Talk:MV Astoria/Archive 1

.

Archive 1

Februarhy 2008

Blurb for DYK

Did You Know that SS Stockholm which collided with SS Andrea Doria in one of history's most famous maritime disasters in 1956 today sails as a refurbished cruise ship, the M.S. Valtur Prima? suggested image :Image:Stockholm heads to NY.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjet (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SS prefix

Moved from Talk:Stockholm (Ships)

The information is a little wrong the name is not SS Stockholm but MS Stockholm. --Dahlis 14:19, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Can you cite a source on this please? Thanks. Pentawing 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what i could find http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/7894/stock.html The Stockholm built 1948 at götaverken was the one that sunk the Andrea Doria. There has however been a SS Stockholm aswell. --Dahlis 14:07, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, though someone mentioned on the SS Andrea Doria's talk page that the prefix should be SS since it is common usage. Pentawing 21:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is MS Andrea Doria aswell since SS stands for steam ship it is wrong in both articles and it needs to be changed. --Dahlis 22:07, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

At the moment, the prefix will remain as SS on the Andrea Doria article. I looked through Google and so far MS Andrea Doria (which is mentioned predominantly on Dutch and German websites) hasn't been mentioned much compared to SS Andrea Doria (even a survivor's website used the SS prefix). The question now becomes whether we use the American SS prefix (which seems to be the preferred way), or the prefix which you say is the correct one. Pentawing 22:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not that this would matter three years afterwards, but anyway... SS stands for Steamship (which is what the Doria was), MS stands for Motor ship (which is what the Stockholm is). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've added an infobox, but am not sure how to add the details in of the last rebuilding so that it shows separately there. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that... and a bunch of other stuff, as you probably can see. ^_~ -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blurb

The link to SS Stockholm in the blurb leads to an article on a different ship! Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Which blurp are you talking about? SS Stockholm should lead to a different article as this one never was a steamship, so what exactly is the problem? -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

top of this talk page - Blurb for DYK - the link there leads to a different ship to this one. Is the ship linked to the one meant in the DYK? The DYK blurb itself seems to refer to the ship that is the subject to this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, that one. Yeah, it should lead to this article. That part was imported from the talk in Stockholm (Ships) and I didn't really bother to look at it that far... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

Why is this article under MS Athena? The majority of the article is about its "Stockholm" days, and I would argue it's much more notable as the "Stockholm". John.Conway (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The crushed bow repair, did it regain ice crushing abilities?

Did the repaired bow retain the ship's original ability to cut through ice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.136.164 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

second oldest ship???

If the former Stockholm was, quote, "rebuilt from the waterline up", unquote....can she truly be called the "second oldest active oceangoing passenger ship"? The rebuilding was an entirely new structure. Elsquared (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose the argument is that the IMO number is the same regardless of rebuilding. However I think the claim of no encyclopedic interest and the source is not RS so I propose to remove it Lyndaship (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The listed source for the "second oldest" claim seems to be nothing more than a blog, and it only mentions "extensive renovations". I agree the comment should be removed, and in the meantime I'd like to find out exactly how much "rebuilding" was done. Elsquared (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "second oldest" claim. If proof can be found about the extent of the rebuilding, then it should be put back. Elsquared (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Some evidence that the ship may NOT have been "rebuilt from the waterline up". There is an extensive photo slideshow of the ship at USA Today. (The URL is https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2018/06/05/cruise-maritime-voyages-astoria-ship-andrea-doria-history/669139002/) Photo number 65 shows the Olissipo Restaurant on Atlantic Deck. The caption says, quote, "One of the few remaining visible features from the ship’s Stockholm incarnation is the double row of porthole-style windows that line either side". Elsquared (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IMO number is bound to the hull. From the IMO point of view: Same hull = same ship, even if the rest is rebuilt. And Astoria's hull ("ducktail" was added later) looks distinctly old-fashioned, Stockholm-like. There's a noticeable sheer. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the last reference listed at the bottom of the WP article states that the ship is now "arguably the oldest ocean-going cruise ship". Now cruise ship is different from passenger ship and I would like to add that there must be sailing passenger ships older than these anyway, but the cruise ship category is much smaller and better fitting (imho), if one were interested in records. JB. --92.193.214.124 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaving CMV fleet in 2020?

A citation is needed for the recent edit which claims the Astoria will leave the CMV fleet this year. I found this source but am unsure whether it's reliable. Worryingly, I also found this story from 2016 about a supposed departure which didn't seem to eventuate. Meticulo (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit dispute

@Ghmyrtle and Aoi: User 178.4.50.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person as 2.206.214.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was just blocked 3 days ago by LuK3 for abusive editing on this page (attacking other editors). They have been edit-warring over the same info (dozen+ edits for 2.206.214.192 & now 5 edits for 178.4.50.110) and posting the same abusive edit summaries (also blanking warnings on their IP user talk page). Unless LuK3 steps in again, perhaps a report should be filed to either WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. (fyi) - wolf 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not be surprised in the slightest, given their similar editing interests, if there was also a connection with blocked Truthclarification2 (talk · contribs). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Thewolfchild, I appreciate it (and I appreciate you filing the ANEW report). I intend to open up a report at ANI if this continues (though I don't think I'm going to be very active here for the next few days). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI

This user is now at 5RR. An ANEW report has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:178.4.50.110 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result:1 week). - wolf 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

edit: updated the wp:anew link - wolf 21:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aoi: Seems there even more history to this user. I left a comment about it on Ponyo's page (fyi) - wolf 20:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on the user's use of grammar (or lack thereof) and other editing habits, I suspect the IP 92.218.124.118 is the same user as the one who was the topic of the discussion above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Hopefully this latest block (for 92.218.124.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) gets the message through... - wolf 21:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)