Talk:Port of Ramsgate

Added info Marina
added info about usage marina by visiting yachts but forgot to login. --JanT (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Ramsgate?
I propose that this page is merged into the Ramsgate article. 24 August 2010 79.69.6.244 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? pgr94 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because there are two similar but not coherent articles on Ramsgate and as the Port of Ramsgate article is less than 300 words and duplicated much that was contained in the larger and more comprehensive Ramsgate article. This move is in line with Wikipedia guidance on avoiding duplication and the proliferation of small articles. If the current merger does not go ahead I intend to submit the Port of Ramsgate article into the merger process for resolution.Trackorack (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the correct structure is to have main articles such as Ramsgate, with daughter articles to expand detail. I think the Port is clearly notable in its own right, so if anything requires expansion rather than merging.  There would be too much detail then in Ramsgate. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I cannot agree because there are two similar but not coherent articles on Ramsgate in Wiki. The Port of Ramsgate article is less than 300 words (2.6kB)which is only just above the size for an article to be considered a stub and under wiki guidelines should be considered for merger. The Port of Ramsgate article duplicates much that was already contained in the larger and more comprehensive Ramsgate article; probably less than 100 words were additional information. Currently the Ramsgate article is 26kb which is significantly below the wiki advised limit of 40kB; and that limit is only a recommendation to consider splitting the article.  The proposed  move is in line with Wikipedia guidance on avoiding duplication and the proliferation of small articles. Since your comment I have been looking at the 'Kent' stream of work - and particularly the Thanet elements. I would propose that the entries for Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs should be roughly similar, but neither of the latter two articles seem to need 'auxiliary' articles to describe core elements of their towns.  I would to like to thank Pgr94 for pointing out the Merge article, which I have reacquainted myself with.  I now believe that Redirect on Port of Ramsgate is probably the correct way forward.  Your advice on maintaining the history and discussion of Port of Ramsgate would be appreciated. Trackorack (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the work currently completed and still underway to expand the article now means that a merge is out of the question. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing information
Set on 32 acres of dedicated port land, the Port of Ramsgate has three modern Ro-Ro bridges, capable of accommodating conventional Ro-Ro fast ferry freight services. Full passenger and freight vessel facilities allow the Port to operate and service the three berths simultaneously, allowing Ramsgate to handle up to 500,000 freight units and five million passengers each year.  pgr94 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Extension of port by concreting over under Westcliff in late 70s/early 80s.
 * Prior to Sally, there was Dunkerque-Ramsgate Ferries
 * done: Walkway accident of 1994
 * Size/capacity:

It would also be worth adding a section on the port access tunnel and road, as this had significant press coverage. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. pgr94 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Obelisk. Erected for for Henry IV who travelled to Hannover in 1821.  He got a good send off and a good reception on his return so he decreed the harbour "Royal".  The obelisk commemorates his visit. But we need a better source. pgr94 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Walkway fines paid by Swedish companies?
There was difficulty getting the Swedish companies to pay fines for the walkway collapse. Does anyone know the final outcome? "two Swedish companies that were found to be responsible for the Ramsgate walkway disaster are refusing to pay their fines, and there is absolutely nothing that we can to about it."

pgr94 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Images
Here are a few images that might improve the article:
 * The port
 * The tunnel: ,

Any preferences or better suggestions? I'm not familiar with WP requirements on image licenses: are these licenses acceptable? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ pgr94 (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those licences are fine i believe. In fact, i have already transferred the Flickr image over using the appropriate tool so you can find it at  File:Sally Line Ramsgate Harbour.jpg .  You may wish to also transfer the two geograph ones to commons.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Owain, what is the "appropriate tool"? I have only used the Upload File link in the past.  pgr94 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I used the tool I know for Flickr, so I did that one because it was easy! As these are creative commons photos, they are best uploaded through Wikimedia Commons.  You can do it manually, or there is a tool (which i haven't used, so don't know how good it is) at this link.  If any probs, search "geograph" on commons and there is a page about it.  Hope that helps. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about those tools. I successfully uploaded an image of the lighthouse this way.  Thanks for the tip! pgr94 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Port of Ramsgate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610205024/http://m.thanetgazette.co.uk/articles/news/article/20085068 to http://m.thanetgazette.co.uk/articles/news/article/20085068

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)