Talk:Disney Cruise Line

VFD Discussion

A cruise ship and a cruise line respectively.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

• Obviously valuable information. It needs to be merged somewhere but where would you propose putting it? We never came to a clear consensus last time we discussed cruise lines. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:39, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

The same user has made edits here inserting names of cruise lines, I guess with the intention of starting an article for each. I would err on the of caution as I can see this becoming a slippery slope. Airline articles likewise - I am not quite sure why we have them. With articles about Cruise lines and Airlines, what next? Hotel groups? Bus companies? Tour agencies? It feels very slippery indeed.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:24, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

• Delete. I am definitely in agreement with Burmesedays here, this is a very slippery slope. And I really see no good information in either of these articles, especially an article about a cruise ship. I think we should take a very hard line here; the Cruise ships article does a good job covering the general topic, and we should leave it at that - leave the specific cruise line/ship info to other sources, as that info is going to be 1) too much, 2) too unmaintainable, and 3) too undefined (as in, where exactly do we draw the line?) for Wikivoyage. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 15:47, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

It's probably best that we revisit Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article#Cruise_ships before coming to decisions on these. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:16, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

I have re-opened that discussion.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:10, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

The issues around cruise ship articles still aren't resolved, leaving these two nominations in a somewhat ambiguous state. The discussion on Project:What is an article#Round 2 seemed to be moving in a direction that would lead to creating broader articles with redirects for smaller topics like these, so would anyone be opposed to treating these two articles as "keep" and then converting them to redirects if/when that discussion reaches some consensus? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:00, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Policy discussions on cruise lines are ongoing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:20, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Disney Cruise Line

Moved here from the traveller's pub

Could someone check this edit? An IP editor has repeatedly made these changes with a number of comments such as "could have been written by the Mouse himself" and "Revert to less promotional language", and I have reverted on the basis of Project:Tone. Despite my invitations to discuss the issue, no discussion has been forthcoming. Am I in the wrong here? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:05, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Your reverts seem fine, particularly if the anonymous user is unwilling to discuss. I took a stab at restoring most of the changes, but left in the references to "Canadian and US" customs since they seemed relevant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:06, 24 February 2011 (EST)

Merge/Redirect?

I read through this article. It's quite informative; however, similarly informative articles could be written about every other cruise line, and I thought I correctly understood site policy to preclude articles about individual cruise lines (or airlines, etc.). What makes Disney Cruise Lines an exception to the rule?

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:What is an article#Cruise ships -- Powers ^(talk) 02:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I read through that entire discussion. I think that opinion was running more against than for this article, but what it amounts to is that, as you argued, the Disney Line is an exception because it's mostly about what's on board, not about visiting ports of call or looking at scenery visible from the ship. I still think Peter (Southwood)'s proposal of Cruise ships/Disney Line might be better nomenclature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? That would be horrible for SEO and not the name under which people would expect to find it. Powers ^(talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out that the current name would redirect to the new name, but I'm not motivated to argue about this article's name. The main thing is that it's important to have a clear record of why this is an exceptional case in which a single cruise line can have its own article, and I'm satisfied that that's been established. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

The article should really be updated as they have 3 new ships arriving in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Also the get in about the passport in incorrect as you are not required to have a passport on a closed circuit trip i.e; leaving domestically and returning domestically. Only time you will need your passport is if you are on a one way trip to Spain or their other one way international destinations. Disney does however recommened you bring your passport as it will allow you to get home from an international port should anything happen to you. Otherwise you will have to go to an embassy to get a rushed emergency passport. Also Disney's Magical Express does take care of your bags if you are taking the Magical Express back to MCO, they will submit it through customs and it will meet you on your plane. You do have to go through customs but it a quick process only having to provide your id and customs declaration fourm. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, I don't particularly understand why no one has replied to, or bothered doing this, after almost 3 years. I'll do that right away. Also, because of COVID, their maiden voyages have been pushed back to 2022, 2024, and 2025. Also, there is going to be a second private destination, called Lighthouse Point, it's about 700 acres and is in the works to open in late 2022 or early 2023. SewChicago (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)