Talk:MS King Seaways

Merger proposal

I propose that MV Val de Loire be merged into this article. The two articles are both about the same ship, under its previous and current names. One article is all that is needed, as there is much duplication across the two articles, and neither article is especially large. The merged article should be under this name, as it is the ship's current one. --RFBailey 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, the history of MV (with a V) Scandinavia is not notable. Reasons have already been expressed here, any further proposition of merger will be opposed for the same reasons as previously stated. Captain scarlet

(above comment by User:Captain scarlet left at 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Agree, I agree that the Val de Loire and King of Scandinavia pages be merged to give a complete history of the vessel the changes it has undergone with DFDS with the page title using either the vessels existing name or its original one with redirects for its other names. Red Fox 18:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reverse merger templates added by Captain scarlet, for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place and avoiding confusion. (The way the {{mergeto}}/{{mergefrom}} templates work means that this "Discuss" links point to different talk pages.)

I don't understand why the ship's history since being MS King of Scandinavia is any less notable than its history as Val de Loire or, indeed, as Nils Holgersson (its original name). The only difference was the longer time period it spent as Val de Loire, so more happened to it during that time. I would recommend that a description of its current facilities etc. is included, but I'm not able to supply this (other than by paraphrasing DFDS's site).

Regarding why I proposed this, I am following the proper procedure for merging articles (which I admit I should have done last week) and ensuring that the discussion takes place on the relevant article talk page(s), rather than on user talk pages. That way other users can contribute to the discussion. At the time it seemed like a fairly innocuous topic (this is an article about a ferry, not Arab-Israeli relations, Apartheid, Sinn Fein, abortion, creationism or some genuinely controversial subject). --RFBailey 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You have answered to your own question, if you cannot see why one name is more notable than another then I see little point in your participation in the debate. You've made a point of the importance of one name over the others, and that pretty much justifies the original name of the article MV Val de Loire. My other comments are still present on my talk page below your own comments, I suggest to take time to read them as you've asked about them tonight.

As you've said, maybe there are more important articles (to your eyes) that warrant as much effort to prove their name is relevant. You can't actualy remove my tags since they are an official request to get rid of MS King of Scandinavia just as much as yours is... Hint. I've made my point tonight and last time you tried to move the article, I believe I have well documented the uselessness and unappropriatness of your proposal. Captain scarlet 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see why the article should be named King of Scandinavia since the ferry has been called Val de Loire for most of its life. Angel1479 01:01, 8 June 2006 (GMT)

Oppose and merge into MV Val de Loire, as per Angel1479. 62.6.139.11 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, It should be called the King of Scandinavia as that is what it is called now as the ship is still running, the same as the Playstation 1 is now called playstation intstead of PSX which was it is original name

Comment, Which ever way this goes re the merger it is clear that there is no need for two articles on the same ship regardless of its change in name. I will add more info on King of Scandinavia to which ever page survives. This issue raises the question about how to deal with these vessels as name changes are relatively frequent compared to other ships. If we are going for the name which the ship has had for the majority of its working life then surely the MV Reine Mathilde page should be renamed MV Prince of Brittany or MV Beauport and MV Pont L'Abbé to MV Dana Anglia? Again regardless how this merger turns out i think redirects should be used for the ships other names to bring it to which ever article is left. Red Fox 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a vessel's current name (or most recent name for scrapped vessels) should be used, unless there is a compelling reason why one name is definitely more important than others. By this I mean something like a significant, newsworthy event having happened on board: length of service on its own isn't compelling. A standard policy should solve arguments about which name is most notable. We certainly don't need separate articles for each name: redirects should suffice.

Part of the problem we have here is a bias towards Brittany Ferries vessels, with articles focusing on vessels' careers with that operator rather than others. Something ought to be done to address this: I'll try to help out here. --RFBailey 09:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I'm sure you will, you've helped out so much until now. You still seem to have taken anything onboard and your comments are consistent with a conversation beginning, not a couple of sweeks old. It is precisely because of events that make the ships' name as they are currently named, notable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, What events have made the Val de Loire notable? --RFBailey 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support merge one way or the other. There is no need for two articles, so the only question is that of the name. RFBailey's general suggestion ("a vessel's current name (or most recent name for scrapped vessels) should be used, unless there is a compelling reason why one name is definitely more important than others.") seems reasonable. There has been a claim that events have made the Val de Loire name more notable, but these are not described in the article, on this page or any other discussions, so I do not yet see any compelling reason to use that name. JPD (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I'm going to try and explain myself yet again. The MV (motor vessel) King of Scandinavia has only be named such for a very short period of time and as such has not had time to gain a reputation or do anything particular that makes that name stand out in front of the ship's former name. This is for the same reason that SS France (1961)'s article is called France as throughout it's career as the France it has done more to its reputation as it is doing now named Norway, I use this as an example as even though Val de Loire and France are clearly ships of different calibre, the reason for their article names. I oppose the current proposal but would gladly see the articles merged back to their original state with the clear reputable and notable name of Val de Loire. Clearly if you have not seen her, or cross on the Channel you might not have heard of her, but others might argue as she's clearly was a popular ship as Val de Loire. Maybe her future (say 2-3 years) a change of article name to King of Scandinavia when the ship's reputation is built whilst crossing the North Sea will happen, but not now. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the ship was popular with that name does definitely not consitute a "compelling reason", so definitely does not change my opinion with regards to the criteria I gave. I have, however, now seen the naming policy for ships, which says, inline with general policies, to use the "most common name". In general this fits with RFBailey's proposal of using the current name by default. To use an older name, you would need to make the argument not only that the Val de Loire was notable, but that the reputation of the Val de Loire is so great that more people would still refer to it by that name than would talk about the ship in its current incarnation. If this is true, please give us evidence, not just statements that it is clearly true. Either way, I think someone has already pointed out that this shouldnt' be such a big deal, as wherever the article ends up, there will be a redirect from the other name. JPD (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Merging Val de Loire into King of Scandinavia does in no way diminish the importance of the former. Keeping the ship articles going by their current name would in my opinion be the most pratical approach (although I'd disagree about calling scrapped ships with their final names, as they're usually fairly inconsequential. I'd rather support such articles reverting to their original and/or most important name). Kjet 19:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger revisited

I have decided to be bold and carry out the merger that I first suggested nearly two years ago (see above). In doing so, I have left out what I regarded as indiscriminant information from the Val de Loire article (which was akin to a list of all the shops, bars, restaurants, etc. on a particular street). --RFBailey (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm being bold and undoing your merge. We've been here before and it's staying. Being bold after a discussion to merge died after no one convinced the other is just insulting. 88.96.204.236 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be insulted, but some of us prefer to improve the encyclopaedia rather than have petty arguments for the sake of it. Clearly only you object to this, as it was carried out three months ago, since when various other improvements have been made to this article. Please provide proper justification as to why two articles are necessary. --RFBailey (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to avoid any types of arguments, I undid your move, I commented just as politness would obliged. I see you've replied but I feel you're bordeline condescending and won't permit any other course of action other than leaving it as you see fit. Will you listen or do you want an edit war? I prefer the first option. Would I want to move all the article to Val de Loire, I'd agree with your reticence but I'm not. I've discussed it first yet you've undone me, you did not act civilly, you clearly stated you wished discussion which I've obliged. Wikipedia at its best as usual: ownership or articles and bullying. 77.100.149.189 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair play, I've read the MV King of Scandinavia (MV for Motor Vessel) and MV Val de Loire is clearly seperate in content. Whilst the MV KoS article concentrates on ownership throughout its operating life, MV VdL article concentrates on its service with Bf and its facilities (which some fan of BF ferries contributed a while back). I believe they're both quite different in content, concentrating on different key eras. Discussion, reflection, compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.149.189 (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The general way of doing articles on different ships in Wikipedia has been to have a single article that covers all incarnations of a given ship. For instance there's just one article on SS France (1962), which covers both the ship's career as the France and as the Norway. I don't see any compelling reason to maintain two separate articles for MV Val de Loire and MS King of Scandinavia, all information about the Val de Loire and - and IMO should - be incorporated into the King of Scandinavia article. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 05:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO opinion the articles should be merged but with the content of the Val de Loire article fully incorporated into the King of Scandinavia one, perhaps including the changes carried out to the ship when it became King of Scandinavia? Red Fox (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there does not appear to be enough content to justify a split into two places. The two eras can be covered by separate sections of this article, as there are now. And as for the use of "MV" or "MS", as DFDS uses "MS", then so should we in this article title. --RFBailey (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kjet, all ship articles on wikipedia should only have one. I mean if we started having an article for every name ships ever had, there would be too many to count! Also the time this ship spent as Val de Lorie is really no more notable than its time as Nils Holgersson or King of Scandinavia. -Mbruce1 (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

When was the ship named "King of Scandinavia"?

I encountered a ship named "King of Scandinavia" in the Summer of 1993 while visiting Scandinavia. If the pictured ship is the same a the subject of the article, then the claim that it was named this way only in 2006 is not correct. Oyoyoy (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The ship you have pictured it the old MS Wellamo of 1975, King of Scandinavia (2) from 1989 to 1994, she is now MS Jupiter This page depicts the later ship Ex Nils Holgesson, King of Scandinavia(3) and just to confuse you there was the old Princess Birgitta who was the first ship to wear the name for DFDS.

Mbruce (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)