Talk:Cruise ships

Cruise Lines

It would probably be worthwhile to try and merge these two topics somehow. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:07, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Eh, they're both big topics, and not quite the same topic... I sort of see this one as another Discount airlines in Europe and Cruises similar to Tips for flying. It's going to be trickey, but it will be very useful if done right. (WT-en) Majnoona 15:13, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Just to follow up, there are plenty of people who book travel with a specific boat, regardless of where it will be or who are looking for boats in an area-- neither of these things are going to be covered in other guides. Booking and going on a cruise is really a different sort of travel -- I know cause I'm trying to book on for my birthday right now! It's a whole weird world unto itself... (WT-en) Majnoona 15:15, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Hmmm... I plunged into the fray here, perhaps without understanding intent, and certainly not knowing about the Cruise Lines article. Also I created and redirected Cruising as I thought the intent was to cover the whole subject. A list of Lines and possibly Intineraries could be a useful thing. There probably needs to be a general article on cruising. That's what I thought Cruise ships was. It's kind of a large subject however as generalizations do not cover the premium or smaller ship options. (WT-en) OldPine 15:36, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Agreed that they're not quite the same, but currently the Cruise Lines article contains a list of one cruise ship. I realize that we don't really have any standards for travel topics other than the "it could be a valid topic for travelers" test, but the standard for geographic articles is to only split things up when the article becomes "large and complex". In this case it seems like it might be more useful to combine the two, and then we can always split them at a later date if needed. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:55, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I started this article for the simple reason that I'm being (willingly) dragged on another cruise with my parents and sisters' families in December, and figured it would be useful to explain a bit about them to those who don't know what to expect (as I didn't before my family insisted I join them) and provide enough basic - and objective - info to help people decide if they'd enjoy one. I didn't realize Cruise Lines existed because nothing in the main article space links to it. I can see that getting included in this article, but I don't think it needs to be. I'm not familiar enough with the cruise industry as a whole to know how difficult it would be to maintain such an index. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:02, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Maintaining that would be a bit much I guess. I'm not sure such specifics are necessary and wouldn't add them here. More useful might be a general description of itineraries and a list of cruise lines with contact info. (WT-en) OldPine 16:12, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I just took a look at the cruise ship listed on Cruise Lines and I'd have to call that experiment a success... in demonstrating that individual cruise ships don't make good subjects for articles. There really isn't much more (and in many ways less) to be found there than I could get from the primary source of Carnival.com. A list like you describe of operators and itineraries might be more maintainable, but also no better than available from primary sources. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:03, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Well, we at least have to list the primary sources don't we? As in the Alaska article? I can certainly do without the itinerary listing. (WT-en) OldPine 18:49, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Agree, organized lists useful. Have questions about a few entries that appear to be third party cruise or tour packagers, especially a few for "Small ship cruise options". Allowed? Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No corrections or explanations thus far. Quick examination of a few linked web sites would lead one to believe (1) the sub-section has been entitled "...options" to facilitate entries not or only loosely related to the main article; (2) more tours than cruises are offered in some; and (3) some linked sites appear to be third-party packagers of trips rather than providers. If no informed explanations can be offered to the contrary by mid-April, will delete those of concern. Hennejohn (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Listings for resellers and middlemen are normally shoot-on-sight. No need to wait to remove them, plunge forward. K7L (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

I just have to say again what a useful and timely article this is! Thanks to all contributing... (WT-en) Majnoona 23:43, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

Dining

The article's eat section now says that ships will "may rotate scheduled dining between different restaurants, to provide more variety during the cruise". Is that correct? I have not seen that. My original text meant to refer to Norwegian's practice on several ship, of having the choice of multiple restaurants. I believe they have one with no fixed or "traditional" service at all. (Although on any of these "freestyle" ships one can usually request and get the same table and time for each night.) (WT-en) OldPine 16:52, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Disney does it. One night you eat in the animation-art-themed restaurant, the next in the jacket-suggested dining room, the next in the Caribbean-island place, and I assume you keep rotating for longer cruises. All with a fixed seating time, and your wait staff follow you around, so it's traditional except for the change of scenery and menu. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:56, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Cruise Itineraries, Lines, and Ships

I think Cruise Itineraries and Cruise Lines/Ships would be super additions to wikivoyage. I've seen one or two articles started, but they've been attacked for not being geographies.

I submit:

• Itinerary info is very helpfful-- and many are almost standardized, such as in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Galapagos.
• Cruise Ships, some with capacities of 4,000 people, can be as complex as small towns; decisions abound-- where to eat, what shore excursions to do, which deck to book.

Wikivoyagers could shed a lot of light.

68.4.102.159 16:33, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

There are some "typical" cruise itineraries in certain parts of the world, but even within a single cruise line there's variation, with one cruise stopping in Mazatlan, but another going directly from Cabo San Lucas to Pto Vallarta. The best we could do would be to list ports that are likely to be included. I've looked at offerings for, say, the Caribbean, and the itineraries were literally all over the map.

Meanwhile, I really don't see that many decisions to make once onboard. Even on the biggest boats (the last one I was on carried almost 3,000, the one I'll be on next was briefly the record holder) there are only a few restaurants; if you're on the ship for seven days, you're probably going to try them all (or avoid the ones you obviously wouldn't like)... and on the under-1000-passenger ships, you may not have any choice at all. Info about which deck to sleep on is analagous to suggesting which floor of a hotel to ask for. I hear the "a cruise ship is a floating city" metaphor a lot, but a better analogy is a theme park, because it's just tourists... and employees all working for the same management. Even Skagway has residents who don't work for the tourism industry (and those who do are often competing with each other), but the only non-employee I've seen living on a cruise ship was Captain Steubing's daughter Vicki.

The shore excursions are perhaps a different matter, because they're not done by cruise line employees, but they are selected by the cruise line, and Wikivoyage's primary role – of informing people what their options are – is also already done by them. All we could add is "hated it"/"loved it". Which is why I keep coming back to the question of what we can do that the cruise lines don't already do better? I'm happy to support an article that does that, but all the guide I feel I need for my upcoming cruise is the primary source of their web site, and the Wikivoyage articles for the ports we'll be visiting. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:07, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

I think there's some powerful argument there. Still, I think that one thing that we can do better than cruise lines might be formatting. I have often been frustrated by trying to scope out shore excursions where I had to access the descriptions one at a time. Similarly, the ability to quickly determine what lines went where might save one from bouncing around to the cruise line sites. On the other hand, I have no powerful urge to see these articles created. (WT-en) OldPine 22:06, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

A good starting point would just be to list the biggest operators and where they sail. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:31, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

I accept many of the limits noted above, such as the points about variances in itineraries and about limited numbers of restaurants; but does that make moot writing port descriptions and shore excursions organized by cruising region? Since when does raw popularity or singular ownership structure make a travel destination less worthy? The Vatican suffers from both! So does the U.S. Capitol Mall, Orlando, and most of China.  :-) 68.4.102.159 10:04, 25 July 2006 (EDT)

Hi, I just recently came back from a cruise of the Western Mediterranean, and multiple times while I was on the cruise, I was thinking to myself that when I got back, I should start a wiki for cruise ship passengers. (Then I came back I found Wikivoyage.) The reason why I wanted to start a wiki for information on a cruise ship is because I have very often found times when the cruise lines profit from a cruiser's ignorance --- or put more positively, knowledge is power, and if you know more about various options you can save a heck of a lot of money.

For example, in some ports of call, particular for cruises going to in Alaska and in the Caribbean, it is not really worthwhile to book shore excursions on board the ship, because the moment you get off the ship, there are plenty of opportunities to purchase equivalent tours, usually for half of what it will cost if you buy it on board the ship. In other places, particularly at the European ports, you are much better off booking a shore excursion from the boat since there aren't those alternatives, and very often the port where the ship docks is quite far from where most of the interesting tourist attractions are located. (For example, Civitavecchia is a good 90-120 minutes from Rome. On my most recent cruise, we only had 13 hours at port, and once you include the overhead of getting to the train station, catching a train, and allowing for train schedules, you have very little time in Roam to actually see any of the many attractions. You're better off either taking a shore excursion, or just accept the fact that you can't see Rome in a day, much less 6 hours, and just stay on the boat and enjoy the on-board amenities.)

I'd also love to see a series of articles about various ports of calls, and recommendations about what can be done given the limited time a cruise ship is normally is docked; information about where to find Internet cafe's so you don't have to pay the 65 cents a minute to use the on-board wireless service, etc.

I'd like to contribute articles about this, as well as descriptions of various cruise ships that I've been on, since I think a wiki is a much better way of finding information that spending hours and hours searching through web forums such as those found on CruiseCritic for various tidbits of information. And while I could set up my own wiki (I've created other special-purpose wiki's before, such as the Linux Real-Time Wiki), it seems like it might make more sense to put the cruise-specific topics here on Wikivoyage. But when I arrived here, I see a discussion to delete an entry describing a specific Cruise Ship (the Carnival freedom) and a merge in process to merge Cruise_Lines into a single Cruise_ships article. So it's not clear whether or not a series of articles that provide a larger amount of detail about cruising would be welcome or not at Wikivoyage. How can I find out what would be considered welcome additions and what would not be? (WT-en) Tytso 18:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)

My recollection on the consensus about this is that we would try to cover cruise ship excursion information in the articles about the port. This could be accomplished in detail in the "See" or "Do" sections or possibly in the "Get in" section with a subsection "By ship" or maybe "By cruise ship", indicating the relative availability of tours competing with the ship tours, and even listing tour operators and contact info.

My personal feeling is there isn't that much to be gained by providing articles for each ship here. I feel that Cruise Critic covers that in an easily accessible way, but usually feel that I don't gain tremendous insight from those articles. As I mentioned in some other discussion (somewhere) I can see usefulness at a very detailed level of information (such as how noisy a particular room is), but I think that might be a little too fine a level for Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) OldPine 21:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Suggestions/Observations

Generally agree with above discussions of cruiselines, ships and cruising regions. Separate articles could well be referenced by this article.

Levels of detail

• Some care about detail in this article appears needed, e.g.,:
  • The list of "Major cruise lines" needs introductory context (if to be developed), appears quite incomplete, and some lines listed do not even consider themselves "major".
    • Does this topic need to be developed in/on this page? Would we not better reference quality web sites whose primary purpose is to track and describe them?
  • While the numbers/names of cruise-lines remains fairly stable (since settling from the impact of "9-11")...
    • Several "lines" listed as articles lead to blank pages.
    • Many new ships have come "on-line", with more pending. A nearly equal number of old ones have been retired by the major lines to lesser known lines.
    • Just a meaningful list of lines/ships with basic features of each could be challenging.
    • Several web-sites are largely dedicated to providing only that.
    • Surely, our readers deserve better. Do the rules allow us to enter links to cruise-line and third-party commercial cruise web sites for readers to consult instead?
• Itineraries (i.e., of specific ships in given seasons) might not be wise...highly dynamic from season to season. But cruising regions and their features, benefits, idiosyncracies and servicing ports might be quite useful for readers.
• Concur that many ports/cities are already addressed in wiki articles of varying detail. Surely those articles that need it could be improved for cruisers, with encouragement to create needed new ones.

Loyalty Programs:

• Include a section about cruise line loyalty programs. Most of the major cruise lines offer loyalty programs; some of those perks are very lavish (such as free cruises, gifts, cocktail hour, etc.) It might be of interest to those reading about cruises.

Main Article Title:

• Having made many recent content additions...nearly all within the existing outline...the article seems to deserve a title such as Ocean Cruising. But because I focus primarily on content, not advanced page management, I have little confidence I could make such a change, even if permitted.
• Believe this article deserves another parallel article with a title such as River/Barge Cruising...unfortunately, I have no experience there.

Also note that nearly all other posts to this discussion are dated 2007 or earlier. Reason?

Regards, hennejohn 1030 EST 30 Jan 2011

Regarding several comments above about external links, it is fine to link to the web site for the cruise operator, but links to third party guides would go against Project:External links. Also, I'd agree that cruising regions would be a better focus than cruising itineraries, although I have extremely limited knowledge on this topic so can't really add much value to the overall discussion.

As to why most discussion stopped in 2007, I believe it was because there was a big push to figure out how to handle cruise lines and cruise ships, with no consensus ever reached, and I suspect many people sort of burned out on the topic as a result. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:10, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Corrections and Question.

• Have "corrected" entries in this article that had links to what may be "improper" web sites.
• Have noted parallel article "Packing for Cruise" needs more development, especially to address idiosyncracies of some regions of the world.
  • For Europe, have noticed that articles from the Rick Steves web site would be highly useful, e.g.,
  • Believe site only markets materials produced by the author...with no profit-based references to third-party marketers.
  • Would such be an allowed link?

User:(WT-en) Hennejohn\hennejohn 8Feb2011 4:40 PM EST

VFD discussion

Carnival Conquest

Article about a cruise ship. Does not meet Project:What is an article?. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmmm. Just found this: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?#Cruise_ships -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, input on the more general question - and hopefully a consensus - is needed. This question has come up before and was never really resolved, and it's coming up again. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival freedom

Ibid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 23:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

• Keep. Cruises are a popular form of travel and this provides an unbiased opinion of one cruise ship 216.99.2.9 15:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

The question is whether that's enough to be the topic of an entire article. We don't have separate articles of that sort for hotels, for example. Please join the discussion linked to above. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Carnival Elation

Ditto. ~ 219.94.80.130 02:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT) This is the most famous verdict by great man Grewal

Demographics

The article talks a bit about demographics... age, family-oriented, etc.... but the advice basically amounts to "do your own research".

I'd like to see more specific help on how to find a cruise that fits the demographic you want, specific regarding:

• Age
• Family/children
• Gay-targeted or gay-friendly
• Other specific targets (party/drinking cruises, singles cruises, etc.)

--(WT-en) BigPeteB 15:56, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

I echo BigPeteB's frustration...I drafted that demographic discussion. Unfortunately, every web-site giving good information I know of also aggressively offers or links to third-party sellers of cruises, etc., and so violates Wikivoyage content rules. Can anyone suggest some that don't? (In self-defense, with just a few of the right keywords in a decent search engine, most of the sites I know of will pop-up...some quite good. If your browser supports the "World of Trust" add-on, many sites will also be flagged for how well they respect your privacy.) Regards --(WT-en) Hennejohn 12:32, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Discounts?

I stumbled on Booking a cruise at a deep discount. If that is accurate, it is certainly something we should cover. Pashley (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another stumble: CDC list of disease outbreaks. Should we link to it? Pashley (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-vandalism reverted?

I don't understand why LtPowers reverted this edit. Everything seems perfectly reasonable, and the editor linked to the relevant WV policies in the edit summary. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been concerns raised with an editor who has been repeatedly pushing personal preferences related to image sizing despite concerns raised by others, and at this point most such edits end up being reverted - see User talk:118.93.67.66#Upright thumbnail dimensions for one discussion on the subject. Feel free to restore whatever portions of that edit that are helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Query Prompt

Have just noticed that entry of "Cruise" or "Cruise Lines" in the search box results in an auto-prompt for "Cruise Lines"...that then reaches only this article by re-direct. If we have an article "Cruise Lines", it should be prompted as well as this one, and thereby reached. If "...Lines" has been deleted, then the auto-prompt is invalid. Can someone more skilled with the site's operation correct this? Hennejohn (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There used to be a separate article Cruise Lines, but that never had more than a couple of sentences of content, so in 2010 it was merged with this article. The normal practice is then to make the old article redirect to the merged one. This helps people following an old link, but does have the drawback that people typing Cruise into the search box gets an auto-prompt for the redirect. It would be great if the auto-prompt could ignore redirect articles, but I doubt that is possible. AlasdairW (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't want that, as it kind of defeats the point of the redirects. The problem, such as it is, isn't that "Cruise Lines" is appearing as a suggestion; it's that "Cruise ships" isn't -- not until you type the "s". Powers ^(talk) 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)==

Cruise Lines

Thanks to Ipsilon & others, many good edits have improved this article. We still need to improve the current lists of "Cruise Lines" wherever they appear, e.g.,:

• "Major lines" primarily covers those offered by U.S. travel/cruise agents/web sites. Many lines based in Europe and Asia seem appropriate for addition. Am unable to help with specifics...have only seen their ships on various trips.
• Hurtigruten is actually a quality ferry service; it's use and limits are described in the linked article.
• Some entries in "Small ship...options" link to third party sellers.

Will also be working to improve other portions...for content and readability. Hennejohn (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly cleaned up and rearranged the article. I'm not very knowledgeable about cruises, but do agree European and Asian cruise lines should also be mentioned.

Hurtigruten is much similar to Baltic Sea ferries. Both are different enough from e.g. Caribbean cruises not to be described here, on the other hand they are not that different, therefore I think it's useful to link to their articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Good points...forgot about Baltic ferries. HELP!!! Did minor editing just 2 hours ago, and whole article has been truncated...ending at discussion of passports. Do note that refresh symbol for in-complete re-transmission of article never goes away. FIX??? Hennejohn (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It has recovered, thanks. Hennejohn (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Weddings at sea?

I'm a bit unsure about:

• The Captain: He or she is called the ship's master for a reason, with total operational command of the vessel and when and where it goes. And yes, through recent changes to law, many can now officiate at weddings, as can accredited, "resident" or pre-certified clergy.

Which jurisdictions are recognising this without requiring some additional credential? suggests Japan (only if the couple are Japanese citizens) and Bermuda, although the ship might need to fly the flag of those countries. and seems to infer the US doesn't recognise "sea captain" as officiant but anything from judge to mayor to themonastery.org (Universal Life Church, which ordains its entire 20-million person flock) is recognised by most US states (each has its own requirements, adding to the confusion). has neither US nor UK recognising "captain" on its own as an officiant (although ship's chaplain would qualify). also appears sceptical, although tying the knot on a ship in port using a local officiant in that community is another workaround as an alternative to enlisting a captain as also a notary (where applicable) or minister of some obscure denomination (where recognised). There`s also the detail that the captain is supposed to be busy getting the boat to its destination. Certainly "wedding at sea" would be valid as wedding travel, with substantial advance planning, but the willingness of governments to recognise the credential "sea captain" alone without another civil or religious title conferring officiant status should not be taken for granted. —The preceding comment was added by 2001:5c0:1000:a::1d (talk • contribs)

uses Bermuda, captain as official under that country's registry. Malta may also be an option. These seem to be the exception, not the rule. See w:Sea captain. K7L (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hidden duty in Europe?

The article states

"take care with [...] hidden duty or tax such as Europe's VAT not reflected in "final" prices — that can be 17-25%"

I suppose "Europe" here refers to EU/EEA, and I have the impression that VAT here always is included in announced prices. Are there exceptions with some businesses specifically cruises passengers may visit? Then this could be clarified, otherwise there may be some misunderstanding.

--LPfi (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the UK VAT is almost always included in shop prices (and I think it is the same in other countries). The exception is shops selling goods which are usually bought by other businesses, so a plumbing supplier may quote prices without VAT. I don't expect that anybody on cruise would visit such a place. It may be worth making the warning more general by removing the "such as". I also wonder if "Europe's VAT" suggests a uniform tax across the EU when member states decide the rate and which goods it applies to. AlasdairW (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WTF? In the USA and apparently Canada too, sales tax isn't included in the price but I've never seen that anywhere in Europe. Ever. If I really stretch my imagination, on EU airports there are sometimes different prices on e.g. alcohol for those who fly to destinations within the EU or outside, but even then both prices are listed. And if you're shopping tax free you will still pay the tax but get it refunded at the border. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Have little knowledge of EU laws/regulations about imposing or refunding VAT. My entry was focused only on on-board shopping aboard a cruise that starts and ends in EU without visiting a port "outside". We encountered it once...Amsterdam to Barcelona 2011; staff warned shoppers; we chose to make few purchases. Topic has been extensively discussed on Cruise Critic and similar sites. On a repo from Barcelona to U.S., many folks counted on refunds at Madeira because it was last EU port; it had no necessary office or official. For cruisers, hope someone can clarify all this better than I. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Permission to come aboard

Swept in from the pub

Hello :-)

What is the consensus about articles on cruise lines? In particular, I have been working on User:Commander Keane/P&O Cruises Australia and would like to know if it is ok to move it to "mainspace" at P&O Cruises Australia?

I have seen that Disney Cruise Line has been up for deletion previously.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a question... Could it be called just Australian cruises ? I'm not sure an article about a specific company follows policy (although Disneyland does exist) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disneyland has an article because it's not only a physical place but quite a complex attraction. Site policy, to my knowledge, has been that individual cruise lines, like individual airlines, don't get full articles to themselves. However, several different topics are linked at Boat travel. For example, there is Cruise ships, which includes a pretty long list of linked names of "Major cruise lines, large vessel". There is also a Cruising the Baltic Sea topic which might be a useful model. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't understand why Disney Cruise Line hasn't been merged and redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It was agreed to use it as a test case for cruise-line articles. I still don't understand the animosity toward them. Powers ^(talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheaper than a nursing home?

It seems to me we might discuss the claim that a series of cruises are cheaper & better than nursing home care, here or perhaps in Retiring abroad. Web search turns up many articles on the topic, including one at the urban legends reference site Snopes. Pashley (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Frommer's link

This link, for "A 2015 article provides some particulars for select cruise lines" clearly violates external links#what not to link to. But is the article so great and so helpful to travellers that we should consider it an exception? I ask you; I haven't read it as of yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The article has the headline "Is it Worth it to Buy a Cruise Line Drink Package?", but fails to answer the question. It is just a comparison table of drinks packages between cruise lines, but makes no attempt to compare buying a package with buying drinks individually - it does not say how many glasses of wine I would need to drink each day to break even. Policies aside, it is probably not worth keeping. AlasdairW (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinion. Does anyone disagree with removing the link? If so, please express your opinion soon. I will probably delete it later tonight or tomorrow if no-one beats me to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing removed

Discussion? Deleted

• Adventure Life – worldwide

Found item in list of "small cruise ship companies"...appears to actually be a world-wide tour company. No reason to think it's less than a reputable firm, but not relevant to the list. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Highly critical article

Don't bother with cruise ships, "a dirty, harmful industry". Pashley (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

COVID outbreak

48 test positive for Covid on world's biggest cruise ship Pashley (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing about COVID in the article & although I do not think we need a panic-inducing warning, I do think we need something. Is the threat now negligible (my guess is yes)? Is vaccination required for passengers (I'd say it should be)? Pashley (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What of other health risks? e.g. 2023 is the year of getting sick on a cruise Pashley (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that the events of 2020 are sufficiently recent that they should be mentioned as background. Although the chance of ports turning cruise ships with infections aboard away has greatly reduced, it not zero; and travellers are likely to meet passengers and crew whose trips in 2020 were disrupted. Vaccination may be required on some cruise lines departing from some ports - checking on a couple of cruise line websites it is currently required for cruises to Australia, but not elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Cruise ships are common locations for GI and respiratory outbreaks. This has been an ongoing occurrence long before COVID, now we have the same outbreaks plus COVID. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Big new ship

World's largest cruise ship that's 5 times larger than the Titanic set to make its debut Pashley (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It seems we have built the largest cruise ship in the world a few times during the last decades, including Freedom of the Seas and Oasis of the Seas, also for the Royal Caribbean. But you shouldn't really trust those news stories; I doubt the ship sailed to the "open ocean" for the initial round of sea trials – the open Atlantic is far from here, beyond the British Isles, so trials where either in the archipelago off Turku or in the open Baltic Sea, even that some 60 M from the yard. (And they talk about January 2024 – are they that badly in need of visibility?) –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)