 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Move of Page
editI think this page should be moved to a new title of Saga Pearl II, as that is what the ship is now called. This page could redirect to the new page. Though, perhaps someone more experienced could do it, if appropriate. Neuphin (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Too Many Pictures?
editI do not think this article contains too many pictures at all, since all pictures illustrate different and significant phases in the history of the ship. --Ivan T. (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)ž
East German History
editThe history during the operations for the goverment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) is not mentioned at all. --Tronicum (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Engines
editI have sourced the original engine installation by MAN, and that remained unaltered in Lloyd's Register until at least 2002. The completely different installation by Sulzer-Wartsila is mentioned in a source normally considered RS, but that article refers to the 2009 refit as "... a complete overhaul of the main... engines", rather than replacement. As it happens, the Sulzer-Wartsila engines described are the same as the ones installed in this ship's larger replacement Astor of 1987 and it may be that an inadvertent error has occurred. I do not have access to post-2002 LR, or other such sources, which would confirm the engine fit (and indicate when any new engine was installed) - can anyone help with this please? In the meantime, I've left the text as-is. Davidships (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sea-web database entry has MAN engines. Tupsumato (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming that. I think that the speed info in the infobox relates to the deleted Sulzer engines, and should be replaced by that under Design & Construction. Davidships (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Article title
editWhat would be the best title for this article? Pearl II is definitely not 10:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Lyndaship (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Arkona is the name she appears to have carried the longest. But Saga Pearl II is probably better known. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've undone a move by User:CrownM to Arkona (ship) as, as discussed above, it is probably not the name she is best known as and does not need the (ship) disambiguation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Leaving procedural issues aside, this reverted move was not unreasonable, as one of the two best candidates, so why return to a non-common name? Better to just propose a move to Saga Pearl II if that is what you favour. Whether or not a ship name requires a dab is happenchance, and irrelevant.Davidships (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was reverting to the status quo so that hopefully a consensus could be reached. Yes, my preference is for Saga Pearl II but I am open to persuasion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Leaving procedural issues aside, this reverted move was not unreasonable, as one of the two best candidates, so why return to a non-common name? Better to just propose a move to Saga Pearl II if that is what you favour. Whether or not a ship name requires a dab is happenchance, and irrelevant.Davidships (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've undone a move by User:CrownM to Arkona (ship) as, as discussed above, it is probably not the name she is best known as and does not need the (ship) disambiguation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)