Talk:Cruise ship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image accompanying "Environmental Impact"

The image next to the section on Environmental impact's title seems to suggest it is more about the seals than the ships in the background. Is the image necessary? Does it add to the section at all? It seems a bit insubstantial and does not actually convey any information. I don't think it adds anything to the article, and like I said, its actually an image of some seals. Does anyone else think it should stay?

I Bow Down Before the Gods of Wikipedia (IBDBTGOW)

Apparently, an external link to a consumer website about "cruise ship passenger rights" is A Heinous Violation of Divine Wikipedia Law (AHVODW). It is Damnable Link Spam from the Pits of Hell (DLSFTPOH). If God wanted cruise passengers to know their rights, He would speak through his One True Prophet on Earth and Internet (OTPOEAI), Wikipedia. However, a link to some lady's website about how much she LOOOOOOVES to cruise is Divinely Inspired and Immaculate Holy Writ (DIAIHW).

Mere mortal that I am, I cannot hope to understand such wisdom. I Now Wet Myself in Submissive Humility (INWMISH).

For the intellectually impaired and for Wikipedia meta-editors (but I repeat myself), I will now translate the above sarcasm into literal English using No Big Words (NBW): Have I seen the limits of your stupidity, or is there more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.233.20 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with the information, but the site. It appears to be an exact copy of the Coast Guard information page. The USGS site should be linked (done), not a commercial site which mirrors it. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Food

Where are statistics on how much food is on a cruise ship?

Added statistics on food consumption. Gsloan 02:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Links

Added link to "External Links" "Types of Cruiselines." Removed link to Discount Cruises

Staffing

Would love more information on how the ships are run. My research has shown that most ships are staffed almost exclusively from Italy, India, China, Eastern Europe, with very few Americans. Since the ships are not under the protection of any one government (traveling through different waters) most of the crew members do not pay taxes on their wages. This is a great benefit to them and the Cruise companies... they pay them less as a result. American's are the only ones who must still pay income taxes regardless of where the boat starts out or ends up. These are massive moving countries if you will. They have the law of the ship. For example the doctors aboard are not subject to American standards of practice. They are within their rights to treat a patient one day and have sex with her the next.

Cruise Ship Terminals

There is no mention of where a cruise goes, or the requirements for larger cruise ships such as superyachts and luxury liners. This is a very important environmental, economic and geographical issue. The installation of Cruise Ship Terminals greatly affects the surrounding environment insofar as depth, sea walls, and habitat for various aquatic organisms such as fish and aquatic vegetation. AQjosh

Environmental Disaster

they are an environmental disaster. they dump raw sewage directly into the ocean (without any treatment) which pollutes waters. they also carry invasive species from one habitat to another. this is a major threat to biodiversity. i was actually looking at the cruise ships article to find out more.

Sounds interesting. I don't know anything about that. Why don't you add what you know, to give people a framework to add more? -- Aaronwinborn 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - whilst on Carnival's Fantasy the other month, they claimed in a video on-board that all sewage onboard the ship is treated with chemicals before being flushed into the sea. On short cruises, and where available, it claimed that the sewage is usually stored and then transported (im assuming via a tube/pipe) to a truck, and then sent to a special facility to clean the waste. However, it could be all rubbish, and they're trying to sound good, as I cant say that you could prove it without working for them. -- pmhtuk 20.27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked on cruise ships 20 years ago. All sewage was treated even then prior to being pumped over board. On the SS Oriana and SS Canberra the holds the had previously been used for cargo in their days as passenger liners were filled with aerobic digestion tanks. No doubt environmental legislation since then has made the requirements for sewage treatment even greater- some enclosed waters I believe do prohibit the pumping out of treated sewage and tanks haved to be pumped out ashore. And as far as transporting invasive creatures from one place to another, all shipping has the potential to do that- not just cruise ships. Ballast water, pumped into ballast tanks in one area of the world and discharged in another, has long been recognised as a source of invasive species. Various organisations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the International Maritime Organisation are working towards solutions for this problem. All of the major cruise ship operators spend a lot of money making their ships as environmentally friendly as possible, including the design of their engines. Many modern ships have been fitted with Gas Turbines for operation in environmentally sensitive areas, as these engine, although very much more expensive to run, produce less pollutants and visible smoke. Advances in diesel engine technology have also resulted in much lower emissions [1]. I would suggest that the person who chose to remain anonymous should do some research and quote sources before posting comments like those above.--Dashers 23:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say I read the same thing regarding their negative environmental impact, albeit a year or two ago. I will do a bit of research and see what turns up Tellkel 09:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cruise-ships and most shipping industries are well-known for being environmentally detrimental to varying degrees. The fuels they use are considered some of the least regulated, solid waste is often dumped at sea or at the ports with the least expenses or regulations, invasive species are regularly transported and deposited with detrimental impact, and the very nature of being a conspicuous consumption industry lends to resources being packaged as disposable (convenient). These issues should be addressed fully elsewhere but at least summarized in the article. Benjiboi 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnival ships/Hurricane Katrina

The paragraph on the use of Carnival ships for housing Hurricane Katrina victims is too specific for a general article such as this. I propose to move it to the Carnival Cruise Lines page. Kablammo 01:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kablammo 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a mention of cruise ships is appropriate. At least a cross reference to the use in natural disasters or the Athens Olymics say.

Way Bigger is Way Better

Is there any place where we can put this information?--Xlegiofalco 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14471443/?GT1=8404

Confusing two uses of liners

The book "Liners to the Sun" explains in detail: Historically, there's a basic division between two kinds of passengers on liners: people who are travelling, and people who are not trying to get from place to place, but are partying, enjoying the sun, etc. Liners now have almost exclusively the second kind of people. 60 years ago, the opposite was true.

This Wiki article keeps skipping back and forth between the two uses, for example the comment about "transatlantic crossing taking four days" has to do with to liners as transportation. So do the comments about jets taking away ship business. But some other comments -- without being clear -- only pertain to liners as pleasure boats.

Luxury liners were always incredibly opulent (it's not just with the advent of the tourist trade) and "organized like floating hotels". Practically every aspect of ship structure, cabin design, crew, social arrangements were not developed for the tourist industry, but simply appropriated when times changed.

Somebody above makes the comment that the ships are polluting, etc. That may be so, but facts need to be cited to demonstrate that the modern party ships are any more wasteful than, for example, flying 1,000s of miles to spend a few days at a resort. Both may be extravagant, but probably liners shouldn't be singled out for that.

Here's an interesting resource which is available on Google books: "Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Ship Industry".

Also, on the positive side, if you choose to see it that way, cruise ships are a big asset for a country in times of war (think of how the troops got to the Falklands). Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and that confusion spills over into other areas as well-- adding cruise ships to the list of ocean liners, etc. At one time there was a good definition of the difference, but it was replaced with a poorer definition based on a New Zealand newspaper, and the link supporting the original definition has now gone dead. What these articles need is someone to monitor them and improve them, not just the hit-and-miss approach that some-- myself included-- take. It sound like you have useful content to add. Please do so, if you feel so inclined. Kablammo 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get my copy of "Liners to the Sun" back from my Dad. The author seemed to have a definite idea how to distinguish the two basic types of passenger. Perhaps it'd be useful as a "restarting point"? I also just read the Google Books preview pages on "Cruise Ship Blues". I'm more interested, myself, in sociology/technology/history, but there seems to be a lot of meat in the topic of cruise ships for someone who wants to take an "investigative journalism" tack. Ecological abuses, deceptive advertising, ignoring consumer rights...wow. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for my Additions

I have added on a new sub-topic entitled, Caribbean Cruising Industry. I am a 4th year history student, and my major assignment was to add information to an already existing or brand new Wikipedia topic. I have chosen to add more information to an already existing topic. I have also added a reference list pertaining to my information, as a means to allow the readers understand where my information is coming from. Enjoy!--DancinChica0514 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DancinChica, welcome to Wikipedia! It's great that you explained what you were doing. It really helps when other people who have been working on some page for a long time have a look. Your citations don't quite fit with the Wiki style...you're citing the author, followed by page number? As a "book report" for school, this works pretty well, but to make it a "permanent" addition to a Wiki article, it needs to stand up to the Wiki guidelines (which can be a little daunting at first). In Wiki, a few types of statements are really "not allowed", and as such will get deleted pretty quickly. For example, material that sounds like advertising. (Phrases like "There is one thing left to do, explore for yourself what Caribbean Tourism is all about!") A good approach is to imagine: Would I ever read this sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I'm not going to change anything in your article, I understand it's for an assignment. But long term, folks would ask for a fair amount of modification. If you're interested in this beyond a school assignment, by all means stick around to watch the process. Regards Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comments and advice. I am going to make some further changes so that it doesn't sound like I am advertising. I am still trying to understand how to cite properly in Wikipedia, I admit I am finding it very confusing though. Hopefully I'll have it all fixed very soon. Thank you for giving me the time though, and not deleting it! ---- DancinChica0514 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

DC-- I have changed the reference format. While your format was acceptable, once an article is started in one format, another should not be introduced. If you look at how I have handled the first footnote (click on Edit to see the code), you will see how to do it. Right after the punctuation mark in the text, add <ref>, then the cite, then close with a </ref>. If you look down below on the edit page you will see Wiki markup with those symbols in the first or second line (depending on your browser); all you have to do is click on it and they will appear in the edit box where you left your cursor. Then insert the source in between them (between the > and the <). Then when you save the changes the footnote will show up on the page. Be sure to include the "/" near the end before the second ref, otherwise it will not work right. Good job on cleaning up your additions; the article is shaping up. -- Kablammo (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through my article, cleaned it up more and took your advice about how to footnote my work. I hope I did it right. Thank you again for the help, I'm trying not to get my additions deleted since it is for a school assignment. ---- DancinChica0514 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good. The next step is to treat the websites the same way. There a number of ways to do it; all start with the <ref></ref> format. Now you have to insert the websites. The way I like to do it is to go to Citation templates, scroll down, and find one of the templates for web citations. You insert that between the > and the <, and fill it in. Don't worry if you don't have all the fields-- very few citations do. But you do need a title and a url. Try one out, and when it works, do the others. -- Kablammo (talk)

I just completed adding websites to the list of references. Hopefully I have done this correctly. Thank you again for taking the time to help me out with this. I really appreciate it. ---- DancinChica0514 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chica, it looks like you're enjoying yourself: I hope you decide to become a regular Wiki contributor. I did remove your signature from the main article. Signatures don't go in the article (if people want to know who wrote something, they look under the History tab). On talk pages, on your user page, etc., on the other hand, signatures are the normal way to go. Regards Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey There! Sorry about that, I just wanted to make sure my professor would know what I have posted exactly, that's why I placed my signature. At least I know he will be able to know by looking at the history. Thank you for the help. I am enjoying myself with this, I have never contributed to Wikipedia before. I'm glad I'm starting to get the hang of it all. --DancinChica0514 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I just added some internal links to direct the readers to the actual cruise line Wikipedia pages. --DancinChica0514 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)