Talk:Oasis of the Seas

Order Box

Regarding the box that notes the order of largest ships: (Does that kind of thing have a name?) I've removed it from this page because I note that it is a prediction. I'm confident that the information is correct should MS Oasis of the Seas be completed on time, however this is not something we can be certain of and it therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. We can dance around it a bit in the article's lead by saying that it is expected to be once construction is completed, but those little boxes don't allow that kind of dancing... —  X  S  G  14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely the correct action, and I feel a bit foolish not catching it myself. Good work. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that an unlinked, and presumably unbuilt, ship is listed as succeeding this one as largest. I don't want to monkey with the box, but it should be removed as well, shouldn't it?--otherlleft 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The "successor" is "Incumbent". Perhaps the field should have been left blank. Kablammo (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Titanic?

This ship is supposed to be unsinkable, if you believe the company brochures. I'm a bit hesitant to swallow that, as it goes only 9 meters deep, but 65 meters tall, therefore everything must be paper-thin in it, unless those finnish engineers invented a way to fool Archimedes' law. Whole battleships totally clad in armour have been sunk with as little as two torpedos and a big cruise ship sunk on an underwater rock in the Santorini crater two years ago, so the article could elaborate on the ways this giant of a ship hopes to avoid destruction at the hand of TNT-laden jihad inflatables or nasty reefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The actual order of the three largest liners goes as: (largest to smallest, not counting the allure of the seas) 1 Oasis of the seas 2 Britannic 3 Titanic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe352 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an apples vs oranges comparison here. Britannic and Titanic were OCEAN liners. OotS is a CRUISE liner. Different sorts of ships, design for very different purposes. Oasis of the Seas is designed to cruise about on a mill-pond delivering a high-class but affordable holiday experience. Britannic and Titanic were designed to cross the North Atlantic quickly, in any weather, whilst delivering a high-class (but not particularly affordable) way to get from the UK to the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get your list of "the largest liners"? First of all, Oasis of the Seas is a cruise ship, not an ocean liner. Titanic and her sisters also held the title of the biggest passenger ship in the world only for a year or so, as SS Imperator was launched in 1913. See the article about passenger ships for a list of largest passenger ships of their time.

I would also like to see the source in which RCCL claims that Oasis of the Seas is unsinkable. Could you provide a link if it's online? I seriously doubt that any company in these days would claim that their ships are unsinkable, as the general public would immedialy make a negative mental connection to Titanic.

Many people seem to be concerned about the stability of the ship as the draft is relatively small in comparison with the overall height from the waterline. Keep in mind that despite the "top-heavy" look the center of gravity is not that high, as main engines, propulsion units and other heavy machinery, fuel, freshwater and ballast tanks etc. are all located in the lower decks. There are also pretty large open areas, such as the central park, that reduce the weight of the upper decks. --Tupsumato (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has way too much words on GotS' vanity and indulgence facilities and little solid info on the shipyard engineering! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure a lot of that "unsinkable" stuff is just public relations, though you have to admit that technology and manufacturing methods are certainly improved over a century ago. I don't know what kind of engineering they are using to secure bulkheads, but I'm sure the vessel will be much more resistant to flooding than Titanic. However, very little can be done to protect against a large explosion, though the fact that the USS Cole remained afloat after that attack should show that, while deadly, they aren't necessarily deal-breakers.

As for the cruft, yeah, I hope to get rid of much of that soon, though I'd prefer to have more in the way of news sources to use. For engineering stuff, if you can find any such sources, feel free to post and collect them here, so they can be used whenever the article is rewritten. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure she's "unsinkable" - she appears to have a pretty open rear end. How are they going to deal with storms and high seas with such a hollowed-out ship? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Every vessel is "unsinkable" novadays if you read just brochures.. You have to make customers believe that absolutely nothing can happen to them in OUR cruise..

Well, it's hard for customers to know, what's the truth when you are taking your first step in a worlds createst cruisevessel.. Oasis may look unstable, because her draft is only 9 meters but she's 65meters tall.. You should watch the other facts too.. Beam of the ship is 47 meters and bottom is almost as wide as the beam.. That's why she needs only 9,15 meters water. And of cource she has chinekeels and fin stabilizers, as every cruisevessels, makes her even more stable.. They say that she will float easily in "worst case scenario." In this scenario ship has a damage thats length is one main fire zone (Whole ship has 8MFZ:s) so that crack would be about 45 meters. They have tested this in a smaller scale, hopefully they don't ever have to test it in a truescale.

Finnish shipbuilders are worlds best in building incredible creations.. Oasis is one good example of a ship this kind.. JamppaL —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

NPOV

I've just been reading this, and whilst it reads very well and makes me want to go on a cruise, it appears to have been written by the marketing department of the cruise line.

Comments such as "it is a place that people will enjoy", "beautiful view", "it's easy to make new friends", "takes vacationing to a whole new level".... not only has the ship not even been finished yet, but it's rather an assumption that every tourist is going to hold this opinion. The text has just been lifted from the PR literature.

I'm loathe to tidy the article up without incurring the wrath of the editors, so I'm flagging it for NPOV to see what people think. Cheers, Steve 86.166.47.127 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Have updated it to remove obvious objective PR content. 86.166.47.127 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take a shot at cleaning up the article, please feel free to do so! Your changes look great so far, so I encourage you to continue. Any sources you can provide would be welcome as well. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an external link to a June 2009 article in The Atlantic to add outside perspective. There should be something about this in the body of the article itself but I didn't go that far. Jwarhol (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Four months later - and I still think there is room to improve the neutrality of the article - especially in the "Neighbourhoods" section. Ronstew (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The names of the navigation crew should be removed. It is not relevant. The Captian can probably stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove. Tupsumato (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oasis of the Seas

The information on this ship is not current at all. The ship is being delivered ahead of schedule and is fully funded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.3.116 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just added funding info. Its been bothering me for a while. --Devin122 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it necessary to include that their annual report said that they might not be able to secure funding? They did secure funding, after all. Putting a blurb in the risk assessment section of their annual report doesn't necessarily mean that it's a big concern. A cruise line might also put, for instance, that there's a risk that the price of fuel will skyrocket and cut into their bottom line, but that wouldn't necessarily be something you'd need to put on RCI's wiki page. I'm going to go ahead and delete the line about the uncertainty related to funding since it's irrelevant now anyway. Feel free to revert if you guys discuss it and feel otherwise. 96.237.120.177 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New Photo

Oasis of the Seas has departed for her sea trials, and she needs a new photo. If you look on Oasis of the Seas and click on photos, you will find a link that says downloadable images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.231.252 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These are copyrighted images and not acceptable for use on this article, since we already have a free image. Hopefully someone can snap a pic of her current form and present it in an appropriate license. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your right. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.231.252 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A Little More

More photos! And more information on the engineering of this very interesting vessel. The stuff about the amenities if fine but lets get more on the engineering. Gingermint (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Engines

This brochure says that installed power is "3 Wärtsilä 12V Engines each 13860 kW and 3 Wärtsilä 16V Engines, each 18480 kW", instead of 8 Wärtsilä V12 Engine @ 17,500 hp each, cited by all other websites. True or false? Alpha Centaury (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true.. Oasis has 3 x 12V46 and 3 x 16V46 engines by wärtsilä of cource.. JamppaL —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC).

Moreover, they are D-rating (1155 kW/cyl). The complete type names are Wärtsilä 12V46D and 16V46D. If they are equipped with common rail, there is also "CR" at the end. --Gwafton (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article currently uses the engine names provided in the source given, so until a specific source is found that give the full engine names as they apply to this ship, I'd suggest leaving it as-is. I mean, having the exact engine names would be nice, but hardly a requirement for the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This source tells the engine type is Wärtsilä 46, the cylinder configurations are V12 and V16 and they are equipped with common rail technology. As I mentioned before, they are D-rating (1155 kW/cyl). Therefore, the engine types are Wärtsilä 12V46D CR and Wärtsilä 16V46D CR. For some reason the complete engine types are not mentioned anywhere. I find it strange because for many people it is interesting to know what technology is used. Anyway, I will not edit the article as I don't have exact sources. --Gwafton (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the data! But don't stop looking...I mean, I too enjoy this type of stuff, I'm just not good at locating the info apparently. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DNV machinery summary here. Kablammo (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I updated the output rating accordingly.

I wonder if Wärtsilä has dropped the "CR" off from the engine type names - maybe common rail technology is so widely used nowadays that it is seen useless to mention it. --Gwafton (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct units of power are kW (kilowatt) or MW (megawatt). kWh (kilowatt-hour) is unit of energy and cannot be used in this context. The article should be corrected. IlkkaP (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now corrected, I believe. Kablammo (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GRT?

Does anyone use GRT anymore? For a proper comparison, shouldn't we stick with displacement and gross tonnage? Especially seeing as Oasis of the Seas isn't a cargo vessel, yet they seem to have calculated the GRT for a bulk carrier! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed, but as stated below, Royal Carribean's PR department are confused as well.

Wikipedia has made a little progress in correcting confusion between displacement and burthen, a fair amount of progress in correcting confusion between dispacement and gross tonnage or gross register tonnage, but almost no progress in eliminating confusion between gross tonnage and gross register tonnage (admittedly, a confusing area — look at this illustration from one of the referenced sources, and the line's "presskit" on the vessel). Adherence to reliable, third-party sources should help alleviate that. Kablammo (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The builder however gets it right,[1] but rounds the figure to 225,000 gt. Kablammo (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Third-party sources

Sometimes the only readily-available sources of information on a new vessel are the line's website, or websites catering to cruise enthusiasts (which often rely on press information distributed by the cruise line). Once a ship is rated by a classification society it is a good idea to use its information, as such entities are independent and reliable third party sources.

An example: Although the official tonnage rating for Freedom of the Seas is 154,407 GT,[2] the line itself continues to use the figure of 160,000,[3] which was the estimate given or projected by the line prior to completion of the vessel. The same cruise line projected the tonnage of Oasis to be 220,000, a figure still used in some of its information.[4] But the recent presskit uses the higher, actual measurement by the rating society of 225,282 (and misidentifies the measure as GRT rather than GT).[5] We should rely on reliable third-party sources, if available, not information from, or based on, press releases. Kablammo (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Horsepower

It's more powerful than the Emma Maersk? which has the largest engine ever built; this has 6 which all add up to about 10,000 more horsepower; strange. I guess this probably goes faster (25). 74.37.237.106 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Emma Mærsk is a bit faster. The propulsion systems are completely different in these vessels. Emma Mærsk has got a conventional mechanical propulsion whereas Oasis of the Seas is equipped with diesel electric propulsion; see Ship#Propulsion_systems. There are separate auxiliary engines in Emma Mærsk for electricity. In Oasis all the six engines are producing electricity and only part of it is used for the propellers. The electicity consumption on the upper decks of Oasis is remarkably higher compared to Emma Mærsk.

And please try to forget the horsepowers, we are living in the 21st century. ;) --Gwafton (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gender usage in this article

Should this article refer to the boat as "she" and "her"? Last I checked boats are inanimate objects without gender. I understand that conventionally ships are called "she", but in an encyclopedia I feel it should always be referred to as "it" or "the ship" or some other neutral term. 72.37.244.28 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia follows a long-standing English language convention for giving ship feminine grammatical gender. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") patsw (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A minor detail that doesn't belong in the lede

While exiting the Baltic Sea, the vessel passed underneath the Great Belt Fixed Link in Denmark on 1 November 2009 with less than 2 feet (0.6 m) of clearance.

Is there a reason for its placement here? patsw (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The text orginally mentioned a "close call", and cited a somewhat breathless account of the passage.[6] Undoubtedly luck had nothing to do with it; the air draft of the bridge and vessel surely were taken into account. Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

From the recent additions,[7] there appears to be more of a story here. Possible sources:[8] [9] The second one has more detail on the squat effect. Kablammo (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a question about reference to "the pass under bridge clearance ..." I added. It was from a video from onboard by the captain. Due to javascript I can't refer directly but if anyone can do this, here is the script: <script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=360&embedCode=4ycTd5Ok70VupO95K9Xos4KrQ-6QmhQ3&width=640&autoplay=1"></script>

the video is displayed at: http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.116.66 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The height of the vessel given in the reference 10, refers to Keel to top height of 72m and not from the waterline, otherwise it would not have fit under the bridge, which has clearance stated 57m! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.231.147 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the vessel is 72 m above waterline. The passage under the bridge was made possible by retracting the funnels. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The caption of the picture showing the ship leaving Turku reads "Leaving the Turku shipyard, with flue pipes retracted to allow the ship to clear the Great Belt Bridge later in the day." The distance from Turku to the Great Belt is roughly 900 km (560 miles), which means that even at top speed the trip would have taken some 22 hours -- and it would have been impossible (and illegal) for the ship to sail at top speed through the Turku archipelago, not to mention that she should have set off immediately after midnight and the picture shows a sunny day. The ship actually departed from Turku on the morning of Thursday, October 29th and sailed under the bridge early on Sunday, November 1st, in other words more than two days later. News and other data, including the video of the passage, confirm that the 72 meters refers to height above the waterline. The difference was made up by retracting the funnels, timing the passage to low tide, and the squat effect, which contributed about a foot to the clearance--Death Bredon (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Death Bredon, most of what you wrote is already in the article (though there is some contention from the shipyard that the squad effect played no actual part in the passage due to water depth). If you can provide a reliable source regarding the dates of departure and such, that would be useful. I'll note that the metadata of the photograph you mentioned (File:Oasis of the seas leaving STX shipyard, Turku, Finland.JPG) shows that it was taken on 30 October 2009 at 08:02, so taken that morning (also mentioned in the descriptive text). Apparently it cleared the bridge just after midnight on 1 November. That suggests they had about 40 hours to get from the shipyard to the bridge. I'm not sure where the 900 km comes from...from looking at maps, it appears to be well less than 700 km. Regardless, here's a nice video from Royal Caribbean about the passage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjvUnila4Wg. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Lifeboats

Sure "She's a sturdy ship Captian." *in my Scotty voice* but does she have enough lifeboats to get everyone off in an emergency... I hate it that I have seen "Titanic" 4 times. I would HAVE to know this before I took a cruise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.188.242 (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever since SOLAS you don't have to worry about that. Kablammo (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

She has a total lifeboat capacity of 6660. That's enough for just under 80 per cent of her maximum compliment of passengers and crew. Liferafts are carried for the remaining 20 per cent. Fionnlaoch (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but what's the source for that number? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparisions with other ships

On another Titanic comparision: Given the differences in tonnage measurements over time, we likely cannot claim (at least without a reliable source], that Oasis was n times the size of the older vessel. Gross tonnage is not the same as gross register tonnage (and there were different measurements of the latter), and someone, preferably a reliable, third-party source, who is conversant with the method used for each vessel would have to make the comparision. Kablammo (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor should the size of this vessel be compared with warships, at least without reliable sources and an exact measure of what is being compared. To take a recent example (which I have just removed): The statement was made that Oasis is larger than USS Ronald Reagan. It is true that the Reagan is shorter than Oasis, and the carrier's hull is narrower at the waterline. Her flight deck however is wider than the superstructure of Oasis, and the carrier has a much deeper draft. We do not know the exact displacement of Oasis (although there is an approximation), as the relevant measure for passenger ships is gross tons, a measure of volume. Warships are measured only by displacement; they are not rated by gross tonnage and therefore we have no measure of gt. Kablammo (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency

Is there any information available on the ship's fuel usage, such as the number of litres used to travel the average kilometre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilnyckyj (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wärtsilä informs the SFOC is 170 - 177 g/kWh (see this brochure).

The ship is equipped with diesel electric propulsion. The engines are connected to alternators and the propelles are run electrically. The maximum output of the propellers is 3 × 20 Mw = 60 MW. This means that the fuel consumption at the max cruise speed is 0.177 kg/kWh × 60,000 kW = 10,620 kg/h (divided by the efficiency ratio of course). The HFO density is about 900 kg/m³ which means that the consumption calculated by volume is 11.8 m³/h.

The maximum speed of the vessel is 22.6 knots = 41.9 km/h. The fuel consumption per 100 km is: 11.8m³ / 0,419 × 100 km = 28.2 m³/100 km. This means 25.3 ton / 100 km.

Note:

• The energy conversion efficiency is not included in the calculation
• The calculation only includes the energy that is needed for moving of the ship; other energy consumption is not included
• The area of the best efficiency for a modern marine diesel is generally at around 75%...85% load

In practice, the fuel consumption is much higher. But the modern marine diesels (Wärtsilä, MAN etc.) are very energy efficient. Consumption of 177 g/kWh (if it's true) is a very low value for a four-stroke engine. See this comparison. Gwafton (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwafton, you seem extremely well-versed in this. The article would be improved by adding a paragraph or two on the power and propulsion systems, perhaps in the technical details section. Kablammo (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the calculation above, it is based on incomplete datas and cannot be used in the article.

In my opinion it would be the best to write separate articles about the machinery. They could be linked to any articles in which the same components are used. I have started an article about Wärtsilä 46 in Finnish but it is lacking of technical information, photos and sources: fi:Wärtsilä 46 --Gwafton (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwafton: I agree that highly technical aspects may belong in separate articles. I have endeavoured to provide a basic description here. Please correct, amend, and supplement as appropriate. I have not yet found information on how the mechanical power is converted to electricity, nor is it clear to me where the power output is measured. Kablammo (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kablammo: I changed the units kWh -> kW.

The principle of the diesel electric transmission is quite simple; the alternators connected to the diesel engines produce electricity which is used for running of the propellers.

When talking about the engine output, one thing is disturbing me a bit: the alternators connected to the engines are rated lower than the engines. They used the conventional Wärtsilä 12V46 engines with mechanical fuel injection (no common rail) on Voyager- and Freedom class vessels. They were C-rating (1,050 kW/cyl) and the engine output was 12,600 kW. But the alternators were rated to some 11,000 kW (as far as I remember correct). Shouldn't the alternator performance be mentioned as the maximum output then? What is the benefit at having 12,600 kW engines if you can only utilise 11,000 kW of its power? Of course the alternators and also the engines can run overload but the nominal values should be used. Gwafton (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have not been able to find information on the suite of alternators, and was confused as to whether the power output was measured at the engines or the output from the alternators. Kablammo (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I do not agree with your calculation.

The consumption of all 6 engines is 182 g/kWh at 85% load (185 g/kWh at 100% load, means at already Vmax). See here:

https://cdn.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/product-files/engines/df-engine/product-guide-o-e-w46df.pdf?utm_source=engines&utm_medium=dfengines&utm_term=w46df&utm_content=productguide&utm_campaign=msleadscoring

Now take 85% of 13,740kW and 85% of 18,320kW and ad both = 27,250kW. That is already 20MW for the truster and 7,250kW for other electricity needs on the ship. 3 times that all, because we have 6 engines and all that at already normal cruising speed of 85% of Vmax.

The average consumption while normal speed cruising (at 19,2 knots/h) is therefor 27,250kW * 3 * 182 g/kWh = 14.879 t/h (357.6 t/day).

As many people you seem not to understand the concept and meaning of kW and kW/h and that was the mayor mistake in your calculation.

But I admit, that it took me also some time to understand it. I hope you can trust a University Master of Science in Agriculture Engineering of 53 years of age. If my english would be better I would try to explain it to you. 84.118.28.207 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, something went wrong while editing. I think I erased one section. 84.118.28.207 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the deleted section below. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

As a compromise you could write: "When all 3 trusters deliver the full power of 60kW at maximum speed, around 11 metric tones of fuel are consumed every hour by the diesel engines that also provide this energy, that's 264 metric tones a day. At this speed the ship is able to lay back around 620 miles or 1,000 kilometers every 24 hours in favorable whether conditions. The total consumption is higher due to the need of large amounts of electric power on the ship for other purposes then simple thrust." Something like this, but in better english. 84.118.28.207 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

84.118.28.207, while I appreciate you working on this, we have a rule on Wikipedia called WP:No original research. Unless a reliable source states these figures, we really cannot include them in an article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Coverage and accuracy

This article is still C-class, because its coverage and accuracy isn't good enough. But the question is when? The ship's career is ongoing. Aquitania (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Burrowing Owl

Just read a news report that someone had put a live Burrowing Owl on the ship's golf course, allegedly to "make it look more natural". The owl was eventually removed and released in its natural habitat. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of date article

I have noticed that the dates in the article are out of date. "MS Oasis of the Seas is an Oasis-class cruise ship in the fleet of Royal Caribbean International. The first of her class, she is expected to be joined by her sister ship Allure of the Seas in December 2010.[11] Both vessels are expected to cruise the Caribbean from Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[12] She set a new record of carrying over 6,000 passengers.[13]"

Well, the Allure of the Seas arrived in November and they Oasis and the Allure of the Seas did meet at por. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac0103 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

NatGeog program

The National Geographic channel has an hour-long [less commercials] program on the ship which has been running since the past week in Mongolia. I don't know the original broadcast details Kdammers (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/oasisoftheseas/

  Triggered by \bship-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature71297/

  Triggered by \bship-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on MS Oasis of the Seas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2009/10/royal_caribbeans_newest_ship_t.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maritimedenmark.dk/?Id=6149
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/kaempeskibet-klarede-broen
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.com/html/travel/2008420611_webcruiseship21.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do?shipClassCode=OA&shipCode=OA&br=R
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cruiseweb.nl/images/oasisoftheseas/Brochure2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714224153/http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/viewRelease.php?id=30 to http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/viewRelease.php?id=30
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-flzcruise0619sbjun19%2C0%2C5570792.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620204702/http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/ to http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620204702/http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/ to http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wartsila.com/%2Cen%2Cpress%2C0%2C%2C9ED8C1E3-4679-4848-B2F9-36B314799B81%2C%2C%2C.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2010/01/18/story10.html?page=all
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.getsolar.com/blog/royalcaribbean-adding-solar-power-to-its-fleet/3192/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620204702/http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/ to http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MS Oasis of the Seas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113134217/http://oasisoftheseas.com/viewRelease.php?id=49 to http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/viewRelease.php?id=49
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/ships/class/ship/home.do?shipClassCode=OA&shipCode=OA&br=R

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Covid-19 pandemic should be covered in this article

Oasis of the Seas -- Royal Caribbean Status: In Miami, Florida

Passengers departed the Oasis of the Seas in Miami two weeks ago, but crew members remain on board. On Sunday, the Miami Herald reported it had obtained a leaked recording of the ship's captain announcing that 14 crewmembers had tested positive for Covid-19. CNN reached out to Royal Caribbean regarding the report, who said: "The health and well-being of our crew is our foremost priority. Crewmembers who exhibited symptoms were evaluated by our medical staff and remain under close supervision. In accordance with our health and safety protocols, our crew have been asked to self-isolate in cabins while we await confirmation of initial results from public health authorities." The ship was anchored off the Bahamas but has since returned to the Miami coast. On March 31, the cruise line confirmed via a statement to CNN that one crew member from Oasis of the Seas and one from nearby Symphony of the Seas were "being medically evacuated for observation and treatment of respiratory issues." "We are grateful to local authorities for their support with the evacuations," added the spokesperson. The ship is currently off the coast of West Palm Beach, Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References