Talk:Caribbean Princess

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

	Society portal 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.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Caribbean Princess was copied or moved into Princess Cruises with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move, in line with common practice and current version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Civilian ships. Jafeluv (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MS Caribbean Princess → Caribbean Princess — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No other Princess Ship has MS in it's title. Yankeesman312 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be known as Caribbean Princess, not MS Caribbean Princess, no other Princess Ship has MS in it's title--Yankeesman312 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NC-SHIPS. It appears the other Princess cruise ships need to be moved. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - Barek's pointing out the actual passage in the guidelines which supports this move means I cannot oppose it since it would mean familitarity with the rest of the vessels in the fleet of Princess. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per WP:NC-S and in total agreement with MBK004. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but thats dumb, when you talk about the ship, you normally refer to it as Caribbean Princess not MS Caribbean Princess or Motor-ship Caribbean Princess.--Yankeesman312 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - do we have registry information confirming the prefix is MS? According to vessel tracker, it should be MV.

Re: WP:NC-S, can someone help clarify? The guideline seems to support removing the prefix, as it states "If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name" and "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". Given that most sources and even the cruise line's own website seem to omit the prefix, isn't the guideline then saying it should be omitted - or am I misreading it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it, merchant sailing vessels do not have prefixes. Steamships and motor ships/motor vessels do, thus ST Empire Sandy (a steam-powered tug) and Empire Sandy (a schooner). MV and MS are interchangeable. The use of M/V and M/S for titles is deprecated because it creates these pages as subpages of the M article. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if they have a prefix or not seems to be secondary to how the guideline is currently worded. The sections of WP:NC-S that I quoted above seem to support not using the prefix in this case because it specifically states "If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name" and "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all seem to omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix.

So, I'm trying to understand what part or specific line(s) of the guideline people are using in their oppose ... I'm missing it, and want to better understand the positions before I say support or oppose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, in response to your message on my talk page, the accepted convention on Wikipedia is that ship articles do have prefixes where appropriate. NC-S may need rewriting to reflect this, subject to consensus over wording. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is the definition of "where appropriate". If the ship builder[1], cruise line[2], the US Cost Guard[3], and all but one ref in the article omit the prefix, then the basis for Wikipedia adding it into the article begins to border on being either WP:OR, or simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT. Also, there are a large number of ships listed at Category:Cruise ships (primarilly cruise ships) that omit the prefix; convention certainly supports it on military ships - but civilian ships, especially cruise ships, seems to be another story. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:NC-SHIPS "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix. So, the move is appropriate per guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be changed to "not best known" then, to align with the first part "If a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix..."? At the moment, the last part on its own suggests to me that it refers to ships without one altogether. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a discussion for the guideline talk page, I think those two sentences could use some clarification in the guideline as it leaves some room for interpretation. But, my reading of "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous" is that it does not state a ship which does not have a prefix - it's worded to say a ship not known by a prefix; to me meaning if it has one or not, it's a question of how the ship is known. For civilian cruise ships, they are frequently known without the prefix - which is supported by the US Coast Guard link, the ship builder link, the cruise line link, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per naming convention. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per naming convertaion., a ship like RMS Titanic or RMS Queen Mary 2 sound better with RMS in the title but MS or MV does not sound good with a present day cruise ship unless it was a RMS or SS--Yankeesman312 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not well-versed in NC-SHIPS, but it's common practice to include the prefix. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice on military ships ... but not on modern civilian ships, especially cruise ships; see Category:Cruise ships. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per arguments that the prefix is not normally used in reference to this vessel, and that the naming convention supports excluding it. Propaniac (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.