Talk:Port of Antwerp

	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 (assessed as High-importance).

Belgium C‑class Mid‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics

Depending on the year the Port of Antwerp places itself fifth or sixth in world rankings The AAPA statistics puts Antwerp seventeenth. There is obviously some kind of conflict. Is this based on a wilful denial of the difference between metric tonnes and short tons, or does the AAPA use a different definition of what is a port? Augusta2 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat misleading to state that Antwerp is the third container port in the range, when it is in fact second port in the range in terms of overall tonnage. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antwerp is the second-largest European port by cargo volume, if you use the 2005 AAPA figures here. It's the third-largest container port in Europe in both 2005 (AAPA figures) and 2007 (Lloyd's List), but containers are only a subset of cargo volume so this is a less useful statistic.

Perhaps we should use cargo volume in the lead section and move the container figures to the "port layout" section. I'll have a hunt around for some 2007 cargo volume data and see what can be found. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. Other Matters

Some information given on the Antwerp page could be repeated here.

It might interesting to list the names of the docks and their construction date.

A description of the word "Natie" could be provided.

Some details of post-war development policy might be given: switch from the use of equipment owned by the municipality to private owners, dedicated berths, etc.

Role as NATO port

Centrality index and arguments

Iron Rhine discussion

Some words about dockworkers and labour organization

Augusta2 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be editing the sections on the Left and Right Banks in the next few weeks. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Berendrecht Lock or the Berendrecht Lock? I prefer "the Berendrecht lock" as "Berendrecht" is not sufficiently familiar to English speakers to be used as a fixed expression. I realize that opinions may differ in this connection. But would also like to ask you to think about Kallo Lock, Van Cauwelaert Lock, Boudewijn Lock, and Royers Lock. In all these cases I think that the use of the definite article would be more appropriate. I will concede that Churchill Dock, Delwaide Dock, Marshall Dock, Amerika Dock might better without the article. But would one write B1 Canal Dock or the B1 Canal Dock? Augusta2 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Other structures: London Bridge and Tower Bridge, but The Firth of Forth Bridge, The Menai Suspension Bridge, and The Tahoma Narrows Bridge, the St Laurence Seaway, but Plougastel Bridge, and finally the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal. Augusta2 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use of pictures

Wikifalcon: I'm not going to revert your edit of the picture size immediately because I understand why you have done it. However, I think the picture is so small in its current format as to be virtually useless. I would like to remove two of the existing pictures because they do not really contribute anything to an understanding of the port, particularly as I cannot identify with certainty where they have been taken. (I think that it's a view overlooking the Amerika Dock, with the Westerlund kaolin installations in the background, but I can't be sure). Also Wikifalcon I don't like your edit of "remember etc." to "notice". The latter is in my opinion far too minatory. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hay, maybe you could put the "useless" pictures, the ones that have a more "decorative" function, into an image gallery at the bottom of the article... Then you could enlarge that one image again, because I think a wrapper won't be necessary anymore.

I also changed that "remember ... !" because it wasn't very encyclopedic IMHO. Especially the exclamation mark. "Notice" is more neutral. Gr, Wikifalcon (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikifalcon: Good idea to move the decorative piccies to the bottom of the page. I'll try and rephrase the remember 'cos I still think notice is too minatory. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'MSC's container terminal' picture is faked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.103.2 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It it's faked. Watch it on full size and you notice immediately. Also mind the MSC vessels and the waters surrounding them... Absolutely no doubt it's faked. Wikifalcon (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of Berendrecht Lock

The article reads: This lock has a depth of 13.50 m, which makes the sill depth at mean high water equal to 17.75 m. Is the lock submerged under 4.25 m at mean high water? Most other sources say it is 18 m deep (which would allow a draught of 17.75 m?). --AHert (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW II addition

Although the material about the liberation of Walcheren is interesting I feel it is only marginally relevant to the Port of Antwerp, and in any case it is far too detailed and poorly integrated into the remainder of the article. This material might be better included in the Battle of Antwerp or an article on the Liberation of the Scheldt. I will delete much of this contribution within the next few weeks unless objections are posted are here. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port of Antwerp. 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) 10:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

This article is only about the port of Antwerp, not about the general port company 'Port of Antwerp-Bruges'. This article should get its old name 'Port of Antwerp' back. A separate short article about the port company 'Port of Antwerp-Bruges', that originated from the merger between the port companies of both ports ('MBZ' and 'Port of Antwerp') could be created. However, both ports still exist as separate ports, with separate locations, history, identity,... This name for this article is just completely wrong. Le Fou (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, per the request that was made at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]