Talk:List of Panamax ports

	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.

Lists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. 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 articles

[Untitled]

Khark island in the persian gulf (an iranian island)has two deep water modern oil terminals which are T-JETTY and SEA ISLAND.The last mentioned(SEA ISLAND)has approximately 70 meters depth.

Defenition

What is the defenition used in this article for a deep water port? I see the Port of Beaumont listed as a deepwater port, but 40 feet is not really deep in my opinion. Maybe for US standards, but not global. 194.151.10.81 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding the maximum depth/breadth/length etc that can operate in each port? That would be most useful. Or simply listing panamax, molaccamax, seawaymax etc if they are limited in any way. (MrSumner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deep water, deep-water or deepwater?

Some standardisation and redirects are required to help locate this article. Rexparry sydney 11:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler? St. John's? Long Beach?

Why include Chandler-Quebec? Yes it is a long wharf (900 feet), but there are quite a number of other deep-water wharves along the Atlantic, and they are not listed here. Meanwhile, why is St. John's Harbour (N&L) not included here? It is certainly more important than Chandler as an Atlantic deep water port. And why is the Port of Long Beach (CA) also not listed here? It qualifies as deep water by accommodating Panamax vessels, and is the largest Pacific port in the Western Hemisphere. Bizarre reasoning here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons

Displaying the flagicons is a great way to learn the flags. Tabletop (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no Arctic ports?

Surely some of the Arctic ports are deep-water ports? Geo Swan (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reformat

I agree that this list would be much more useful if it listed additional information about each port. What should it list? I suggest the following would be useful:

Maximum dimensions. Just like canal locks have maximum practical dimensions of the vessels that can traverse them, I suspect ports do as well. If known we should list them.
Annual tonnage transhipped;
Continent port is located in;
Country port is located in;
Body of water the port is located on;

See List of lift locks for an example of what this could be like. It uses a sortable table. If we used a sortable table then we could have one table. Readers who wanted to know which ports were in a particular country could sort the table on the country field.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Water Port ?

217.64.52.185 (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Deep water port is not any random Sea Port. But many ports in this article are mentioned as deep water port which is not true. as example, in pakistan only gwadar is truly deep water port, others not. in india, there is no truly deep water port.[reply]

I agree that this list is problematic. I recently removed a port that wasn't really a a deep water port. The article deep water port defines the term as a port that can accommodate a panamax vessel. Geo Swan (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Panamax ports?

This renaming, by being specific about what we mean by "deep water", would reduce the maintenance burden introduced when good faith contributors add nearby ports, they think are deep, which aren't really deep by world standards. I think it might be easier to look up whether specific ports are panamax capable.

Alternately, if we think panamax is too deep, or not deep enough, we could choose a different standard, like List of Seawaymax ports or list of whatever is larger than panamax. Some of the biggest supertankers are deeper than panamax, aren't they? Maybe multiple lists are in order? Geo Swan (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does need to be a fixed definition and if ts not in the lead, it should be in the article title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree to change the article's name to include an explicit definition I think that explicit definition should also be explained in more detail in the lead paragraph.

One of the recent edit summaries mentioned a size larger than panamax -- capesize. So I suggest this article be split to List of panamax ports, and List of capesize ports. Further, I wonder if, in the sake of maintainability, and possible future good article status, we agree that every entry in these lists needs a reference to at least one verifiable authoritative reference, that asserts the port can accommodate seawaymax, panamax or capesize vessels.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All contents should be referenced for sure. On the matter of draught limit please bear in mind that even if a given port has a say bulk cargo terminal accommodating Capesize ships, it may still have a, for instance, oil terminal accommodating just Panamax ships or even smaller ones than that - the berths are rarely if ever uniform. Thus having a list of Panamax ports and another of say Capesize ports would not make that much sense and would require additional maintenance. On the other hand, a standard for inclusion in a "deep water" port list should be defined - IMO Panamax is as good measure as any, it would allow inclusion of a lot of ports and prevent inclusion of just about any fishing harbour.--93.143.203.183 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC) en:User:Tomobe03 (signing)[reply]

Rather than splitting this list into say Panamax, Valemax and Chinamax lists, reformat into a sorttable.

So that Panamax, sort properly into size order and not alphabetic order, associate X-max with a number, say

30 Chinamax
25 Valemax
23 Seawaymax
22 Suezmax
17 Panamax
03 Orange Lifeboat
01 Dingy (note leading zero for correct numerical sorting)

Port Botany to be closed !?

Now that's news for a local like me; even the Port Botany entry is talking about future expansion. If any port has been closed, it is Port Jackson (the one with the famous Harbour Bridge) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.45.238 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Only Port Jackson is shutting down. Tabletop (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Water Redirect?

Why does "deep water port" redirect to this article? Will the Great (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it used to be named List of deep water ports and it was a redirect to there. It actually deserves it's own article. Now if we could only agree what the term actually means .... Fmph (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Ports

What is about the Port of Hamburg, the biggest port of Germany and third biggest in Europe, where they handle the RMS Queen Mary 2 and independently of the tide ships with 12.8m depth, sailing on the tide waves even 15m? And Bremerhaven, Germany's second largest port, which is the main port for the eight Emma Mærsk class ships where they have their regular 45 hours service delay.--46.115.41.214 (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamsarmax

How does Kamsarmax compare to Valemax and Chinamax? Tabletop (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bagamoyo

A new port 60km north of Dar es Salam is proposed at Bagamoyo. RP Tabletop (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bagamoyo a panamax port? Tabletop (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Panamax

In the article it states that this list will need to change with the new locks but that does not seem like it really should, all these will still meet the original Panamax class of ships that will be with us for many more decades to come. The other set of locks is a new standard, at least as of now often being refereed to as "New Panamax" or "Post Panamax", with new/post being something that should not ever be dropped from the name to avoid confusion. It seems more like a new list should be created for those that can handle new one, with this as a link at the top for see old Panamax port on it and a see New Panamax on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.255.181 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Panamax ports. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903173447/http://www.barbadosport.com/html/cargo.html to http://www.barbadosport.com/html/cargo.html

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) 02:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Panamax ports. 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) 21:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"List of deepwater ports" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of deepwater ports has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14 § List of deepwater ports until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 01:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]