Talk:Icon of the Seas

Tonnage
Maureen O'Hare of CNN states that this vessel "will weigh a projected 250,800 tonnes". [The world’s biggest cruise ship is almost ready https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/icon-of-the-seas-royal-caribbean/index.html] It is disappointing that an experienced travel writer does not understand tonnage. We cannot rely on that statement, nor her comparison between that and the mass of "two CN Towers". Kablammo (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What RS do you have to object to CNN's report? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's obviously wrong. It would be quite a coincidence if the GT and displacement were exactly the same number to four decimal places. Here is a source that gives the displacement as 100,000 t. Anyway cruise ships aren't measured in displacement so I don't think there is any need to talk about it.
 * We have some other bad sources too. I just removed a Cruise Hive source that says the ship runs on diesel fuel and that each of its six engines produces 67,500 kW. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified above that the measure used for the size of this vessel is gross tonnage, which, as our article on GT states, is volume and not mass (weight). The CNN reporter apparently did not know that. Kablammo (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And Brittany Wong of Huffington Post parrots the same errors:. Kablammo (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Gross tonnage
Template:GT says "the use of 'tons' as the unit for gross tonnage ... is not correct and should not be used in future articles." I don't know if that's an actual part of the MOS or if someone just made that up for the template doc. I also do not feel strongly about this and will not at all be offended if you want to revert my change. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is an ambiguity here. I entirely agree that the word "tons", standing alone, should not be used. (And the term "ton" is not limited to mass; cf. measurement ton) But the term gross tons is not ambiguous, and is commonly used. But like you, I have no interest in edit warring it. It is more important to confine our sources to reliable ones which show an understanding of tonnage, rather then popular media or amateur cruise aficionados. Kablammo (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

An example of the latter may be cruisemapper.com, which contains these assertions: Kablammo (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "As to [Oasis] vessels' dimensions, each boasts the unimaginable weight of 227,000-230,000 GT / gross tons". Why is "weight" used at all in connection with gross tonnage?
 * ... "depth (23 m / 74 ft below waterline)" — on a draft of 31 ft!

Christening by Lionel Messi
Wasn't that honor almost always accorded to a woman, historically speaking?

If we are abandoning obsolete stereotypes, that's okay, I suppose. But then, along the very same lines, how about finding a different word for it. "Christening" obviously has its origins in a particular religion. Toddcs (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Keel laying date
We have two different dates listed for the keel laying: 28 January 2020, sourced to DNV; and April 2022, sourced to some unreliable cruise news rag. Normally I would go with DNV. But it appears there was a ceremony at Meyer Turku in 2022. I expect the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that ships don't actually have a keel laying any more, they're just assembled out of modules. 2020 seems a bit early and 2022 seems late if steel cutting and installation of the first modules both took place in 2021. I think we should either pick a date and stick to it, or note the discrepancy somehow. Opinions? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia ship career template Template:Infobox_ship_career has the following definition for the "Ship laid down date": "The date on which the keel was laid down onto the slipway by the builder. For most ships, this is the point where construction of the vessel starts, and is usually accompanied by ceremony. Although modular construction techniques mean that fabrication of modern vessels can start prior to this, the first time a module is placed on the slipway or building dock is still recognised as the date a ship is laid down." I presume DNV date (28 January 2020) is the actual construction start and the other date (5 April 2022) is the ceremonial keel laying. Maybe the ceremonial date is more approriate here? In that case this would be reliable source https://www.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/press-release/1599/royal-caribbean-celebrates-keel-laying-for-icon-of-the-seas/ IlkkaP (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And I made the change to the ceremonial date as it sounds we both are of the same opinion. (The 2020 date may even be the date for keel laying in Germany for the LNG tanks part of the hull that was later towed to Finland) IlkkaP (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One minor nit, the source doesn't actually say what day the ceremony took place. Sloppy on their part, and 5 April is close enough. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right! When looking at the 2nd picture in the RCI press center article, the date is actually 4 April 2022 (visible on the plaque)! As it is in the source (although as a picture), suggest we update 4 April 2022 as the date IlkkaP (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I missed that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Icon of the Seas picture
Current main picture appears to be a crop of an AP image that is for example in this article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-largest-cruise-ship-icon-of-the-seas-begins-its-maiden-voyage-after-christening-from-lionel-messi/

I will replace with the other picture in the article for now IlkkaP (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There have been multiple instances of people adding copyrighted photos of this ship. This ship is particularly notable so hopefully a Wikipedian can take a new picture of it soon! Saucy[talk – contribs] 05:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Environmental claim about LNG
The environmental claim is basically that LNG is more harmful than traditional fuels IF methane contained in the LNG is not burnt properly as methane is released into the atmosphere in this case. If methane is burnt properly, the end result is water and carbon dioxide only. The engines in this ship are state-of-the-art, and difficult to believe they would not be burning LNG properly. Now this side of the argument is missing from the environmental claim. Need a more balanced treatment and source for the environmental claim in the article. IlkkaP (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Sky News source doesn't really include a response from Royal Caribbean other than a generic comment that doesn't address LNG directly. Sky says that Cruise Lines International Association says LNG reduces greenhouse gas emissions but doesn't do anything to resolve the discrepancy and doesn't go into any technical details. We need a better source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has an article which is even more critical of Royal Caribbean and in which they reply. I have no objection is editors prefer to use that source https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/26/icon-of-the-seas-largest-cruise-ship-human-lasagne-climate-fuel-lng-greenwashing Lyndaship (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a quote from that source, but it doesn't directly address the greenhouse gas claim. I'd love to see a statement by someone who is independent, that is not an environmental activist and not a cruise line employee. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah true but sadly these two interest groups tend to push their POVs. Theres quite a lot online about Methane slip but how much do we need to say on one individual cruise ship article? Doubtless later there will be a whole section on Environmental impact Lyndaship (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a possible source, from the NYT: Can the World’s Largest Cruise Ship Really Be Climate-Friendly? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the part about fuel cells. The source was dated 2022, so it was talking about the plan rather than what was actually installed when the ship went into service. The NYT source above says the fuel cells are not working yet, maybe not even installed yet. (It's unclear to me what "the batteries have not yet been installed" means.) GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NYT article is more balanced and presents more neutral point of view compared to the Sky News article. I would prefer to source the LNG environmental claim from the NYT article and keep the treatment relatively short in Icon of the Seas article (more extensive treatment of LNG enviromental effects could be in some cruise industry article that is not about individual ships). IlkkaP (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this isn't the place to discuss LNG environmental concerns in depth. I wish we could mention it here and link elsewhere for more detail. There doesn't seem to be anything about unburned methane emissions at Liquefied natural gas. By the way there is a discussion going on at In the news/Candidates. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info.Cruise_ship could be the place to discuss LNG impact furher IlkkaP (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ship in service parameter
In Template:Infobox ship career Ship in service parameter has the following definition: “ The date a civilian vessel began operations. Alternatively, this may be treated as a date range indicating the start and end points of a ship's career. If being used in this manner, ignore the |Ship out of service= field.”

In all of the five Oasis class ships Oasis of the Seas, Allure of the Seas, Harmony of the Seas, Symphony of the Seas and Wonder of the Seas we have values type of “20xx-present”. I suggest we update “2024-present” here, or alternatively we should remove the parameter from Oasis class ships. IlkkaP (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for tracking down the documentation. I would be fine with changing it back to a range. But note that a date range takes a dash, not a hyphen. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As we have the date of the maiden voyage, is there any actual point in having anything in the in service parameter? I have always regarded it is as an alternative when the date of the mv and, if appropriate, the date of withdrawal are not available. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose if the in-service and maiden voyage dates could be different there would be some value in knowing they are the same for this particular ship. But I don't feel strongly about this. When would these dates be different? Like a cargo ship that begins loading on one date then starts its voyage a few days later? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe best not to use In service line here at all as there is already Maiden voyage line telling the same. The use in other articles is not consistent though. IlkkaP (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Never mind about the dash. We're just going to ignore the MOS in this article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)