Hong Kong and the mainland, and Macao, are functioning as different entities. Hong Kong has its own trade, immigration and customs policies and regulations.

Such changes are to avoid confusions, and to make the descriptions clear, accurate and easily understandable.

Discussion continues on other talk pages. -- 14:42, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

List of Ports

Okay, so we have just had 2 Korean ports added - out of alphabetical sequence. What next ? Who decides what ports are listed here. The AAPA lists show that the port of Kwangyang ranks higher than Incheon, so why include the latter.

We need to put some objective criteria on what should be included in this list and why? Frelke 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Shipping Terminal/Port

I'm am doing research for an article on thedevelopment at the Southport Spit and I need to know the distinction, if any, between a "Shipping Terminal" and a "Port". Thanks --202.182.101.3 13:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not easy to say. A terminal is probably not publicly owned, it may be part of a larger port, but it might also be an offshore loading/discharging facility.Frelke 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Shipping terminal usually refers to a single wharf, slip or pier which is owned or controlled by a single entity (e.g. Dubai Ports, or International Terminal Operators), while the term port refers to a cluster of shipping terminals located adjacent or close to each other -- usually in a single harbor. 209.247.22.8 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) gateur

Searching for "Port" on wikipedia

Searched wikipedia for "Port" using the box on the left and was brought to a low quality article about the left side of a boat. I don't have the skill to recommend deletion of the article, create/redirect to a disambiguation page, or anything else. There already exists an article describing the left side of a boat, at Port_(nautical). May I suggest someone with a bit of knowldge on the working of wikipedia take a look? Thanks. 172.143.160.225 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As a seaman of many years' experience, I suggest that the graphic, 'Major Ports of the World' is a rather weak one. There is no obvious sense in which those ports shown are major, and others - Bonny, Istambul, Southampton, Sydney, any of the oil-loading ports in the [Oil] Gulf, Rio de Janeiro - are NOT major. The criteria may include container throughput, but seems to miss out entirely on tonnage [oil, iron ore, coal etc. are carried in ship-loads of tens or hundreds of thousands of tons/tonnes]. Whilst we need an article 'Port', I suggest that this may not be the best place to start to get a good article on that subject. [GHUNT 10 Aug 08] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.23.238 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Image/Map of Major Ports

The map image by the introduction needs to be updated. For one, New York is placed above Boston. Also, St. Petersburg and Valdez are mentioned in the introduction, yet neglected in the map. It does not show the great lakes, making it seem like Chicago is a random port just stuck in the middle of the U.S. The same goes for Montreal. Redxbaron (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely include the brazilian Port of Santos since it is the biggest port in Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromvega (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For example, the map excludes Dover (busiest passenger port), Busan (5th busiest container port) and Qingdao (10th busiest container port), while including Erdemir (the largest port on the Black Sea, but not in the same league at the exclusions). It appears to be a selected group of major ports, but the criteria for selection are not specified.

I don't have the technical skills to amend the map - can anyone who does have a go at it? I've removed it from the article for the moment so it doesn't present a misleading impression, but it can be found at File:Ports.png if anyone wants to work on it before putting it back in. Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following is a closed 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 speedy close: do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Port → Seaport — This article clearly refers to a seaport. Other ports (eg airports) also exist. the Port article should move to the disambugation. Also request partial merge with harbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.79.192 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article expressly includes inland ports (such as Chicago). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Septentrionalis says, the article is about other types of port besides seaports. It specifically mentions river ports, which are most definitely not seaports. Airports are nearly always referred to as airports, not ports, so I really can't see what the problem is. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose how is a river port a seaport?? 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because a) the common name is "port", b) airports are not commonly called just "ports" and c) the proposed name is inaccurate as stated above. Jafeluv (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nothing to add to Skinsmoke's comment really. Oppose Knepflerle (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

I simply stated that the article information needs to be moved (to seaport, or something else like maritime port, waterport. Offcourse sea and riverports are different but they both belongs in the section "waterport". Nowhere in the article is there any talk of other types of ports (eg airports, spaceports, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.88.169 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning of sea traffic control

Sea traffic control and Sea traffic control towersSea traffic control tower definition need to be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.88.169 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Got any suggested wording? Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about vessel traffic management services see vessel traffic service. This is currently something of a political hot potato. Ship owners want PECs (pilot exemption certificates), whereas seafarers and other others have grave doubts about such projects. There is a European Union project in this connection which goes under the name of Marnis. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bioport

Perhaps bioport can be mentioned as another subtype of seaport ? The concept of a bioport would support the transition to an economy where halffabricates, and other materials for the construction of objects are no longer derived from fossil oils. See http://www.innovatienetwerk.org/nl/concepten/view/53/Bioport.html Bioports would be able to classify as a type of port as it may involve a special set-up of the factories in the vicinity of the port (eg constructed in such fashion that they are able to generate several products eg from waste organic matter, ...) Example: biomass production into ethanol, artificial fertiliser, livestock feed, bulk chemicals KVDP (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite by expert

A year and a half ago an editor added tags requesting expert attention and cleanup. I just spent 20 minutes fixing what appeared to be more or less obvious problems with the opening paras. At this point I'm going to repeat the request for expert attention, someone with a comprehensive historical and current understanding of ports needs to redo the article structure — perhaps using (without plagiarism) the general outline in the Britannica, Jane's, a major historical source, or a combination of such.

As usual, cruise ship special interests have added a hefty para, but other, probably more important types of ports get half as many words.

The section "Cargo ports" just hints at the extraordinary technology used. Container-handling ports are of huge economic significance in the world today. (I can contribute something here from a Janes reference and another excellent source, if someone else will work on the overall article structure.)

The "Access" section deals with the interesting subject of ports silting up, but it's also a rather tangential subject, and it needs to be treated in a broad historical context — historical changes to Mediterranean ports sometimes have had major effects.

The "Ports of the world" section is problematic. It should either be its own article, be briefly summarized, or deleted. As it stands, even to a casual reader, it's obviously incomplete. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the first paragraph:
Current text: A port is a location on a coast or shore containing one or more harbors where ships can dock and transfer people or cargo to or from land. Port locations are selected to optimize access to land and navigable water, for commercial demand, and for shelter from wind and waves. Ports with deeper water are rarer, but can handle larger, more economical ships. Since ports throughout history handled every kind of traffic, support and storage facilities vary widely, may extend for miles, and dominate the local economy. Some ports have an important, perhaps exclusively military role.

I propose rewriting this as follows:
A port is a place where ships are received for the purpose of landing or taking on cargo, passengers, crew, fuel and supplies. Port locations are determined by nautical, geographical, historical and commercial factors. The word port is derived from the Latin porta, meaning gate or entrance.

The more detailed remarks about berths, docks, piers, harbours, entrepot function etc. can come later as can the stuff about naval facilities, deep water, and so on. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In general I like your shorter version, except for a couple of things:

• of landing is redundant and can be removed with no loss of meaning (why do you land? To load or unload cargo, passengers, etc...)
• It drops the location "coast or shore". Is there ever a case where a port is elsewhere than where water meets land? It seems to me this is a crucial feature of a port, and should be mentioned in any definition, no matter how brief.

• Secondly, I think we need to say something about a protected place, i.e., we don't have ports in locations where 20-foot ocean waves can violently rock the ships which we're trying to load and unload, which would be both impractical as well as dangerous. A protected place could be a harbor, a bay, an estuary, a lagoon, whatever, but maybe for the brief definition "protected" is enough for starters? A later section can go into more detail describing the various possibilities in the choice of port locations.

Can you modify your rewrite accordingly?   Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on Mathglot (talk · contribs)'s points:

• Can I suggest the foillowing words - " ...where ships are received for the transfer of cargo, passengers, crew, fuel and/or supplies ..."
• I agree that "coast or shore" should be dropped as there are plenty of offshore areas which serve as ports, mainly for the largest of oil-carriers, but not unknown in both the timber and fresh produce trade. In many of these cases, the ship arrives in position and anchors while the cargo arrives on lighters and barges. Sometimes these places are just a large mooring buoy in the middle of nowhere. there is certainly no need for land/coast to be involved.
• Ports are often bult in exposed areas which are subject to large ocean waves. The pacific coasts are littered with them. Puerto Armuelles is one such notable.

Personally I'd suggest that the original pro;posal is very good. Fmph (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ports and harbo(u)rs

Following on from the above, there does appear to be a contradiction in the definition of a port and a harbor at these two articles. The harbor article says "Harbors and ports are often confused with each other. A port is a facility for loading and unloading vessels; ports are usually located in harbors." whereas the port article says "a port is a location on a coast or shore containing one or more harbors where ships can dock and transfer people or cargo to or from land." So is a port part of a harbour or vice versa?

Looking at the latest Oxford Dictionary of English (which is international) it has the following:

harbour (US: harbor)... a place on the coast where ships may moor in shelter, especially one protected from rough water by piers, jetties and other artificial structures.

port: a town or city with a harbour or access to navigable water where ships load or unload. ♦ a harbour: (as modifier) Belfast's port facilities

Thoughts? Please reply at Talk:harbor to keep the discussion in one place. Bermicourt (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Added info

Environmental effect
In order to decrease the environmental effect ports have, several initiatives have been started. These include the World Ports Climate Initiative, the African Green Port Initiative and EcoPorts.

Perhaps that a "Green port" article needs to be made ? 91.182.29.215 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Deep water port not explained

The search term "deep water port" redirects to this article, but is never explained. It's a commonly used term. Something like this from marineinsight would be useful:

"What are Deep Water Ports?

A deep water port, from its nomenclature can be suggested that is different from regular ports in respect of the depth of water....

However a deep water port is usually made up for the usage of very large and heavily loaded ships. The depth of water helps get them access to the deepwater ports. Regular ports are by and large of recreational types where the water is not more than 20 feet deep, whereas deep water port is compatible with the large heavy loaded ships which may require the water to be 30 feet deep or even more." 24.6.156.141 (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Offshore Port

An offshore port is either a port which has no connection to land or a port that floats freely from land (not sure which). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Offshore_Oil_Port http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalifa_Port http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Offshore-Ports-Could-Suit-US-and-Africa-2014-09-05 https://www.port.venice.it/en/the-offshore-terminal.html 184.166.4.117 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Help!

I have added some info on the history of ports and some very basic info. on historical ports but the section added needs to be greatly expanded. Please help. Johnscotaus (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the historical section, there needs to be some treatment of historical and modern-day free ports in this article. — LlywelynII 11:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

References

These shouldn't exist... — LlywelynII 11:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Seaport

There is a subheading entitled seaport in this article. No definition is given of a seaport. All the item does is to specify subcategories of seaport. Is this useful or could this information be provided elsewhere and the redundant "seaport" heading be eliminated? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Readability

This page has so many subparagraph headings that it is hard to read as a article. I suggest that legibility should be improved. Arrivisto (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the lead and the history sections, adding modern history to the latter. I've pruned the ancient history as there is now a new Main Page. Any editors interested in ancient ports are invited to develop the Historical Ports page. Arrivisto (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)