Talk:MS Ambience

Requested move 24 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to reverse the move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Satoshi (ship) → Pacific Dawn – May I suggest that this article be renamed back to Pacific Dawn? Articles about cruise ships are usually given the same name as the current or final name of the ship when she was in service (as opposed to en route to scrapping or other disposal). For example, MS Melody is the article about the ship of that name that was eventually sold, renamed MS Qing, and intended to be refurbished into floating accommodation, but sank at her moorings and was later scrapped without having been converted. Even if the subject of this article was ever formally renamed Satoshi, she never went into service under that name, and I have seen no photographs of the ship (as opposed to renderings of her) bearing that name. Additionally, most of the online databases still refer to her as Pacific Dawn. In those circumstances, it's not encyclopedic for this article to bear the name Satoshi. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• sounds obvious and sensible - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the move was premature. Think it can be boldly moved back Lyndaship (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 19:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose She is currently owned by Ocean Builders, and the scrapping contract has not been finalized. Furthermore, she does bear the name "SATOSHI" and P&O has been removed. Changing the article name is not only misleading, it is blatantly false. https://www.gbc.gi/news/cruise-ship-set-host-floating-community-gulf-panama-rock-surveying JLMadrigal @ 11:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Response So what? Okay, so there's now evidence that she was renamed for her voyage to Panama. But the sources say that even before she arrived at Panama, she was sold for scrapping in, and announced that she would be resupplied for her final voyage to, India, without going into service under the new name. That makes her position exactly the same as that of MS Qing. Further, it is not uncommon for a ship to be renamed for her voyage to the scrappers, which in this case just happens to be not via a direct route. As for the claim that the scrapping contract has not been finalized, that claim is not supported by any of the numerous sources I have seen. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And even if she reaches the breaking yard and is dismantled by another party, she remains the M S Satoshi and the property of Ocean Builders until such time - regardless of the number of passengers or the value of her cargo. Your so-called "sources" are sensationalist echo chambers. JLMadrigal @ 01:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The article naming policy is WP:COMMONNAME Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Another highly-premature page move of a cruise ship wandering off to an uncertain future, and directly contrary to NC-SHIP: An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name.. Satoshi is unlikely to ever become the most notable name for this ship. Davidships (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2018 death of Natasha Schofield

I actually went on the Pacific Dawn not a month earlier before her death. I have 10 years of law enforcement training, as well as being a risk consultant. I compiled a pretty lengthy list of all hazards present on the ship that was accessible by a normal passenger. Things most people wouldn't think about. One of my major points was improving the fencing on the absolute top deck of the ship, particularly mid-ship. I sent the report into P&O after my trip. Let's just say the work required would be pretty extensive. It might of been what tipped P&O over the line to try and get rid of it. Not to mention the press involved in regards to the suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.69.89 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

MS Ambience → Pacific Dawn – It was announced today that the ship so far best known as Pacific Dawn has been bought for a new cruise company Ambassador Cruises, which intends to rename her Ambience, with business to open in June 2021 for cruises commencing in April 2022. In terms of WP policy, at present it fails the basic naming principle of WP:COMMONNAME, and the additional guidance at WP:SHIPNAME. So far there are no sources found to support even that the change of name of the ship has happened, so it cannot satisfy WP:NAMECHANGES. At some time in the future the ship may become better-known in service as Ambience than Pacific Dawn, but at the moment that is speculative; new plans for the future are appropriately covered under the former article title Pacific Dawn, consistently with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Davidships (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, and probably could have asked to have it reverted at WP:RMT. 162 etc. (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

As original mover Kefalonitis94 had already reverted my revert it did not seem to be uncontroversial. Davidships (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - clearly premature to have moved it to the current title, it may never be formally renamed or enter service under that name Lyndaship (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ambience 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to MS Ambience. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Pacific Dawn → ? – The ship is now operating as the Ambience as the article sets out (with sources). As such, I think it is now time that the article be moved, either to MS Ambience or to Ambience (cruise ship). Harris (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree Convention is that we title article at current name for cruise liner. Prefer MS Ambience Lyndaship (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What convention is that? Stated baldly, it is directly contrary to NC-SHIP: An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name - indeed a "latest name" move was specifically reverted for this very ship, see above re Satoshi. If the current guidance is to be modified, it should be proposed at WP:SHIPS.

That said, "best-known name" has to be considered case-by-case, and I will admit to breaking that rule myself just yesterday, see Talk:MS Aegean Myth, though only because the "current name" approach had already sat unreverted for as long as the ship been laid up with no plans to put her into service (ie, just "asset play"), and reversion to Maasdam at this stage seemed unhelpful.

So, weak support (with preference for the existing MS Ambience dab). Davidships (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Convention as in accepted practice. I've seen it mentioned in various discussions but of course it doesn't trump WP:COMMONNAME. Easier to let the fan boys use the current name whilst the ship is in service and revert to best known name when the ship's scrapped Lyndaship (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Understand, though this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan mag, and exactly why three of the other four Seajets-owned cruiseships are here under names that show no signs of ever being used in service; they are riding coach-and-horses through WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC-SHIP. Davidships (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

All true but it's been the usual practice on cruise ships and ferries. If WP:COMMONNAME was enforced we would be endlessly reverting as each new enthusiast saw an old name and changed it to the current one. I guess it could be argued that most people coming to wiki would be looking for the current name as they had booked a cruise on it. I'm not going to be supporting the convention or the policy, just like consistency Lyndaship (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.