Talk:Port of Felixstowe

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Maersk ships to use Felixstowe

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/maersk-containers-shipping-emissions

Is this likely to increase jobs and opportunities in the town? There must be local news coverage of it. Maybe worth adding to the article once the information matures a bit.

--Lakkasuo (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe - in 2014, wait until then.TGCP (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Infobox Image

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Consensus is fairly clear that the this image should be used in the infobox. Although this is being closed earlier than the default 30 days (following a request), I don't see it as a problem given the unanimous support. It can be reopened to run for the entire 30 days if any further commenters disagree. Number 5 7 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aerial image

I propose we use this aerial image of the port in the infobox instead of the the logo.

Support as nominator. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support. I only did a small sample check, but all the other port articles I looked at used a similar image (and not the business logo). It's more attractive and engaging for the reader than the logo. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support. Certainly would be an asset to the article, and would make a great lead image. PeterEastern (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agree Absolutely.
Support. The logo Is appropriate for a letterhead, but the image of the port is more apt for an encyclopedia article. It brings the text alive, illustrating the geography and enterprise. — Neonorange (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Support, the presented overview image of the physical asset is much more contextual to the reader that an abstract representation of which ever organisation currently runs the port. —Sladen (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Largest Containership

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CSCL Globe is not the largest, but the longest containership. The largest one is MSC Zoe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSC_Zoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.212.18 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lack of history

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A lot more is needed about how this major port developed (for instance, it nearly got pipped at the post by Maplin New Town).Deipnosophista (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and it cold be pointed out that Felixstowe had the advantage of not being in he National Dock Labour Scheme, and so throve in spite of unfavourable land communications. Ipswich was better placed, but in the Scheme. Compare, eg, Shoreham.  Seadowns (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port of Felixstowe. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic