Talk:List of busiest ports in Europe

Problems by user BlueSulla[edit]

Where does the data used in the references 1 - 4 (site: http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/) (As of 9th August 2014) originate from? The four documents are hosted on a website that that appears to unrelated to any authoritative secondary source. There is no name of source in any of the PDF files which have been created in Excel. BlueSulla (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist in article, next to the date (year) in tables. All sources use PDF file and has name, for example "WORLD PORT RANKINGS - 2011" on the top of table. Internet adress show clearly that the data come from the AAPA Official Page. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Re your post on my Talk page: If you had read the article's Talk page, you will have noticed that I had already raised the issue for discussion. I did not remove the data, nor did I amend the content of the article other that to add a label as specified in the wiki help pages concerning questionable sources. As it stands, the comment and the labelling of the article is still relevant; even though the data is available in the PDF documents, the source of the data is not explicate - i.e. the source is not clearly identified in the documents. The documents are also hosted on a site which can not be identifiable as relevant, and has no link to the purported source of the data. In short, the data may be valid, but the citations are not. In addition, please note that I am not an inexperienced editor, and that it is not appropriate to be making threats.BlueSulla (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrong. Sources use PDF files to show data as tables and also source has name, for example "WORLD PORT RANKINGS - 2011" etc on the top of table. Simply: these are publications by AAPA available as PDF files, located on the official website of AAPA. There are no problems. If you have any questions - just your own problem. Your change (used templates) has been recognized as an irrational.

Sorry, but your assertion seems to be incorrect. When I checked there was no indication in the document to indicate that the data is connected in anyway to the claimed source. In addition, the document is hosted on a site that appears to have no connection with the claimed source. The data may originate from the claimed source since I see no benefit in fabricating the data, but I question if the data has been obtained through an official channel, or indeed if it is authorised for publication without charge. BlueSulla (talk)

PS. You wrote "In addition, please note that I am not an inexperienced editor, and that it is not appropriate to be making threats" - new user which creates the edit war is often blocked. This is only information. Secondly: you has about 50 edits, after analyzing your edits we (other users) can be inferred, that your account is sockpuppet. How do you explain your experience and your account with 50 editions? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this just sounds like an attempt at character assassination to deflect from the lack of a reference for the source material.

"Firstly: sources exist in article, next to the date (year) in tables. Thoroughly explained in the discussion. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)" It was not myself that initiated the conversations via the personal pages. BlueSulla (talk)

"Secondly: please do not create edit-war against experienced editors, very soon you will be blocked, if you do not change your behavior. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)" I did not make any attempt to start an edit war - you removed comments regarding the quality of the references to the source without any discussion, but included inappropriate attacks an threats. BlueSulla (talk)

"Thirdly: do you have questions or concerns? First discuss, later changes (if there is consensus). Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)" In that case, I suggest that you practice what you preach. BlueSulla (talk)

"PS. After analyzing your edits we (other users) can be inferred, that you is sockpuppet. You can not use more than one account, this is prohibited. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)" Again, another blatant attempt at character assassination; I am not a "sockpuppet", I have only one account. BlueSulla (talk)

Badly needs updating[edit]

I have already updated the passenger traffic table and linked to the new source. Is anyone looking after this page? If so, please get in touch. I have a passing interest in container shipping, but am not an expert. A brief search for up to date data shows no clear route. I would be happy to unscramble this page and update but it needs quite a radical revision. I don't want to spend lots of time on this and find someone dives in and reverts everything.

If no response after a week I will make a start. kritikos99 (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of busiest ports in Europe. 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:

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) 17:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

Great historic ports of France were not even mentioned, and most of these are still quite important: Brest, Bordeaux, Cherbourg, Dieppe, La Rochelle, Lyon, Marseille, Paris, St. Nazaire, Toulon.47.215.180.7 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Iceland -- all completely omitted....[edit]

Russia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, Iceland -- all completely omitted...
and hence the important ports of Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Archangelsk, Riga, Baku, and Reykjavik. Hence, the entire Arctic Ocean was omitted, as was the Caspian Sea.!! 47.215.180.7 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also completely omitted were the countries of Finland, Estonia, Serbia, and Austria, including ports on inland waterways, too.24.156.78.205 (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "important ports" of the United Kingdom were omitted[edit]

Many of the "important ports" of the United Kingdom were omitted:

Belfast, Northern Ireland, Bristol, England, Cardiff, Wales, Edinburgh, Scotland, Liverpool, England, Manchester via the Manchester Ship Canal, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, Portland Harbour, southern England, Teesside, northeastern England. Portland, England, was the location of the Roman fort that was built farthest west in England, beyond that comes Dorsett and Cornwall, which always held out against the Romans, and northwest of that is Wessex, which always kept its independence, too. King Arthur lived in Wessex. Portland, New South Wales, is an inland place with no rivers. It got its name because it used to be the location of the largest cement plant in all of Australia, but that one was closed sometime around the year 2000. Lots of Portland cement from Portland, N.S.W., was used in the construction of Canberra - a capital city built from scratch, just like Washington, D.C., and Brasilia. In fact, the capitol of Australia was built during the 1920s, and then a better one was built in time for the bicentennial in 1988. 47.215.180.7 (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland![edit]

Basel on the Rhine River, is the only operational inland port in Switzerland.
This city is located right where the Rhine turns north into Germany, and it is an important import-export port for things like coal, petroleum, manufactured goods, and agricultural products. There are also passenger cruises on the Rhine. I would say that Basel is a far more important port nowadays than Calais, Dover, Ghent, Gdynia, Kaliningrad, etc. It makes a lot of difference now that we have the English Channel Tunnel, and Konigsberg is no longer part of Germany. As for the city of Geneva and Lake Geneva, you can't get that far upstream on the Rhone River.47.215.180.7 (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Danube River![edit]

The Danube River!
Now that the Rhine–Main–Danube Canal is finished, and locks & dams have been built the Iron Gates of the Danube, there are doubtless important inland ports along it, such as at Frankfurt am Main, Nuremberg, Vienna, Budapest, and Belgrade. Just look them up! Nowadays, the Iron Gate stretchs lies along the border between Romania and Serbia, but the dams were built during the time of communist Yugoslavia. 47.215.180.7 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countries along the route, including along borders, include (from west to east)

Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova (a very short stretch), and Ukraine.

Major cities along the path of the Danube include Regensburg, Linz, Vienna, Bratislava (the capital city of Slovakia), Budapest, and Belgrade.

Somehow the Main and Danube missed Munich, Most, Brno, Brux, Graz, and Zagreb.

Also, the Danube formerly divided the two Hungarian cities of Buda and Pest.

Two same articles[edit]

Two same articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_in_Europe

What is a point of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.10.231 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Freeport[edit]

The Malta Freeport article says it handles 3.06 million TEUs - but I do not have enought historical info to make a table entry Wizzy…☎ 20:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Units of Measure[edit]

The first table is a little problematic for 2 reasons:

No mention of the unit of measure. I think it is ‘thousands of tonnes’ but I might be wrong
The reference used does not link to a dataset so I cant check what units are used

Fob.schools (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a total rework[edit]

My issues with this article:

the data is split between multiple tables, even though it generally covers the same ports and years → the data could be easily put in one table,
there is no mention of the unit of measure,
there is data all the way back from 2012 instead of just the most recent data → this results in a severe information bloat,
there is only one leading source of the data i.e. Eurostat → a great number of European ports has been ommited.

What do you think about merging this article with Ports of the Baltic Sea and following the table structure that is present there (plus Body of Water column to differentiate between Baltic Sea, North Sea etc. ports)? I can kickstart the change if I get any feedback.

One different option I see is to create a dedicated article for ports of each body of water in Europe, place links to the articles there and add tables for e.g. 20 busiest cargo, container and passenger ports.

Here's a WiP draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ports_of_Europe

Fiszu2001 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]