Talk:Carnival Fantasy

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantasy02.jpg

Image:Fantasy02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantasy01.jpg

Image:Fantasy01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are all dates correct?

Hi, just noticed that the ship seems to have been completed before being launched, which seems unusual. Are these dates correct? Can the source be cited? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have some sources, but they're not in front of me at the moment. I'll check. The "launch date" may be a reference to the christening date. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carnival Fantasy. 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/20080825125618/http://www.cruisecritic.com:80/reviews/review_page2.cfm?ShipID=6 to http://www.cruisecritic.com/reviews/review_page2.cfm?ShipID=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Trivial Information

In the 15 December 2018 revision, a somewhat substantial amount of information was removed from the article in a copyedit, probably due to the trivial nature of the information. I added back a small amount of information that seemed to probably be relevant, a bit more detail on the refit in 2016. There was an interesting section on the name of ships' dining rooms that was removed that was probably trivial, as it only involves the names of amenities aboard the ship. It did also provide an interesting link to other current and former cruise ships due to names of those ships being included as the names of dining rooms on the Fantasy and the Fantasy's name being used on another ship. I am not sure whether this meets the notability requirement, so I'm not sure if it ought to have been included. I do personally find it fascinating, though.

Along the same line, I am not sure the 2018 "Most Improved Ship" award is notable. It was originally included as essentially an advertisement for the improvements made in 2016, but reading the award itself, it doesn't seem to mention those specific improvements as the reason for its judgment. Are awards like this relevant info? Whitevelcro (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute

I recently removed a considerable amount of information in this article as I did not consider it of interest to the general reader on the grounds its neither relevant or concise and some of it verged on promo or trivia. This has been challenged so I am explaining my reasoning under the WP:BRD policy although I would point out that WP:ONUS places the burden of obtaining consensus to include anything on the editor who wishes to have it included.

The first point of contention is including that it is the oldest ship in the company's fleet. So what is my feeling here, it is a transient statement as it probably was not until some date and it won't be once it is sold. You could say between xxxx and 2019 it was and somehow work in an as at tag to enable the dated information to be periodically reviewed but why bother, its just not important enough.

Secondly I removed all the mentions of the names of the programmes under which she was refurbished. Now the names of these programmes are pure marketing hype, they constitute a series of routine refurbishment for the whole fleet. The work done on each vessel varies so there is no uniform change of facilities. Therefore I favour just saying there was a refurbishment.

The biggest change was removing all the detailed information on home ports, length of cruises and destinations and substituting areas of operation. The information given before was very patchy and mostly unsourced. I don't think the general reader is interested in her detailed previous cruising history and this is not the place to market current and further cruises. Likewise the mention of the ships which replaced her or she replaced in a port is (company generated) trivia. A broad areas of operation provides the information which is relevant and is also concise and forms prose instead of a higgle piggle lot of sentences giving an incomplete record of cruises.

Cruise ship articles are like any other ship article, they are primarily about the ship. We should not pad them by using company generated press releases stating things which are of no long term significance. Lyndaship (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)