Talk:Viking (cruise line)/Archive 1

Century Sky
An anon posted the following to the bottom of the article. I've moved it here for reference, as the article may require corrections if the post is accurate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Century Sky is no longer in service with Viking's China programs.
 * You may check on VikingRiverCruises.com and find the 2009 programs all does not include Century Sky.
 * I am a travel agent in China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.50.213.179 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 6 March 2009

Comment
This comment is true and the matter has been fixed. 74.62.46.90 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Major update in the works
Viking River Cruises has now become Viking Cruises. I am working on a comprehensive update, the upshot of which will leave us with a detailed Viking Cruises article that includes both the river and ocean cruise parts of the business and a very short Viking River Cruises article that points users to Viking Cruises for more information (more of a stub than a redirect). I have created the new Viking Cruises page in my sandbox and am ready to request review for publication (I will add the proper logo afterward, since WikiMedia advises me to publish the article first). This comment is by way of explanation about what I am doing, so the reviewers will understand. Any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thanks! Julane (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

External link to traveller.com.au review
User:Bahnfrend added a link to a review of a specific cruise at traveler.com.au to the external links section, which I initially reverted (Bahnfrend then reverted my revert instead of discussing it here per WP:BRD). I don't feel that an external link to a review of a specific cruise on a specific ship is appropriate for an article on the company in general. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "...a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject". This review would be an okay external link for an article on the Viking Var or the Middle Rhine, but is too specific to be an external link on an article as broad as this, and the review is mostly about sites on the river and barely touches on the ship or the company. --Ahecht ( TALK PAGE ) 16:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The company's core business is operating holiday tours along the Rhine River between Basel (the company's European operating base) and Amsterdam. The article describes such a tour, and is an appropriate external link for that reason.  Persons travelling on such a tour experience more than just the travel, accommodation and meals on board the ship; they also visit places along the way, often on day tours operated by the company.  The article is published by one of the leading media organisations in Australia.  There is no separate Wikipedia article about the ship, which is one of a large number of similar ships operated by the company.  Bahnfrend (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

COI/advert tags
I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. This signifies to readers that the article has been directly edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and is likely to have bias, in the form of missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to review the article and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

NOTPROXY
The content below is basically copied from Viking Cruises website. Per WP:PROMO, Wikipedia is not a proxy for the company's website. Am moving a whole bunch of stuff here.


 * Ships cruising in Russia


 * Ships cruising in Asia


 * Ships cruising in Egypt


 * Ships cruising in Europe


 * Cruise Ship Fleet

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Excessively long lists of ships
Does anyone object to me moving them to a separate article? Edwardx (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't belong in Wikipedia. Sourced entirely to their website and per WP:PROMO Wikipedia is not proxy for the websites of article subjects. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle I don't have a problem with a stand alone list of ships of a particular shipping line. Existing examples include List of ships of the Illawarra Steam Navigation Company and List of P&O Ferries ships.  Arguably Wikipedia should have more such lists than it does at the moment.  Whether such a list is appropriate for this particular shipping line is another matter.  I think it would be, primarily because the shipping line is well known, operates worldwide, and has a large fleet.  Another option might be to create an equivalent of the German language article Viking Longships, which is about the single class of ships that makes up most of that fleet.  Bahnfrend (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Posssibly coming in late, a seperate article with neutral presentation would be a good idea Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Could not verify patent numbers for longboat design
I wanted to look at the patents for the longboat cabin configuration designs. The article indicates the patent numbers (1832106-0001 and 1832106-0011) and that these are US patents -- but they are not found on either the USPTO or google patents websites... These patents need to be confirmed in the article and/or corrected/removed if needed. 172.85.18.26 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.85.18.26 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They should be prefixed D (for design) and the numbers after the dash should be ignored, I think that is just a revision number. So we are looking for D1832106. There is no such patent number on the US patent database as I think you've discovered.  However that patent number would have been issued in 1958 so is not in the main on-line database which only goes back to 1976.  Numbers issued for 1999/2000 woud be in the range D403485 - D435712.  I did try adding "D4" to the front of the number but got a list of 50,000 possible hits!
 * Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edits
I have declared my COI above, and would like to propose edits to the page, to bring it up to speed. I've condensed it, brought in better sources when necessary, and aimed to make it encyclopedic. See here for my proposed edits. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No thank you. Please propose individual specific changes. We are unpaid volunteers and have neither the time nor interest to compare two possible versions of an article. Edwardx (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am available to compare both versions and report back here with the results prior to implementation — which looks likely, from what I've seen so far. As they've been a long time contributor to this page, I would like the input of Jytdog (talk) on this as well, before any changes are made.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that I am a close reader, and I will be making sure that everything is actually cited to a reliable source, and I will remove anything advertising-y.  I will also go looking for negative information to ensure that NPOV is met.  Are you sure this is ready for review?  (I took a quick glance and this Since 2000, the company has built nearly all of its own river ships, uniquely designed longships seems to be unsourced, and it later says Viking started to build "longships" in 2012....)  Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

My report on those changes:
 * The claim "Since 2000, the company has built nearly all of its own river ships, uniquely designed Longships" exists in the standing version, and is kept in the proposed version. The claim's veracity is unknown.
 * The "Company History" has been condensed and renamed "History", omitting many irrelevant facts from various ship sizes, etc., and dates acquired. The Guinness World Records claim is retained.
 * No dates or quantities kept in the proposed version have been altered from the standing version, with the exception of the number of ships shown in the lead. The proposed version delineates "river vessels" as numbering 62 and "ocean ships" as 4. The standing version makes no such distinctions, placing their number of ships at "more than 60."
 * The Viking expansion into North America with offices in LA has been listed in the proposed version as occurring in the year 2000. This is not mentioned in the standing version.
 * The standing version's infobox shows the HQ's as LA. The proposed version deletes LA, replacing it with Basel. An explanation is provided in the text of the proposed version ("The company's operations center is in Basel, Switzerland, with its marketing headquarters in Los Angeles, California."[14]).
 * The proposed version deletes the standing version's "Amenities" subheading entirely, which was heavily laden with an advertising-like tone.
 * The proposed version deletes the standing version's "Awards" subheading, also heavily laden with advertising-like tone.
 * The media section has been renamed "Sponsorhips".
 * There is no change to the three pictures featured in the article.

Delete I would suggest deleting from the proposed version this sentence (which also exists in the standing version):
 * "Their cruises are geared primarily toward English-speaking customers in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia." (and the reference for it, No. 15)

 Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   00:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That was intense. :)  I was just asking Bernie if he is really ready for review. This is the first time i have reviewed his work (and his first time having me review it) so I just wanted to give him a heads up.  When he says is ready I will go to work!  And in the meaintime, of course please do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I've gone through the draft again and made a few edits. Jytdog, I am ready for your review.--Bernie44 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Very minor point, perhaps the sentence "Since 2000, the company has built nearly all of its own river ships, uniquely designed longships. should read …own river ships, the uniquely designed longships.  (italics just for emphasis here) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, just checking in to see if you have had a chance to review my proposed edits. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up! Not yet - but will get to this soon. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)