Jump to content

Talk:List of busiest ports by cargo tonnage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

what is MT and FT and RT someone can put a link?

Also , what's the meaning of 000s, you mean kiloton?

This list isnt actual because much has changed since 2004 84.152.141.56 10:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


True, the list is toooo old. Major competitors are all in Asia, and these are the cities who are growing most rapidly on this planet.

Numbers more than 2 years old definitely is too old for this region.

Lists of Port Rankings often lag by one or two years. The query about MT, FT and RT is very relevant. MT = metric ton(ne)s, I think FT and RT stand for short tons and long tons respectively. The confusion of the three in the list considerably distorts the true situation. As far as I can determine the list has been copied and pasted from the AAPA site. The AAPA has in interest in exaggerating the importance of US ports. The Port of South Louisiana should in my mind not be included in the list. South Louisiana is a collection of wharves and jetties on the Mississipi which have banded together to promote their own interests. If we applied the same approach to the Scheldt, Antwerp, Vlissingen and Gent would all be counted together, and the resulting cargo volume would stand at around 250,000 metric tons. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the lt vs mt issue. All these figures are approximations and adding another approximation (1 lt = 1 mt) is not going to have a real effect. These figures are copied from AAPA, because they are the only people to publish them. And when we get down to it the inclusion of South Louisiana raeks up the issue of how do you define a port? It means different things to different people. And if we are going to use the AAPA figures (in the absence of any others) then we need to use their definitions as well. MurphiaMan (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm wrong because tucked away at the bottom of the article is this explanation:

MT=Metric Tons; HT= Harbor Tons; FT=Freight Tons; RT = Revenue Tons. Well I know what a metric ton is (1000 kg) but all the rest are a mystery. I still think this is a case of comparing apples and pears. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling later I find that a Harbor Ton = 2000 lbs in South Africa (see Richards Bay)Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some googling later I find that a Freight Ton = 40 cubic feet. This is used in Singapore, Malaysia and Japan. As it's a measure of cubic capacity it should be recalculated for use in a ranking based on weight. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more googling later, a revenue ton also turns out be a measure of cubic capacity or a measure of weight revenue ton -- A ton measurement on which shipments are freighted. If cargo is rated as weight or measure (W/M), whichever produces the higher revenue will be considered the revenue ton. Weights are based on metric tons and measures are based on cubic meters. Hence, one revenue ton is equal to one metric ton (2204.62 pounds) or one cubic meter (35.31 cubic feet). Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Where's Los Angeles?

[edit]

LA is busier than Long Beach, but it doesn't show up anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facial (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just noticing the same thing. The Port of Los Angeles page lists the cargo tonnage as 157.8 million metric tonnes - far more than Long Beach, which shows up in many of the tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.205.132 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Data

[edit]

Here's the data for 2006, for anyone interested in updating the page:

http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/worldportrankings%5F2006.xls

-- Exitmoose (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the current numbers are 1000 times smaller than they should be? Grj23 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Data

[edit]

Why is this table so outdated? I made some quick Google searchs and you can even find 2008 data already. These are the numbers for the 6 largest ports:

Shanghai: 582 Rotterdam: 420m Singapore: 369 Guangzhou: 356 Tianjin: 354 Ningbo: 344 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.192.189 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Data

[edit]

I'm somewhat concerned that a lot of the data on that page comes from an apparently unreliable source. Is this data not available from somewhere official, such as the UN? —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 01:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply I do not think, that American Association of Port Authorities are unreliable. --Jklamo (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JmaJeremy. AAPA is unreliable and it seems they fabricate their numbers. See the talk page of World busiest container port. It is better if reported numbers are compared with more reputable sources.--Lipwe (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2004-2011 table: Ningbo and Zhoushan are merged!

[edit]

I just cleaned up the "citation needed" tags (added by MTWT on 2015-03-22). Just have a look at the Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan article, and read the footnote under the table again. These two ports are merged already!
Can't believe English Wikipedia can be "vandalized" by such an obscure move—by a Japanese who doesn't know much English ... 何だこれ？ -- SzMithrandir (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per source, beware of Wikipedia:OR. --Jklamo (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of world's busiest ports by cargo tonnage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of world's busiest ports by cargo tonnage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington, West Virginia in 2003, 2004, and 2005

[edit]

I wanted to point out that the Port of Huntington Tri-State, although a very busy port, is actually an inland port in the state of West Virginia. The title of the page is "List of busiest ports by cargo tonnage," but the first line refers to seaports. I figured that either the first line needed to be changed or an asterisk needed to be added (I'm not sure how many of the other ports may be inland, doubtful many). I wasn't sure which would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdwwiki (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of busiest ports by cargo tonnage. 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) 17:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed tables for 2005 etc

[edit]

Are the detailed tables for 2005 and earlier still necessary? Ehrenkater (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_busiest_ports_by_cargo_tonnage&oldid=1215722405"