Talk:Carnival Splendor

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Carnival Splendor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ward":
From Carnival Conquest: 
From Carnival Inspiration: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Carnival Splendor]] 

message: 08/11/2010 - Please update the information to feature the current accident (Fire on board) during it's cruise around Mexican coasts. --189.182.29.202 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed at Carnival_Splendor#Incidents--Terrillja talk 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: 01/13/2011 - Looks like this ship is headed to San Francisco Pier 70 for repairs, ~4 weeks: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/01/infamously-futile-cruise-ship-coming-port  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.10.128 (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repairs 

message: Material from http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/2010-11-12-cruise-inside_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip looks reliable enough for me. It includes the opinion of Clark Dodge, former chief engineer for Washington State Ferries. Please do not remove without explanation Audriusa (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my take on this. I would argue that Clark Dodge's quotes not be used. I have a maritime university education and have a knowledge of vessel operations, and this full power loss is not really a mystery. It was just a bad fire. Plane and simple. I would like to start a dialogue about removing his quotes and adding a technical explanation towards the fire and power loss. -Greg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregdragonetti (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a University Education, and you don't know the proper spelling for the word PLAIN???  There are multiple spellings for many words, which have different definitions.  With the education you claim to have, you should know the difference. --Subman758 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes interesting reading. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery about the total power loss 

message: The ship's beam is given as 116 (without units). I don't have exact figures, but from a Google Maps aerial image of the ship in dock at Long Beach, Los Angeles the beam appears to be in the region of 44-48m (144-157 ft), so a unit that gives 116 would have to be around 380mm to 415mm per. I know of no such unit. Could the 116 figure be mistaken? 82.33.76.247 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was feet. Taken the measurement from the IMO link in the infobox Lyndaship (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beam 116