Talk:Harmony of the Seas

European or American style dates?
This is a USA owned ship operated by a USA company. Not sure why dates are shown in the European format such as 15 May 2016. In my edits, I used the American style: May 15, 2016. This has led to inconsistency. Is there a bot that will fix that? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit unclear, since this is also a French-built ship, registered in the Bahamas, currently sailing out of the UK, that will be home-ported in Spain, and owned by a company founded and publicly traded in Norway and incorporated in Liberia. Five out of those six countries use the Day Month Year date format.
 * True... OK, I did an edit... For consistency all dates in the text are now in the Day Month Year date format. However, I have not had time to fix all dates in citations for consistency. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

maiden voyage
Please note that the two cruises before may 29th are shakedown cruises although guests are on-board Royal Caribbean have confirmed that the Official Maiden voyage is May 29th from Southampton to Barcelona. a letter was sent to guests today as there is still work being done on board the ship. lights paintings and carpets are still being installed in time for the sailing on the 29th. for those who disagree thats your choice but the company them self have announced and confirmed in a statement this morning regarding the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.48.215 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If that's the case then you will be able to provide a WP:RS. It would be a lot simpler had you done that in the first place Thanks David.moreno72 (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 15:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a press release that backs up your claims at http://www.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/press-release/1255/vacations-reinvented-as-the-worldrsquos-largest-cruise-ship-sails-into-southampton/, but in the future please provide a source when changing information like dates in articles. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Numbering
Why there is no "1" and "13" for the numbering on the decks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.207.2 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

How can NT (Net Tonnage) be listed as greater than GT (Gross Tonnage)
I'm concerned there may be a factual error in the Wikipedia article for Harmony of the Seas. The Net Tonnage is listed as 257,566 NT and the Gross Tonnage is listed as 226,963 GT. In my experience, Net Tonnage is always less than Gross Tonnage. Did Wikipedia writers make a mistake?

I asked Royal Caribbean Customer Support and received this answer on 9/15/2016 at 4:32 pm: - Dear Mr. Raymond:

Thank you for your email. We apologize for the delay in our response.

Please be advised, Wikipedia in not updated by Royal Caribbean International and as such, may include incorrect information. Regrettably, we are unable to provide the exact gross and net tonnage at this time. In theory though, the net tonnage should be smaller than the gross tonnage. We apologize for any inconveniences caused and appreciate your understanding.

Mr. Raymond, thank you for contacting Royal Caribbean International.

Sincerely,

Jesse Krichbaum Royal Caribbean Customer Support - 50.158.247.224 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Anon, I have no idea why this would occur. Our data for this is not made up, but comes from http://vesselregister.dnvgl.com/VesselRegister/vesseldetails.html?vesselid=33249, which is operated by DNV GL (a company merged from Det Norske Veritas and Germanischer Lloyd, which were both highly respected ship registration and classification societies). Yes, it is peculiar, but we go with what the sources say. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (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 16:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidents
There was an edit back and forth that was had between me and Lyndaship, a member of Wikiproject Ships. I am a frequent reader and new editor. I added an incident of a young boy dying a few days ago. I felt this was in line with the other incidents listed on this page (1 to 5 people) as well as other pages I have viewed. My edit was removed and I reverted it because I wan't able to see exactly why that shouldn't be added. After discussing on that users talk page, they felt that one person dying was not enough to put it under incidents and made the argument that each death in a town would not be on that town's page. I agree with the latter, not the former. A death on a cruise-liner is very rare and would be an incident worth noting. They suggested we put it here to a vote. As a new user, I am not sure what happens after that. If someone could elaborate on what happens after it is discussed, that would be appreciated. I felt adding relevant information to contribute to the site would be worth my time.Zepher1 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this for discussion. I feel this incident is not significant enough to be mentioned in an article about the ship and should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I note your comments about similar incidents being mentioned in the article, I have no objection if they are also removed as UNDUE, I did not remove them as the first is a death as a result of the failure of the ships equipment and could be construed as relevant to the subject of the article, the second could develop in that a body might be found or some other pertinent fact emerge but on balance I would support removal. You claim that that a death on a cruise liner is rare, a quick look at http://www.cruisejunkie.com/events.html or https://www.cruiselawnews.com/ will show that they are not. Regardless of if deaths are common or rare within the subject of an article the point to be considered is are they significant and of interest to the general reader. I hold that they are not and to include them would result in an unbalanced article Lyndaship (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Lyndaship. I wasn't directly searching for this but I came across a similar post to what I wrote on the Carnival Elation incidents section. This involves a woman (some reports say 8-year-old girl?) falling from one balcony down two decks to another balcony and dying. With this post and I am sure others, my post does not seem out of the ordinary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Elation Zepher1 (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Deaths can occur anywhere, be it on a form of transport or high rise building or tourist attraction, and I find it hard to believe deaths on a vessel that is packed with thousands of people every day of the year should be expected to be rarer than any other place. However, we don't see exhaustive lists of every single death that has ever been reported in the news in every article on Wikipedia: building articles don't include every person who has fallen from a height; roads don't include every fatal accident; train routes don't include every person who stepped in front of a locomotive. Off the top of my head, we know that deaths are frequently reported in Yosemite National Park and Yellowstone National Park - in fact there was a couple reported just in October - but they don't detail every single report on those articles there either (and those are Featured Articles so they serve as a useful reference points). However, cruise ship pages seem to stand out amongst other Wikipedia articles in that they tend toward including every single death that have occurred where the name of that cruise ship has appeared. This seems to be rather inconsistent and begs for a better way of filtering every reported death to only include what is really of encylopaedic value.


 * Unfortunately, it is hard for me to exhaustively state what would definitely make a death a WP:DUE inclusion right now, but on the other hand, it is easier for me to confidently say that - at minimum - a death of a single individual that is in itself not notable (producing lasting and significant coverage directly relevant to the subject beyond just reporting the fact that it occurred), nor is not directly a result from the ship's operations (as opposed to incidental, such as a death merely occurring on or around the ship) would clearly be an WP:UNDUE inclusion. In this case, a person who chose to climb on his own accord (whether for good reason or not) on the edge of a balcony at a height and then unfortunately slipping and falling to his death seems to be incidental rather than associative, which would make it WP:UNDUE, hence I lean toward agreeing with Lyndaship in this case. Would this make many other deaths recorded on cruise ship articles on Wikipedia undue as well, by my reckoning? Yes, it would, but I'll tackle that when I feel like doing a more extensive clean-up of the other cruise ship articles at a later time. —Madrenergictalk 08:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)