Talk:Superyacht

hotel.
The Sunborn Gibraltar (wrongly spellt in the article) is a corporation-owned floating hotel (that it has a hull and an engine room seems irrelevant) therefore not applicable to the privacy found in ownership or private charters that pertain to yachts. The mention should be removed alltogether.

I donot think that the term gigayacht is encyclopedic either as it hardly describes vessel sizes like panamax or capesize do. . signed:Donan Raven (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Change name of article to "Superyacht"
In searching for two terms "luxury yacht" and "superyacht", the later occurs much more frequently and is the term described in Law of Yachts & Yachting edited by Richard Coles, Filippo Lorenzon. I propose to change the name of this article to "Superyacht". Also, most of the references use the term "superyacht".

Furthermore this is about large yachts. A small yacht can be luxurious and yet be out of the intended scope of this article. Yachts smaller than 40 m, are adequately described in the article, Yacht.

The lead would become:

A superyacht is a large, professionally crewed motor or sailing yacht, typically longer than 40 m and luxuriously appointed.

HopsonRoad (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur/non-concur
✅ There being no apparent controversy for this move. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "superyacht" needs a separate category; a smaller yacht may be luxurious, but that doesn't make it a superyacht. Websterwebfoot (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stopping by after the fact, I am fine with this resolution. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Article Problems
The first problem is that there is no official definition of a super-yacht. "Large yacht" has some legal definitions in parts of the world, but no one actually defines "super yacht".

The second issue is the difference of opinion of the length. The "Law of Yachting" that HopsonRoad referred to seems like a very solid source, but it lists the length as 40 meters (not 24) and very clearly says in the footnote there isn't any official definition.

For the moment, I'm going to update the lead to put the length at 40 metere and also make it clear there is no official definition.

There is however an official legal definition in parts of the world for "large yacht", so maybe that should be somewhere in this article?

-- Geekeasy (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, user Hopsin road. I have to respectfully disagree in the case of a superlative, particularly when it is cited at the lead of the article as the longest yacht. If another photo included the superyacht with the greatest tonnage, I would expect to see that figure there as well with it. Likewise, if one was claimed to be the oldest, a date for that. These are all reasonable things, and comeAnd common across the encyclopedia. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Lengths?
Hi, I notice that you added a length to the caption for Azzam. I suggest that if it's right for one example, it's right for all. However, I also suggest that it's unnecessary for any of them, since each has a wiki-link, if one wanted to know the length of any of these vessels. The range of lengths is mentioned in the lead paragraph. I suggest that suffices, regarding length, in this article. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . That's weird.  I tried to reply to this using my iPhone (and Wikipedia's "user friendly" mobile device interface, whatever it's called.  And did.  But it clearly never got saved properly and appeared here.  Sorry for the delay in checking.
 * I am afraid I have to respectfully disagree on the length issue, as the Azzam is a superlative - the longest superyacht, so its length indeed is both relevant and appropriate in an image of it heading the article. Likewise, I would expect to see tonnage appear for a photo of the superyacht with the largest displacement (which is not Azzam), and date on one regarded as the first or oldest superyacht, and so on.  There is no need to add the length of each superyacht portrayed in article images.  Only when it is germane.
 * Hope all's well your way. Been a long time since we ran into one-another in a nautical article.  (Which went swimmingly last time, though for the life of me though I see it in my mind I cannot recall which article it was.)  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts, here, . My thinking is that the picture already conveys size. The fact that it's the longest at 592 feet is no more notable than if it were the longest at 538 feet (the second-largest power yacht).
 * It appears that you agree that it would be appropriate to list measurements for other yachts that rank highest in a category. I'm fine with this, if there is a consensus. Accordingly, I'll invite some previous editors of this article to offer their preferences regarding measurements vs. no measurements in captions. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @. Go ahead if you like, but I cannot see how this is proving to be such a sticking point for you.  It's the longest superyacht, advertized right at the very top of the article as the longest.  We don't need to make the reader hunt for it.  They are entitled to know how long the longest is, right there, when it is mentioned, as it should be, as it is the longest superyacht.  There really isn't anything controversial or unorthodox about this.  It is Wikipedia norm.
 * And the norm in the real world outside it. There has never been a time in my life that one could go to an article out there on say the redwoods and not see at the top of it the "General Sherman" redwood, the tallest of all, with its height prominently listed.  Or go to one on sequoias, which are not as tall, but bulkier, and see the one with the greatest volume listed, with that volume.  It's just normal, period.  Length is one of two defining qualities of superyachts: they keep getting longer, and they keep getting more expensive.  That's what they do.  Volume?  Nobody is that worked up about which is the displacement leader.  But it would be fine to have it in the article, with that displacement associated with the image and the caption (or body content) saying it was.  This is just SOP.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Add on. I just went and looked at the article.  It absolutely makes sense to add the lengths of the other superlative yachts in captions for their images (largest sailboat, et al) so long as that is why that image is being used.  Other yachts in the article that just happen to be docked somewhere, or photogenic, or whatever, no, it would be appropriate for a reader to click on their link if they want to know more about them.  But those vessels included specifically because they are a form of superlative (in the instance, evidently, all in length), they deserve to have that length listed.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. It's not worth bothering ourselves or others over any further. Thanks for thinking this through with me. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Prankster boasting about contributing material on YouTube
IP users (probably the same person) have provided definitions of different sizes of yacht without providing a reliable source with these edits:, , and. In the last one, he provided a video describing his prank. This is to make other editors aware of this behavior. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not a prankster, he is a superyacht captain who has worked two decades in superyacht industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.86.97 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The edits were self-explanatory to any seafarer. They are based on maritime law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.86.97 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What is self-explanatory to, well... just about anyone, is his video in which he brags about vandalising this article. What is also self-explanatory, to anyone who wishes to edit this project, are the policies & guidelines that govern editing, especially changes to content and the requirement for reliable sourcing - and that does not include using the video you made bragging about vandalizing Wikipedia, as a source for the changes you made while vandalizing Wikipedia. People are volunteering their time to build and maintain a worthwhile effort here, they shouldn't have to waste part of that time dealing with nonsense like this. -  wolf  21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Escape vessel
I just read about some Russian oligarch sailing his superyacht into the Indian Ocean to get away from the Ukraine war and to avoid having the boat seized (several others have apparently been seized in the past few days). It occurs to me that a huge boat in the middle of the ocean with tons of supplies would be a good place to hunker down if the Big One was about to drop. I wonder if that is part of why those guys buy them in the first place. If yes, it seems worth bringing up in the article. I haven't yet had a chance to look for sources, but may get around to doing so. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Several responses:


 * WP:NOTFORUM
 * The vessels don't have that much in the way of supplies. Given the size of their crews, they need to resupply (both food and fuel) every couple of weeks.
 * The reason they are heading out to the Indian ocean is to get the yacht away from EU sanctions and possible arrest. The owners are probably not even on board.
 * The Indian Ocean isn't particularly safe, there are several coastlines which have pirates.
 * Lastly, not relevant for the article.
 * Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I consider it relevant, though the sourcing I've seen so far isn't great. We have no idea what is on board those vessels in terms of supplies and maybe weapons, and the middle of the ocean is not near any coasts.  It seems like an ok thing to research for the article.  This mentions billionaires buying superyachts to escape the covid pandemic.  That seems worth a mention in its own right.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * An underwater superyacht (luxury submarine). Omg. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)  (now added)


 * US Representative Lance Gooden (R-TX) has proposed that the US govt issue letters of marque to allow privateers to seize Russian superyachts.  I may try writing some of the above stuff up in the article.  Right now just saving source links.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Marie Claire magazine reports poor working conditions on some of these yachts, and gives salary figures for crew. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @2601:x:C115, I have to agree with, this is an article talk page, not a forum. This is for duscussing the content of the article, ways to improve it, and to propose possible additions. This is not a chat room to discuss world events, rumors and suppositions about tangential matters, and possible survivalist fantasies about luxury boats in an apocalyptic war. If you have an additon to propose, that fits with the content of this article, and is a demonstrable improvement, then do so. You should post it in a "please change x to y" format, (or add x to y), along with supporting reliable sources. -  wolf  12:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The page is not protected, so I can edit it myself. Yes I'm aware of the need for RS, which is why I'm gathering source links and recording them here before making edits.  No I'm not trying to discuss world events here, except as far as the RS themselves reflect world events, or observed events look relevant enough to the article to be worth noting for purposes of source research.  I thought I was clear about that.  Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, comments like "underwater yacht, omg"! - proposed in an 11 year old ref do not make it so "clear". Regardless, talk pages are not work spaces to store links and build potential article additons. That's what sandboxes are for, but you would need to create an account to get one of those. Otherwise, you'll need to store your links and other resrarch off-site. -  wolf  23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as we're telling other editors what to do, why don't you make some useful additions to the article yourself, instead of hassling someone who is making an effort? You have reverted some edits and added 1 link (maybe spammy). Tarl hasn't added anything. And WP:TPG specifically says,
 * Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial.

So yes, storing links here in preparation for putting them in the article is a perfectly good use of the talk page. Please stop bothering contributors to the article if you are not a contributor yourself. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No need get all snippy and hostile... focus on edits, not editors. I'm not "hassling" you and I didn't revert your last edit, someone else did. It's one thing to post proposed content, it's quite another to post chatty comments that are not part of building the article. But tell you what, I'll leave off and as they say; "the floor is yours". Build your contribution and then post it, along with your sources, to the article. I look forward to seeing your additon. -  wolf  05:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Luxury submarines
This discussion thread seems to have wandered from discussing one or more yacht owners avoiding confiscation of their property to material about one or more luxury submarine concepts. The recently added material on luxury submarines was offered in good faith and substantiated with at least one credible source. I deleted it from this article because since the two dates cited (2007 and 2011) there appears to have been no example of a live-aboard, luxury submarine built, although conceptual designs pop up in the news—this being one from 2017. I suggest that this article is about actual watercraft, not about concepts. Mention of these concepts might be appropriate at Submarine, however. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)