Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 4 April 2023

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Ports Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Incomplete

List list is totally rubbish! It's only got about 3 ports on it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.99.120 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This appears a very selective list, containing only the largest commercial ports. It does not contain ferry ports, such as Penzance, Gosport, Heysham. Nor does it contain smaller commercial ports, such as Boston, Bridport, Whitehaven or Workington. Nor does it contain fishing ports, such as Newlyn, Hastings, Looe or Seahouses. Not to mention the numerous ports largely used for leisure purposes. It either needs an awful lot of work, or scrapping. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Split to List of ports in England and List of ports in Wales

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.

There does not seem to be any indication for grouping England and Wales together for this list.

The page should be split to List of ports in England and List of ports in Wales (which I have created, including by moving some links over).

The Welsh Ports group is distinct and coordinated by the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group for example.https://www.britishports.org.uk/about-us/the-welsh-ports-group/

Scottish ports group is also distinct: https://www.britishports.org.uk/scottish-ports-group-welcomes-scottish-governments-establishment-of-green-ports/ Titus Gold (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The list is described clockwise around the coast. If you remove the Welsh ports then you have a big gap as you jump from Bristol to Liverpool. There does not seem to be a clear benefit to the reader in carving out Welsh ports, and there is a disbenefit that the small number of Welsh ports will cause Welsh information to lose visibility. You have created a list of ports in Wales article which is a subset of this list which can serve any purpose in knowing just about Welsh ports. This one should remain. Lastly, it was just a week or two ago that you were reminded about the need to discuss page moves, yet here we are again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Bold moves are allowed when there is no indication for the split being controversial in any way. If there was any indication for controversy I would bring to talk page as I have previously done for some pages. There is no indication for grouping Wales and England ports here. There is no reason why Scottish ports are not included but Welsh ports are for example which also is an effective counterargument against the clockwise suggestion and visibility. Port policy is devolved in Wales and Scotland. All this begs the question of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view concern when it comes to England & Wales groupings. This page has clear indication to be split (or alternatively as a UK wide article).

An example of a clear indication for an England & Wales grouping are pages related to the justice system and legal jurisdiction for example. There are plenty of articles related to that, that I have not suggested be split and should stay as they are. Titus Gold (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Tbh for this one I have no idea why it is England and Wales. While I have questions over other E&W splits, this one makes sense IMO. It was originally List of ports in England, until Wales was added because someone had classed Holyhead and Mostyn as North West England? If we are citing geographic reasons, then this should be Great Britain as there is a gap between Silloth and Berwick-upon-Tweed called Scotland :D . Ofc, a UK-wide list article could be made if concerns are raised over visibility. DankJae 01:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps Scotland should be added in and it should move to list of ports in the UK. This needs an RM now. List articles do vex me somewhat as it is not always possible to understand their use, considering Misplaced Pages is not a directory. However, what is better? A list of ports around the island? or a list of ports around each home nation? (bearing in mind that the description of England then has a jump from Bristol to Liverpool). I think it needs more input. Please note that an RM is required before this can be moved again (per WP:RMUM). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this split, if this helps clarify my position. DankJae 02:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is no indication for this grouping as discussed above and the page should be split with this page moved to List of ports in England and List of ports in Wales to remain as it is. Titus Gold 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Titus Gold, you're the one that proposed it? Your support is already assumed. DankJae 12:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  just clarifying lol Titus Gold (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support The suggestion makes sense. Llwyld (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Will wait for any further positions here then will go ahead with move to List of ports in England (List of ports in Wales). Titus Gold (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  No you won’t. You already made the bold page move and I had it reverted as undiscussed. As I said above, this now needs consideration under an RM per WP:RMUM. As you did not create an RM (But instead bold moved other pages) and after more than 24 hours from my saying an RM is required, I created one for you. Please note that an outcome of that RM could certainly be a consensus to split. It could also be a consensus to extend this page scope. I don’t mind what the editor consensus is, but it clearly needs more eyes on it and perhaps for you and I to step back and let that happen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  You made a RM which undermined this discussion. It's a split being discussed which can be achieved by simply moving this to List of ports in England. I've added the more appropriate RM here. Titus Gold (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let's establish the chronology here.

  1. At 01:28, 24 March 2023‎ - Titus Gold moved page List of ports in England and Wales to List of ports in England (BOLD page move)
  2. 11:16, 24 March 2023‎ - Page is restored after I raised an undiscussed move reversion. I was unable to do it myself as you had overwritten redirects and created new pages.
  3. You THEN opened this discussion above, and I reminded you at 19:44, 24 March 2023 of recent discussion on your talk page about the need to use the RM process todiscuss potentially controversial moves first, including your agreement to bear it in mind, yet you continue to make bold moves almost daily (74 since January 1st).
  4. I also reminded you at 8:54 on 25 March 2023 that as your undiscussed move was reverted, a RM is now required, per WP:RMUM which states Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.
  5. As you had not created a move request, after 25 hours, I created the move request below and specifically included guidance "An alternative proposal is to split the list by home nation," and although I don't advocate that, I expect the move request to discuss that possibility, and, indeed, perhaps to prefer it.
  6. At 16:59, 26 March 2023 you inserted a rival move request above the one I had started, at the head of the above discussion, as though that were the original move request, in this edit: . This was disruptive editing.
  7. A minute later you wrote the comment I am replying to, saying "You made a RM which undermined this discussion."

  Inserting a move request above an existing one is undermining a move discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should just move on with establishing a consensus rather than waste time with meaningless arguments.

  There seems to be a consensus here for a split so we'll just wait 7 days then according to RM guide I assume. Titus Gold (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Titus Gold, could you confirm that you are okay to withdraw the split template you placed on 26 March in favour of an RfC as discussed below? See the last comment from Thryduulf. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes that's fine. Titus Gold (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

List of ports in England and Wales → List of ports in Great Britain – This list was started as English ports, but as it was described in a clockwise manner from the Scottish border, Welsh ports were added in. It would be sensible to add in Scottish ports to and aggregate the list to allow a single list of all the ports, in a clockwise manner, around the British mainland. The list as it stands includes islands such as the Isle of Wight and Anglesey, but these are commonly included in the definition of Great Britain, which can refer to the mainland or the mainland and the national islands. Such a list makes sense because it refers to navigation, where land mass is the key factor under consideration, rather than internal political boundaries. An alternative proposal is to split the list by home nation, but this would not treat the list by landmass, and creates a disjunction in the English article where Wales is omitted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I am neutral on the breakdown of the list, though would prefer this proposal (Great Britain) unless it goes to a very long list of locations, then I would suggest breaking it up.

My main concern is the groupings within the article itself. I don't know if the Ports groups have defined geographical areas (I get why the Humber is grouped together due to the large ports of Hull, Immingham, Grimsby, Goole), but why on earth is Bridlington in the North-East of England section? That makes no sense. Also, it states listed clockwise, then states Berwick, Blyth, Bridlington, when is should be Berwick, Blyth, Port of Tyne, Sunderland, Seaham, Hartlepool, Teesport, Redcar, (in North-east England) - Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington, Port of Hull, Goole, Immingham, Grimsby (in Yorkshire and the Humber). They should be listed geographically clockwise, not alphabetically IMO. Feel free to disagree and tell me that I am wrong, but the way the list is constructed makes no sense to me. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

PS both the List of RNLI stations and List of rivers of England list their locations geographically clockwise. The RNLI list includes, Scotland, Wales North Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The joy of all things (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't disagree about the order on the list. It definitely needs work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

split in the above discussion is a better option because port policy is devolved Titus Gold (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes port management is devolved, although ports are managed under UK wide legislation. However maritime navigation, border control, lighthouses, UK shipping, and a number of other closely related areas are reserved. The landmass is also not going anywhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Titus Gold Sorry, but I don't see how the different policies affect this - it is just a listing of ports in Great Britain. If we were discussing a history of those ports in one article, then yes, I can see that. As its just a list to inform the reader of those locations with a port, then....The joy of all things (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose List of ports and harbours in Scotland already exists. List of ports in Wales (as of recently) also exists. It would make more sense to simply move this page to List of ports in England. (See the above discussion for split by mvoing to List of ports in England) Titus Gold (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Having two simultaneous discussions going in opposite directions has probably complicated this situation. In the end, this is a list, whether we should have smaller lists or larger lists is not clear, at minimal this list has 100+ entries, adding ~31 from Scotland. Category:Lists of ports shows most other similar lists go by sovereign state, therefore a UK wide list would be more justified (as stated by legislation above), but at the same time there are lists for sub-divisions such as Valencia, AP, so equally 4 nations lists can too be made. While it may make sense to categorise this list geographically, that so far is rarely done in similar lists, there is an Indonesia list but not a Java one, although Ireland seems the exception. Furthermore, while the proposal argues from the geographic perspective, to include Anglesey etc would mean using the broader political use of Great Britain, not a geographical one, and at that point, I would prefer a UK one over this one proposed as legislation is UK-wide and "Great Britain" is going to be used loosely. But considering 3 of the 4 nations have their own lists, seemed easier to just add a Welsh one, with Lists of ports in the United Kingdom as an index. Plus if this were GB what would happen to the Scottish list? Should that be merged here, they should be consulted too. Should NI also merge with the island of Ireland article? RNLI operates across the UK and Ireland so not really the same. TLDR, while adding a Welsh one is easier, would tolerate a UK list, but not GB. DankJae 17:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is one move discussion. This is it. Your !vote could well be to Oppose, and move to List of ports in England (or UK if you prefer). The neutral closer will be able to evaluate the discussion and close accordingly. If there is no consensus, then a new move request may be opened with the best supported alternative up front.

  To your comments about size, lists have inclusion criteria, and editors could create inclusion criteria restricting the list to certain ports. Yet there is clear synergy with list of ports in Ireland, which you have found. That list says This is a list of seaports around the coast of the island of Ireland. (and already includes Northern Ireland) and that is exactly how I envisaged this list. Note that UK would include parts of Ireland. The term Great Britain specifically includes the national islands (although list criteria could restrict to the mainland if editors so wish). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't reply to what happens to the Scottish list. Nothing needs to happen to it. It could remain asis or a merge or redirect could be initiated once this list is up to scratch. Same for the page Titus Gold created on 24 March 2023 for Welsh ports. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Procedural oppose and close - I think it's best to see the result of the split request (which was opened first) before opening an RM on a page that may end up being split anyway. Estar8806 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The split request banner was added later on 26 March 13:47. - 3 hours after I opened the RM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. Regardless of the timing, it is better to first determine the scope and then determine the name as the latter will of necessity follow the former. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Determining the scope was what I intended with this RM. However, I am content to withdraw and close the RM if there is a more appropriate way to discuss scope. I don't think close followed by a bold move would be right though. Are we in RfC territory? or is there another process that allows the scope to be explored and evaluated neutrally? Perhaps a formal split discussion now that template was also added? Athough not sure if it was listed anywhere. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree a bold move would not be appropriate. I think possibly the best way forward would be to close this and the split discussion and start an RfC with three options

  1. One list, covering all of Great Britain
  2. Two lists, one for England and Wales, one for Scotland (the status quo ante)
  3. Three lists, one each for England, Wales and Scotland

  I can see no suggestions that the scope be something other than geographical, so there is no point complicating things by the addition of Northern Ireland into the options. What order the entries should be listed in, and what the name of the page should be, are matters that can be discussed once a consensus on the scope is clear.

  Everyone who has commented in either the move or split discussion should be pinged and notices should be placed at Talk:List of ports and harbours in Scotland and any relevant WikiProject talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the advice. On this basis I will withdraw this RM. The only !vote is an oppose, so I think I am safe in non admin early closure - withdrawn. I will wait for Titus Gold to withdraw the split and then will initiate an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Determining page scope

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Editors are asked to consider and advise on the scope of this page. Should there be:

1. One list, covering all significant ports of Great Britain
2. Two lists, one for England and Wales, one for Scotland (the status quo ante)
3. Three lists, one each for England, Wales and Scotland

List of ports in Ireland, List of ports in Northern Ireland and List of ports and harbours in Scotland pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging: Llwyld, DankJae, Titus Gold, The joy of all things, Estar8806, Thryduulf. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 3, with no preference between them. I think either a purely geographical (Great Britain) or purely political (England, Scotland, Wales) organisation makes more sense than the hybrid. I can see the logical in option 2 (avoiding a list in two sections), but this is not a problem with other lists where it can't be avoided (e.g. List of ports in Spain). Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - My own view is that option 1 is the most appropriate. This is in line with List of ports in Ireland which describes all the ports around the island of Ireland without regard for borders. I envisage that this page could do the same for Great Britain, which refers specifically to the British mainland, but also usually includes the national islands (e.g. Anglesey, the Isle of Wight) but excludes the Isle of Mann, Channel islands. This allows a single geographically based list. It would involve a merge in of data from the Scottish list, but need not be a replacement for that list as inclusion criteria might differ - a matter for later editor consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 or 2- Personally I don't see any reason that all the ports in Great Britain (that is England, Scotland and Wales) shouldn't be one article. My only remote concern would be length, but I doubt that would be a major concern. However, if length does prove to be a concern then I think it would be best to stick with legal jurisdictions (England and Wales, and Scotland).

Also, I should mention this RfC likely pertains to List of ports in Northern Ireland, which I presume the nominator mistakenly forgotten. In reference to that list, it undoubtedly should be merged into List of ports in Ireland, which already covers at least a few ports in the North. Estar8806 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I did forget that. I shall add it in. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 - With regards to Scotland, there is a Scottish Ports Group, the Scottish government discuss Scottish ports only, there is a Ports of Scotland website and List of ports and harbours in Scotland already exists. Scottish ports are also listed separately by Crown Estate Scotland and Offshore Wind Scotland. The free port deal was also done specifically between the Scottish government and the UK government.

There is The Welsh Ports Group for example, separate deals for free ports as was in the news recently. The Welsh Government also discusses Welsh ports separately and the Welsh Ports Capability Directory lists Welsh ports only. (I made before a revert of the bold move of this page, the page List of ports in Wales)

(There is no sensible or logical indication at all for Option 2. That would be similar to grouping England and Scotland for example.) Titus Gold (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that picking option 1 would mean having to merge this list with List of ports and harbours in Scotland. Both this page and the Scottish page are already quite long. (List of ports in Wales is a digestible size.) Titus Gold (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This list has just over 100 entries, the Scottish list has 33. That is safely within usual list sizes. If the list grows significantly beyond that we could consider inclusion criteria. This is a list of ports, but there are entries that are harbours that are not commercial ports. For instance, Aberdyfi ceased operations as a commercial port in 1959. This also indicates that we are not necessarily talking about a complete merge of the 33 entries in the Scottish list. We are looking to merge in only the ports. Note that Aberdyfi is currently included because it was a commercial port, but the inclusion criteria might be modified to only those ports that remain in operation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And to add: The UK has 120 ports which is a perfectly acceptable list size. It is less than 120 here as the Northern Ireland ports are in List of ports in Ireland. In the maritime context, geography is much more important than internal political boundaries. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 a single geographic list makes sense to me. It keeps adjacent ports adjacent in the list regardless of political boundaries. Llwyld (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 preferred, but accept Option 1, usually these lists go by countries rather than geographies, therefore Option 3 or a UK one, but as long as Scotland is merged to this GB article and NI into the Irish one, making two clear geographic lists then Option 1 should be fine. DankJae 02:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1, following comments at Talk:List of ports in Wales, if defining this list to be purely commercial ports, a GB list would be suitable, with the nations lists including harbours which are omitted here. With the Scottish, Welsh and NI lists remaining separate. DankJae 18:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 preferred, but will accept Option 3. Option 2 makes no sense in terms of geography, I recognise the political landscape is different, but really, it is just a list of ports showing their locations. I would also push for a revamp of the article once this process is complete. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Why Option 3 makes more sense in my view:

1. The statutory harbour authorities (STA) are all managed completely seperately. STA's in England are managed by Marine Management Organisation, Transport Scotland for Scotland, the Welsh Government for Wales and the Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland.
2. Port policy is devolved, meaning the Welsh government, Scottish Government and NI executive are responsible for determining policy, all separately.

Titus Gold (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, under my understanding per Talk:List of ports in Wales, the Welsh, Scottish and NI article will remain separate if they also include harbours which this one wouldn't. This list is mainly only on the smaller number of commerical ports, which may not justify other lists without harbours. DankJae 23:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And a note to closer This bolded Option 3 repeats Titus Gold's !vote 20:28 28 March. struck: bold removed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Un-bolded to avoid confusion!

@DankJae I think commercial ports should be on the separate nations pages for reasons outlined above.

Will of course accept majority decision. Titus Gold (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, A list of only nine ports probably is not helpful as a separate list, but your Wales creation also includes harbours, which this article wouldn't so both can co-exist. DankJae 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 - I agree with the reasoning given about the STA and the fact that port policy is devolved. The three nation pages should be separate in my opinion. ProfBlue12 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• List-Class England-related articles
• Low-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• List-Class Wales articles
• Low-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• List-Class List articles
• Unknown-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment