Talk:Port of London

Port industries

I've corrected my earlier edit about Henry Bessemer. Although he developed the Bessemer Process in London before exploiting it in Sheffield, his autobiography indicates that this was at Baxter House in St Pancras, before the establishment of his Greenwich steel works.

Port of London and PLA

There is the Port of London which is a physical entity with a very definite and interesting history, and the Port of London Authority which manages the port but also has general responsibilities on the tidal Thames. At the moment these both point to the same article, which could be confusing, and apart from the pics the detail on the PLA is fairly limited. Any chance of splitting them? Motmit (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was intending to do a separate PLA article some time. If it is started off as a stub it will probably get re-absorbed into this one. Pterre (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The PLA section of this article (I don't think the Authority needs a separate article of its own) should be expanded with more recent history and developments. Why did the PLA police force become only the Port of Tilbury Police in 1992? (With the development of the new port at London Gateway would this change again?) Is the PLA uniform still used? What does the PLA own today? (eg. does it still own any property in central London?) David (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added more PLA detail now after some research. David (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there is now sufficient to strip out and create a new article. Pterre (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the PLA and Port of London are pretty much the same thing and should be kept to one article. The "Port of London" only exists as the section of the Thames (and the estuary/coastal stretches further out) that is covered by the PLA. It isn't a port in the usual sense. If the PLA was abolished, there wouldn't be a Port of London, only individual terminals (and ports - such as Tilbury) stretched out over nearly a hundred miles! I'm not too bothered, but I'd vote to keep the PLA stuff in this article, rather than separate it out to a new article on the PLA. David (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

They are not really the same thing at all. The PLA looks after much more than just the port, exercising navigation and other roles similar to the Environment Agency on the non-tidal river. Those responsibilities of the existing PLA will still need to be undertaken by some organisation if the PLA ceases to exist. The Port of London on the other hand has a lot of history and a larger geographical spread including old docklands that isn't really relevant to many of its current repsonsibilities. So I'm in favour of separating. Motmit (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As one of the major contributors to this article, I vote for a summary pointing to a separate PLA article, which is now easily long enough. At present we have a whole page on the PLA before anything on the port. The trade statistics have long recognised London as a port - I don't understand why you don't think it is one David. The river has been managed as one (dredging, pilots etc) for a very long time. This is one area in which the requirements of trade have long over-ruled squabbling politicians, recognising the reality of London as a geographical entity, green belts etc notwithstanding. As described in the various articles, Tilbury was built by the London dock companies as part of the London enclosed dock facilities; it would otherwise not be there. Pterre (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well - split the PLA off. David (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Trade Statistics

I've updated the trade stats from 2006 to 2007 using http://www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=103600. Despite the rather strange source it seems worth doing as it contains the news that London moved back from 3rd to 2nd position in UK trade. The DTI website currently seems to be broken with no redirect from www.dft.gov.uk to whatever it is called this week. Any ideas? Pterre (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Since fixed - dft website back on the air. Pterre (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Port of London. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100130055549/http://www.museumindocklands.org.uk:80/English/EventsExhibitions/Themes/DevelopmentPortDocks.htm to http://www.museumindocklands.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Themes/DevelopmentPortDocks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004195840/http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/520/site/pla to http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/520/site/pla
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080528064445/http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/safeguarded_wharves_05.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning/docs/safeguarded_wharves_05.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Port of London. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120601190933/http://www.pla.co.uk/News/index.cfm/flag/2/id/179693/site/News to http://www.pla.co.uk/News/index.cfm/flag/2/id/179693/site/News
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004200428/http://www.pla.co.uk/port_community/index.cfm/flag/2/id/3410/site/news to http://www.pla.co.uk/port_community/index.cfm/flag/2/id/3410/site/news

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Port of London. 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/20100502090850/http://www.history.rochester.edu/ehp-book/shb/hb21.htm to http://www.history.rochester.edu/ehp-book/shb/hb21.htm

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) 01:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wording of first sentence

I changed

> The Port of London is that part of the River Thames...

to

> The Port of London is the part of the River Thames...

in the opening sentence. This was reverted - I still believe that using writing that part instead of the part sounds a little clunky; imagine if the opening to the second paragraph were

> That port can handle cruise liners...

or if we switched "that" to "this":

> The Port of London is this part of the River Thames...

Using that instead of the draws the reader's attention to the following word (see https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/143845), especially since it also functions as a marker of location. This is not necessary in the sentence in this article: I'm not sure that the word "part" is easily misunderstood, nor have there been any other parts mentioned previously in the article (it's the first sentence of the article!). Invisi-splat (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word that is correct English in this context. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate further? I'd just like to understand why it was reverted, given the points I mentioned above. Invisi-splat (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a common way of referring to a particular section of an entity. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)