Talk:Symphony of the Seas

Length of Symphony of the Seas[edit]

Hello. is the length 1,184 or 1,188 feet? The ships registry says 1,184 feet long but the Royal Carribbean site says 1,188. The inbox and main text have different figures, so I would like to know what the official length of this unbelievable ship. Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weird thing, considering DNV is a highly respected registrar. I'll go ahead and switch it back to 1,188 until we get something better. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNV is the authoritative source on the ship length, not a marketing page from the cruise line. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have we figured out what the actual dimensions are? I have read at least 20 news articles, and looked at a few other websites and the only place that says the ship is 1,184 feet long is the DNV GL. Harmony and Symphony of the seas were built to the same dimensions, so how could one ship be almost 5 feet longer than the other? Cruiser17 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cruiser17: :As I said above, and as Lyndaship and Epistulae ad Familiareshave said in their edit summari0es, the classification society is the authoritative source. The ship may have been designed to be 1188ft long, but it doesn't take too much variability in the manufacturing process for the ship to end up .3% shorter than planned. Royal Caribbean obviously uses the as-designed number in their marketing materials and press releases, but DNV reports actual measurements taken of the finished ship. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it all possible that the ship was measured when it was a colder temperature outside, and that’s why it is coming up as shorter? Cruiser17 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht, I know the DNV has the dimensions, but does the ship yard also have the exact dimensions, if so would that be a proper citation? Cruiser17 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite possible the ambient air temperature is the cause of the discrepancy but regardless of that we should use what the classification society says. However as the figure quoted by Carnival in their marketing has been used in so many secondary sources by lazy journalists I suggest that in the prose (but not the infobox) we say something like "The ship is XXXX long as recorded by the relevant classification society (source DNV) but Carnival erroneously state that it is xxxx long in their marketing publications (source Carnival)" Lyndaship (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Ship is referred as "She"?[edit]

The ship should refererred to as IT and not SHE as it is an inanimate object. J mareeswaran (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic and RMS Lusitania and others show 'she' is conventional. See WP:SHE4SHIPS, which says that she or it is fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Anna. I came here for the same concerns. While I personally prefer "it", I guess calling 'it' a 'she' should be fine as per WP:SHE4SHIPS. Reh man 05:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Yes, the 'she' seems a bit old-fashioned, but not worth a fuss as far as I'm concerned. I can certainly live with either. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Symphony of the Seas discrepancy[edit]

Again there is a conflict in the length of the ship. The main text (description) says 1,188 feet (362 meters), the source is from the Royal Carribean Cruises website. In the inbox it says 1,184.4 feet, the source is the DNV (Registrar). I notified you in March about this discrepancy. One of the figures must be correct but which one? Please look into and resolve this. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8000:21B0:3CE1:D27:D302:B207 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)2601:581:8000:21B0:7D83:24C:ACF5:98CD (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNV is the authoritative source on the ship length, not a marketing page from the cruise line. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. In terms of disambiguation, it has been pointed out that the prefixes are not a preferred form of disambiguation for these articles. The move was also opposed with reference to the preferences of article creators, but it was shown that would tend to indicate moving the pages in most of these cases. The remaining arguments are generally per WP:TITLECHANGES, but most editors here did state that they found value in bringing the names in line with WP:AT directives on common names and concision. (As far as being make-work, I am fine with completing the close.) Dekimasuよ! 20:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The prefix "MS" is very rarely used in sources on these ships and should be omitted per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not contradicted by WP:SHIPNAME (which considers "common prefixes" like "MS" optional) or WP:DAB (the names already unambiguously refer to the ship due to the use of the brand suffix "of the Seas"). —Madrenergic^talk 15:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:SHIPS of this proposal Lyndaship (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Whilst this proposal is not strictly against WP:NC-S. The use of MS is interchangeable with MV, and down to creator's preference. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your view. I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Whilst WP:NC-S only says it is optional, there is no guideline that states that creator preference should take precedence as the next consideration. On the other hand, there is an argument from WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE (since WP:NC-S only supplements WP:AT and does not replace it in its entirety) to remove the prefixes in this situation, as the overwhelming majority of sources do not include the prefix in mentioning these ships. —Madrenergic^talk 20:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an established principle that where there are alternative methods of doing something (e.g. Engvar, reference styles, MV/MS) that the creator of an articles preference is generally respected, unless there are very good reasons for not doing so. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I believe we may be making some false assumptions here. That's only because English varieties and reference styles have explicit MOS:RETAIN and WP:CITEVAR guidelines respectively that specifically and explicitly recommend to stick with the current style if certain criteria are fulfilled. WP:AT and WP:NC-S do not. I do not think it is appropriate to assume that this principle also applies to other guidelines where it has not been written, much less assume that it holds primacy over the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE arguments previously mentioned.

In fact, as Davidships has pointed out further below, even if the principle of creator's preference were to exist and we were to apply it here, then the vast majority of the above ship articles should still remove their prefix because they were actually originally created without prefixes. —Madrenergic^talk 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - don't really see a need for it. And as for the guidelines, I learned from another recent RM that they don't actually count... - wolf 20:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting issue there. I apologise for my ignorance as I was not part of that RM, but why would the guidelines not count? Per WP:AT, "It [Wikipedia:Article titles] is supplemented (emphasis mine) by other more specific guidelines, which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies..." There are situations where the topic-specific guideline specifically recommends a title that does not immediately conform to the general guidelines (such as in science and medicine-related topics) and thus the general guidelines would have to be disregarded, but in this specific scenario, the topic-specific guideline does not have a specific recommendation, and it is my view that in this situation it would be entirely appropriate to also consider the general guidelines to aid in making a decision. —Madrenergic^talk 20:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, and this isn't about ignorance on your part, but sarcasm on mine. You ask why a guideline wouldn't apply? Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Anyway, I read your RM, and your reply here, I've considered it, but I'm not changing my !vote. Both Mjroots and Lyndaship have provided good enough reasoning, I don't think I need to add more. Cheers - wolf 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened to hear that, but I fully respect your stand. I hope you have a good day too. —Madrenergic^talk 22:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Going back to Neutral Although I do feel that using the prefix is better on the grounds of CONSISTENCY I accept the view that WP:COMMONNAME trumps it. Lyndaship (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC) (Initially not much bothered as indeed most sources (which are mainly cruise industry sites) don't use a prefix. However on consideration I think we should keep the prefix in the interest of continuity with other ship articles where the prefix is essential (eg MS Queen Elizabeth) and to make it obvious that the article refers to a ship rather than something else.) Lyndaship (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I feel that WP:CONSISTENCY is not the strongest argument as there are plenty of ship articles that both use and omit the MS/MV prefixes, and even WP:NC-S gives an example of a ship article that does not use the prefix. In fact, a comparison with cruise ships from the other major cruise lines such as Carnival Cruise Line, Norwegian Cruise Line, Costa Cruises, Disney Cruise Line, MSC Cruises, Star Cruises, Regent Seven Seas Cruises, and Celebrity Cruises will show that the consistent practice has been to not use the prefix, and Royal Caribbean ships are the one that is inconsistent with the majority of other cruise lines.

I think the example of MS Queen Elizabeth is also inappropriate here because its use is necessary per WP:NC-S to disambiguate the ship from the persons also named Queen Elizabeth. This is a situation unique to Cunard ships, as all of their ships are eponyms of British queens, so they all require the MS prefix where applicable. On the other hand, there is no similar situation faced by the ships mentioned in this RM. For example, nobody is going to confuse Symphony of the Seas with another entity or article in Wikipedia, and so there is no similar requirement for the prefix. —Madrenergic^talk 21:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting the prefix for these ships would then make them consistent with the ships of other recently created cruise lines and inconsistent with the majority of cruise lines and the prevalent use for merchant ships. I see no merit in making something conform with a subset which is at variance with the greater set. You are mistaken that all ships of the Cunard line are named after Queens (RMS Caronia and MS Caronia for instance which also demonstrates the utility of using a prefix as a more elegant way of dabbing the articles) and many shipping lines name their ships after other things. Although recent cruise lines seek to make their names unique as a marketing strategy this does not prevent confusion as with Freedom of the Seas and if I saw Symphony of the Seas pop up in a search box I would expect it to refer to a piece of music Lyndaship (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but I find it may be a weaker argument to argue for cruise ship names to be made consistent with non-cruise merchant ships (which have the prefix) rather than other cruise ships (which do not have the prefix), even if the former group is numerically larger, being that the latter category is arguably a much more relevant category to the articles mentioned in this RM. Furthermore, the argument to force the prefix to be included in all ship names to ensure consistency across all ships inadvertently contradicts WP:NC-S as it conflicts with the optionality allowed by the same guideline. It also suggests that all other ship names that do not currently have the prefixes are "wrong" and must have the prefix included, including the previously-mentioned ships from Carnival Cruise Line, Norwegian Cruise Line, Costa Cruises, Disney Cruise Line, MSC Cruises, Star Cruises, Regent Seven Seas Cruises, and Celebrity Cruises, which collectively represent the majority of modern cruise ships. There would be no ships left that could possibly opt out of using the prefix, and therefore the guideline would need to be changed to revoke the optionality of the prefix and force the inclusion of prefixes upon all merchant and cruise vessels. In that case, I think one would need to raise a RFC in WP:SHIPS instead to change that guideline because the current guideline that permits optionality ultimately would have no effect.

As regards my statement that Cunard ships are eponyms of British queens, I apologise for not being clear; I was actually referring to Cunard's three current ships (I am well aware that historically Cunard has had many ships not named after queens — a quick browse of the Cunard article easily shows so), and I should probably have phrased it better; however, the point remains that MS Queen Elizabeth and MS Queen Victoria need the prefix MS for disambiguation because there are other articles on Wikipedia that share a similar name, a situation which the articles listed in this RM do not face, so the same argument does not apply. Similarly, MS Caronia requires its prefix to distinguish between it from RMS Caronia ("RMS" is not an optional prefix and needs to be included anyway per WP:NC-S), a situation which the ships in this RM also do not face, so the argument is inapplicable.

Finally, I feel that the argument on needing disambiguation for Symphony of the Seas to avoid confusion with a supposed piece of music that does not exist on Wikipedia may misunderstand the principles behind disambiguation in Wikipedia. Per WP:DAB, the standard of disambiguation on Wikipedia is "whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." Thus, in order to need disambiguation, there must be an existing article with a similar title, and disambiguation is not done when no such similarly-named article exists. This is why MS Freedom of the Seas is not in this RM, because it does need to retain the "MS" prefix for disambiguation from freedom of the seas, an existing article on Wikipedia. However, there is no article that currently exists on Wikipedia that matches "Symphony of the Seas" to require the "MS" prefix for disambiguation. A reader may think that the title suggests a different article, but that does not warrant disambiguation unless that other article actually exists. Otherwise, all articles that start with "Symphony of" and are not pieces of music (e.g. Symphony of a City, a documentary film; or Symphony of Ages, a series of books) would need a disambiguator like "(documentary)" or "(book series)" on the same basis, even though no other article by a similar name currently exists. —Madrenergic^talk 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, in my view Queen Elizabeth, Freedom of the Seas etc do not need the prefix for disambiguation. Freedom of the Seas (ship) was the name of the article prior to August 2006. Davidships (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unlike the example with MS Queen Elizabeth above, I couldn't find a single reliable source that referrs to Royal Caribbean ships with an "MS" prefix (the only sources I do find seem to have copied text from Wikipedia). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needless make-work. Prefixes can avoid confusion; viz. Freedom of the Seas, another Royal Caribbean vessel (but that link is a dab). Kablammo (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your perspective! However if you read the list, Freedom of the Seas is not one of the articles that is being proposed for the move, for the simple reason that the prefix is used for disambiguation (although other options are also available per WP:NC-S, but that will be a separate discussion); for the articles that are being proposed for the move, I would say that the argument is inapplicable as there are no other similarly-named articles that they could be confused with. In fact, nobody has even established that retaining the prefix is necessary for disambiguation for these specific articles. —Madrenergic^talk 00:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the absence from the list, and suspected the reason. The question is whether there is some value in consistency. I am not convinced of that; my main objection is as I first stated: I see no great value in making such changes, or in having them propagated elsewhere and fought over. Kablammo (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. My arguments for the name change are mainly based upon WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE based upon the specific circumstances of the above articles, and not WP:CONSISTENCY. WP:CONSISTENCY was actually mentioned by Lyndaship as an opposing argument, and since it was raised my primary intention of discussing it was to show that WP:CONSISTENCY does not support the inclusion of the prefix; it is not my central argument for this RM. —Madrenergic^talk 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand your argument. I was acknowledging the opposing argument. Kablammo (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, thank you! As I have mentioned in my discussion with Lyndaship further up, even if we were to take consistency into consideration, it could arguably be used to support the removal of the prefix in line with other major cruise lines. —Madrenergic^talk 08:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It became a habit some years ago to pepper ship article names with superfluous (though not incorrect) prefixes, regardless of whether RS actually use them, using the rather woolly optionality of NCS. My view is that that is regrettable, but largely water under the bridge. However I am attracted by the suggestion of "creator's preference". This would mean that all but four of these articles would revert to the non-prefix titles that they had until they were block-moved in May 2008, without any discussion that I can find (four ships were built since 2008 and just followed suit). They would also sit better alongside the MS-free zone of Royal Caribbean International. The recommended way to dab is already set out in the Guidelines, and doesn't involve prefixes. Davidships (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is no need to disambiguate with prefix when the ship follows a "company naming scheme" with no single namesake. In case of similar articles (e.g. freedom of the seas), we could disambiguate by "(ship)" and, if necessary, year of launch. Tupsumato (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, am I the only one who thinks having separate pages for Freedom of the seas and Freedom of the Seas (lowercase/uppercase difference) is a bit... dangerous? Could someone move Freedom of the Seas to Freedom of the Seas (disambiguation) over redirect (with or without capitalization; your call) and make Freedom of the Seas point to Freedom of the seas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupsumato (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MS prefix could certainly distinguish at least one of those pages. If it's kept that is... - wolf 16:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unnecessary and harmful prefixes, impedes searching because no readers would type in "MS" first. feminist (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "no readers would type in "MS" first" - Can't say that for certain. In fact, many readers are likely to use MS, MV or SS, especially if seeing the name in the media, which frequently use prefixes. Just sayin'... - wolf 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I see where you're coming from, but the problem with that argument is that the media doesn't use prefixes for these ships. The media may frequently use prefixes for other merchant vessels, but where these specific cruise ships are concerned, most don't (hence the WP:COMMONNAME argument). As a result, most readers would not be aware of searching for these ships with a prefix, let alone know which prefix (MS/MV/SS) to use. In any case, for the few who do search with the prefixed name, they will still have a redirect from the old prefixed name as a redirect to the new, more ideal title that conforms to Wikipedia policy. —Madrenergic^talk 08:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Because, like postal codes, 'MS' is meaningless. Seriously, WP:CONCISE and ease of searching and other guidelines cited above. Sure, lose the MS! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like prefixes, it makes for more typing, which in turn makes for precision, and as Wyatt Erp observed, "Fast is fine, but precision is everything." :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice quote! However, I'm afraid it misses the point in this context. One may like prefixes because it makes for more typing, but there are others who want less typing because they prefer brevity. Either way, such matters in Wikipedia are not left to one's individual preferences or the personal philosophies of Wild West frontiersmen, but first determined by Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia's policy on WP:PRECISION says that "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." A prefix would add no advantage to the precision of these articles because there are no other similarly-named articles that it would need to be disambiguated from, hence it would be inappropriate to forward an argument based upon WP:PRECISION. —Madrenergic^talk 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the following reasons:
- conciseness: Adding a prefix to the title is unnessesary, It is like calling this page Cruise Ship Symphony of the Seas. Instead just having the name of the ship is sufficient. Even if there are name conflicts with other pages the prefix is not needed. As an example: Symphony of the Seas (Cruise Ship) is more descriptive (for the average person) than MS Symphony of the Seas.
- Prefixes are rarely used: Searching for "MS Syphony of the Seas" returns only 5 pages (22000 results) in google. Meanwhile searching "Symphony of the Seas" gives in 6500000 results. Clearly nobody uses the MS prefix to refer to this ship.
- Consistency: The ship prefixes are rarely used for articles about other (cruise) ships. Consistent naming of articles across the wiki is never a bad thing. KiaaTiX (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support reviewing the sources in a few of these pages, including the MS is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is not more WP:CONCISE, so policy would state the move is appropriate. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no problem with retaining official ship prefixes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:Common Name and WP:Concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italicize article title[edit]

Can someone please italicize the article title, or at least tell me how to do it? After all, ship names are italicized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Thanks, Kaio mh (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it using the italic title template but the ship info box should italicise the title automatically. Don't know why it isn't Lyndaship (talk)

Thank you for fixing it! I think there's a glitch in the code that prevented the title from italicizing, I don't know. Thanks again, Kaio mh (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19 pandemic should be covered in this article[edit]

Symphony of the Seas -- Royal Caribbean Status: In Miami, Florida

Symphony of the Seas is the world's biggest cruise ship, with 18 decks in total. Passengers disembarked in Miami on March 14, but crew members remain on board. The ship is currently anchored off Palm Beach, Florida -- following the medical evacuation of the sick crew. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cruise-ships-still-sailing/index.html Peter K Burian (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony of the seas[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the symphony of the seas in the BIGGEST ship in the world it is 1,181 feet long Alecboi777 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page already mentions that the ship is the largest cruise ship in the world by gross tonnage. The page also gives her length as 1,184 ft 5 in., which is backed up by reliable sources. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 17:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Cruise Activities 131.161.77.115 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]