Talk:Allure of the Seas

Image copyright problem with Image:NewClassGenesis.jpg

The image Image:NewClassGenesis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

DNV Exchange says that the overall length of the Allure of the Seas is the same as that of the Oasis of the Seas i.e. 360 m (1,181 ft). I believe that this figure, coming from a database maintained by the classification society, is more reliable than that coming from Fakta om Fartyg which does not list its sources and is, if I have understood correctly, maintained by a single person. The article also claims, without inline citation, that the ship is 362 meters (1,187 ft) long — the same figure is also given in the list of world's longest ships. Then there is all this "x longer than Oasis of the Seas" talk, with x varying between 5 millimetres and 2 inches depending on who you ask. Everyone seems to be talking about it, but I have yet to see a reliable source...

So, what's the actual length of the Allure of the Seas? Tupsumato (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the actual size. For the time being, DNV is probably the best source we can hope for...I've been meaning to do some work on Allure and Oasis, but just haven't found the time to dedicate. For now, I've cleaned up the article's citations, replaced some dead links, and standardised the length to just 360 m. I've left the two inch remark as Fox Business is considered a reliable source, and I don't have anything immediately on hand that says something else. When I have more time, I'll see what else I can find, and do some more cleaning. If you find anything yourself, leave a note here with the source, and I'll try to find a way to integrate it into the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally stumbled across an article (Shipgaz No 6, 2010, pp. 22-25) about the Allure of the Seas that mentions the 50 mm (2 in) difference between the lengths of the Oasis class ships:

As a matter of fact it is not quite correct to declare the Allure of the Seas and the Oasis of the Seas identical twins. Officially the Allure of the seas is 50 mm longer than the Oasis of the Seas, which project director Topivo Ilvonen [sic] of STX Finland assures that is not intentional. "Indeed this is a curiosity only. In a ship that is 360 metres long such small differences may occur due to the temperatures of the steel," he explains. (Shipgaz No 6, 2010)

Based on this I made some changes to the ship's article and also copied some factual information (mainly the displacement) from the article of the Oasis of the Seas. Still, as the length of the ship according to the DNV database is 360 metres, I wouldn't go and change the length to "360.05 m" in the infobox or the article about the longest ships — the true length of the ship is probably something different. I also removed the reference to the Daily Mail article as the common mistakes made by mainstream media about passing the bridge were corrected in the article published in a professional magazine which I consider a more reliable source.

I also added some headings to the article, but unfortunately I do not have time to contribute any additional content. However, if someone else works on the article in the future, I can review it. Tupsumato (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

I have opened a discussion regarding the use and possible improvement of citation templates for classification society databases here. Tupsumato (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Beam

I think there's something iffy in the infobox. According to DNV Exchange, which I personally consider to be the most reliable source when it comes to technical details such as main dimensions, the maximum beam (Bext) of the vessel is 60.5 m. That's probably measured from the bridge wings. I am willing to accept the RCCL figure (65 m) as well if they have added something that protrudes from the ship, but "max moulded" is definitely wrong as the moulded beam is measured only for the hull, not for the superstructure.

However, I'll leave editing for the person who seems to be aggressively protecting the infobox in the Oasis class articles. Tupsumato (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidents

Why was the incident section removed? All of these three incidents are worthy of inclusion in this article as they are notable events in the ships lifetime. Two persons overboard and an engine fire are major events on a vessel. Looking at many other articles on cruise ships, the majority also have small sections on major incidents that occurred on the ship. Why is this article different? FirstDrop87 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Keel laying date

We have two keel laying dates: 31 March and 2 December 2008 for this ship, what is keel laying date, I always take this date from register, if exists.

What is keel laying date? we can read at § 30.10-37

Keel laying date—TB/ALL.

The term keel laying date means the date upon which progressive construction identifiable with a specific vessel begins, including construction of the first module or prefabricated section of the hull that is identifiable with that vessel.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976], thanks--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that there is an issue here, and with various other data points involving DNV. Whilst DNV (which is known to have issues with its data) says "31 March", I can cite multiple other news sources which state "2 December", and are clearly referring to the textbook definition as you stated above. As I suggested in the edit summary, only use DNV when you simply have nothing else to refer to. I consider it a resource of last resort. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's photographic evidence of the keel being physically laid down in the construction basin on 2 December 2008. However, the offical keel laying date can be different if there has been a need to go around some upcoming rules.

As for reliability, I prefer official databases over private websites such as FoF. Tupsumato (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree about FoF...when I can get around to it, I'm probably going to changes its citations to other sources. I admit I'm on a different angle from the situation from you, though...I prefer news/media sources over even official databases where possible. IMO a database can have difficult-to-reconcile statements and even errors, whereas a news story which has a clear publication date and relational timing ("such and such occurred yesterday/today/last Tuesday") is much more difficult to muck up. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, news stories sometimes have stupid errors because the reporters are not specialists in the field of ships and shipbuilding. In fact, I got so fed up with news articles claiming that "Oasis of the Seas weighs 225,000 tons" that I made a video out of that in YouTube... ;)

I could, in theory, ask someone working at the shipyard about the official keel laying date of NB1364, but regardless of what they might say, it cannot be used as a reference for the article. I think we should use the date when the keel block was lowered into the drydock and hull assembly began (2 December 2008). Tupsumato (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed regarding some news sources completely flubbing their reporting or simply being lazy, but in this case I have no reservations given the very specific nature of the dating and how it is reported. If there were other, contradictory news sources (which I've not seen), then we'd have a bigger issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Febuary Drydocking

I added the Febuary drydocking to the article as I thought it is an issue with the ship and a cruise has been cancelled, which I thought was worthy of being added. Also, it made it onto the news pages as well? Thoughts please? MrDerails (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it's worth adding as it's an out-of-schedule docking. Apparently they have problems with the Azipods. Tupsumato (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I still worry about this being UNDUE/Recentism/unencyclopedic-in-nature reporting in the article. If it can be significantly reduced in size with additional past Allure drydocking info (and perhaps some explanatory text regarding drydocking) it might not be so bad, especially if the Azipod issues can be expounded upon. I'm extremely wary of random news events being thrown in ship articles, when in reality they are nothing more than filler. Events like the Costa Concordia wreck are definitely worthy of inclusion, but I don't feel even (unfortunately common) overboarding events should be presented in an encyclopedic article. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time that the Allure goes into drydock. Also, it's not a scheduled drydocking. Let's see if we'll get more information about where, how and why it'll be docked. It's probably nothing serious, though.

As for length etc. issues, one of the great things in Wikipedia is that we're not running out of space anytime soon. At the moment, the body of this article is shorter than the infobox and I'm using a 12" laptop! It shouldn't be that way for the largest passenger ship in the world (for now). In my eyes, having an online encyclopedia means that we can actually write longer articles and include more details than in a traditional printed encyclopedia. Based on this, my personal goal is to make every ship article the largest collection of information about the topic, one that you cannot find from anywhere else in a single place. Tupsumato (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, it's not a matter of file size (or even article size), but undue weight given to that particular event. It's simply not notable. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is potential for notability if the ship has continued maintenance problems going forward, but this single event is not notable. In ten years from now, will this occurrence be relevant to history of the ship? Probably not.FirstDrop87 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I look at it, if a ship has to be drydocked or can't operate which requires the cancelling of a cruise or voyage, that is significant enough to add into an article. If it is just "the ship had [an issue] but it was sorted and it went on it's way" its not worthy in my mind, and I don't add it. MrDerails (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallery

I added more photographs to the gallery of the ship's interior. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

16 decks?

The intuitive count going by pictures is 15 decks, and that counts the really high partial decks that don't even cover a quarter of the area of the ship. Unless there is a deck at the waterline with no windows, or they are skipping 13, it seems like there are only 15 decks. B137 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@B137: There are actually 17 decks, 16 of which are passenger accessible. Deck 1 is not passenger accessible and doesn't have windows. Deck 2 is only used by passengers when leaving and boarding the ship in ports of call and when visiting the medical facility, and has tiny windows. There is no deck 13, and the highest deck that the elevators travel to is deck 17. However, deck 17 is the first floor of two-story loft suites, so the upper floors of those loft suites are on Deck 18 per the deck plans. Those loft suites have single tall windows spanning both decks, and there are two decks behind the life boats, either of which might be confusing your count. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MS Symphony of the Seas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)