| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Breeze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Comments
editWhy does the code look different on References and Notes? Splamo 00:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Did the security officer live? -Toptomcat 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Cruise Pages
editI removed the link to cruise pages. It seems to be blatant spam and has little link to the article at all
Move
editI think this needs to be fixed. Move this article to 'Seabourn Spirit' and delete this one. Splamo 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have completed the move manually, as an automatic move could not be done to due to "Seabourn Spirit" already existing as a redirect to "The Seabourn Spirit". I've also manually moved this talk page. -- Kjet (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Discrepancies
editThere are some serious discrepancies between the stats at Fakta om Fartyg and those at Seabourn's company website:
FoF Seabourn.com Delivered 1989 Maiden voyage 1988 9,975 GRT 10,000 [presumably GT]
The same tonnage discrepancy exists for the sister ship Seabourn Pride (whose tonnage is given in the Wikipedia article as "9,961 gross tons", without reference. The ship was (according to Seabourn) refurbished in 2007, which could have involved a change in tonnage; however, there is no serious difference in the ship's dimensions as given by FoF and Seabourn.com.
Normally one would expect the company website to be more authoritative than a privately maintained site; however, normally FoF is accurate, and the data are quite detailed and specific, and 10,000 is a suspiciously round number. Also, Seabourn.com states that Seabourn Spirit (IMO 8807997) was previously Royal Viking Queen, while all other sources (not just FoF) appear to agree that in fact the former Royal Viking Queen is the current Seabourn Legend (IMO 9008598), and so I'm inclined to think the company has been rather sloppy. Any suggestions how to resolve this? --Lambiam 08:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- We should be using independent sources wherever possible, therefore FoF, would take precedence. If the ship is registered with Det Norske Veritas, then there should be plenty of info there too. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, we should be using reliable sources – and under the Wikipedia definition of "reliable source" it is not clear that a self-published site like FoF qualifies. Of course, the website of Seabourn is also self-published, but there we have an exception: under certain conditions self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, which I think applies here. Furthermore, although the inclusion criterion of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, I should hope that if different sources contradict each other about a simple fact, we should attempt to figure out which is correct and which got it wrong – reliable sources also make mistakes, such as the Brockhaus with the length of the Rhine. What I am hoping for is that there is a database of some independent registration authority. --Lambiam 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The United States Coast Guard's Maritime Information Exchange ("CGMIX") is a public database of US-flagged vessels, and foreign vessels which operate in US waters. The search page is here. Data include rated tonnage figures (in this case, a tonnage certificate from DNV[1]). Some 650,000 vessels are in the database. It is both independent and reliable. As it is an independent site, not connected to the owner, and is not a hobby site, it should be used in preference to the sources mentioned above. I have done so with respect to tonnage. Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)