Talk:Norwegian Star

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles Travel and Tourism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Was the ship in fact "launched" in late 2001, or was that rather her completion or delivery date? Kablammo 23:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a passenger aboard this vessel in Alaskan waters when she had some vaguely-explained problems with her azipod(s). During an unscheduled port call several of us did research, and found that she had experienced a spate of problems of this nature. I propose a section on these difficulties. LorenzoB 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many ships utilize the azipod system, and there have been some well publicized problems with these systems on Celebrity's ships. Perhaps a discussion could be started on the azipod page. --OneCyclone 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What propulsion system does this ship employ? Ronstew (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have conflicting views regarding the infobox.

• Generally either |Ship status= or |Ship fate= is always filled even if the former seems to be redundant in some cases. Some editors like to elaborate (e.g. "In active service as of 2012" etc.), but I prefer the shorter "In service".
• As for |Ship power= and |Ship propulsion=:
  • Usually the manufacturer and model of the prime movers is specified before the output. This is a common practice in many places and used in nearly all ship articles in Wikipedia.
  • The use of conversion templates is okay. I often leave them out because they take a lot of space in the infobox (but include them in the article body) and no-one uses horsepower in these days to denote the output of a ship's engine, but it's generally accepted. However, I never convert the power rating of electric motors like Azipods or bow thrusters as they do not produce power.
  • In my opinion "diesel-electric" relates to the propulsion system (and should be placed in |Ship propulsion=) — the diesel engines are just diesel engines (or well, generating sets) while the propulsion system is diesel-electric. In fact, I don't even find it necessary to mention that the engines are in fact diesel engines. That can be said in the article body as well.
  • The non-breaking spaces ({{nbsp}}) should be left where I placed them. That's a recommended practice.
  • MAN B&W does not use spaces in the engine type names. Hence, 14V48/60, not 14V 48/60.
  • The same "model before power" is generally used for the propulsion system as well. The other changes were just my personal view, and I don't have anything against reverting them.
• No output parameters should be used when converting knots to km/h and mph, with the exception of limiting the significant numbers.

Also, you're "more right" about the GT in the lead section and I admit bad editing. After all, it's not an unit. However, do we really need to even specify the abbreviation? "The ship has a gross tonnage of blablabla." should be enough.

Anyway, this is a short summary of reasons for the changes I made and you reverted. Although some of them were more about my personal view than a common practice of WP:SHIPS, there were also edits that are in line with our guidelines. It would be nice to hear other editors' comments regarding the issue. Tupsumato (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't do a lot of work on ship articles (well, one other), so I am not fluent in the conventions of WP:SHIPS however, according to the usage guide for the infobox, "if the ship is expected to remain in service in the near future and its decommissioning will not likely go unnoticed," |Ship in service= should be adequate on its own.

I seem to be hung up on, what I see, as two definitions for propulsion: the actual devices used to move the ship are, on their own, electric, versus the entire propulsion system which is diesel-electric. If there was a better way to display "diesel-electric" (e.g. a seperate parameter) or remove it from the infobox (is it really needed?), I'm all for it. I have no problem putting "model before power", but saying "4 × MAN B&W", and then "4 × 14,700 kW" also seems redundant and takes up space (power output can be relegated to the prose, as well, if need be). Instead of placing a bunch of non-breaking spaces, I think placing the phrase in a {{Nowrap}} would be easier.

I can't see the harm in keeping the abbreviation of gross tonnage, it's not very long and it is already used in the infobox. Also, I did leave alone the expansion of Star to Norwegian Star, as I didn't really care either way (though it was an attempt to be more varied in wording). That's my reasoning, though if someone else wishes to comment they are more than welcome to. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, even though I worked on the usage guide, I missed the part about |Ship status= being redundant. I stand correct. As for the |Ship power= and |Ship propulsion= fields, in my opinion the fact that the ship is diesel-electric should be stated (although it's quite obvious from the Azipods). Also, I would put it in the propulsion field as it's the propulsion system as a whole that is referred to as diesel-electric (but the diesel engines are just diesel engines generators). As for the power, I (obviously) prefer stating the output in the way I put it, but then again a generally accepted way is to state the combined output of the main engines in the infobox and elaborate per-engine outputs in the article body. Nevertheless, it's important information and should be given in the infobox.

I guess the abbreviation of the gross tonnage is okay as it is — it was more or less an unnecessary edit from me. However, the point of expanding Star to Norwegian Star is that it's the ship's actual name and in my opinion we should not go and shorten them in the articles unless the short version is widely used in other sources as well. Many people familiar with ships tend to speak of them with shorter names, e.g. callign Oasis of the Seas "the Oasis", but in my opinion that shouldn't be done in Wikipedia.

Anyway, it's nice that for once someone reacts to my clean-up editing. Tupsumato (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I rea-dded the previous power/propulsion (with a modification that seperates it a bit better). I had found a style guide from NCL that indicates shortening of the ship's name is allowed after the first use of its full name, so its not really a neologism. You are welcome to look at the rest of the article and see if anything else needs to be cleaned up; I'm planning on taking it to GAN sometime. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that such style guide existed. However, although dropping the Norwegian is okay for the company in their publications, I'd still recommend using the full name in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I agree with not using "the" in front of the full ship name... Tupsumato (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]