Talk:Royal Caribbean International

message: I've been thinking about it for a while, and in the interests of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE I think it might be best to remove the columns in the tables that say "Home port" and "Areas of operations", both on this article as well as the specific ship class articles.
Firstly, the information inside has been difficult to verify and goes out of date easily since ships shift homeports fairly often (and may not be announced), and has been difficult to police as various unregistered and registered editors change the details without any clear reference.
Even if Wikipedia were to be a WP:TRAVELGUIDE, I am also of the opinion that the information is of way too little use to readers because it is too vague to be of any interest. If prospective cruisers were truly interested in knowing what cruises itineraries and cruise ships were available to them, the booking sites and agents would be far more updated and accurate; while if local port businesses and ship spotters alike wanted to know what ships were arriving to their shores, their local port authority would tell them which ships were arriving on which specific dates to their specific port with far greater exactitude. Vague phrases like "Asia & Australia" are hardly helpful and hardly help to indicate where a ship would be tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.
Thirdly, its existence as column of a table inherently assumes that every cruise ship has a home port, which we know may not always be the case in this industry. It also makes editors feel compelled to fill it in, which I feel may partly contribute to why there are so many unreferenced entries about home port and area of operations, especially for the older ships that may have little or no media sources.
That is not to say that such information should be entirely purged from the encyclopedia - I think that in whatever instances that WP:RS are available (and I believe that at least some exist), such information can be mentioned in prose on the articles specific to each ship - but I certainly do not think they should be part of a table. —Madrenergictalk 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly agree. I don't think having the current homeport of any ship in a table or prose in an article about the class or company is appropriate. Happy to see current and previous homeports together with broad areas (not a laundry list of individual named ports) of where the ships cruised to mentioned in prose if sourced in individual ships articles. Lyndaship (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, possiby of use in individual ship articles but out of place in the company article.  Same aplies to other cruise company articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to everything above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind input, everybody. I'll start the cleanup process. —Madrenergictalk 08:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree, I have always found it of use to have the info on the pages Darthvadrouw 18:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is still available on the individual ship articles which is the appropriate place for it Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be interesting to add the shipyard that built the ship instead of the homeport, as we have the year of build it would be nice to have that info as well Darthvadrouw 23:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, more relevant to the individual ship articles than in an overview of the fleet. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So why do we have gross tonnage, year built and berths ? Going by your reasoning it would be more relevant in the ship articles. Why do we not only list the ship names (The german version does this and the page is less of a mess of what we currently have in the english version)  Darthvadrouw 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a fair point but no one is arguing for the removal of those details. I would say that it is valid to have details of a company's equipment in its articles and size, age and capacity are important information about that equipment. Where it is currently located or where it was built is not Lyndaship (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can get it why the GT is listed or the year it was built but what makes the number of berths relevant in a table ? I am arguing for the removal of the tables and only leave a list of ships, only have one ship picture per class, it makes it much easier to read.Darthvadrouw 11:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of berths indicated the capacity of the ship, see Lyndaship's comment above.  Whether it needs to be broken down into single and maximum is another question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again I do not see it's relevancy, a cruise ship is measured by Gross Tonnage not berths. Darthvadrouw 14:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ship's commercial value is dependant on the number of berths available.  Though, as I've said, I think a consolidated figure is more relevant to an overview. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not something that is needed in the table, agree to have it on the ship's detailed page but not here. Commercial value doesn't only depend on berths and is of little use to the average reader. As mentioned previously a list would be more appropriate, we do not need all the details in an overview.Darthvadrouw 16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put it this way, the number of berths is not something I would fight to the death to keep. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of homeport information from table 

message: Carnival Corp and Royal Caribbean Cruises do a poor job of limiting the pollution from their ships, according to the environmental-advocacy group Friends of the Earth.
Royal Caribbean did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ships-pollution-ranking-carnival-royal-caribbean-among-worst-polluters-2019-7#tied-3-royal-caribbean-cruises-233-4
Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Among the worst" is a bit misleading since only one cruise line, Disney, scored better. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyndaship, care to explain what is your concerns to not include this important study from the article/s on various large cruise lines so far? Without giving an explanation or taking it to the talk page. Thank you! --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly but the responsibility for opening a talk page discussion and obtaining consensus lies with the party seeking to add the information not with the reverter. Nor does continuing a thread here really fulfill your obligation as this thread was about a previous report. Specifically though my objection to mentioning this so called study is that it is giving it undue weight as it is a simply an environmental group making claims based on their own criteria and viewpoint to further their agenda and is solely sourced to their website rather than any RS. Find an international or governmental organisation which gives any credence to FoEs report card and I will withdraw my objection so it can go in minus the schoolboy like grading Lyndaship (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCI  among worst polluters on the ocean according to this report 

message: The Voyager of the Seas (that docked Wednesday morning in Sydney March 18) and Ovation of the Seas (that docked afternoon in Sydney March 18) have confirmed cases of COVID-19 from NSW Health. All passengers have been told to self-isolate for 14 days. 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-23/cruise-passengers-not-tested-for-coronavirus-before-disembarking/12081426  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.56.39 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19 on Voyager of the Seas and Ovation of the Seas 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: How wide are the doors on the cabins on the ships? 2603:9000:7300:9585:C442:9EFB:ABBA:E1A3 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably not the right place to ask unless somehow relates to the article content. By Google: Standard stateroom doors are minimum 23 inches wide, accessible stateroom doors are 32 inches wide. IlkkaP (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width of cabin doors