Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ports articles - standard layout

Hi

This is my first talk page, so if I am way off target pls feel free to say so.

I think some of what mexaquil has to say is fine, but I think we need to be clearer about our targets.

I certainly don't find it "alarming the biggest ports in the world do not have article yet."

But when he says "We also need to make port articles have a consistent feel." I think that should be the priority.

If we were trying to decide which articles were priorities then choosing one major port over another would be quite difficult.

I think the priorities should:

1. Agree a consistent style
2. Work through the categories especially on current articles
3. Produce a priority list for new articles

Frelke 06:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well many of the large ports of the world don't have articles, just look at the list! We should get started soonPeregrineAY 7 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

• • Ok. Lets start.

I like the layout of the Port of Los Angeles article. It has a structure as follows (my equivalents in parentheses)

1. Intro (to include geo-political location, lat/long, Locode, official and other names)
2. History
3. Governance (or corporate structure/ownership)
4. Shipping (or Traffic and statistics and largest vessel handed)
5. Cruise ships (could be specialist facilities)
6. External links

What do you think of that as a standard layout? Frelke 7 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

---

- I think the Intro should be long enough to give a good description of the port and how significant it is. I will have to go more for the layout of Port of Singapore, maybe:

1. Intro (long and thorough)
2. History
3. Administration and Operators (eg Governance)--Mexaguil 8 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
4. Facilities
5. Shipping Statistics (terminals, cargo handled, economic statistics,Cruise ships)

Similar to Frelke's. I think we need to borrow from the airport project and maybe ask for some help as they are to very similar projects, tell me what you think. --Mexaguil 8 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

Improvement drive

The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Port district

The port district article is in need of additional information. Cacophony 07:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What's on your mind?

As the project is just getting started, please don't be shy. Share what's on your mind with the group! Cheers. Haus42 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Greek fleet

Hey, i am new to wikipedia and preety much confused :D If i am not supposed to edit this part sorry! But i wanted to raise some concerns regarding the tonnage and total ship numbers registered under greek flag, i think the number is by far greater than the one mentioned. This is my source: http://www.amb-grece.fr/economie/la_grece_et_la_marine.htm It mentions 1,558 REGISTERED and 3.025 OWNED. I have other sources too, but they are Greek pages so their neutrality might be questioned. Thank you! Fotis2005 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The CIA statistics are for ships 1000GRT (Gross Register Tons) and more. The Lloyds statistics you cite are for ships 100GRT and more. So, I'm pretty sure the difference in our numbers is the number of ships between 100GRT and 1000GRT. Does that make sense? Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you are right, thanks for clearing this up! Fotis2005 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merchant Navy/Merchant Marine Redirects

The Merchant Navy now re-directs to Ship transport. I think it's a bad move - why not use the IMO term: shipping? Yosy 14:12, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

Valid point, and I almost did that. It might be the right thing to do. What stopped me is this: if you Google shipping, the first few results that come back are UPS, USPS, and FedEx.

The first step would be to put in these two templates:

• {{mergeto|Shipping}} on Ship transport
• {{mergefrom|Ship transport}} on Shipping

And in case we can't come up with a consensus, we can propose it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Anyone have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the templates and put a poll up at Talk:Shipping regarding this proposed merge. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Project scope?

Haus, can you further explain the scope of WikiProject Maritime Trades project? Are we talking all things maritime, which the Major Categories item in the info box suggests? Or are we focused upon maritime occupations as suggested by project title and recent project articles? Irregardless, I like your approach of collaboration. --Fishdecoy 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely open to debate. My original idea was "Everything dealing with working on the water." But there are other WikiProjects that cover many of the subject areas. So think of it like doing a subtraction: (Everything dealing with working on the water) - (Navy) - (Ships) - (Shipwrecks) - (Lighthouses). So, for example, a Jet Ski would probably not qualify. Nate Bowditch worked on the water, so he would. You use a GPS or a sextant or a needlegun, so they qualify. Whaddya think? Haus^Talk 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Helpful. Thanks. I added the Ice pier article to the project based upon your scope description above.--Fishdecoy 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945) on topic, especially since the merchant fatalities were greater than even the submariners? rmo13 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I came across Michael Eavis which is tied to your project, but the connection is minimal, so please review and delete the template on the Talk page if you agree. Derek Andrews 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AB (occupation) and AB (rank)

This is a copy of a point User:KAM brought up at Talk:Able Seaman (occupation). I wanted to copy it here and see if there are any feelings on i:

This page and Able Seaman (rank) were split from Able Seaman. Haus42 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should not be split between two equal articles. There is some overlap in the terms usage, at least historically. Should the main article be AB with a link to the Naval rating. KAM 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a lot of unilateral changes in a short period of time to try to structure the merchant shipping articles. So, I tried to err on the side of cautiousness. I'll copy this suggestion at Maritime Trades and we can see if there are any opinions. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record KAM's suggestion was followed a couple of weeks ago. Haus^Talk 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical ship transport occupations

Content for articles listed in the "Typical ship transport occupations" template at the bottom of project articles such as Harbor pilot, Chief Engineer, etc. is distinctively maritime. However, the model falls apart with articles such as Carpenter and Electrician. Shouldn't we create new pages that are unique to the maritime trades for those few example? For instance, maritime occupation content would go into Carpenter (nautical) or Carpenter (maritime).--Fishdecoy 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, like with Captain (nautical). User:Frelke mentioned that he really disliked parenthesized titles, which I thought was a good point, but I still haven't thought of a better approach. Something like Marine electrician or Ship's carpenter might be possibilities. Any thoughts? Haus^Talk 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge FOWT?

Hi folks, something similar to Fishdecoy's post above has been bugging me for a while. Oiler (occupation) isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it is probably in "start-class." There is no "Marine fireman" article. There is no "Watertender" article. Wiper is very much a stub. So my question is this: do you think we should a) create a merged F/O/WT article, and b) should we merge Wiper in with FOWT? This area is a real blind spot for me. Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

French speakers?

fr:Utilisateur:CaptainHaddock runs the extremely well done fr:Projet:Maritime and has suggested we do some collaboration. He's not completely comfortable in English, and his English is at least a couple of notches above my French. But there's a lot of room for helping each other out. I've already "borrowed" some stuff, like this. But there's room for much more. For instance, check out their Ship and Bulker articles -- top notch. Anybody have a black belt in French? Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am also quite active on the French project along with CaptainHaddock, and my English isn't too bad (I actually live in England), so maybe I can give a hand at some point. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you need some stuff translated. I was also responsible to a large extent for the "Ship" and "Bulker" articles, and I would welcome any comments to help improve them ; just because they are FA doesn't mean they can't be improved ! Thanks, le Korrigan ^bla 07:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I expected that post to sit there for months. A few notes: I borrowed most of fr:Amarrage (maritime) for a rewrite of Mooring (anchoring) today. I think Ship/fr:Bateau is our biggest need, if you have any interest in chipping in on that it would really be appreciated. Our highest rated articles are listed here, and you're more than welcome to them. Other than that, thanks for chiming in, and, well, enjoy the roastbif! :) Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a potential issue would be the distinction between ship and boat, which is far more pronounced in English than in French (I actually devoted all the first part of the article to the definition of a "bateau"). I'm not 100% sure about what should go in Boat or Ship... I'm currently working on different cargo ship types (Multipurpose cargo ship, Reefer, etc.), maybe some material could be sought from there. I'm using mainly sources in English anyway :-) Finally, I just improved the List of ship types, with fishing vessels and leisure crafts still missing. If it can give some inspiration, feel free to use it ! Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulk carrier

With help and encouragement from User:Korrigan, I translated the French featured article fr:Vraquier and merged it into Bulk carrier. It still has some problems. Primarily, due to my difficulty in simultaneously reading French and writing English, it reads like it was written by Inspector Clouseau. It lost about 1/3 of its references and citations in the process of translation. so it probably needs a good peppering with {{fact}} templates. The section on Hull Reinforcements probably needs to be retranslated from scratch. Also, there's a subsection on regulations that I left out. All that said, the article has real potential, and could really benefit from TLC. Cheers. Haus^Talk 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting, but I guess it still sounds a lot French :-) Also remember that I tend to be biased as I often adopt the point of view of a naval architect; in this article, I did my best to cover all topics, but having other people involved will surely help. Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ports POV

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)

Thanks for the note. I poked around Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ports and it looks like that project might be inactive. I'll post this to the ports talk page and see if anybody responds. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(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)

aid to navigation vs. seamark

Greetings, all. I came to here from the lighthouses project after coming up with some read links. There seem to be some terminological issues which I would like to help resolve.

As far as I can tell, the standard term is "aid to navigation". It is what the USCG uses, and what the IALA uses. I cannot say for the British admiralty because I can't find anything where they don't want to charge you money for an answer (cheapscapes). However, conversely I cannot find any evidence of use of the term "seamark". It doesn't appear on the USCG website, for instance, and it doesn't readily turn up in Google. I'd like to help overhaul the overall article, but right now I'm wary of starting without making this article move, and I want to make sure that I'm not miles/lm off base on the terminology. Mangoe 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Seamark" is a very old term for "tideline", the mark left on the beach by the high tide. "Seamark" is also used to describe a raised marker that warns of dangerous waters. I suppose that works ok to describe the buoyage system, but the term most of us are familiar with is "Aid to Navigation." I think the article should be moved, but would like to see some more discussion first. seatalker (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New template ATSBLink

Just a quick note that I have just finished the ATSBLink template, which is now fully documented and ready to use. This is designed to consistently link to accident and incident reports published by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and covers all their reporting types from rail, air, and sea. If anyone has suggestions or improvments, don't hesitate to pitch in or get in touch. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

CFD Port categories

Hi. I have kicked off a serious CFD about port categories. Any comments/input appreciated. Frelke 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Radar FAR

Radar has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposition for the title

I've been thinking and clearly "Ship transport" is a somewhat ugly title; also "shipping", the offcial IMO term, can (and does) refer to the transportation of goods outside the maritime branch. So I prupose changing "Ship transport" to "Shipping (maritime)". I think this is the best move. Yosy 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Petroleum tankers page

Hi guys, I've merged the Supertankers page into the Petroleum tankers page and given it a pretty thorough kicking adding in history and so on. Please visit and give it s further kicking. Cheers - Jimmec 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (by the way, I support Yosy's suggestion, above). Jimmec 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have given a re-order to the petroleum tankers page in a way that seemed to make more sense to me. Deleted 'characteristics of supertankers' on the grounds that (a) 'supertanker' is a lay term, not an official term and (b) wasn't very verifiable. Consider - 'the characteristics of a VLCC are that it can carry 2 billion barrels of oil and has a deadweight of 300,000+; then compare that to the deleted text 'supertankers have poor maneuverability'. Poor maneuverability in relation to what? An Aframax has poor maneuverability in relation to a speedboat, certainly, but is much better than a ULCC. And in what sea-conditions? etc etc. Cheers Jimmec 10:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a couple of days banging on it. It's teetering on the edge of being a B-article, but it still needs quite a lot of work. As always open to suggestions. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

General maritime wikiproject???

Is there a general maritime wikiproject (i've tried searching) covering things like UNCLOS, Containerisation, stcw-95/maritime qualifications (international and local), terms such as eez etc etc should there be a broad umbrella project for all those things or does this project tend to do that??? --Nengscoz416 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be the right project for those sorts of topics. Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk question

Someone has asked on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk the names of the many different jobs there are on the docks. What do you call a crane operator, for instance? I poked around the internet a bit, but I couldn't find anything like a list right away, so I'm hoping someone here will either know where to find such a list or would like to answer on the RefDesk. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This was surprisingly hard to answer. As far as I know, the guy who, for example, drives the straddle-stacker is called "The Guy that Drives The Straddle Stacker." Ships have job titles that aren't self-explanatory, like Bosun and Pumpman. I'm not aware of special job titles like that amongst dockers. I left some pointers to some job functions at the Miscellaneous Reference Desk Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadweight tonnage standardization

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#DWT about standardizing deadweight tonnage usage. In a nutshell, DWT can be used to express deadweight in tons (long tons) and tonnes (metric tons). If this kind of discussion floats your proverbial boat, please chime in. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Wight ferry services

I put a comment on the Talk:Wightlink page. I was wondering if anyone had any opinions. I have sufficient references to start the article. Has anyone else got an interest in this area?Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means, be WP:BOLD. If I understand correctly, the issue is: "We shouldn't cram the 160 years of ferry history into an article about an 18-year-old company." The name Isle of Wight ferry service seems to match with established usage, i.e. Toronto Island ferry services and Hobart Ferry Services. IMHO, you're on the right track. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You understand exactly and have summerised the issue much better than I did. Thanks for the links. I shall get started on the page. Criticism and assistance will be gladly received. Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruise ships

Are the terms Merchant Navy and Merchant Marine used to include cruise ships? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see British Merchant Navy and United States Merchant Marine. In practice, you'd call the ships "merchant ships" or "merchant vessels" and the crew something like "mariners," "merchant mariners" or "merchant seamen." Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Merchant Marine Portal

Borrowing heavily from P:USN, I roughed out a United States Merchant Marine Portal this afternoon. Questions, comments, suggestions, and collaborators welcome. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of 57 Navigational Stars

I was surprised to see that we are missing a list of the 57 Navigational stars on Wikipedia, so I added it yesterday. The list is now linked to from the Celestial navigation article and also from the List of stars article. Alexander Falk 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work— I added to the project. The list is close enough to the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria that you should consider seeking featured list status for it. Also, figs. 1533-1536 from Bowditch 2002 might add context. Haus^Talk 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I followed your suggestion and submitted it for seeking featured list status - please see Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Navigational_stars for the corresponding discussion and changes I already made to the list in response to suggestions from the reviewers. Alexander Falk (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Navigational stars

The list Navigational stars is a current Featured list candidate. As of May 19, the nominator is taking a three week Wikibreak. It would be a shame for the list not to be promoted because the nom is unavailable so if anyone who is part of the project would like to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Navigational stars and perhaps address any outstanding comments, the Wiki community would be grateful. Regards to all here, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for article creation from the Container Shipping Information Service (CSIS)

I am employed by Porter Novelli, a global public relations network.

My client CSIS does not currently have an entry in Wikipedia. We feel that one would be appropriate, as it is made up of 24 major container shipping lines and exists to raise awareness about the industry.

Please could somebody review the short article that is on my talk page and if it is appropriate, create an entry.

RachelRingstead (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New Featured Article

A Maritime Trades article is now at FAC review, should you wish to comment there: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baltimore Steam Packet Company. JGHowes ^talk - 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Promoted today to Featured Article. JGHowes ^talk - 23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance scale?

Is there any reason the importance scale transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maritime Trades/Assessment is for organized labor? I'm a member of WikiProject Ships and occasionally will come across an article appropriate for this project. If the importance criteria were specialized for this project, I would be more than happy to rank as I add tags in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason is historical only -- the organized labour and maritime trades projects were revamped at the same time, some cross-pollination occurred, and some glitches apparently still exist. I'll put fixing this one on my list, and in the meantime am confident in your judgement in rating. Cheers. Haus^Talk 06:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An A-Class review for American Palestine Line now open

A WikiProject Ships A-Class review for American Palestine Line is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 719 articles are assigned to this project, of which 145, or 20.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Maritime Trades}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluenorway#Vessel_Full_Form_Naming_Convention Bluenorway (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Maritime Trades

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

More redirects

Hi. It seems that this might be the venue for getting a definitive answer to this. I came across the use of the redirected term RORO, which seemed uniquely alien to me. It redirects to Roll-on/roll-off, which is ok. But if you check out its What links here] page you will see a huge number of variations in use across the encyclopaedia, including:

• RoRo
• RO-RO
• Roll on-roll off
• Roll-on roll-off (move a hyphen)
• Ro-ro
• Roll-on/Roll-off
• Roll On/Roll Off (remove a hyphen)
• Roll-on/roll-off ship
• Roll-on roll-off ship

Is there any (nautical) mileage in trying to agree a Manual of Style-type list of preferred terminology, do you think? Fmph (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Code Letters

I've created this article on the use of Code Letters by ships. Further improvement and expansion welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished navbox of port authorities

Hi, not sure how to configure this navbox I created after writing some port authority articles, specifically in regard to the title and to the scope of the navbox. It was first conceived as 'a navbox of port authorities in the area of Somalian and Malacca Straits piracy and the routes between Suez, the Persian Gulf, and East Asia,' and in that regard its not quite complete, especially in regard to ports of India and ports of Indonesia. If anyone wants to continue working with this, please go right ahead. In regard to the Greater Indian Ocean, specifically it lacks Mozambique, Comoros, Richards Bay/Transnet Ports, Chittagong, Pakistan, Jordan Persian Gulf and Aussie.... --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie

I have nominated Woody Guthrie for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Panama

I have nominated Panama Canal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An article for Natical Science (degree in UK)

I was wondering why there isn't a Wikipeia article for the degree in Nautical Science (UK). As I am wanting to do this course soon at LJMU in Liverpool, UK and I would love some infomation regarding this course. I would make the article myself but I haven't done it. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

proposed deletion

Hi, I just proposed deletion of List_of_sea_captains. I did the because List of naval commanders was deleted. PDBailey (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cargo liners

I've created the cargo liner article. Assistance with expanding it would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

The Charles Fryatt article, previously a copyvio, has been deleted and rewritten from scratch. As such, it now needs (re)assessment. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was re-assessed when it hit GA. Haus^Talk 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed merging Skipper (boating) into Captain (nautical). Both are about the same persons. Captain explains the job and requirements. Skipper only explains the use of the word. I know that both words have special meanings in the military, but that could be explained in the relevant articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about this project

Does this project include people from say the United States Navy, Marine Corps and coast guard? --Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force might be a better fit for most military members. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 Haus^Talk 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)

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)

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) ¨

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)

A section on Governance should also be included, possibly right after history. Since many ports have separate authorities that run them this could be of great importance on how the port is managed and may not fit in with being just a subsection on some of the larger ports. An Economy section on how the port impacts its local economy (or for larger ones the national or world economy). A Connections sub-section of Facilities for listing rail lines, nearby highways, multimodal and switching yards, etc. on how cargo shipped into the port by sea leaves the port (or vice-versa, and in many cases cargo into a port for example by rail goes out of the port by truck, never going out to or from the sea). A Geography section to set forth how large, where it is; does it have a shipping channel and if so where does it go, how long is it, etc; is it a ocean port or river port, what river then and its elevation?; dredging needed to keep it open? especially for river ports; a climate subsection may even be desirable for more northern ports that are closed for part of the year. It may even be preferable to have the geography section before the history section, since knowing WHERE it is would then help in learning WHY and HOW it is the port it is today.Camelbinky (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

FYI, end result of the above discussion was support for the category but under the name Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts. I've gone through the various WP:PORTS articles and categorised the relevant ones not already done. Euryalus (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While I personally support the idea of a C-class, there seems little need for it given the current state of WP:PORTS articles. Most of our "start" articles could be lifted to the standard of "B" with some work, and with a total project list of less than 500 I doubt there'd be a need for "C" as well. I don't suggest we delete the new category but there seems little point in recategorising existing pages at this stage.

Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ports

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Since there wasn't one I made this one. You can see it in use at Freeport of Monrovia. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont care for the infobox that many have mentioned as a "good start", the one that is at the Port of Los Angeles. The color alone is terrible and much of the technical data can be easily found in the article without looking, its in other tables that stands out. My thoughts on infoboxes is that they should be used for non-technical data that can not be found in the article or not be found easily (ie- not in tables or other formats that make it stand out already). I have used a standard infobox from city articles for the Port of Albany-Rensselaer, it is also used at Port of Anchorage and possibly elsewhere. I believe it is a better start. The infobox that is chosen should first of all have a grey background to make it stand out, and then maybe the navy blue from the Los Angeles port page would look better. As it is now the background makes it blend in with the article and blue looks terrible. Camelbinky (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a sandbox for the Port Infobox made by Aboutmovies, on the sandbox I added some code for showing an inline pushpin map based on three new parameters: pushpin_map (only set to y if you are going to use it), latd (latitude in decimals) and longd (longitude in decimals). If anyone likes it, we only need to move the code to the main infobox. Lbethanc (talk)

I still see the problem of the infobox being of a less than aestheticly pleasing color, and time could be better spent adding paramaters to the Geobox2 template to cover things that are specific to ports, since all Geobox2's parameters are available whether you are using it for buildings, settlements, regions, mountains, etc, we wouldnt have to worry about adding to a port template a map because it already exists on Geobox2. Is anyone willing to work on that with me?Camelbinky (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to adapt the Geobox2 for ports. It has a lot of things on it and it looks very good. I have only a few days on this, but I'm willing to help. the starting point should be a list of attributes for ports. Lbethanc (talk)

BC Ports

As you can see I created an article request section on the main project page and added redlinks for Squamish and Victoria BC ports....Port Alberni is a major shipping port though not to the same degree, Port of Nanaimo used to be...ditto Port McNeill and Port Alice....I wasn't sure what to do about these because the town articles may be sufficient; Squamish is of a different order as it's a major bulk materials dock and had been a major railhead for quite a long time; McNeill is more of a fishing/recreational port like other towns in teh area Alert Bay etc., Port Alice and Gold River, though, and Kitimat are major industrial ports; there are smaller "outports" (a Newfoundland term not usually used in BC) I'm not thinking of, just ones taht have a high profile in shipping; so Bella Coola wouldn't be on it, nor Masset, though both are "working harbours" but again mostly for shipping and ferries. Fery terminal articles, though, I think I shoudl add WP:Ports to....Skookum1 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes town articles are sufficient,. but a separate page is worthwile if there is available technical data (eg. port operations, capacity, berth specifics) or where the port itself has a history unique to the town. I'll have a look at separate articles for these two on Monday, unless anyone else beats me to it ... Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I've added this to the main page as a trial. Let's see what we get from it. Also feel free to me know if this is a problem for anyone. Euryalus (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished navbox of port authorities

Hi, not sure how to configure this navbox I created after writing some port authority articles, specifically in regard to the title and to the scope of the navbox. It was first conceived as 'a navbox of port authorities in the area of Malacca Straits piracy and the routes between Suez, the Persian Gulf, and East Asia,' and in that regard its not quite complete, especially in regard to ports of India and ports of Indonesia. If anyone wants to continue working with this, please go right ahead. In regard to the Greater Indian Ocean, specifically it lacks Mozambique, Comoros, Richards Bay/Transnet Ports, Chittagong, Pakistan, Jordan and Persian Gulf.... --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A fair few of those ports authorities are in the Pacific - Tasmania, Cairns, Central Queensland, Vietnam, Philippines. There's a wider issure though - Wikipedia has never developed a proper arbitrary divsioning system for ports and oceans. Using oceans would be superficially logical, but both the Pacific and Atlantic navboxes would be too big to be especially useful. By continental landmass might work, though there's little point in grouping (say) US east coast ports with US west coast ones. By major trade linkages would make the most technical sense but would be unintelligible to the layman reader, and provoke too much debate over where to include ports with comparatively little shipping, or ones which are the link between major trading zones (for example Singapore).

On balance, land masses with some sub-navboxes might be best, as most readers will be thinking in terms of the land rather than the waterway. US East and US West could be divided out, as could southern, southeastern and northern Asia, and the south pacific (including Australia). If we intended to include every minor port, we'd need further breakdowns, perhaps to the country level in some cases.

Just a thought, and other suggestiosn welcome. But we do need to do something to better categorise ports articles, and a proper navbox system might be a step in the right direction. Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Dock

Dock, a disambiguation page, is pending disambiguation of its incoming links. But first, please take a look and see if you can improve Dock. --Una Smith (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ports in Nunavut

What defines a port for categorisation purposes? Looking at port it says "...a facility for receiving ships and/or transferring cargo.". Taken literally then all places in Nunavut (except possibly Baker Lake, Nunavut and Kugaaruk, Nunavut) would be a port. All of the communities receive at least one ship during the annual sealift. However, if that's the case then several of the un-manned North Warning System sites, such as Lady Franklin Point, need to be included as they sometimes get a ship during the season. If on the other hand you take "facility" to mean that there has been something done to improve the docking area rather than using the natural landscape then it might cut down the number of places. For example Cambridge Bay, Nunavut has a dock but Resolute, Nunavut appears not to have one. Currently there are a few at Category:Ports and harbours of Nunavut and of those only Coral, Gjoa, Nanisivik and Pang are in use. The others are all abandoned places. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the uncertainty is created by the word "facility." I agree with your suggestion that it means something to improve the docking area, otherwise any beach where a dinghy could be pulled up is a seaport, and any big field is an airport. As ports can also include former ports, soemwhere where a docking facility existed but no longer does, still meets the definition. Barbarikon, for example. So, abandoned Nunavut places could still potentially be categorised as ports if they ever had a docking facility, but Resolute might not.

No doubt we could also apply a commonsense test - a place with two skid rails to pull up a dinghy has a docking facility, but its too small-scale to fit the port definition. Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that makes sense. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 09:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ports of Pakistan

Request for review of 'Port Qasim' article status

I have recently done restructuring of Port Qasim article. Details have been posted in the discussion page. I want to propose to review the subject article for 'B' or 'C' class. Currently it is marked as "Start Class Article" in the WikiProject_Ports.

Further I have added adequate citations for the article and believe that "Citation required" tag can be removed from main page of the article. Would appreciate feedback.

ISQureshi (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rerated as "C" - just needs some additional citations and some minor grammar fixes. Commented on article talk page, but well done for the hard work on this. Euryalus (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try to put the citations for the mentioned items in 2-3 days. Thanks for your kind words! ISQureshi (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)