Talk:Panama Canal

message: it is here any plans to rebuild old lock to wider ones (with water saving basins) ? or to build new ones ? since shiping trends clerly show that new panamax is desired with demand for old panamax ships hitting ground, meaning at some point in future no ship in use will be able to pass old locks (or at least in significiant numbers).
2A00:1028:9198:E50E:C0FE:B67C:3CBA:20AB (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  future expansion ? 

message: While reading the article, there is a discrepancy to be noted. In the article itself, it states that the SS Cristobal was the first to make the transit through the Panama Canal on August 3 1914, but the picture states that it is the SS Ancon on August 15 1914. Further research may need to be done to solidify which is the true first. Gladdisiator (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies? 

message: New to this but: article states the expansion to allow panamax vessels was completed June 26, 2016 but the panamax vessel in article photo states it is entering the lock in March 2013. Apologies if I am misunderstanding. Cheers, Billy Dogboy777 (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Billy. Great question – I believe that both the article and the photo caption are correct. The photo, which as you noted was taken in March 2013, shows a Panamax ship traversing the Miraflores locks before the expansion project was completed. On the other hand, the article states . "New Panamax" refers to ships that are even larger than the old "Panamax" ships, and they pass through a set of new locks (the Agua Clara and Cocoli locks) that were constructed next to the old locks. See the photo to the right. So there is no contradiction between the article and the caption. Does this answer make sense? Best, Altamel (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion completion date vs. Panamamax vessel in photo date 

message: It came to my attention that the article doesn't mention the US invasion of Panama. Is there a reason? 46.19.86.168 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be mentioned? This article is about the Panama Canal, not about Panama. The Banner talk 17:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the US invasion of Panama 

message: just praise  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.34.207 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking exactly the same. Bountykilla (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, 47.71.34.207, Bountykilla couldnt agree with you more- it´s  horrific how the thing is extolled. the article is dominated by engineering details. I just added merely the fact how it works and how water wasting this thing is-An average of  of fresh water used in a single passing.- none of this was mentioned.  maybe we need to add a section?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Gatun is also the main freshwater reservoir for water for the population, which has doubled in size since 1980. Since there has been no change in freshwater collection the last sentence of the lede is at least incomplete if not outright fabrication. Greglocock (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a single word on ecological and ecosystem impacts,  

message: :File:Panama canal lock sizes.png says that the maximum DWT for New Panamax is 60–100. This is obviously wrong. It's also wrong in the original source at eia. Maybe this is supposed to be thousands? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I've added a note to the page talk on Commons. Perhaps there's an replacement table available somewhere? - Davidships (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panama canal lock sizes