Talk:Icon of the Seas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Icon of the Seas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

It is requested that a photograph of the fully completed, in-service cruise ship be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Miami may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Christening by Lionel Messi

Wasn't that honor almost always accorded to a woman, historically speaking?

If we are abandoning obsolete stereotypes, that's okay, I suppose. But then, along the very same lines, how about finding a different word for it. "Christening" obviously has its origins in a particular religion. Toddcs (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keel laying date

We have two different dates listed for the keel laying: 28 January 2020, sourced to DNV; and April 2022, sourced to some unreliable cruise news rag. Normally I would go with DNV. But it appears there was a ceremony at Meyer Turku in 2022. I expect the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that ships don't actually have a keel laying any more, they're just assembled out of modules. 2020 seems a bit early and 2022 seems late if steel cutting and installation of the first modules both took place in 2021. I think we should either pick a date and stick to it, or note the discrepancy somehow. Opinions? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ship career template Template:Infobox_ship_career has the following definition for the "Ship laid down date": "The date on which the keel was laid down onto the slipway by the builder. For most ships, this is the point where construction of the vessel starts, and is usually accompanied by ceremony. Although modular construction techniques mean that fabrication of modern vessels can start prior to this, the first time a module is placed on the slipway or building dock is still recognised as the date a ship is laid down." I presume DNV date (28 January 2020) is the actual construction start and the other date (5 April 2022) is the ceremonial keel laying. Maybe the ceremonial date is more approriate here? In that case this would be reliable source https://www.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/press-release/1599/royal-caribbean-celebrates-keel-laying-for-icon-of-the-seas/ IlkkaP (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I made the change to the ceremonial date as it sounds we both are of the same opinion. (The 2020 date may even be the date for keel laying in Germany for the LNG tanks part of the hull that was later towed to Finland) IlkkaP (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One minor nit, the source doesn't actually say what day the ceremony took place. Sloppy on their part, and 5 April is close enough. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! When looking at the 2nd picture in the RCI press center article, the date is actually 4 April 2022 (visible on the plaque)! As it is in the source (although as a picture), suggest we update 4 April 2022 as the date IlkkaP (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I missed that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of the Seas picture

Current main picture appears to be a crop of an AP image that is for example in this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-largest-cruise-ship-icon-of-the-seas-begins-its-maiden-voyage-after-christening-from-lionel-messi/

I will replace with the other picture in the article for now IlkkaP (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple instances of people adding copyrighted photos of this ship. This ship is particularly notable so hopefully a Wikipedian can take a new picture of it soon! Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 05:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental claim about LNG

The environmental claim is basically that LNG is more harmful than traditional fuels IF methane contained in the LNG is not burnt properly as methane is released into the atmosphere in this case. If methane is burnt properly, the end result is water and carbon dioxide only. The engines in this ship are state-of-the-art, and difficult to believe they would not be burning LNG properly. Now this side of the argument is missing from the environmental claim. Need a more balanced treatment and source for the environmental claim in the article. IlkkaP (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Sky News source doesn't really include a response from Royal Caribbean other than a generic comment that doesn't address LNG directly. Sky says that Cruise Lines International Association says LNG reduces greenhouse gas emissions but doesn't do anything to resolve the discrepancy and doesn't go into any technical details. We need a better source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has an article which is even more critical of Royal Caribbean and in which they reply. I have no objection is editors prefer to use that source https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/26/icon-of-the-seas-largest-cruise-ship-human-lasagne-climate-fuel-lng-greenwashing Lyndaship (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quote from that source, but it doesn't directly address the greenhouse gas claim. I'd love to see a statement by someone who is independent, that is not an environmental activist and not a cruise line employee. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true but sadly these two interest groups tend to push their POVs. Theres quite a lot online about Methane slip but how much do we need to say on one individual cruise ship article? Doubtless later there will be a whole section on Environmental impact Lyndaship (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a possible source, from the NYT: Can the World’s Largest Cruise Ship Really Be Climate-Friendly? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the part about fuel cells. The source was dated 2022, so it was talking about the plan rather than what was actually installed when the ship went into service. The NYT source above says the fuel cells are not working yet, maybe not even installed yet. (It's unclear to me what "the batteries have not yet been installed" means.) GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article is more balanced and presents more neutral point of view compared to the Sky News article. I would prefer to source the LNG environmental claim from the NYT article and keep the treatment relatively short in Icon of the Seas article (more extensive treatment of LNG enviromental effects could be in some cruise industry article that is not about individual ships). IlkkaP (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't the place to discuss LNG environmental concerns in depth. I wish we could mention it here and link elsewhere for more detail. There doesn't seem to be anything about unburned methane emissions at Liquefied natural gas#Environmental concerns. By the way there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Icon of the Seas. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info.Cruise_ship#Environmental_impact could be the place to discuss LNG impact furher IlkkaP (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ship in service parameter

In Template:Infobox ship career Ship in service parameter has the following definition: “ The date a civilian vessel began operations. Alternatively, this may be treated as a date range indicating the start and end points of a ship's career. If being used in this manner, ignore the |Ship out of service= field.”

In all of the five Oasis class ships Oasis of the Seas, Allure of the Seas, Harmony of the Seas, Symphony of the Seas and Wonder of the Seas we have values type of “20xx-present”. I suggest we update “2024-present” here, or alternatively we should remove the parameter from Oasis class ships. IlkkaP (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tracking down the documentation. I would be fine with changing it back to a range. But note that a date range takes a dash, not a hyphen. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we have the date of the maiden voyage, is there any actual point in having anything in the in service parameter? I have always regarded it is as an alternative when the date of the mv and, if appropriate, the date of withdrawal are not available. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if the in-service and maiden voyage dates could be different there would be some value in knowing they are the same for this particular ship. But I don't feel strongly about this. When would these dates be different? Like a cargo ship that begins loading on one date then starts its voyage a few days later? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe best not to use In service line here at all as there is already Maiden voyage line telling the same. The use in other articles is not consistent though. IlkkaP (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about the dash. We're just going to ignore the MOS in this article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is there another image of the ship

Is there another image of Icon of the Seas to replaces the image of the ship in sea trials Beluga732 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple other images, but none of them do a good enough job of capturing the entire ship to be the new main photo, in my opinion. Hopefully some higher-quality images are uploaded in the near future. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is there any wikipedian who saw icon of the seas? if they took a photo of the entire ship with nothing blocking it, its a perfect photo to replace the one of the ship on sea trial Beluga732 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this hurry to replace the original image? She still looks the same now as then. The time to change it is when she gets a new livery or, less likely, a major reconstruction. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem — she doesn't look the same now. The current main image was taken before the ship was ready for revenue service, and therefore the ship looks different than it does today. For example, the paintjob is incomplete and there isn't any of the branding that is present on the ship now. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Unfortunately I don't think she comes anywhere near me in her travels. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fault

Do we need to report here every time there is a technical fault that results in a week of downtime? Also I wonder how reliable the source is, they seem to be barely literate. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incident appears to have happened, but per WP:NOTNEWS the technical fault and the previous fire news should be removed. IlkkaP (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]