Talk:Brittany Ferries

On-board facilities

I was not convinced the lists of on-board facilities are necessary: this is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide or a directory. See this. Including such detail would be equivalent to the article on my home town listing all the shops on the High Street. Besides, as this information is more relevant to the vessels themselves rather than the company, if it is included anywhere, it should on their articles rather than this one. If have removed them, and replaced them with a summary.

Also, why are the 1990s more relevant than today? Also, what colour the signs are on the Pont-Aven is way too much information. --RFBailey 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has replaced the lists etc. that I removed. I have taken them out sgain, and reiterate the above comments: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --RFBailey 07:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well im not convinced that your comments are necessarily right. This page has a special resonance for many from BFE's forums, and fills in a large amount of information that many new enthusiasts seek. Such things as colour of signage can be quite important to many (you'd be surprised) and the 1990s form what many see as the 'golden' era of Brittany Ferries. The information is therefore relevant insofar as it is interesting for enthusiasts but can be ignored by those looking for more of an overview.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, aimed at a general audience. It is not a forum for enthusiasts of Brittany Ferries, railways, computer games, Antarctic penguins, or anything else. There are already web pages for Brittany Ferries enthusiasts, such as the one linked to from this article, which can contain as much information about these topics as they like. As I said, if this pattern is to be followed, then the article about my home town would list all the butchers, bakers, stationers, cafes, restaurants, bookmakers, etc. on the High Street, which would be ridiculous. Other ferry companies' vessels have shops, restaurants, bars. etc. The only difference here is that Brittany Ferries has more of a following among enthusiasts. While, as a company, they must be doing something right for this to be the case, it doesn't make them any more notable than, say, P&O, Stenas Line, or DFDS. --RFBailey 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Start class

Any particular reason why this article is currently just 'start class' in the Ships project? There's not much to be wished for, I'd say - but then I'm no expert on shipping or ferries. Classical geographer 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rated this as a B article as its surely better than a start, its possibly eligible for a GA class but there seems to be a fair bit involved in doing this so I may leave it to some one more experience in this Mbruce1 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the people at WP:SHIPS are rather lazy in upkeeping the ratings. It might be a good idea to bring this up at the project's talk page. -- Kjet (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that technically this article wouldn't deserve to be in B-class. It's an admirably well-written article, but it lacks citations, which are the first requirement of a B-class article on WP:SHIPS quality scale. That said, since the whole WP:SHIPS rating system is rather poorly run, I'm not going to change this one back to start-class. Just thought you'd better known. And maybe someone could find the time to provide the needed citations. -- Kjet (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a tag for references so hopefully someone can help out there :-)Mbruce1 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brittany Ferries. 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/20101204012443/http://traveldaily.co.uk/AsiaPacificNews/Detail.aspx?Section=20510 to http://www.traveldaily.co.uk/AsiaPacificNews/Detail.aspx?Section=20510

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fleet current status

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the inclusion of the "current status" column on the fleet list. It strikes me as being an unnecessarily trivial level of detail; either a ship is in the fleet or not, and that's all that's particularly relevant to the company article. It also bears all the hallmarks of something that will be an unending challenge to adequately reference--indeed it is completely uncited now. Notifying @TonyMWeaver: who restored the column without comment after I removed it. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that "in service" is superfluous, and would replace the "Current status" heading in all three tables with a "Comments" column which would be largely blank in the first two tables, except when there is something significant to enter.

Also a couple of suggestions for the regular editors: the 3rd column in the Future Fleet table would be better headed "Due to enter service", where the current last column data can go; and in the Past fleet table the "In service" column would be more informative with in/out years, eg for Kerisnel 1972-1974. Davidships (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all of Davidships suggestions Lyndaship (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Huge chunks removed

I've just removed 27,173 bytes worth of stuff from this article, much of which seemed to have been put there by a company or at least a fan (I don't understand how European travel companies get these "fans" but yet they do...).

I see that there are three sources at the bottom, all by Miles Cowsill and published by Ferry Publications, which might have been the source for some of that information -- but who knows because there were no in-line citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@TonyMWeaver: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a neutral summary of published sources, not your personal knowledge of the ships and opinion on the company and its founder. Phrases like "Firebrand farmer"and "Such was the success" do not belong, much less an "Exceptional Service" section.

Such edits give the impression that you're an employee of the company. If that is the case, you should not be editing the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson: By 'Huge Chunks', I am guessing you mean part of the History section? This info has been on the Brittany Ferries Wikipedia page for a number of months and are updated as part of the history or future history of the company. I do not understand why this is an issue now, when they have always been there. Now, it seems that nothing has happened with the company since 2012 as everything since has been removed.

Ref:'Honfleur', someone seems to be constantly editing this section and adding information which is incorrect. I have added a citation to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMWeaver (talk • contribs)

@TonyMWeaver: Additions to the article need to cite professionally-published sources. Original research, personal knowledge, and insistence that things are "100% fact" are not acceptable sources.

Just because the material was unnoticed by someone familiar with relevant site policies doesn't mean it gets grandfathered in. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)