Talk:Freight transport/Archives/2012

Zodiac?

Why is Zodiac Maritime Agencies not listed under the companies? It is one of, if not thee biggest merchant shipping company in the world. It owns most of P&O anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.125.153 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 August 2005

Historic lines?

What would be the best way of adding, or referring to, notable shipping lines which are now defunct?

Zhopa 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Shipping Law re USport-to-USport domestic shipping law

i.e. no stops intermediary countries? Whatever it's called - and I'd think it's already in Wikipedia if I knew its name - it was brought in around the time of the Klondike Gold Rush to benefit Seattle and other US ports for traffic bound for Skagway and Haines and Dyea which, although not formally American until 1903, were claimed as such at the time of the law. The law was designed to target shipping commerce and shipping companies based out of Victoria and Vancouver, which had dominated coastal shipping for years until the rush. Anyone here know the name of this law, and is there an article about it, or that would concern it? Reason is a section for the Alaska Boundary Dispute article needs a comment about it and I need a ref, hopefully a link.Skookum1 23:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Generically those laws are known as cabotage; in the U.S. you are thinking of the Jones Act.

As far as a title goes, why not Marine Transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.12.253 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 February 2008

Rail transportation

Why was it not mentioned in this context? Peter Horn 02:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Make that Rail transport Peter Horn 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links

I'm concerned about the extended list of shipping companies here. It's ripe for linkspammers. I'm tempted to work on this article to comply with WP:NOT#MIRROR. MKoltnow 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shipping companies

removed section per Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well. Hu12 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed "Leading Educational Institutes" under the same precept. Only 3 on the list now, it was bound to be abused. -- Pesco 05:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New title

I've been thinking and clearly "Ship transport" is a somewhat ugly title; also "shipping", the offcial IMO term, can (and does) refer to the transportation of goods outside the maritime branch. So I prupose changing "Ship transport" to "Shipping (maritime)". I think this is the best move. Yosy 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Ship transport → Shipping – to conform with IMO usage as suggested by Yosy.

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the merge

1. Support Haus^Talk 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the merge

Shipping and ship transport should be merged only, if the policy is to merge all articles discussing means of transport into one article. In other words ship transport is only one way to transport goods, and only very rarely a shipping process consists of ship transport only. Apr 28, 2007

1. Oppose 84.13.89.89 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I think User:Yosy was actually proposing renaming Ship transport as Shipping (maritime), rather than merging it with this articel. I wouldn't support a merge - shipping is a catch-all term which include activities other than transport of cargo by ships. Merging the article will result in too broad a topic, with less utility to readers seeking details only on ship transport. A renaming would be less of a problem but I'm not aware that a need has been demonstrated - "Ship transport" seems as good a name as "Shipping (maritime)". On balance I'd suggest leaving "Ship transport" where it is, linked from this article as the main page for that component of shipping that relates to marine cargo transportation. Euryalus (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Can I suggest adding a Glossary of shipping terminology? I sometimes work with businesses in this industry I'm finding a plethora of terms that often differ but equate for Domestic vs. International, whether by Air, Truck, Rail or Ocean Vessel, and by country, agency, customer, and on and on. The Shipping industry is reaches back to the very beginnings of civilization, and has impacted virtually all aspects of it. It has a huge language that is constantly evolving as technology, politics and economies do. The information could be very interesting as some sort of timeline or flow diagram, and useful as a guide for proper and consistent usage of termniology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.32.245 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 May 2007

Discussion

Such glossaries are a dime a dozen, but agreeing on one list would post some difficulties, as there are many that abbreviations that collide. Regarding a merger, I don't think this will be neccesary. The concept of shipping talks only of transporting goods, while other languages take this word to suggest that it has something to do with ships. This might be historically related. Many costal cities did not have road connections to speak of, so the only way to bring goods in and out would be by ship. For better of for worse, being multi lingual gives an insight to these differences. The german word "reeder" for instance describes a person owning a ship, where as "reederei" is a ship owning company. These also work in scandinavian. These terms have no good english translation, english being all the poorer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.85.71 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 June 2007

Misc Questions

• o our son in west palm beach florida from michigan. How do we ship it via a train?

Call a railway and ask, then....Skookum1 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage and geography

It's probably worth noting something about the geographical distribution of this term - in the UK 'postage' is used in most situations where US companies would talk about 'shipping', like 'postage cost' vs. 'shipping cost' when ordering goods. I can't say any more than that though, which is why I'm not editing the article directly. --Oolong (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not worldwide view of shipping

Following on from the above comment in "Usage and geography", the article's basic definition of "shipping" as the movement of goods and people by land, sea or air is not a worldwide one.

Below is the Oxford English Dictionary's entries on "ship" and "shipping", I have only included definitions that are the most directly related to movement of goods or people. All other definitions are related to ships (vessel).

• ship (verb):

6. a. To go by ship to, into, or from a place. Now chiefly U.S. Compare sense 6c below.

b. To sail about. (obsolete)

c. U.S. military slang. to ship out: to depart, to be transported; also figurative: (shape up or ship out); to ship over: to re-enlist, to volunteer for a tour of duty.

7. a. (transitive) To send or transport by ship. (To ship out: to export (obsolete))

b. (especially) with off.

c. (transferred sense) To transport (goods) by rail or other means of conveyance. (U.S.)

d. (figurative) To send off, send packing, get rid of, dismiss, expel.

e. (intransitive) Of perishable goods: to admit of being transported.

• shipping (verbal noun):

4. The action of putting persons or things on board ship or transporting them by ship

The only definition under "ship" and "shipping" with the meaning of transport of goods by means other than by sea is noted as U.S. English.

To many English speakers who do not speak American English, "shipping" has a narrower meaning; the movement of goods (and to a lesser extent, people) by sea.

Therefore I suggest the article should reflect a more worldwide view. Specdeliv (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so thoroughly documenting the ambiguity in the word "Shipping". This type of problem arises with many words in English. As it happens, Shipping (disambiguation) (which is linked at the top of the article) addresses the multiple meanings of the word "shipping." The disambiguation page identifies this article as being about "transporting cargo by any means," while Ship transport is about "transporting people and cargo by ship". Since this has been identified as Wikipedia's article about cargo transport, it would not be productive to delete the cargo transport content and convert this to become a second (redundant) article about "transporting people and cargo by ship."

If you feel strongly that the word "Shipping" should not point to this article, another solution would be to retitle this article as something like "Cargo transport" and retitle the disambiguation page as "Shipping." I think that would end the continuing debates over the scope of this article. Wikipedia:Disambiguation recommends that approach when there is no single "primary topic" for a term. I'm no expert in "shipping", though, so I don't know whether "Cargo transport" would be a good name for the topic of this article. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've revived Orlady's proposal about turning this into a dab page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Should_Shipping_be_a_dab_page.3F. Haus^Talk 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

on shipping i think they have really take the world to norther dimension that we can't even understand,but big thanks to the inventor of such idea.there have really make our world a realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.128.188 (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)