Talk:Port of Lowestoft

Initial Edits
I have removed some of the links as they were advertising one or two of the companies housed at the PoL without any relation to the text...this is not a station to advertise them, we cannot list them all nor can we choose the odd one to link. If there is a notable reason to say 'Occupants of the port include Company X' then by all means include the website, but links on their own are not necessary. I have also removed the 'Orbis Energy Centre' link as this is not actually based at the port but a little further up the coast, and it is not a port operation but a base for the renweable enegry sector.

I removed the 'few miles north of Felixstowe' line as Lowestoft is actually ~50 miles north, and serves an entirely different purpose, there seemed no reason to link the two. It is easy enough to click Lowestoft to find out more about the town's geography.

a_boardley (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 09 edits
I have removed the 'Education in Lowestoft' section as it has nothing to do with the port. If anything, it could be part of the Lowestoft article, but I do not see it as notable to list all institutions in a town. Have also removed other lines that are not about the port as such, including features further up and down the coast (again, these could be part of Lowestoft if necessary) and poor spelling/grammar. Again, I have had to removed a list of companies, and have notified the talk page of User_talk:06readc to that effect. 06readc, PLEASE DISCUSS HERE any objections you have to removals of your content, we encourage you to be bold at Wikipedia but content must fall within article guidelines; there is always discussion open for such matters but if you continue to ignore attempts at discussion then your edits will be seen as vandalism.

The article could do with a 'port history' section (its founding as a fishing port is not mentioned at all) in development rather than describing trivial features surrounding it.

a_boardley (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good start on the history section - could use some referencing and so on now. I don't think we need any more of a list of companies etc... - it looks too much like advertising imo. The sentence of two in the article are fine I think -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Port/Marina
After loads of edits trying to get port/harbour sorted and loads of compromises, now somebody is trying to replace all mentions of both with 'marina'? This is incorrect. The Haven Marina is located in the inner haven and is a marina, yes. The Port of Lowestoft is located in both in inner and outer havens and is a port. They both share Lake Lothing. The port and harbour is the historical bit from years gone by, with a history of fishing and ship building. The marina is a relatively newer. The marina may want its own article, or a section within Port of Lowestoft or Lake Lothing. However, saying the 'PORT of Lowestoft' is not a port just doesn't make any sense. Please discuss here before any further edits or they will be considered as vandalism. a_boardley (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

could i ad apart about the Marina? to help understanding and improve the quality of the artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.27.161 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A section 'Marina' would work I think. Please realise the port does still exist though! They both occupy Lake Lothing, one has not changed into the other. a_boardley (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Artical Updated With Great Detail
Artical Updated With Great Detail Which has made it bigger then what it was before. People should not keep re-verting it back to a smaller version. As the artical needed exspanding to make it bigger wich has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "artical" suffers from a lack of WP:STYLE which is why it keeps on being "re-verted". Read some guidelines. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This artical needs allot more information mostley based on types of indusrtys there. I will add more along with referances to back these claims. In the hope that it will improve artical (Darkcover21 (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC))


 * It needs *concise* and *encyclopedic* information though - not a whole mass of over wikilinked stuff! Try and slow down and build something effective with *third party references*! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ok ive added stuff hopefully in a encylpedic format it is fareley small and quickley summed up with breif menchions of indusrys and at least one exsample of there functions. i hope that thios is better! (Darkcover21 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I've copyedited it and moved a few bits about. Some of the references don't actually say what they're supposed to so I've taken them out. I'm concerned that they could use being third party citations rather than company websites - this article has had longstanding issues with link spam being inserted - i.e. companies essentially being advertised through their presence on the page. This is a major no-no. It would be better to look in places like the EDP to find some refs.
 * The oil tanker bit is simply not about the Port of Lowestoft - other than the remnant I've kept. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Lake Lothing into Port of Lowestoft
Not proposed by me, but I'll place a discussion here.

I'd argue that actually the merger might be better off done the other way - Port of Lowestoft into Lake Lothing. As much because Lake Lothing is a definite geographical feature whereas, in theory, the port's notability could be called into question.

I'd also suggest we wait a while for comments on the proposal of the merger of Port of Lowestoft into Lowestoft. There might be more people who may decide to respond to that proposal first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Port of Lowestoft
Not proposed by me either (you're really supposed to start a discussion when you propose the merger btw!). I tend to disagree - too much content here anyway and the Port is reasonably notable in itself - I think it would survive an AfD easily for example. My opinion is that it would lead to the main Lowestoft article, which is already rather too long imo, becoming increasingly bloated. A more suitable merge, imo, would be to merge the Port of Lowestoft with Lake Lothing as there's already some duplication there, although that wouldn't necessarily reflect the outer harbour.

Pros and cons of this. I'd suggest seeking a wider range of opinions about what to do with it, although I would tend to think that merging with Lowestoft would be the least helpful option unless a major prune is going to be undertaken - see, for examples, Kings Lynn or Fleetwood, both of which are also ABP ports. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok so no need to merge it with Lowestoft artical however; could merge it with Lake Lothing. I wanted to say allow it is called ABP Port of Lowestoft this is just a name and it is infact a harbour. So whilst it is a harbour can cater for most sea vessels. But it cannot handel massive oil tankers and container ships or other massive vessels that you would expect to find in a port. Harbours are generally smaller than Ports. I think this should be added to artical along with more information on idustrys and services at Lowestoft Harbour.(Darkcover21 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC))


 * We should take that sort of discussion to the article talk page. I'd suggest leaving the merge proposal in place for a week or so and see if anyone else has any interest in it first. Then close that and we discuss the sorts of things we could put in the article without overcrowding it with lists and avoiding the potential of it being seen as spam (an issue which has effected articles associated with Lowestoft in the past fwiw). Certainly Brooke Marine, for example, needs to be mentioned. And I tried to find some sources for the measurements and failed dismally - which is one reason I rvted some of that stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Me being new to wikipedia but i would suggest that Lake Lothing is merged in Port of Lowestoft because; Lake Lothing maybe a water way but it is not a lake it is a estuary that is apart of River Waveney. Port of Lowestoft sits on River Waveney with estuary running through it. Lake Lothing is a old and fancy name for estuary of River Waveney which runs through Port of Lowestoft it is of no importance, notability or significance. (Sidessneck (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Actually it's not an old (or fancy) name for the estuary of the Waveney afaik - it's the name of the bit of water, i.e. the geographical feature. The Waveney runs to the north of Lowestoft and joins the Yare at Breydon Water - Lake Lothing seems to have been at least partly dug out in the construction of the port. The Waveney doesn't have an estuary fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Im sure Port of Lowestoft is apart of River Waveney as it connects to it at Oulton Broad. Main point being Lake Lothing is not a lake it is a bit of water in River Waveney as apart of Port of Lowestoft. There is a similar debate about Breydon Water in Great Yarmouth. Breydon Water is not a lake it is a bit of water that is apart of Great Yarmouth harbour which sits on River Yare. (Sidessneck (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

In River Waveney topic it sais it now forms apart of River Yare!!! this is popostras as they are two seperate rivers!!!. River Yare flows threw Great Yarmouth Harbour and Breydon Water however;River Waveney flows threw Port of Lowestoft and Oulton Broad. That is how its always been. Thus Lake Lothing is apart of River Waveney as it is joined to Oulton Broad. If someone would please correct this mitake on several articals. (Sidessneck (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

images
i have added two images to this artical there is nothing wrong with them so do not keep removeing them.(Darkcover21 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I don't imagine there's too much of a problem with the images. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated there is nothing wrong with images this is two times now i have had to re-add them to artical. Who ever it is stop removeing them!!!!(Darkcover21 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Location, size and Orbis Energy
Interesting. The map at AB Ports is very clear about the boundary of the port. Orbis' location - which can be seen here is clearly outside the port boundary - map generated by the Orbis website. I could see how a developed article could include reference to the centre. The AB Ports map also very. very clearly shows that the port in whatever form you'd like to define it is nowhere near 8000 metres long. Not even close. Any comments on this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Im new to wikipedia but from what i can see it is not in the port itself. But is a centre with offices for renewable energy companys. Companys most of which are based and operate in port itself when constructing wind turbines or tidal energy. (Sidessneck (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC))


 * And it's not in the port, but this is an article about the port. Hence it may not belong in this article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is not in port, allow it could be mentioned that it has connections to companys that are based and opperate in port when constructing wind turbines and tidal power. As to which orbis centre provides offices of those companys.(Sidessneck (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC))

Image copyvio
As on the Lowestoft page, it looks as if Darkcover21 has been a bit of a serial copyvio producer. The second image on the page just now is certainly a copyvio - I've tagged it for deletion on the Commons. Given that just about every photograph he's uploaded is a copyvio I'd have my doubts about the top one as well I'm afraid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

History Added With Referances
The harbour was originally built by the Lowestoft and Norwich Navigation Company and developed by Sir Samuel Morton Peto following the construction of the Norwich to Lowestoft railway.[6] The original Inner Harbour was constructed in 1837 and the Outer Harbour in 1927.[6]

Once the harbour was improved by Sir Samuel Morton Peto this led to boom of Fishing Industry and development of such Factorys as C & E Mortons LTD Fish Factory.[7] The Fishing Heritage of the harbour is celebrated through the museum ship Mincarlo which is usually berthed in the RNSYC marina during the summer.[8]

It also led to heyday of Shipbuilding Industry and Marine Engineering Industry and development of such Shipyards as Brooke Marine LTD, Richards LTD and Priors LTD.[9] The harbour was also used as a Navy base for Royal Naval Patrol Service during World War I and World War II.[7][10]

The railway line ran alongside the north side of the docks and a series of docks railway sidings were used mainly for fishing and freight wagons. These lines have mainly been removed from service but in places pieces of the track are still evident.

Refs,
 * Maritime Museum
 * Roll of Honour.Com
 * Heritage Museum
 * Mincarlo Trust
 * RNSPA Museum and Memorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.1.113 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll plough through this and copyedit it later. For now I've undone it as some of the refs don't say what you're saying they say and the quality of written English is, quite frankly, appalling. But I'm sure there's some useful stuff there - give me 4 hours with it and I'll update this. But the quality of the English is so poor I have rvt for now Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shipping Navigation added
Ive added a section on shipping navigation with referances.

The North Sea off Lowestoft has allot of constantly shifting sandbanks which means route to harbour is always changeing.

Pakefield Lighthouse, located at cliff tops at Pontin's Holiday Park in Pakefield a suburb of Lowestoft, it was built and opened in 1831 but light was first lit in 1832. It stands 10 meters above sea level and it used to emit a red light which had a range of 9 nautical miles. However; it was extinguished in 1864. In 2000 it was converted for use as a coastwatch station as apart of sea safety group they can be contacted by VHF Radio and will assist with navigation.

Associated British Ports operates a Control Tower at Bascule Bridge in harbour is a manned station that is used to assist entrance in and out of harbour it can be contacted by VHF Radio. As well as pilot boat can also be provide.

Lowestoft High Lighthouse, located to the north of the town centre, it was built at its present location on the cliffs above the Denes in 1676, although two candlelit lights were first established in the town in 1609. The present structure was built in 1874 and stands 16 metres tall, 37 metres above sea level. The light, which has a range of 23 nautical miles, was electrified in 1936 and automated in 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.114.111 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can source this through something other than a fancruft site (which isn't reliable) then the first and third paragraphs might begin to have a place. The source for the 3rd parag makes no reference at all of pilot boats or a control tower by the way. The lighthouses aren't really part of the port infrastructure, although if there's some more specific nav stuff that can be sourced then they, and the beacon which used to operate closer to the harbour mouth, could certainly have a **briefer** mention I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)