Talk:Ocean liner

Did Virgin Atlantic Challenger II win the Blue Riband?
Currently in the section Decline of long-distance line voyages, this article says about the SS United States: "She won the Blue Riband on her maiden voyage in that year and held it until Richard Branson won it back in 1986 with Virgin Atlantic Challenger II." But is this true? No other related Wikipedia article says so, they all appear to say the succession of the unofficial distinction after 1952 is hotly debated. Other articles also note that though VACII beat the speed record of the United States, not everyone agrees this means VACII met the conditions of the Blue Riband and its previous winners per se; and that none of the official trophies associated with the unofficial record were awarded to VACII, prompting Branson to create his own trophy. This is not as cut and dry as is implied by "Richard Branson won it back in 1986".

The Blue Riband article itself says in the intro:

"Of the 35 Atlantic liners to hold the Blue Riband, 25 were British, followed by five German, three American, as well as one each from Italy and France. Thirteen were Cunarders (plus Queen Mary of Cunard White Star), five by White Star, with four owned by Norddeutscher Lloyd, two by Collins, two by Inman and two by Guion, and one each by British American, Great Western, Hamburg-America, the Italian Line, Compagnie Générale Transatlantique and finally the United States Lines. The record set by United States in 1952 remains unbroken by any passenger liner." [...] "The last Atlantic liner to hold the Blue Riband, the SS United States, was designed for her potential use as a troopship as well as her service as a commercial passenger liner." [...] "The trophy continues to be awarded, though many people believe United States remains as the holder of the Blue Riband, because no subsequent record-breaker was in Atlantic passenger service." In the section Blue Riband, that article says: "At sea United States record stood until 1986 when it was challenged by British entrepreneur Richard Branson, and his high-speed motor vessel, Virgin Atlantic Challenger. Despite having to stop to refuel on several occasions, Branson shaved two hours off the record, increasing the average speed to 36.4 knots. However, as Virgin Atlantic Challenger was not a passenger vessel the New York Maritime Museum refused to part with the Hales Trophy, so Branson inaugurated the Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy, for the fastest unqualified Atlantic crossing, open to all challengers." [...] "With the end of the express liners era, the Blue Riband has become an item of largely historical interest, with some authors regarding the United States as the last holder of the accolade."

That article's section Blue Riband lists record breakers for both eastbound and westbound Atlantic crossings, both ending with the United States and listing no holders after 1952.

The SS United States article says in the intro:

"The ship is the largest ocean liner constructed entirely in the United States and the fastest ocean liner to cross the Atlantic in either direction, retaining the Blue Riband for the highest average speed since her maiden voyage in 1952."

In the section SS United States#Speed records, that article says:

"With both the eastbound and westbound speed records, SS United States obtained the Blue Riband which marked the first time a US-flagged ship had held the record since SS Baltic claimed the prize 100 years earlier. United States maintained a 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) crossing speed on the North Atlantic in a service career that lasted 17 years. The ship remained unchallenged for the Blue Riband throughout her career. During this period the fast trans-Atlantic passenger trade moved to air travel, and many regard the story of the Blue Riband as having ended with United States. Her east-bound record has since been broken several times (first, in 1986, by Virgin Atlantic Challenger II), and her west-bound record was broken in 1990 by Destriero, but these vessels were not passenger-carrying ocean liners. The Hales Trophy itself was lost in 1990 to Hoverspeed Great Britain, setting a new eastbound speed record for a commercial vessel."

The Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy article says in the intro that it's only "one of several such awards that have grown out of the contest for the prestigious Blue Riband of the Atlantic", not that it's identical with the Blue Riband. In the section Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy it explains:

'''In 1986. a second attempt by Branson, in Virgin Atlantic Challenger II, set a new speed record, but the American Merchant Marine Museum refused to surrender the Hales Trophy, claiming Challenger was not a commercial passenger ship.'''

In the section Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy it refers to the speed record set by the Gentry Eagle (also a non-commercial vessel) in 1989 with language that implies Branson had in fact won the Blue Riband in 1986, and that the Eagle won it again: "Gentry's aim was to “bring blue riband home”, which he achieved the following year." So the article itself is a little unclear on whether or not the Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy is interchangeable with the Blue Riband. Granted the lack of awarding of the Hales Trophy isn't equal to not winning the unofficial Blue Riband, since the Riband was universally recognized as being held by the RMS Queen Mary in 1936 and again from 1938 to 1952 but wasn't awarded the Hales Trophy, but it is noteworthy that Branson created his own trophy with no qualifications whereas the earlier trophies and reports on the unofficial Blue Riband record usually had some qualifications. All this shows there's a clear dispute among observers regarding what constitutes a Blue Riband victory and whether it was actually broken by Branson.

As for citations, the sources cited by these various Wiki articles also seem to contradict each other. In Ocean liner#Decline of long-distance line voyages here, it cites Branson's victory with a reference to Olivier Le Goff's Les plus beaux paquebots du monde (1998), page 109. I don't have access to this book so I don't know what it says. Regarding the claim that the United States is the last winner, the Blue Riband article cites Arnold Kludas's Record Breakers of the North Atlantic (2002), page 136, in both its intro and the section The Blue Riband today (1969–present). This is the same book and page number cited in the Speed records section of the SS United States article. I also don't have full access to this book so I can't attest to what it says on page 136, but a Google Books snippet preview shows the book describes the conflict about the VACII on page 17. The Blue Riband article's List of record breakers section says its sources for the list are various and contradictory, but it does not cite Le Goff or any source which suggests the contest was won after 1952. The Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy cites an article from June 30, 1986 in The Times by Nicolas Beeston titled "Branson captures Blue Riband-Virgin Challenger Atlantic crossing", which suggests that newspaper and possibly other observers at the time considered it a Riband win, but I don't have access to that article either so I'm not sure. It also cites an article in Ventana Monthly, a local lifestyle magazine in Ventura County, California, about the Gentry Eagle which states: "But the trophy he wanted most was held by the British tycoon Richard Branson, who, in 1985, [sic] crossed the Atlantic in record time, claiming the most coveted honor in powerboating: the Blue Riband Transatlantic title. Gentry met with the renowned performance boat engineer Peter Birkett, who actually designed Virgin Challenger [sic], Branson’s Blue Riband winning boat."

In looking for other sources, you see further differing opinions with varying levels of authority and no clear consensus. A website called Bluebird-electric.net belonging to Cleaner Ocean Foundation Ltd. has a page called "THE BLUE RIBBON or RIBBAND (HALES TROPHY)" which compiles various articles and opinions on the history of the Riband, some of them conflating it with the Hales Trophy, some identifying the VACII as a winner, others not. In a seemingly original piece of text, the page says: "In 1986, Richard Branson was successful in setting a new gas-guzzling eastbound transatlantic speed record in the powerboat Challenger II. He was not awarded the Hales trophy because his boat was not a commercial vessel and the direction was the wrong way to qualify as a Blue Riband record." It reproduces a 2013 Daily Mail article that says:

"The Challenger II was commissioned by Sir Richard for the historic Blue Riband Transatlantic Challenge. His first attempt a year earlier in 1985 had ended in disaster - with the Challenger I sinking off the coast of Cornwall. But in 1986 in his Virgin Atlantic Challenger II, with sailing expert Daniel McCarthy, he beat the record by two hours. Despite the crossing he was denied the official 'Blue Riband' trophy by the trustees of the award because they said he made the trip in a 'toy boat' rather than an ocean liner."

So once again conflating the "official" Riband with the Hayes Trophy, but as we've seen elsewhere, the unofficial contest usually had qualifications that Branson didn't meet. The Bluebird-eletric.net page has a section about the Hoverspeed Great Britain which notes the Hales Trophy was awarded to it in 1990, the first recipient since 1952, but with the rules changed to count eastbound journeys; but the section ends " However, the United States is still considered the holder of the Blue Riband" (with no source). The page reproduces a July 2012 article from SuperYachtTimes.com, "Fincantieri celebrates 20th anniversary of Destriero record", which states about the Destriero’s 1992 crossing that it "won once more the Blue Riband which in 1933 had been awarded to the legendary transatlantic liner, the Rex" (but not the Hales Trophy) and also that Destriero won the Virgin Atlantic Challenge and Columbus Atlantic Trophy. The page reproduces an article from The Telegraph from November 11, 2007, "Aga Khan's £100m boat after Blue Riband title", which identifies the Riband with the Hales Trophy.

All this to say the definition of the "Blue Riband" seems rather subjective and contested, and the actual winners of the prize since 1952, or whether there are any, depends largely on who you ask. I think this section, Ocean liner#Decline of long-distance line voyages, should be edited to reflect this controversy over the definition and succession of the Blue Riband; or, if people here genuinely feel it's best to leave the claim that Branson won the Riband in 1986, then there should be more sources added to it which attest to Branson's definition being the only correct one, and changes should be made to reflect this in the other relevant wiki articles, i.e. the Blue Riband, SS United States, and Virgin Atlantic Challenge Trophy articles, so they can all be brought into agreement with one another, whatever the consensus is. --VolatileChemical (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Ocean" liners
This article specifically mentions vessels traveling between continents, but weren't there also a large number of coastal liners in the trade, which were smaller than the big ocean liners but more than ferries? Not to mention ones that serve the large inland lakes and seas, those are more than just ferries as well.

2600:1000:B117:FB2B:0:47:C91E:6401 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Survivors" section notice
Hello, I'm still new to Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about several topics, and I try to help by contributing to information. Ocean liners are one of those topics.

I have also started this discussion on the WikiProject Ships talk page. Please see here: WT:SHIPS

I believe the Survivors section on the Ocean liner page needs to be addressed. The following editing notice is provided under it:

"Note: This section does not include shipwrecks or partial bits, only those that are fully intact are listed here."

However, this notice is contradictory. For instance, the definition of "wreck" includes "something or someone that has suffered ruin or dilapidation" (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/wreck). Therefore, according to this definition, the SS United States should not be included on this list, as it is not a survivor at all due the poor state it currently lies in. It's in no seaworthy condition, spoiled of most, if not all of its interiors and machinery, and rusting and decaying since decades, in an absolutely ruined and dilapidated state (https://www.fox29.com/news/ss-united-states-could-the-massive-ship-have-a-future-after-25-years-or-sitting-idle).

Similarly, as per this notice, the MV Astoria should also not be included, as even though most of its hull is still original, the rest has been completely structurally rebuilt as a cruise ship, and therefore does not count as a "fully intact" liner, but rather only a "partial bit", making it inelegible for this list (https://maritime-executive.com/article/historic-cruise-ship-astoria-sold-for-scrap-after-75-year-career).

My proposal is to modify this notice to broaden it as to correctly include both the United States and the Astoria, but also to add other memorable mentions of ocean liners to the Survivors list, such as the SS Conte Biancamano, which was partially dismantled and rebuilt as a huge section at the Leonardo Da Vinci museum in Milan, and is currently preserved (https://www.ilprimatonazionale.it/cultura/conte-biancamano-prima-citta-galleggiante-231242/). While not a fully intact liner, neither is the Astoria, or other liners such as the almost completely rebuilt keel-up SS Great Britain (https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/our-story/). The goal of this list is to raise awarness, clearly and exentsively, on the current state of preservation of ocean liners as a technology, by including full or almost full remainders of ocean liners as structures and constructions. I do however agree that the notice should still address the "no small bits" part, as the aim is not to include minor artifacts such equipment, decorations, etc. that are not unique nor relevant to the naval technology of ocean liners.

I did attempt to implement and explain these changes to the list and to the notice some months ago, however the user that had previously edited this section and notice reverted all of the changes, marking them as poor and unprofessional, more fan blog-like. The user hasn't responded to any of the queries I asked him.

I would like to know the opinions of other Wikipedia users, as to understand whether these changes and corrections should be considered to be added to the ocean liners page or not. If you do, I might re-add them, but feel free to do it yourself. I will patiently await responses for the discussion. Firebobby (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Firebobby You might want to raise this at WT:SHIPS or at least drop a note there advising of this discussion with a link. You would likely get more input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem Thank you for your suggestion. I already did start a new topic on that talk page, writing almost the exact same thing I wrote here, but there is still no reply. I'm not proficient with how to add a link that brings to this talk page and to the ocean liner page section I'm referring to. Could you please illustrate me how to add them? Or maybe can you edit and add them in that topic or under a reply?
 * Thank you for your support and understanding. Firebobby (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Firebobby. See Help:Link and WP:LINK. Feel free to drop me a line of you have any questions or concerns. I'm here to help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem Many thanks for the useful links, now I'm learning how to do that and editing it into the topics, it looks much better now.
 * There's still no other replies and opinions on the situation however, both here and on the WikiProject Ships talk page. Is there anything you think I could do to raise some more interest from the other users? What's your personal take on the discussion? I'm not going to implement any editings on that section again unless there is some general consensus and approval, and then some sort of confirmation that it will be a permanent change in some way, or else that same user will just undo and revert all of the changes again and again. Firebobby (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Firebobby You did the right thing by asking for input. If none is forthcoming, then WP:BOLD applies. Just modify the criteria and add what you think is appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)