Talk:Carnival Cruise Line/Archive 1

Image gallery?
would it be easier/better looking to move all the images into an image gallery? Splamo 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

yes that way we would also be able to use more pictures and have a larger variety. I agree.PЄ&#124;&gt;�?3® 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of the images are redundant to the ship articles. Within the ship articles, they actively illustrate the individual ships.  Here, the gallery looks more like a collection of travel photos or a travel brochure.  To me, it would be better to remove it.  The images of the individual ships would still exist within the individual ship articles, so still available that way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sortable ship table

 * Does anyone have a problem with me changing ship list to a ship table? Please take a look at this Page to get an idea what we would be looking at. Ben 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea - although I think it should be restricted to only the active/current ships and those that are confirmed (under construction with announced launch dates) - ones that are only possible with a contractual option should be left out of the list, as should ones that have been retired/sold. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All those fires?
I notice that there is no mention of the several fires and safety issues concerning Carnival Cruise ships. Are there any plans to add information about the operating history of Carnival Cruise Lines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.228.74 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering the same thing -- why the hell isn't there any mention of all those fires Carnival ships had in the late 1990s and early 2000s? Also, one ship had a severe plumbing problem that involved water all over the decks, it was featured on either Dateline or 60 Minutes. Passengers weren't told what the problem was and were left to their own devices. As the ship returned to port, people were on deck with hand-made signs saying things like "We were held hostage", despite cruise staff playing steel drums and trying to make it look like nothing was wrong. Not making this up. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
The page is nothing but a promo for Carnival. It's like a brochure. The so-called Timeline is just a list of superlatives -- the "biggest," the "fastest," etc. etc. There is no history, including events that negatively reflect on Carnival, such as shipboard diseases and fires, which made the news but do not appear on the page. (Compare airline articles.) The logo on in the identifier column is a blatant advertising blurb. The page would require extensive rewrite to be encyclopedic. J M Rice (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion isn't the solution, but a major cleanup is needed. To that end I've rearranged the sections and renamed the "Timeline" section "Company history" as a start.  The history section still contains many entries that should be moved into the "Accidents and incidents" section, as they have nothing to do with company governance or business matters.  Some of the incidents might simply be deleted, as they involve actions of passengers unrelated to the management of the business, such as someone dying of an heart attack or jumping overboard.  The article reads like a strange mix of sales brochure and smear job. &mdash; QuicksilverT @ 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxes?
There is no discussion of how the Carnival Cruise corporation operates. With 10.9 Billion US in annual revenue, there is no mention of the truth uncovered by a CNN special about Costa Concordia that the company pays a tax rate of 1.1%. This article reads much more like a brochure than the quality I associate with wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.82.18 (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is this relevant? Who cares what tax they pay? It's a company's primary responsibility to maximize it's retained income. It's not Wiki's responsibility to pass judgement on a company being to successful while legally doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.102.245 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Carnival Dream power failure
Another Carnival ship, the Carnival Dream, just suffered some kind of engine/power failure. It was in port at the time, so the passengers were evacuated and sent home on charter planes. "The experience on the Carnival Dream became something of a nightmare for passengers Wednesday when power went off, toilets stopped working, and no one was allowed to leave -- despite the fact that the ship was docked at Philipsburg, St. Maarten, in the eastern Caribbean." (per CNN) More info should be available in a day or two. --John Nagle (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, here is another source for whomever is going to add the section. http://www.usatoday.com/story/cruiselog/2013/03/14/carnival-cruise-ship-power-loss/1986875/

204.39.94.9 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor with edits mostly on Carnival-related subjects deleted some details of the last few incidents. Reverted.  The incident list is close to that CNN has..  The last two incidents aren't that serious, though. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted another deletion from same WP:SPA. But I also toned down the part about the Carnival Legend propulsion pod failure; that just slowed down the ship, it didn't leave it adrift like the other four incidents. --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check recent edits by . Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Noremac617 should not be removing sourced content. However, having subsection headings gives undue weight and doesn't follow WP:MOS so I support this edit by Collect to remove all those unneeded headings. If Noremac617 continues to delete and refuses to join the talk page, someone can post at ANI rather than at NPOVN but let's give them a chance to come to the talk page and correct their behavior which may be just an innocent mistake. I've left a note on Noremac617's talk page. We should be patient with newcomers and assume good faith and avoid labeling them as single purpose accounts etc. as it is not fair or helpful. It takes time to learn and understand how to function in the WP environment. Let's see if he/she comes to the talk page with their concerns and we can take it from there. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I can see that.  --John Nagle (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks John! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Move ship list to a separate article?
Carnival now has enough ships that the ship list is getting huge. Should that be spun off to another article? ("List of Carnival Cruise Line Ships", or something like that?) Maersk Line, which has over 600 ships, has a much smaller article, and no ship list. --John Nagle (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

[deleted, please clean up] 209.105.161.123 (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.109.45 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy??
I'm removing the entire section under "controversy." What's stated there are simply isolated and unrelated facts, presented in a way to influence people's opinions. There's no source showing any controversy, and while it lists company income and the wages paid to some workers (as if these two things are somehow related), it neglects to mention how those wages are actually rather high for citizens of the countries that they tend to employ, and Carnival covers all their expenses while on the ship. It also neglects to mention the massive gratuities that are standard for guests to give to the wait staff, bartenders, and housekeeping staff.

Wiki is not a place to post social commentary or one's individual morality on corporate responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.102.245 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I restored the content as an unexplained removal (no note in the edit summary), before realizing you had commented here. Standard practice is to add new threads/subjects to the bottom of a talk page, so I apologize for not seeing this sooner.
 * That said, I disagree with the removal. While it might be possible to improve the wording by providing additional sources to give perspective, as well as clarifying the subheading title - the existing refs are reliable sources and directly address these concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The references do nothing to address the concerns at all - primarily, that the stated facts are NOT a controversy. The only controversy is the smear job by some overzealous anti-corporate liberal trying to make a political point on Wiki's site. ALso, the "notes" attached to the so-called controversy have no connection to the information in the controversy section at all. What's currently there is unacceptable. If you want to leave it there, clean it up and present it in a neutral and factual way. There's othing wrong with the sources in the section or the information provided. However, it is not "controversial" information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.102.245 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Notes" appear to be related to the "Fleet" data, so I have moved them to the appropriate section.
 * The "Controversy" section is sourced to two news articles which were published by third-party reliable sources:
 * If you have additional sources that can provide an opposing view of the statements, feel free to add it to the article. Likewise, if you feel the section header can be improved, feel free to fix it. However, white-washing an article by purging well sourced material that is unfavorable to the article subject goes against Wikipedia policy.
 * Also, just as an FYI, I will be moving this thread to the bottom of the page. As I mentioned, standard practice on Wikipedia is to start new discussion topics at the bottom of a page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have additional sources that can provide an opposing view of the statements, feel free to add it to the article. Likewise, if you feel the section header can be improved, feel free to fix it. However, white-washing an article by purging well sourced material that is unfavorable to the article subject goes against Wikipedia policy.
 * Also, just as an FYI, I will be moving this thread to the bottom of the page. As I mentioned, standard practice on Wikipedia is to start new discussion topics at the bottom of a page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Class of the Carnival Vista
Given that it's not the class of the same name, what is it? In my opinion this would be cause for not listing Vista and its recently-announced sister ship in Template:Carnival Cruise Line; the supposed "Vista-class" is at best original research or speculation that we shouldn't include.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Demerge the tables
Can someone demerge the tables, each class should be in its own category to note that it is different from the others. --Yankeesman312 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose this edit. They are sorted by class - and the text explains their difference. This is consistent with how other articles present lists - they are in a single list with a column for different categories. Having them in one table is much more advantageous since one can sort by tonnage, date launched, current home port, etc. -- Trödel 15:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yankeesman312, I agree that they should be separate, and they used to be, but Trödel recently put them all together. You can see the version right before his/her edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnival_Cruise_Line&oldid=672599341 Sure, you can now sort the entire list on different categories, but trust me, to the average user, it's more difficult to view when all in one list. Ideally, I think the ship page should be separate from the main article, and the lists could be shown in both formats. I'm sure that's against the wikipedia norm, but if it were my website, that's how I'd do it. If you look at pages for other cruise lines, the ships are separated as well. ie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Caribbean_International Brian-L (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline
This timeline is moved to talk as too detailed and being list rather than prose RJFJR (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

1970s

 * 1972 — Carnival Purchases Empress of Canada
 * 1972 — The maiden voyage of Carnival’s first ship, the TSS Mardi Gras, runs aground on sandbar outside the Port of Miami.
 * 1975 — Carnival purchases Empress of Britain, which enters service as the TSS Carnivale.
 * 1978 — Festivale, formerly S.A. Vaal, undergoes $30 million refurbishment, begins service for Carnival as the largest and fastest vessel sailing from Miami to the Caribbean.

1980s

 * 1982 — Debut of Tropicale, the first new cruise ship the cruise industry had seen in many years; ship marks the beginning of an industry-wide multi-billion-dollar shipbuilding boom.
 * 1984 — Carnival becomes first cruise line to advertise on network television with the premiere of new advertising campaign starring company spokesperson Kathie Lee Gifford (then Kathie Lee Johnson).
 * 1985 — Debut of 46,052 GT Holiday
 * 1986 — Launch of 47,262 GT Jubilee
 * 1987 — The 47,262 GT Celebration enters service
 * Carnival earns distinction as "Most Popular Cruise Line in the World," carrying more passengers than any other.
 * Carnival Cruise Lines undertakes its initial public offering on Wall Street, raising approximately $400 million to fuel future expansion; entity later becomes Carnival Corporation & plc, a multi-line worldwide cruise conglomerate.

1990s

 * 1990 — The 70,367 GT Fantasy — the first and namesake vessel in the highly successful Fantasy-class—enters service as first new ship ever placed on three- and four-day Bahamas cruise program from Miami. Eventually, Carnival would construct eight Fantasy-class vessels, the most cruise ships in a single class.
 * 1991 — Launch of 70,367 GT Ecstasy
 * 1993 — Introduces its third 70,367 GT, Sensation and Carnival's first ship Mardi Gras leaves the fleet
 * 1994 — Debut of 70,367 GT Fascination and Carnivale leaves the fleet. Supermarket Sweep also has a "Cruise to Paradise" week, which at the end of the week gave the winning team a 7-day Carnival cruise to the Mexican Riviera
 * Parent company renamed Carnival Corporation to distinguish between it and its flagship brand, Carnival Cruise Line. Company is later renamed Carnival Corp. & plc following the combination with P&O Princess Cruises, creating the world's largest cruise vacation group.
 * 1995 — 70,367 GT Imagination enters service
 * 1996 — Launch of sixth Fantasy-class vessel, Inspiration and Festivale leave the fleet
 * 1996 — Launches the first passenger vessel to exceed 100,000 tons, the 101,353 GT Carnival Destiny, at the time the world’s largest cruise ship
 * 1998 — Introduces seventh Fantasy-class vessel, Elation, the first new cruise ship deployed on the West Coast
 * 1998 — The eighth and last in Fantasy-class series, Paradise, enters service. Paradise was the only non-smoking cruise ship in the world.
 * A fire ignites in the main laundry shortly after 5 p.m. on July 20 aboard the Carnival Ecstasy en route to Key West.
 * 1999 — Debut of the 102,000 GT Carnival Triumph, the first Triumph-class vessel.
 * 1999 — A fire ignites in the engine room of Carnival Tropicale after departing Cozumel, Mexico.

2000s

 * 2000 — A second Triumph-class vessel, the 102,000 GT Carnival Victory, is launched. Also, Supermarket Sweep begins the Carnival Cruise Week. The catchphrase was: "Next time you're an ocean liner and you hear their beep &mdash; [a foghorn sounds] &mdash; think of all the fun you can have on Supermarket Sweep!".
 * 2001 — Introduces a new class of vessel with the launch of the 88,500 GT Carnival Spirit, the first new "Fun Ship" ever positioned in the Alaska and Hawaii markets. Carnival's first ever newly built Tropicale leaves the fleet
 * 2002 — A second Spirit-class vessel, Carnival Pride, is launched
 * Carnival’s third Spirit-class ship, Carnival Legend, enters service
 * Debut of the 110,000 GT Carnival Conquest, the largest "Fun Ship" ever constructed at that time.
 * 2003 — Second 110,000 GT Conquest-class ship, Carnival Glory, begins year-round seven-day cruises from Port Canaveral, Florida on July 19
 * 2004 — Carnival Miracle, the fourth in the Spirit-class, begins a series of 12 voyages from Jacksonville, Florida — the first "Fun Ship" sailings from that port — February 27 and Jubilee leaves the fleet
 * A third 110,000 GT Conquest-class ship, Carnival Valor, begins year-round seven-day service from Miami December 19, becoming the largest "Fun Ship" ever based at that port.
 * 2005 — A fourth 110,000 GT Conquest-class vessel, Carnival Liberty, debuts July 20, operating the line's first-ever Mediterranean Sea cruises.
 * 2006 — On May 27, around 1:00am, Ramesh Krishnamurthy was presumed dead after he jumped off his balcony on Carnival Legend after an argument with his wife. He was believed to be under the influence.
 * 2007 — Carnival Freedom, the fifth 110,000 GT vessel, debuts March 4
 * On July 1, David Ritcheson jumps off the Carnival Ecstasy and dies
 * 2008 — The 112,000 GT Carnival Splendor debuts July 2 and Celebration leaves the fleet
 * 2009 — Carnival Dream, a 128,000 GT vessel, the largest "Fun Ship" ever constructed - entered service on September 21 and is the largest ship ever built by the ship builder Fincantieri. & Holiday leaves the fleet

2010s

 * 2010 — A fire on Carnival Splendor at 6:30 a.m. PST on 8 November leaves the ship crippled.
 * 2011 — Carnival Magic, a 128,000 GT vessel, entered service in May
 * 2012 — Carnival Breeze, a 128,000 GT vessel, entered service in the summer
 * Carnival Spirit moved to Sydney, Australia in October 2012, it became the first Fun Ship to sail Australian waters and also became the largest cruise ship in Australia year-round. Carnival Spirit is the first ship that is too tall to fit under the bridge to the cruise terminal, so this ship docked at another cruise terminal nearby.
 * Carnival is adding many of its 2.0 features on some of the ships this year, including the Guy Burger Joint, Blue Iguana Canatiana Taco Bar, Red Frog Rum Bar, Blue Iguana Bar and some others.
 * Carnival signs agreement with Fincantieri for a 135,000 GT vessel, to enter service in winter 2016. The vessel is later named the Carnival Vista.
 * 2013 — An engine room fire on the Carnival Triumph on the morning of 10 February leaves the ship powerless.
 * 2013 — Carnival Destiny becomes Carnival Sunshine.
 * 2014 — The popular Carnival Pride receives Fun Ship 2.0 Upgrades.
 * 2015 — Details for the Carnival Vista are announced in January.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carnival Cruise Line. 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/20110809211703/http://www.cityofdoral.com/cityofdoral/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&Itemid=99999999&gid=3 to http://www.cityofdoral.com/cityofdoral/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&Itemid=99999999&gid=3

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

please correct amenity table
Carnival Fantasy has amenity (shop) "Cherry on Top", I cruised on her beginning July 14 and it was there. 209.105.161.123 (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Tables
Just a suggestion, but how about moving all these clunky looking tables to their own page? Perhaps List of Carnival Cruise Line ships? They look awful mixed with prose and don't frame well on mobile devices. But if they're all shifted to a list page, then all of that is pretty much solved. - wolf  19:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing a reason to. On mobile its got its own pull down section, and the viewability will be the same with it being here or its own page. Its way wonder the readability prose on WP:SIZESPLIT. With the tables being below the prose its not looking clunky to me. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't have a problem with the tables of their ships. Inclusion would appear to be justified as they are the equipment of the company. Maybe they should be trimmed a bit as do we need class, flag, refits, homeport and notes especially as some are unsourced, some duplicated on what is in the individual ship article and some really irrelevant. I also doubt if some are entries are fully maintained up to date. I have a big problem with the amenities table which if no one else starts a separate thread to discover if there is consensus for inclusion as required by WP:ONUS I will do so Lyndaship (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest trimming this sort of data or changing its presentation, I suggest getting a more broad consensus than just here. This is a pretty standard format across many brands. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be clear I did not propose any trimming, I can live with these. However can you give some examples of this sort of data and the presentation thereof on any brands in case I might want to reconsider? Lyndaship (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Amenities table
I have recently removed this table as I feel it verges on marketing and is not appropriate in the article. However it is clear some other editors disagree as they have reinstated it. Therefore can we discuss it here, do you Support or Oppose inclusion of the amenities table? Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this looks like a an advert. 20kB of content with headers such "Fun Things!", all supported by single, primary source - the cruise line's online brochure. There are numerous ways in which WP:NOT applies here. This isnt what encyclopaedias are for. - wolf  17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Although it needs improvements this is valuable encyclopediac data. This is a clean clear way to show the differences between the ships. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about the company not the individual ships (which all have their own article). Why would the general reader want to know the difference between the facilities on these ships? What valuable encyclopedic data is involved in knowing which ships have a "Cherry on Top" onboard (and what is it?) or that one of their fast food areas goes by the name of Guy's Pig & Anchor? Lyndaship (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that, but without the ships there is no company. I see it as no different than the Yankees' roster being on their page. Each player has their own page, what encyclopedia value is added by listing their number, name and position? To me this is no different -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have no problem with the list of ships, they do indeed constitute the equipment of the company and rightly belong in the article but this amenity table is a step beyond, listing features in the equipment. To compare to the Yankees article the roster equates to the ship tables as each comprise the "equipment" of the company (and both are mostly blue links). A comparable table on the Yankees would list each member of the roster with details like their shoe size, hair colour, volume of nasal passages, favourite pizza topping, which deodorant they like rubbing on their important little places and the shop they buy it in. Plainly not encyclopedic info and it would have some crosses too if some are bald, or don't like Pizza or heaven forbid don't use deodorant and I think there's something about an encyclopedia states what is rather than what isn't ie we wouldn't say Foo has a black hat but doesn't have a red, blue, green, yellow or pink one. This table tells us a lot of things these ships don't have. I hope you will reconsider if you feel this table is really appropriate and has any benefit to the readers. Lyndaship (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * While I understand your point, I think you are taking it to a bit of an extreme. The number of their back or where they stand on a field to me is very similar. But like I said I understand your point, I just come to a different conclusion. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruise Ships table broken.
The "Gross Tonnage" column-when sorted smaller to bigger-sorts from >100,000 ton ships to <100,000 ton ships. I believe this is something to do with sorting by first number, since ships that are ~80,000 tons are lower on the list than ~110,000 ships. But I am a bit new, so if someone else could fix this please? Thanks in advance to whomever does.

M0ntenegro (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to the article: has Carnival Cruise Line also been found to have dumped sewage, plastic waste, and food waste directly into the ocean? If so, please add this information to the article, which as of June 4, 2019 mentions only the dumping of oil into the ocean. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Carnival among worst polluters on the ocean
Carnival Corp and Royal Caribbean Cruises do a poor job of limiting the pollution from their ships, according to the environmental-advocacy group Friends of the Earth.

Carnival disagrees, of course: "This report is inaccurate and misleading," a Carnival representative said. "Our fleet includes Advanced Air Quality Systems on more than 70 more of our ships and we have shore power capability on just under 50% of our fleet. Plus we have the latest advancements in our treatment plants installed on board (and each of these technologies are included on our new ships — and we have 18 new ships on order). We also are the first cruise company to install LNG to power our ships." https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ships-pollution-ranking-carnival-royal-caribbean-among-worst-polluters-2019-7#tied-6-carnival-corp-0-1 Peter K Burian (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Carnival among worst polluters on the ocean, according to this report
Carnival Corp and Royal Caribbean Cruises do a poor job of limiting the pollution from their ships, according to the environmental-advocacy group Friends of the Earth.

Carnival disagrees, of course: "This report is inaccurate and misleading," a Carnival representative said. "Our fleet includes Advanced Air Quality Systems on more than 70 more of our ships and we have shore power capability on just under 50% of our fleet. Plus we have the latest advancements in our treatment plants installed on board (and each of these technologies are included on our new ships — and we have 18 new ships on order). We also are the first cruise company to install LNG to power our ships." https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ships-pollution-ranking-carnival-royal-caribbean-among-worst-polluters-2019-7#tied-6-carnival-corp-0-1 Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Financials appear out-of-date
Financial information in the infobox is from 2011 and should be updated with something more recent. Is there a canonical source we should pull from when updating those?
 * That is a good question. El_C 05:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Source is needed for claim that Carnival Fascination and Imagination were sold for scrap
Please provide a source for where you are getting your information that these two ships were sold for scrap. I looked but cannot find anything that backs this claim up. All I am asking is that you provide a source for where you got your information. Best, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Carnival Horizon & Panorama
I don't thint that those ships were the largest ships built by fincantieri at ther delivery. What about MSC Seaside? She was delivered in 2017 and has a tonnage of 153,516 GT, the 2018-built Carnival Horizon only 133,596. HenSti (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Leadership
The "Notes" read like a promo puff, and is uncited, referring to things not even touched on in the article nor in Carnival Corporation & plc or just vague (eg "several high profile events". My inclination would by to just keep the first three columns, but maybe it can be cited properly. Davidships (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)