Talk:List of motor yachts by length/Archive 1

Missing yachts
Royal Norwegian Yacht KS Norge is missing. 80,5 meters. http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS_%C2%ABNorge%C2%BB

-I Believe Andrey Melnichenko's yacht, "A", is missing from the list..? http://yachts.monacoeye.com/files/blohm_voss_970_a.php http://www.fvn.no/bilder/bildeserier/article595786.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.147.6 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) --certainly was missing, and this yacht is for real, I just saw it here in Gibraltar, it seems to be as fast as the catamaran ferries, added it at number 12, it was too quick to get a photo myself kokey (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

-- I have a picture of this yacht, how do i upload it? Thanks. Mitesh003 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

- The Royal Danish Yacht "Dannebrog" measuring 78,4 meters should hold the 39 th place in the list Gibler (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

- The Siren, measuring 73 meters, should be on here as well : http://yachts.monacoeye.com/files/category-nobiskrug.php

== Deletion == I will be proposing this page for deletion as yacht names change very often, at the beck and call of ownership changes and refits and wives and children and mistresses and sports teams. There is no way this article can have any lifespan .--Tallard 12:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I realise that this is only for yachts over 70 m and hence these yachts' names have more longevity. However the 70 m detail should be in the first paragraph or the title as it's quite an arbitrary number.--Tallard 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Queen M is now called Queen K and it is owned by Oleg Deripaska. (83.143.248.21 (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

"Staatsyacht"
Helsinki 2008 217.140.172.251 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Grille_%281857%29

Tonnage
The second sentence describes tonnage as "a measure of volume" and displacement as "a measure of weight". Shouldn't this be the other way around?

Yes, gross tonnage is a measure of capacity - it is used in commercial shipping to measure the volume that can be accommodated by cargo as opposed to how much weight the vessel can carry. It is a common misconception hence i thought it pertinent to this particular wiki-entry. In the yachting industry it is a much more important measure of the size of yachts and the work required in a build or refit.

81.133.30.82 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dannebrog owner
Just a doubt... is the Dannebrog owned by HM The Queen of Denmark herself or is it owned by the Danish State?

I'm asking this because it is posibly the same case as the Spanish Royal Yatch Fortuna. The King's Yatch "Fortuna" is of National wealth, forming part of the properties of the Spanish state agency Patrimonio Nacional (National Heritage). --MauritiusXXVII  (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it Dannebrog is similar to an English crown possession, i.e. the Monarch (or the Royal Court) owns it. It is not listed alongside various National Heritages, but rather as a part of Kongehuset (The Royal Court). See this link for more info. Mecil (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Length errors
Some of the lengths are inconsistent. For instance the Eclipse is listed at 508'11" (167.1) but the Dubai is 524'10" (160). How is the Dubai shorter in feet but longer in meters? Could someone check to see which is the right measurement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.199.11 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tonnage paragraph
Is there any point in having the section regarding tonnage and how some countries build bigger yachts than others? It seems irrelevent to the artical, which by the name is a list, and therefore not a definitive informational article about this sort of thing.

This article could probably progress to a Featured List in a very short time if that section was just removed as it smacks of POV.

Does anyone think it adds anything to the list? Miyagawa (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

'Price' column
Anyone else think it would be a good idea to add a 'price' column to this chart? I think it's another fact that many users like to see, and the statistics are readily available.

Nickf77 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what about a charter price column too? Mitesh003 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good idea, but most of the prices of these yachts are not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1472 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

number
28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.53.106 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rank column removed
I removed the column which ranks the boats numerically. First, the ranking is not accurate (the two external links disagree with ours), and second, such a column makes it much more difficult to add a new yacht to the list ~ you'd have to manually renumber every older yacht below the one inserted. It also has the benefit of yielding a little more space, which can be used to add a column for references. At the moment sorting by length (which should give the same order) isn't working, but I'll sort that out ASAP. The default order when the page loads is still as before. Column sorting now functional. --DeLarge (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Longest yachts template?
Maybe someone would be interested in creating a template similar to this one about motor yachts - which one was the longest at which year. I'd be happy to help with information and research if someone takes up making the template itself - it's really boring to do such things alone. If you're interested, find me at my talk page. BadaBoom (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

200m+ LOA intro
the introduction includes proposals (drawings and speculative price point if they were to be signed into a build contract) which should *not* be part of the encyclopedia. Reference shipyard orders (Boat International Media's 2016 global orderbook for example) to discuss upcoming projects. If growing sizes should be discussed in the introduction, why not discuss the Gross Tonnage of the recently launched Lürssen 156m project Omar / Dilbar II? Though undisclosed, it has been described as the largest GT in yachting history and could improve the introduction significantly. Delete the proposals themselves from the introduction-they have no place here. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 22:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Index layout
Most countries today are metric, so why would the table of contents (subdivision) only show in Imperial units? The table of contents would therefore also have to be in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.232.76.218 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the use of the subsections? They donot split on mobile devices like sections do and they donot enable a full column sorting on the desktop. Obviously I am comparing this with the list of large sailing yachts where both Imperial and SI units are used (incidentally the single click to sort country+shipyard in that article is a useful feature in my view).
 * To answer your question I do think that using both units is useful signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Re WT:SHIPS
 * all rows are sourced from the yacht registers, no problem, except for 90% of the data in the owner column. (not private individuals, all companies registered in Island havens, herego untraceable ownership and ownership changes, except for a few owner or courthouse disclosures).
 * the image column is indeed sparsely populated and the small size does not work.
 * suggest removing both columns signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
The issue of sourcing has been raised at WT:SHIPS. Therefore I propose the following - Vessels which have a linked article are includable in the list. Verification is possible by the linked article. Vessels which do not have a linked article (i.e. a redlink) need a reference. Said reference to be placed in first column. Any vessel not having either an article or reference on 1 May 2016 will be removed. Any vessel not having an article or reference, and which is added after 30 April 2016, will be removed.

Any objections? Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - sounds like a good way to clean-up this page. - the WOLF  child  14:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, though ideally, we should eventually have citations for the vessels with articles too. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Llammakey (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support except to add that redlinked names that assert ownership where BLP applies must also reference that ownership, or entry will be changed to "Unknown". I assume that only current ownership is intended in this list. Davidships (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As indicated on WT:SHIPS, the table in the articlepage presents a lot of blank cells: Shipowners are privately held companies (most flagstates are island havens) with untraceable private individual stakeholders and with untraceable ownership changes that cannot be sourced from public records, except for rare disclosures from the owners themselves (synfo/The Yacht Owner, BIM, or perhaps in certain cases from courthouse records). Can a reasonable proportion of the ownership column be populated and sourced in compliance with BLP? If not, should the column be kept? signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 08:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that a reasonable proportion probably could be completed but, to be honest, the only way to know is to try! In many cases it will be a question of carrying over a cite from the yacht's article.  On a different point, can a numerical ranking be re-instated, but of course automatically set as manual changes were rightly considered unacceptable? Davidships (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The question of the owner column is interesting. Agree that there is a possible BLP issue here; but possibly there is no need for that column at all. If anyone wants to start a separate discussion re the need for it, please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see populating the 'owner' column with info as an issue (BLP or otherwise), as long as the info is properly supported by WP:RS. However, if we find that very few cells in the column are populated, leaving most of them blank (or "unknown"), then it would probably be best to just do away with the column altogether. - the WOLF  child  17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

clean up
,, , and anyone else; I merged all the tables back into one, (it used to be that way). It's a cleaner look and it's easier to find specific boats. I added an additional "Note" column on the end to add refs to, then added all the refs through-out the table to that column. I then removed every entry that didn't have a ref or link to a parent article. I know we were going to wait until May 1st, but I have to ask, does anyone object to making this change now? All I see happening in the next month is more boats being added with no refs, no linked articles and very little info. Lemme know. - the WOLF  child  18:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got no problems with it. Thanks for doing it. Llammakey (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problems here either. Saved me a job. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, restoring the continous table as it was before is an improvement because the subsections were superfluous as the separate/split tables were all sorted by length anyway and because the continuous table makes the sortable option work for the whole article. There is still a major outstanding issue with sources, almost all of them verify nothing more than that which needs just one source, except for ownership. I motion that adding reliable sources verifying the ownership, like that for Symphony (2015), should be given top priority. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. Over time I'll restore those for which I can find RS. Would I right to assume that the list is intended to include only active yachts? or existing yachts? or all motor yachts >60m (excluding therefore steam-powered/turbine yachts)? Davidships (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Also, as mentioned above, can an automatic numerical ranking be incorporated? Davidships (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Restoring all the removed yachts would be quite a task. There were 224 listed, and during the clean-up I removed 112, literally half the list. Personally, I think we should keep it to current/active yachts only. If you have a strong interest in past yachts, perhaps you could create a new a page, "Historical luxury yachts", (or something along those lines). If anything, I would like to see any effort here go towards the already existing entries; creating articles (or stubs at least) for the red-linked yachts, finding and adding photos (a big plus) and updating missing info, such as owners. Also, if any copywriters here are so inclined, maybe write a lead for the page. Cheers - the WOLF  child  13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I don't have a particular mission, but do think that the top range (say, >100m) ought to be as complete as possible. I was about to put back the 121m Iraqi Al Mansur, but she was bombed in the war and since broken up, so I'll leave her out; I had also wondered about HMY Britannia, which exists though static, but is a turbine yacht. Hence the questions. Davidships (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added this page to the (hidden) Category:Tables that may need a separate rank column. This list is an obvious contender and I would like to see a numerical ranking column added to the far left. That way, a reader could easily say that "Octopus" is number 16 or "Seven Seas" is number 44 on the list, without having to actually count. (Can anybody tell me what number "Predator" is? LOL! Does anybody want to?) - the WOLF  child  03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ranking

Cost?
Could we please add a cost section? 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see a benefit to that. Too many yachts would be difficult to find the exact cost with reliable sourcing, meaning we'd have some cells with ridiculous ranges (ie: $60,000,000 to $150,000,000), plus we'd have some values in US dollars, some in Euros and some in pounds. And still most cells would probably end up as "unknown". It's not worth it. - the WOLF  child  22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Owner check
Can we verify the owners? For example Azzam is reported to be owned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but the owner is not mentioned in the link from the notes column or the confidently in the citations in its own article. Or Prince Abdulaziz is being listed in the table as owned by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (who is now deceased), but in its own article the only owners who are mentioned are King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (who is now deceased) and Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll start going through some of the sources and check the owners. Gimme a little while to get through the list. - the WOLF  child  22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes column
Can we delete the notes column please? It appears to add no information which can't be gained from the articles that are listed. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we just added it. We want all the entries to be sourced and having the extra dedicated column helps with that. It also keeps the table more organized. - the WOLF  child  22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Red links
@ 78.146.137.190 ; Please don't remove the red links from the entries. Per WP:REDLINK they encourage article creation. If you don't link the red links, start creating some articles and turn them blue! - the WOLF  child  22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild I'm sorry for the reversions, but I did multiple edits as well as the red links. When you reverted my edits they were reverted too. I was just trying to quickly restore the other changes, but thanks for clarifying the red link issue. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Once you're reverted, you don't re-revert again. Read WP:BRD. I went through your edits and most, if not all, were needless, hence the reason they were reverted. Now that you're on the talk page, this is your opportunity to explain them. We can discuss them and sort something out. Keep in mind that above I did say I was going through the entries, and I asked for some time to do that, so how about you allow me that? - the WOLF  child  23:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll allow you some time to do that then, but I'm sorry for being so hasty. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but did you want to explain some of the changes? For example, Oman already has "unknown" for the owner. Why are you blanking that with a hidden comment, demanding that owners must be sourced? It states that already at the top of the page. And why are you removing the titles of some of the royalty? That's couple of examples. Maybe you can explain the rest? -  the WOLF  child  23:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The change about Omar was to get rid of what was no information basically. I was changing the titles of some royalty so it was standardised among royalty. E.g. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan isn't listed as Sheikh Khalifa, but Sultan Qaboos of Oman isn't referred to similarly as Qaboos of Oman. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, WP:COMMONNAME applies. There's a reason their articles are named a certain way, and that's how they should be listed here. Another issue I noticed is that you removed every instance of (yacht) from the entry name, ie: changing Bounty to just Bounty . In the entries where that occurred, those are common names that are likely to have articles already, (several even), as other people. places and things will have the same name. Adding (yacht) is a disambiguator and it's necessary, so it has to stay. When and if those article get created, it will be needed. For an example; I just updated the page for the yacht "Dilbar", by page-moving it to it's new name "Ona". But I had to use Ona (yacht), because there is already another page called Ona. See? - the WOLF  child  23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the assistance. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue for discussion
The "exes"... A few of the entries had both the current name as well as a previous name (ie: MV Thewolfchild, ex-Eclipse). There was also an example of this among the owners (ie: Charter, ex-Richie Rich). I have boldly removed these as I basically think it's a bad idea. If we start, where does it end? Many of these yachts will change names over the course of there lives, some of them more than once. Are we supposed to chart and source all these names, then cram them into the table? Same for owners... these boats change hands, often. This is just a list after all, each yacht has it own page (or should have) and I think that is were all this history can be documented. I think it should just be current name and current owner only. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to speak on it here. Cheers - the WOLF  child  23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that this shouldn't be mentioned for every name and every owner, but perhaps the inaugural or most notable owner and name could be mentioned? The formers could also be line broken and put in smaller text as I did previously. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's let it sit for now and see if anyone has a comment.- the WOLF  child  01:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the list of large sailing yachts, we got rid of all the instances of "ex" and replaced them with "originally", citing *only* of the vessels' names as they were registered/christened at launch. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. But on that list, the "original" name is noted in the "notes" column, not crammed in with the current name. But then, that list has a larger "notes" column than here. Personally, I don't see the need for the addition of original names here, but it's up to the community. - the WOLF  child  00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection to "originally xxx" in the Notes column (plural please). The table could be a little wider and the width of cols 3/4/5 could each be narrowed by about a third - it doesn't matter if some longer names go onto two lines (unless there is a tech problem with wikilinks). Davidships (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We could look at re-sizing the columns. I think a big difference between the two tables is this one has the photos. - the WOLF  child  21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed copyleft photographs of sailing yachts are not as widely available as those of motor yachts, so in the list of large sailing yachts there is no column for thumbnails, except (in order of preference) an article wikilink, commons cat wikilink or a file wikilink, where available, for the first column "yacht name". Merging the shipyard+country column and omitting the owner column (ownership changes too complicated to verify reliably) enables a wider more descriptive notes column. Owners are simply hinted to with a II or III suffix when namesake yachts are mentioned in the press with the same owner or captain as the original yacht. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I like how they have the national flags to represent the countries of the shipbuilders on the other list. I was thinking of doing that here in the builder column and eliminating the country column. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Silver Fast
https://www.burgessyachts.com/en/sale-purchase-category/yachts-for-sale/motor-yachts/silver-fast-00004701.html This ought to be on the list, right? It was completed in 2015. --RThompson82 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -  the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25)?
The BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25) is a Presidential yacht for the president of the Philippines. Why should this yacht not be on the list? If it is because it is a presidential yacht, there should be more yachts removed from the list. 102Legobrick (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed it (for now) so the community could discuss the larger issue of these specific types of boats and determine what should and shouldn't be included. Some appear to be luxury yachts that are owned by the state, (in some cases the state and the owner and difficult to differentiate, such as with Arab Emirates and Kingdoms), and in some cases the boats appear to be naval vessels being treated as yachts, such as HTMS Chakri Naruebet. I would like to see some other editors weigh in with their ideas and opinions on this and see if we can come to a consensus. I'm not dead set against the inclusion of this particular boat, but if we add it, then what else are we opening the door to? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, your opinion is noted. We'll wait to see if anyone else adds a comment. A day or two won't hurt, the list isn't going anywhere. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede states "luxury yachts", which would mean that Royal and Presidential Yachts would be inlcuded. On that basis, we should also list HMY Britannia as a former Royal Yacht which still exists and is above 60m length. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with listing Britannia, as we have other Presidential and Royal yachts listed here (over 60m). But Ang Pangulo is numbered and listed at List of ships of the Philippine Navy as an "auxiliary". The question is, if we include this ship, do we also have to add other naval ships that double as "presidential" or other government yachts? (such as HTMS Chakri Naruebet and any others that might pop up) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To my mind Ang Pangulo is indeed a luxury yacht - that is what she was designed for and what she still does. That differs from a ship of another purpose that as a secondary function, or temporarily (like MV Hebridean Princess) acts as a yacht.  I cannot see any reason to exclude such vessels - the colour of the hull and whether that carries a pennant number is irrelevant - Dannegrog is already on the list, and I doubt whether there are many more.
 * Britannia cannot go in a list of motor yachts for the simple reason that she was/is a steam turbine yacht.Davidships (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I have no problem adding Ang Pangulo to the list. But I think we should determine what criteria we're going to use to include and exclude these types of ships. You mention Hebridean Princess, I've mentioned HTMS Chakri Naruebet as examples. You say you doubt there are many more, but if even one pops up, it would be nice to know how to deal with it without having to go through this again.
 * Britannia is an excellent example of why we should clarify these issues now. By all appearances, it would seem she should be added but as you say, this is a list of "motor" yachts and she it steam powered (I wonder if any others on this list are as well).
 * Do we outright exclude her?
 * Do we include her with a notation that she is steam/turbine?
 * Do rename the list to something like "engine-powered" or "turbine-powered" or "screw (and/or) propeller-driven yachts" and then include her, and others like her?
 * Let's get all this sorted out now, here on the talk page like we're supposed to. Unless there's consensus against it, Ang Pangulo will likely be re-added soon enough. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First i think the reason that HMY Britannia should not be included because she is powered by steam is irrelevant. It is more important to look at her status as a ship now, which is that of a museum ship, not a yacht. Secondly, I think that HTMS Chakri Naruebet should not be included in this list because it is a aircraft carrier that is sometimes used to transport the Royal Family of Thailand. Leading to claims that the ship is an oversized royal yacht. This is not the case with the BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25). This ship is clearly referred to as a Royal yacht. - 102Legobrick (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at definitions a steam turbine is motor with external combustion, and the definitions for motor ship have included internal combustion engine as the usual means of propulsion, however in current Merriam Webster the word usual has been omitted. Despite common usage (and I think the article title should remain because of this), the Britannia may qualify for inclusion by exception with a notation that she is a steamyacht out of active service. I vouch for Thewolfchild's option 2. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 09:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
So, like I said... we should lay out some criteria. I'll get it started. I propose that this list; So, can we all agree on these? I say we let this proposal sit for a few days to give people a chance to review and comment.
 * Only includes active boats. Nothing that is permanently drydocked, or only sailed on rare occasions, or museum ships.
 * Only includes boats that are actual "luxury yachts", not boats doubling as yachts, such as naval ships, cruise ships, merchant ships, etc.
 * Only includes yachts that are delivered, not "planned" or "under construction".
 * Should another steam/turbine yacht otherwise qualify for inclusion, it gets added with it's specific type of propulsion noted.
 * As for the ships mentioned here, Ang Pangulo will be added. Britannia, Hebridean Princess and Chakri Naruebet will not.
 * Other future proposed entries that might be affected by this criteria will have be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and included by consensus.


 * Support as proposer - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, except active should not be quite so prescriptive as some of the older yachts do only sail occasionally - Mahroussa, for example. Davidships (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support102Legobrick (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - At least there's a solid proposal put forward. Any changes to the proposal can be discused later, but let's get something up and running first. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * support >>permanently drydocked: that means that Destriero (on the dry at Lürssen for years) should be removed from the article. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 15:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Lists of super yachts be merged into List of motor yachts by length. I think that the content in the Lists of super yachts article can easily be explained in the context of List of motor yachts by length, and the List of motor yachts by length article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Lists of super yachts will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 78.148.69.211 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - what exactly is there to merge? "List of super yachts" is basically a disambiguation page that only lists links to 4 other lists of yachts. Those 5 five links can be listed in the "See also" section of this page, without the need of any formal proposal. In fact, one link is already listed there, and another is linked in the lead (and the other 2 are being added now). If anything, "List of super yachts" should be deleted or redirected. I think you should withdraw this proposal. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that IP users can't delete pages? Sorry if I'm acting too much like a FNG. 78.148.69.211 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would formally withdraw your merge proposal, the tag can be removed and List of super yachts can be redirected to this page. I think that would be the best way to go for now. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - for reasons above - and am content with the redirect suggested, at least for the time being. Davidships (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've redirected Lists of super yachts to this article. If anyone has any better ideas, feel free to post them here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Some more additions?
https://www.burgessyachts.com/en/sale-purchase-category/yachts-for-sale/motor-yachts/ The Silver Fast is already in the article but the Sycara V and Golden Odyssey II and PJ 210-2 aren't. Any thoughts? --RThompson82 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ace
The Ace (yacht) article is currently listed for deletion. Article is unreferenced and promotional, both of which are fixable. Is anyone interested enough to save the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe she is significant because she was one of the very first yachts to be designed to rely on a support vessel (in this case a production 220ft sea axe OPV/PSV design)?signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 22:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm missing some older ones in this list
Issham Al Baher (1973 - 115,76 meters) and her sister ship Atlantis II (1981 - 115,82 meters) :-) Kind regards, --Doc Strangepork (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of motor yachts by length. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&strip=1&q=cache:fd.nl%2Fondernemen%2F1110008%2Fbouwers-superjachten-investeren-in-nieuwe-productiehallen-en-droogdokken with https://web.archive.org/web/20150919210408/http://fd.nl/ondernemen/1110008/bouwers-superjachten-investeren-in-nieuwe-productiehallen-en-droogdokken on http://fd.nl/ondernemen/1110008/bouwers-superjachten-investeren-in-nieuwe-productiehallen-en-droogdokken

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) 07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a static rank column
Anyone here familiar enough with tables to add a static rank column? Apparently the instructions can be found here. If it can be done, I believe the list would benefit from it. At a glance, one could see that yacht X is currently the n-th longest in the world, and so on. Anyone? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ Done. In response to a call for help I put out on a couple of tech notice boards, Trappist the monk created a new template to address tbis very issue, which several Wikipedians have been seeking a solution to for some time. Ttm has already added it to the list here and it looks and works great. So a big thanks to Ttm! - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

U116/ Ulysses pending name change
Superyachtworld.com reports that Graeme Hart, owner of the 116m yacht currently known as "U116", will change the name to "Ulysses" once he sells his his 107m meter yacht, also named "Ulysses". If anyone comes across a report of the sale and/or name change(s), please update the list, (with refs). Thanks. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Update (sort of): Hart sold his 107m yacht, formerly known as "Ulysses" last autumn. Still no news on the name of the buyer or a new name for the yacht. Meanwhile, Hart has taken delivery of hs new 116m yacht which he has also named "Ulysses". The 107m boat is, at least for now, known as "ex-Ulysses". Page has been moved to Ex-Ulysses (107m yacht) (re-direct). The new 116m boat is now "Ulysses" going foward, and still requires a new page; Ulysses (116m yacht). Also, there are plenty of pics out there of both yachts, is anyone is able to upload any (or for any entry on this list still in need of an image) that would be great. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

update
The former 107m "Ulysses" has now been renamed Andromeda (107m yacht). This list has been updated and the page moved (it's still a stub, feel free to add to it). We even have an image now. Still no word on the new owner's name (though it will not be available for charter). If anyone comes across it with a ref, please add it. The new 116m Ulysses still needs an article, or at least a stub and an image. Again, if anyone can add to or update anything here, that would be great. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of motor yachts by length. 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/20160303220831/http://my-cakewalk.com/ to http://my-cakewalk.com/

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) 15:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

List limits...?
Just throwing an idea out there; how making this a list of the "top 150" longest yachts? (a soft cut-off) I've noticed that of the 183 boats currently listed, #151 to #183 are between 60m, the current minimum, and 65m (boat #150 is 65m+ which could be another cut off). The point is, the bottom section of the list is a collection of red links that aren't likely to have their own articles created anytime soon, if at all, or have an image added. Compare this to the top half of the list which has plenty of linked articles and images. I'm sure there are guidelines that could be cited here (wp:not and so forth), and this would make the list look better, more comprehensive. Thoughts? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The list now stands at 201 entries. Entries #141 to #201 are between 60m (the minimum) and 69m, entry #140 is 70m (Thanks gawd for this new ranking column, it makes life so much easier). This bottom quarter (≈) are primarily red-linked entries that also lack images and are not likely to have articles created or images added anytime soon, if at all (Only 6 of 61 bottom entries have articles, whereas 70 of the top 140 entries have articles). Perhaps we could look at setting the minimum length for inclusion at 70m? This would make the list more comprehensive and informative, and less of a 'dumping ground' for these smaller, less notable boats. So, again... thoughts? Anyone? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  11:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * update

Currently, 102 of the top 140 entries of this list have images. The other 38 entries still needing images are at the lower end. Of the bottom 61 entries, only 9 have images. I mention this both as an added note to the comment above as well as an open request for more images. If anyone here is particularly knowledgeable with finding and adding images to WP and/or Commons and can add some of the needed ones for this list, that would be great. I added as many as I could find looking through Commons and still check from time to time for any new ones, but that's the extent of my image-adding ability. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  11:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * added note - images

And there's more...
In the past couple days, since my last post, an IP user has added 64 more entries (in a single edit). This is in addition to the 18 other recent entries added previously. With few exceptions, almost all of the entries are boats that are 75m or less, have no article of their own, have no image available and the owner "unknown". This is taking away from the quality and purpose of this list and turning it into a dumping ground of average, barely notable boats and a growing list of red links. I would again suggest, (make that strongly urge) that some kind of limit is considered, whether it be the number of entries or a minimum length. I would suggest either a "top 100" or "top 150" (at most) or perhaps a minimum length of 75m/250ft. Thoughts? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Another issue: article size
We should also take into account the article size. This page is now 110,000+ bytes (110+ kB). According to WP:SIZERULE;

Division of overly long pages is recommended for several reasons, including the ability of most devices to load the page in a timely manner, if at all, and reader attention. How many readers are likely to read past, say... the top 50 or 100 yachts, all the way through to entry #265 at the bottom of the list?

For demonstration/visual purposes and to gauge change in article size, I (briefly) removed the lower section of the list (entries <75m) which as it turned out, basically cut the list in half, as there are currently 131 yachts with a length of 75m or longer, and 134 yachts with a length under 75m. This also resulted in a reduction of 56,481 bytes (56 kB), bringing the page size down to 53,922 bytes (53 kB). It's plain to see that this edit not only brings the page into compliance with the project's sizing guidelines, but the upper half, on it's own, is a more detailed, informative and comprehensive list, whereas the lower section, on its own, is much less so. As I mentioned above, it is primarily a list if redlinks, few of which, (if any at all), are likely to have their own articles created. These entries also lack other items of information, such as "owner", leaving a column full of "unknown" entries, or images, leaving another column full of blank cells. This gives the lower section an appearance of being a dumping ground of superfluous entries, of which Wikipedia is NOT.
 *  is what the list looks like with the reduction, and
 *  is what the removed lower section looks like, on its own (temporarily placed in my sandbox).

Unless there is a strong consensus supported by sound reasoning to retain this lower section, I am going to boldly remove it, and rewrite the section of the lead indicating that this is a list of yachts 75m (or 250ft) in length or greater, as it would be a clear improvememt. This does not mean that the entries in the lower section, (60m to 75m) need be lost or the work adding them futile. The lower section could be forked to its own list/article, and entries in that size range could continue to be added, and hopefully the existing entries would be updated as well. The only item left to sort out would be article titles. I'll wait a day or two to see if anyone has any input on that, or any of this on general. (I first raised this issue 2 months ago and to date there has been no response). Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  11:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List trimmed
Per comments and guidelines posted above here, the entries from the lower section of the list (60m to 74.9m) have been removed and preserved here for review and discussion of potential outcomes (delete, fork, re-merge);

The remaining entries on the main list still need some articles created (or stubs at least) and it would be great if anyone could provide the last few needed images. (See comment below for more info) Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)