Talk:Port of Zeebrugge

Article name

The 'move' from 'Port of Zeebrugge' to 'Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge' appears incorrect: On Wikipedia, one lets 'usage in English' prevail on political or commercial local decisions. And even the port's website mentions both names. A quick Google search in English language on "Port of ..." counts 40 hits for Bruges-Zeebrugge, 4,590 for Bruges and 58,300 for Zeebrugge. Moving back requires an administrator and tedious 'controversial moves' procedure, while the original move could be done by anyone without the least discussion or announcement. I don't want to lose my time with such: inverting moves to restore a long-time satisfying situation should be possible as uncontroversial provided there was no discussion, and only after such revert a 'move' should become 'controversial'.
Is it likely that this article did not have a single entry on this discussion page in nearly 2 years? Or did one of the former moves cause its talk page to be obliterated? — SomeHuman 03 Jun2007 02:35-02:55 (UTC)

There is another problem about the double name: Originally, this article was named "Zeebrugge". Many Belgians do not even realize it to be a part of the municipality of Bruges, as it is miles away from the city everyone knows to be the provincial capital. One can assume the many people of Zeebrugge to accept 'their' article to be named to its best-known asset, and the tourists visiting the beach will know about the port as well; but with the double name for the port, "Zeebrugge" should no longer redirect here and be about the distant 'hamlet' of Bruges, which appears to be a real town (αβγδε or on the Dutch-language WP nl:Station Zeebrugge-Strand, nl:Zeebrugge, nl:Lissewege, and —renamed by same user also without discussion: nl:Haven van Brugge-Zeebrugge), just as there are many articles on hamlets of lesser importance. 'Zeebrugge' should then obviously have a link to the article on its port, but also present articles linking to 'Zeebrugge' or 'Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge' should require reading to see where it needs to be linked at (Wikifalcon relinked assumedly all 'Port of Zeebrugge' to the double name). This job does not appear required with the 'Port of Zeebrugge' as name. Anyway, Wikipedia should have information about Zeebrugge's beach, its town centre and its (primary) station quarter before considering an article named 'Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge', and the guideline to name an article according to 'usage in English' should be followed whatever might be proper on the Dutch WP. — SomeHuman 03 Jun2007 03:10-04:10 (UTC)

See Dutch Talk page ([1])  ;-), Gr, Wikifalcon 09:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied there as well. In short: Het area of the port itself is the topic of the article, while there is no company by a relevant name 'Port of...'. Wikifalcon produced a number of samples for his preferred name, but all from a single source. The name (now) used by an official institution is irrelevant for the article name. Guidelines strongly suggest to use the most common name in English language for the article title, thus 'Kingdom of Belgium' redirects to Belgium, the official name of 'Bangkok' would require nearly half a page (even inside its article the rendered long name is shortened), etc. The Port of Zeebrugge is by Google verification most obviously proven to be the overly more common name, and guidelines are clear, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names), and Wikipedia:Google_test. The clearest guideline appears to be Wikipedia:Naming_conflict — SomeHuman 03 Jun2007 21:47-22:16 (UTC)

See Dutch Talk page for reply. Also in short: Indeed the area of the port is the topic in the article. The area includes a Harbour area between (and starting in) Bruges and Zeebrugge. So the harbour includes the inner port in Bruges, the inner port of Zeebrugge, the outer port Zeebrugge and the transportzone. This is 1 harbour area, this is the port, the port of Bruges-Zeebrugge, and nothing else, nothing more, nothing less. So the official name (the one which is used in the source I used, the only official source ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])) should not only be used because its the official name, but more because the use of the name Port of Zeebrugge won't be entirely correct. This last name actually aims at only a part of the port. As this is not an article about a part of a port, but about a whole port, we should at least name the article to the port and not to a 'part of the port'. What's more, Zeebruges is part of the municipality of Bruges, and the whole harbour area lies in the communal area of Bruges. In fact Zeebrugge is founded to be the new port of Bruges. All this, of course, is perhaps no reason enough to use an official name, as you brought up the example of Belgium and Bangkok. The real reason I mentioned just before. Greets, Wikifalcon 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC) edit: The name Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge is not the name of an institution. The name of the port company is MBZ (Maatschappij der Brugse Zeevaartinrichtingen). Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge is the name the official port company gives to the port. Wikifalcon 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As in more detail on the Dutch-language Wikipedia: Names given by official institutions do not matter at all on the Englsih-language WP. Anyway, whith such a difference in number of mentionings, the Port of Zeebrugge is the one that deserves an article; its extension did not yet influence the commonly used name — SomeHuman 2007-06-3 22:38 (UTC) [on the Dutch WP]

Still on the Dutch WP, Wikifalcon replied - here by SH rendered very shortly: The main reason for the article move was, 'Port of Zeebrugge' not to be sufficiently correct: The article name should not refer to a mere part of the port, but the whole port, including the part which evolved more landinward and reaches close to the city of Bruges proper. Wikifalcon 4 jun 2007 00:44 (CEST) [on the Dutch WP]

Further on the Dutch WP, in short: The old port of Antwerp expanded till far beyond the in those days determined boundaries of Antwerp, while the commonly used name remained. Also the origin of the port of Zeebrugge formed and may well stay its commonly used name, like still today, and that's what counts for its article name The introduction on the other hand should state, "The port of Zeebrugge, nowadays officially port of Bruges-Zeebrugge ... and the official name should redirect to the article which should describe the entire port, as I assume to be the case for the port of Antwerp's article. — SomeHuman 2007-06-3 23:17 (UTC) [on the Dutch WP]

There's no way of comparing both ports, as they grew en expanded in a COMPLETELY different way. Zeebrugge was called 'Brugge-aan-zee' ("Bruges by Sea") in the beginning. The port of (Bruges-)Zeebrugge is built as a new port for Bruges. But what's relevant; the harbour area nowadays includes a whole area between Bruges and the sea (Zeebrugge), álso the inner port in Bruges. That's what the port is, like I said before. Port of Zeebrugge only refers to the modern part of the port, not the whole harbour area where this article is about (because this article is about a complete harbour, not only a part of it, that's nonsense). An Encyclopedia should give correct information, which starts by giving the articles correct names. In case a commonly used name is not entirely correct, the (official) correct name should be used. Here, Redirect are very useful in my opinion; they make it possible to search for commonly used terms ánd give articles fully correct names. If you look for something with a commonly used name, you'll get what you're looking for, but wíth the corréct name... Gr, Wikifalcon 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point here, but it fights the guidelines on article naming. In particular the Dutch-language double name 'Haven van Brugge-Zeebrugge' sounds awkward and does not stand much of a chance to become the commonly used name. The' correct 'name could just as well, or even better, be 'Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge' (Haven van Zeebrugge-Brugge). In case the official name would become more generally used, the common name could easily become 'Port of Bruges'. Such however, is pure speculation and the present official name may not be much more than an attempt to bring the name towards 'Port of Bruges' so as to have a worldknown placename situating the port, which makes it sound more important. In other words, that name is a POV with political/strategic/commercial purposes without warranty on future practical usage. The article Port of Zeebrugge can just as well state the Port of Zeebrugge to have expanded towards Bruges and as such by now to have reached the inner port of Bruges with which it came to form one port complex, hence the official name Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge. — SomeHuman 04 Jun2007 05:01 (UTC)

Oh no, the name is absolutely no POV. Certainly not in my case, neither in general. It is called Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge, not only because it's the port of Bruges and Bruges should be mentioned being a worldknown name, but more because of the reasons I already brought up here. But there you made a little mistake I think; The port of Bruges-Zeebrugge has nearly always been what it is right now (voorhaven + achterhaven + binnenhaven + transportzone). Only, now the modern port area of Zeebrugge and the inner port area in Bruges have expanded enough to reach eachother physically. So now, the port is also geographical (and physical) 1 big harbour area, while before the harbour was really splitted in 2 parts, the modern port Zeebrugge and the inner port in Bruges. Still, it has always been 1 harbour, and the big link always was the Boudewijnkanaal.

I keep on repeating, it ís the port of Bruges-Zeebrugge, not only in official names, but also geographical and physical. It is a port area reaching from Bruges (almost the city centre as it were) to the sea (Zeebrugge).

Therefore, I think an encyclopedia should give things a correct name, to begin with. When a commonly used name appears to be not entirely correct, another (official) name should be given to the article. Like I said, Wikipedia makes it possible to give an article a really correct name ànd to search for this article with another (commonly used) name. So Port of Zeebrugge may be the most used (commercial) name and if someone searches for this port by this name, he'll get the article he wants, but with the correct name... Greets, Wikifalcon 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'correctness' of the name is a POV (point of view), on which you are entitled and I will not even deny the name to be appropriate. The history of Zeebrugge made it the Port of Zeebrugge, it was never called Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge. Only after the name had become established, expansion led to connecting two separate harbours into one coordinated complex — their earlier having been connected by a channel did not make a difference: I assume one can get from Bruges to Antwerp by canoe but that does not make it the Port of Antwerp-Bruges-Zeebrugge. Brugges-Zeebrugge being seen as one port nowadays may well be technically correct but as said, the general understanding has so far not led to everyone using the name that 'correctly' expresses that. A baby named Albert is supposedly wished to become all shining; if he later happens to turn out having a dull and darkish skin and a constantly depressive mood, his name will most likely not be changed into whatever might be more appropriate. Even if he had his name changed officially, nearly all who know him will still call him Albert, at least for quite a while.

For now, Port of Zeebrugge is still the most commonly used name in English and that is the primary consideration the guidelines specify to follow when deciding between two possible article names. According to Wikipedia guidelines, it is not an encyclopedia's task to "correct" general usage in English, but merely to follow what is most commonly used. And now, Port of Zeebrugge is certainly still an option, probably even technically because the Zeebrugge area as nearer to the sea is likely to contribute mostly to the overall freight and venue.

The guideline is made specifically because any choice or argumentation is bound to be a POV, and thus to follow a strictly set out path to reach a decision, based on a system that was developed without having been influenced by the specificities of the case of this port, hence the choice made based on the guideline is defendable as strictly NPOV. — SomeHuman 04 Jun2007 16:49 (UTC)

The comparison with the child named Albert is not relevant. The port has always been the Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge (offially), as it has always been the port of Bruges. The name Port of Zeebrugge, has always been often used as a commercial name. The correctness of the name Bruges-Zeebrugge is no POV, since it is a fact. I'm not a bit interested in politics or whatever concerning this topic. The port of Bruges-Zeebrugge is a harbour area from Bruges to the sea. I keep on repeating. If you really want to involve a POV in this case, then the name Port of Zeebrugge is in fact more spoiled by it. It is a name mostly used for commercial goals, and commonly used because it's pronounced more practical. So because many people think this name is more comfortable for daily use, this name becomes commonly used. That's a POV.

Further were those two ports never two different ports anymore from the moment they existed both. They only were not one physical harbour area in the beginning (when the modern port Zeebrugge was just built) as they are now. I hope you understand that your comparison with canoeing to Antwerp was a very bad one, completely irrelevant. Lets say, in the beginning, the whole port was a harbour area with a gab between the part that was situated on the coast and the part that was situated in Bruges. Now, all the port parts expanded and became also one physical port area.

I'll keep on stressing this has absolutely nothing to do with a point of view. Really really not. Where will it end if we keep on deciding articles should have commonly used, popular names, even if those are not entirely correct, and maybe mostly used for commercial goals (POV!) or used due to its popularity (POV!)? For those commonly used names we have redirects, so this names can still be used and can still be searched for, but the articles will have correct names. Gr, Wikifalcon 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like the Bruges-Zeebrugge name either. As the maritime press consistently refers to Zeebrugge, as ticket destinations are for Zeebrugge, and as the Zeebrugge name is commonly used for publicity purposes I would prefer to see the article renamed Port of Zeebrugge. I do remember a time that the English press called the place Seabruges, but they probably borrowed that from the Goon Show. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the one and only official name (as you can see everywhere on the official website, like here, here or here f.e.). What if we would always use the commercial names or the names used by the press? It's not only the official name, it's also the most correct name, as it includes the whole subject of the article: the harbour area of Bruges-Zeebrugge, including the outer port of Zeebrugge, the inner port of Zeebrugge and the inner port in Bruges itself.

You can also compare it in a way with articles like the Ostend-Bruges International Airport, which is simple called the "Ostende Airport" (luchthaven van Oostende) by the people or the press. The same for f.e. London Stansted Airport or London Gatwick Airport I Guess...

Greetings, Wikifalcon (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose changing the name of the article back to Port of Zeebrugge. The name change was an absurdity and Wikifalcon no longer appears to be active on Wikipedia. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikifalcon's remarks recorded above are now superseded by the facts on the ground. The port's website [9] refers to the Port of Zeebrugge and nothing else. Let us please reverse the name change of 2007 to Port of Zeebrugge. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Port of Bruges-Zeebrugge → Port of Zeebrugge – The arguments justifying the 2007 name change have been superseded. The "official name" of the Port of Zeebrugge is Port of Zeebrugge. Please refer to the Port of Zeebrugge website: http://www.portofzeebrugge.be/ Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: as per COMMONNAME. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but having read the previous discussion, I don't think there was ever a valid case for the longer name. The change to the official name is of little relevance; The name in Dutch of none at all. Ah well, that's water under the bridge. At least let's fix it now. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Port of Zeebrugge. 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/20110823182704/http://www.portofzeebrugge.be/en/node/788 to http://www.portofzeebrugge.be/en/node/788
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://freight.dfdsseaways.com/dfds_ferries/north_sea_ferries/rosyth_zeebrugge_ferries/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icoterminals.com/terminals/detail_en.phtml?id=7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icoterminals.com/terminals/detail_en.phtml?id=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415022603/http://www.sea-invest.be/item_detail.asp?ID=107 to http://www.sea-invest.be/item_detail.asp?ID=107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415022927/http://www.sea-invest.be/item_detail.asp?ID=109 to http://www.sea-invest.be/item_detail.asp?ID=109
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zv.be/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2wglobal.com/www/productsServices/productsServices/terminalServices/Zeebrugge.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gassco.no/wps/wcm/connect/gassco-en/Gassco/Home/var-virksomhet/mottaksterminaler/Belgia-Frankrike/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505020807/http://nl.toyota.be/about/belgie/belgium.aspx to http://nl.toyota.be/about/belgie/belgium.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cobelfret.com/terminals_zeebrugge.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interconnector.com/PhysicalOps/Zeebrugge.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecs.be/functions/home.aspx?Pag=1&pnav=;1;&lang=en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middlegate.be/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhm.be/index.eng.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130115023550/http://www.denolf-recycling.be/denolfrecycling/ to http://www.denolf-recycling.be/denolfrecycling/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kolentomar.com/en/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.solidnv.com/start/home/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Jan 2023 Move

The article was moved without discussion in Jan 2023, and moved back to Port of Zeebrugge in Feb 2023 following a short ANI discussion. Please discuss further move suggestions here before they happen. Fob.schools (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)