Talk:Royal Caribbean International

Amenities section
I recently removed the majority of this section including the table of individual ships amenities. This has been undone with the justification of WP:RELIABLESOURCES and a claim of "implicit consensus" as it has existed since 2013. Rewording implicit consensus as stable I accept that is a reason for reverting although WP:ONUS does place the burden on the person who wishes to include something to get consensus on the talk page. WP:RELIABLESOURCES is a policy which establishes the criteria for what can be added to an article not what should be included ie if you can't verify the information in RS you can't include it but even if you can then it doesn't mean it must be included. WP:NOT is the policy which defines some information which is not suitable for inclusion and specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL states Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Also mentioned on WP:NOT under Sales catalogues is An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention and under Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: 'snip' products and services. Like all policies on wikipedia the words may not fit the situation exactly but I think the general thrust is clear. Given that this article is titled Royal Caribbean International and is about the company I feel that a section including information on which ships you can get a hot dog from the Doghouse or enjoy Coca-Cola freestyle (and where you can't) is total trivia and of no interest to the general reader of the article, it has no lasting importance, is likely to be inaccurate (the main source given dates from 2013 and only covers some of the ships, some subsequent individual sources are given) and verges on promotion (I note there has been an advert warning template on the section since 2016). Unless consensus is established to keep it I propose to remove it in toto Lyndaship (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this thread. While I recognise your WP:BOLD move to remove it and your good intentions behind the act, I reverted it and requested for discussion per WP:BRD to establish consensus before proceeding further. Since 2013, the inclusion of the content in question has not been disputed, despite many editors contributing to it in the same period, till now. Hence, it appeared to me that your edit was strikingly discordant against the fact that its inclusion and presence had remained unquestioned for the last 5 years despite its relative high editing traffic, so I implemented the revert with the concern that the removal might be overly disproportionate.
 * Before I respond, I think it is better to address the different parts of the content which is being proposed for removed separately, seeing as they are different in nature and the justification for the removal or inclusion of each may vary somewhat. The first is the table, reproduced below, which I believe is the part that is the primary target of the argument of WP:NOTTRAVEL:

References


 * While WP:NOTTRAVEL indicates that Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like, the context here is important — before that line, the same policy gives as an example that an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a French: café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. In the setting of this article, the same degree of trivia is not produced here. The content merely mentions the presence of amenities and "landmarks" on each ship, but does not dive into unnecessary trivia about each restaurant's capacity, price, menu, or the like. Hence, it appears to me that the existence of this table is justified, in principle. Nonetheless, I accept that some information contained within the table might be considered overly trivial (perhaps, like the Coca-Cola Freestyle example which you gave, or in my view, the Dream Works Experience) and should probably be removed in line with WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTCATALOGUE, but it appears to me that arguing for the removal of the entire table requires a more compelling explanation beyond the fact that some of the columns are trivial.
 * The second is the "Ship dining" section, reproduced here:

In 2014 and 2015, Royal Caribbean introduced their new Dynamic Dining concept to replace the Main Dining Room on the Quantum-class ships. Ships with Dynamic Dining do not feature a main dining room. Instead, these ships feature several complimentary table service restaurants with their own theme and menu: "American Icon Grill", "The Grande", "Silk", and "Chic". Guests staying in suites also have access to the complimentary "Coastal Kitchen" restaurant. Similar to the Freestyle concept used on Norwegian Cruise Line, guests make reservations for their choice of restaurant for each night in advance, and each venue will maintain the same menu and staff throughout the cruise. On Anthem of the Seas, a "Dynamic Dining Classic" option allows guests rotate between restaurants but keep the same tablemates, waiter, and assistant waiter from night to night (similar to rotational dining on Disney Cruise Line). On 27 November 2016 "Dynamic Dining Classic" was discontinued and replaced with "My Time Dining". The Grande and Chic restaurants serve Traditional Dining and the Silk and American Icon restaurants serve Flexibile Dining.

Royal Caribbean had planned to extend dynamic dining to Oasis-class ships as well. During drydock refurbishment in 2014 and 2015, signage and décor was installed on the three levels of the main dining rooms of Oasis of the Seas and Allure of the Seas to prepare them to function as separate "American Icon Grill", "The Grande", and "Silk" restaurants, although the three levels continued to operate as a single dining room. The "Coastal Kitchen" restaurant was also installed on both ships for suite guests. However, on 15 July 2015, Royal Caribbean announced that dynamic dining would not be rolled out on the Oasis-class ships or any other ship classes not specifically designed for it. They also clarified that the upcoming Harmony of the Seas will debut with the traditional and "My Time Dining" options. References


 * For this, I'm rather more on the fence about. After having a read of the content, it appears to be more of a change to the dining policy that was eventually cancelled than a current amenity as of 2018, so apart from the WP:NOTTRAVEL argument, it certainly no longer belongs in this section. I would like to retract my objection to its removal, with apologies. —Madrenergictalk 18:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive and considered response to my proposal. I particularly appreciate the clear way you have laid out the points of contention. I have briefly touched on why I feel the table is inappropriate in this article and I am quite willing to elaborate in due course but as WP:ONUS places the burden on those seeking to include disputed text in an article I would ask that you explain why you wish to keep it Lyndaship (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of homeport information from table
I've been thinking about it for a while, and in the interests of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE I think it might be best to remove the columns in the tables that say "Home port" and "Areas of operations", both on this article as well as the specific ship class articles.

Firstly, the information inside has been difficult to verify and goes out of date easily since ships shift homeports fairly often (and may not be announced), and has been difficult to police as various unregistered and registered editors change the details without any clear reference.

Even if Wikipedia were to be a WP:TRAVELGUIDE, I am also of the opinion that the information is of way too little use to readers because it is too vague to be of any interest. If prospective cruisers were truly interested in knowing what cruises itineraries and cruise ships were available to them, the booking sites and agents would be far more updated and accurate; while if local port businesses and ship spotters alike wanted to know what ships were arriving to their shores, their local port authority would tell them which ships were arriving on which specific dates to their specific port with far greater exactitude. Vague phrases like "Asia & Australia" are hardly helpful and hardly help to indicate where a ship would be tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.

Thirdly, its existence as column of a table inherently assumes that every cruise ship has a home port, which we know may not always be the case in this industry. It also makes editors feel compelled to fill it in, which I feel may partly contribute to why there are so many unreferenced entries about home port and area of operations, especially for the older ships that may have little or no media sources.

That is not to say that such information should be entirely purged from the encyclopedia - I think that in whatever instances that WP:RS are available (and I believe that at least some exist), such information can be mentioned in prose on the articles specific to each ship - but I certainly do not think they should be part of a table. —Madrenergictalk 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Broadly agree. I don't think having the current homeport of any ship in a table or prose in an article about the class or company is appropriate. Happy to see current and previous homeports together with broad areas (not a laundry list of individual named ports) of where the ships cruised to mentioned in prose if sourced in individual ships articles. Lyndaship (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree, possiby of use in individual ship articles but out of place in the company article. Same aplies to other cruise company articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 to everything above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind input, everybody. I'll start the cleanup process. —Madrenergictalk 08:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, I have always found it of use to have the info on the pages Darthvadrouw 18:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The information is still available on the individual ship articles which is the appropriate place for it Lyndaship (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would be interesting to add the shipyard that built the ship instead of the homeport, as we have the year of build it would be nice to have that info as well Darthvadrouw 23:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, more relevant to the individual ship articles than in an overview of the fleet. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So why do we have gross tonnage, year built and berths ? Going by your reasoning it would be more relevant in the ship articles. Why do we not only list the ship names (The german version does this and the page is less of a mess of what we currently have in the english version) Darthvadrouw 11:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair point but no one is arguing for the removal of those details. I would say that it is valid to have details of a company's equipment in its articles and size, age and capacity are important information about that equipment. Where it is currently located or where it was built is not Lyndaship (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can get it why the GT is listed or the year it was built but what makes the number of berths relevant in a table ? I am arguing for the removal of the tables and only leave a list of ships, only have one ship picture per class, it makes it much easier to read.Darthvadrouw 11:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of berths indicated the capacity of the ship, see Lyndaship's comment above. Whether it needs to be broken down into single and maximum is another question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again I do not see it's relevancy, a cruise ship is measured by Gross Tonnage not berths. Darthvadrouw 14:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The ship's commercial value is dependant on the number of berths available. Though, as I've said, I think a consolidated figure is more relevant to an overview. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not something that is needed in the table, agree to have it on the ship's detailed page but not here. Commercial value doesn't only depend on berths and is of little use to the average reader. As mentioned previously a list would be more appropriate, we do not need all the details in an overview.Darthvadrouw 16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way, the number of berths is not something I would fight to the death to keep. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that this is an article about a cruise ship company, I would argue that gross tonnage (as a measure of internal volume and hence a proxy for the amount of "space" there is in a cruise ship) and berths (as a rough measure of passenger capacity) are of relevance in describing the ships that are within a cruise company's fleet and giving an idea of the scale of the cruise ship company beyond what a simple list of ship names would. At the very least, it is also consistent with most other cruise company articles.

Darthvadrouw is absolutely right that commercial value does not only solely depend on berths, but I do not think the table should not be a comprehensive and exhaustive summary of every aspect of commercial value - berth numbers just happens to be one of the more frequently-mentioned physical metrics. In fact, I would say that passenger capacity and internal volume are some of the more common "hard" figures that secondary sources often toss around when discussing cruise ships, and mentioning them here is arguably useful in giving readers a rough idea of what to expect when seeing the ships for the first time. —Madrenergictalk 19:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

RCI 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.

Royal Caribbean did not immediately respond to a request for comment. https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-ships-pollution-ranking-carnival-royal-caribbean-among-worst-polluters-2019-7#tied-3-royal-caribbean-cruises-233-4 Peter K Burian (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Among the worst" is a bit misleading since only one cruise line, Disney, scored better. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK


 * Lyndaship, care to explain what is your concerns to not include this important study from the article/s on various large cruise lines so far? Without giving an explanation or taking it to the talk page. Thank you! --Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly but the responsibility for opening a talk page discussion and obtaining consensus lies with the party seeking to add the information not with the reverter. Nor does continuing a thread here really fulfill your obligation as this thread was about a previous report. Specifically though my objection to mentioning this so called study is that it is giving it undue weight as it is a simply an environmental group making claims based on their own criteria and viewpoint to further their agenda and is solely sourced to their website rather than any RS. Find an international or governmental organisation which gives any credence to FoEs report card and I will withdraw my objection so it can go in minus the schoolboy like grading Lyndaship (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 on Voyager of the Seas and Ovation of the Seas
The Voyager of the Seas (that docked Wednesday morning in Sydney March 18) and Ovation of the Seas (that docked afternoon in Sydney March 18) have confirmed cases of COVID-19 from NSW Health. All passengers have been told to self-isolate for 14 days.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-23/cruise-passengers-not-tested-for-coronavirus-before-disembarking/12081426 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.56.39 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal-caribbean-logo.svg

Width of cabin doors
How wide are the doors on the cabins on the ships? 2603:9000:7300:9585:C442:9EFB:ABBA:E1A3 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This probably not the right place to ask unless somehow relates to the article content. By Google: Standard stateroom doors are minimum 23 inches wide, accessible stateroom doors are 32 inches wide. IlkkaP (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)