198:
180:
513:"Largest" depends on the context, and this context is about volume, not linear dimensions. This article is about cruise ships, and when most readers and sources talk about the sizes of cruise ships, the metric they think of is interior volume (gross tonnage), because that is essentially synonymous with a cruise ship's "business space", just as how the largest containerships are ranked only by their TEU capacity. A slightly longer but narrower/shorter cruise ship with the same gross tonnage is meaningless to readers, and makes for needless make-work.
880:. To bring this article to the level of "Featured list", it needs to have a lead section that summarizes the content (although most of this will go in the introduction text for the "In Service" and "On Order" sections), provides background information, and gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages). I'm still tweaking the text, but all the content is designed to either relate to the ship's sizes, or provide some background information on the data in the table (which includes things like which company ordered the ship). --
279:
261:
21:
451:
743:
it, and I feel misunderstanding what the current criterion is may be at least part of the reason why you feel I am the one "changing" the criterion. Once again, if you feel there is a need to change the criterion, you are certainly free to propose it; if, on the other hand, you feel that it is the title that needs to be changed, you are also free to propose it; the discussion will follow accordingly. I hope this explanation helps. —
149:
244:
58:
374:
353:
289:
604:
the fact that "Allure of the Seas" is larger by any margin makes it, technically speaking, a larger ship. To prevent inconsistencies within
Knowledge's information, I must insist that these edits remain until both sources display the same information. If you disagree, please clarify your views on how you believe 50mm is not an objective difference in size, extent, or capacity, as defined by the
638:
would be included (Very few people would, for example, be interested in the 74th largest cruise ship). While gross tonnage is indeed a factor in what makes a ship large, the most accurate possible way to measure a ship's largeness is to consider the definition of the word, the word that surrounds the entire article: Largest. Largest relates to "size," "capacity," and "extent," and the word
673:
attempting to alter the contents of the page to reflect it as "List of largest cruise ships by gross tonnage" rather than accurately edit the page to reflect the current title: "List of largest cruise ships." Additionally, I believe cruise-goers may find this
Knowledge article useful for a multitude of reasons. If Knowledge can benefit them with such a list, I am happy to be a part of it.
1008:
Here it is over a year later and the list is still for anything over 120K, so 65 entries. I agree that it should be limited to 50 entries, if not less. The list is for the "largest". I would be happy to do that, but in my experience, Knowledge pages always have people that think they're in charge and
706:
attempting to change the criterion of this article by adding the line "with ties being won by the longer ship". The current criterion is not "largeness" (in all its possible interpretations), but specifically gross tonnage. This is because, in lists on
Knowledge, the list criterion is not dictated by
672:
Hi
Lyndaship. In this case, length is the only differentiating factor between the two ships. Therefore, the lengthier ship is the larger ship. The criterion of the article is the ranking ships by the matter of "largeness." Adhering to this criterion is not changing it. Changing the criterion would be
942:
The list has been expanding nicely over the last few years, and we're currently sitting pretty at 61 entries (rank 59 is shared by three ships). However, with the large number of large cruise ships that were launched in recent years, I think the list has gradually bloated beyond its earlier size. In
742:
Now, this does not preclude you from proposing changes to the criterion, and you can implement it if you are able to obtain community consensus that the new criteria is a better way of constructing the article, but we need to recognise what is the current criterion first before proposing a change to
532:
Readers should not be forced into the columns of "Largest cruise ships" to determine which cruise ship is actually "Largest." You agree that the context is about volume, and volume is literally described as "the amount of space that a substance or object occupies." A longer ship occupies more space.
977:
section when I trimmed it to 120,000. 120,000 was chosen because there was a large gap above and below it, so it seemed like a more meaningful dividing line than 130,000 (where the Disney
Fantasy is just 0.2% too small, which is essentially a rounding error). 135,000 might be a better number, since
951:
remaining ships larger than 130,000 GT would provide more than sufficient context for readers to compare the truly large ships. Therefore, I propose raising the threshold to 130,000 GT for now, which will trim 12 ships from the bottom of the 'In service' list to leave 49. What does everyone think?
755:
For those reading this in the future, let it be known that "Allure of the Seas" and "Oasis of the Seas," the subjects behind this discussion, were proven to be different sizes. And despite multiple edits and even malicious reports to try to revert this fact, the page now finally reflects the truth
637:
Hi
Lyndaship, it sounds like your concern is regarding the cutoff of the list in regards to the minimum requirement necessary to make the list. I'm sure you would understand that not every cruise ship could be included due to the sheer number, and for practical purposes only the very largest ships
603:
be larger and one will inevitably be smaller. I noticed your updates on the cruise ships in question and acknowledge them, however I see that while the numbers have been edited the "50mm" difference remains officially documented and mentioned on the article page. As these are the official numbers,
657:
No my principal concern is your attempt to change the criterion which has been used to determine the content of this article without discussion. I think it's a silly article to have as it's merely a list of ships over an arbitrary tonnage. You are correct that a better title would be list of over
642:
makes specific and clear reference to "dimensions." Therefore, at the very least, a ship's dimensions should be used to determine which ship is "larger" if both ships were the same gross tonnage. You are free to look up and verify these definitions yourself. Unless the page is changed to "List of
981:
However, if the goal is to maintain the "in service" list at roughly 50 entries, why not just set the limit at 50 entries instead of an arbitrary size threshold? The "on order" ships could be ships on order larger that would be large enough to be in the top 50 if they were in service today (e.g.
598:
I am happy to clarify with you, and thank you for your determination for accuracy in the specific ship articles. The way the Oxford dictionary views it is, whether the difference is fifty millimeters or one nanometer, the objective definition of "Largest" does not state that such small sizes are
950:
Currently the threshold is 120,000 GT, but given that the list is about the largest cruise ships, I doubt most readers of this type of list will be looking for or interested in the ships rated at between 120,000 to 130,000 GT, seeing as they are considered fairly mid-sized in the industry. The
490:
I would like for a moderator to officially clarify that "largest" goes beyond mere gross tonnage, as largest is defined as "of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity." Length is therefore a factor in determining the largest cruise ships, and to omit such a factor would make
907:
When this list was first started, there were only 37 ships larger than 100,000GT, and 8 under construction. Now, however, there are almost double that number in service (71 ships) and almost 50 more that are planned. These days, ships under 100,000GT are the exception, rather than the rule.
916:, there seems to be a breakpoint between 116,000 and 121,000, so 120,000 seems like a logical place (looking at future ships, it seems like in a few years the logical breakpoint would be 165,000). This will trim the list to 44 ships right now, and it will be 50 ships by the end year.
533:
Your previous issue with the methodology was resolved when the introduction specified length would be included as a factor to improve the accuracy of the list, which previously relied on a single factor which proved to be inaccurate when multiple ships shared the same measurement.
943:
addition, it will continue to grow - the 'On order' section has 38 more entries that will only add to the main list as time wears on and these ships enter service. To keep it at a relevant and comfortable size, we should probably continue to maintain the 'In service' list at
583:
as the official reference for all technical measurements and data for that ship. We are not talking about theoretical spaces here - we are talking about actual measurements given by the organisation whose job it is to document and publish every single measured dimension of a
736:
516:
Accuracy is not at all affected because the lead section already makes clear that the only metric considered in ranking is gross tonnage, and all other dimensions are still provided in the additional columns, should readers want those statistics.
571:
Once again, I must stress that most readers do not care about a 50mm difference between the length of cruise ships in deciding which ship is the largest - most sources that comment about the relative "sizes" of cruise ships focus on interior
197:
179:
978:
there is a larger gap before it, and it brings the list down to 43 entries, which is about where it was the last time the threshold was raised. It also, coincidentally, is the size of the smallest "on order" ship in that list.
728:
877:
119:
35:
622:
It's a stupid list as it's not a record of largest cruise ship by time period but a list of cruise ships over an arbitrary threshold. Given that the GT recorded by the classification society is the only valid measurement
1055:
Just noticed this discussion. There are now 67 ships in service and 19 on order over 135,000 GT. If we raise the threshold to 150,000 GT, we will have 41 ships in service and 15 on order totalling 56. Way to go?
1117:
707:
the article title but determined by the body of the article, specifically the lead section (which explains that "ships are ranked by gross tonnage"). This is described by
Knowledge's guideline
1112:
100:
756:
that they are indeed different. Knowledge writers, let this show that no matter how hard some people may try to oppose the facts, the truth is a battle worth fighting for. -
575:
It is also incorrect to claim that a longer ship must have a larger volume, because ships are complex shapes, not rectangles. Assuming the volume must be bigger amounts to
64:
1147:
579:
which is not allowed per
Knowledge policy. Furthermore, this article ranks cruise ships by gross tonnage, which is an actual measurement produced and published by a
737:
List of largest container ships larger than 140,000 TEU ranked according to twenty-foot equivalent unit capacity and divided into completed ships and ships on order
319:
1086:
459:
302:
266:
214:
1142:
947:
50 entries, and periodically trim it by raising the GT threshold and removing the entries of smaller ships that don't meet the raised threshold.
850:
In my opinios it would be the best to delete the last edits comltetely. This isn't an article about Cruise ships generally, we have the article
428:
1157:
1122:
491:
Knowledge a less accurate source to the millions of teachers, students, and populace that rely on it everyday to be as accurate as possible.
418:
1132:
729:
List of largest cruise ships larger than 120,000 GT ranked by gross tonnage and divided into ships in service and ships under construction
1162:
1137:
757:
674:
644:
609:
549:
498:
956:
827:
1127:
394:
218:
1152:
732:
702:
Just to get this out of the way, because the failure to recognise this is going to make further discussion very difficult: You
1009:
revert any good changes that they didn't do. Also this talk page really needs to be cleaned up. Someone else can do that. :)
222:
803:
913:
1094:
968:
952:
823:
724:
160:
822:
were of identical sizes according to the official ship registry measurements, despite boastful claims to the contrary.
390:
386:
381:
358:
205:
185:
40:
774:
I don't understand. It looks like you may be attempting to spin a defeat as a victory. The earlier quibble was about
854:. Now the arcticle seem to be a big chaos. Companies, propulsion and a lot more have nothing to do with it's size.
576:
318:
related articles on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
658:
120,000 GT. Ask yourself why choose length as a secondary criterion rather than breadth, height, draft or depth?
1028:
I went ahead and trimmed it to 135,000GT. Still unsure about whether there is consensus for a hard cap of 50. --
468:
30:
1075:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
1090:
148:
20:
1079:
761:
678:
648:
613:
580:
553:
502:
57:
908:
Therefore, I am proposing that, in order to make this list more meaningful and to differentiate it from
166:
44:
599:
excluded from consideration. Unless both items are exactly the same volume and tonnage, one ship will
909:
545:
494:
1014:
663:
628:
1057:
871:
855:
720:
715:. The title of the article, on the other hand, is meant to only briefly outline the content, and
708:
473:
278:
260:
1048:
1025:
1010:
48:
1061:
1033:
987:
924:
885:
859:
745:
589:
537:
519:
470:
450:
587:
Lastly, I have corrected the articles which you claimed as the source of your statistics. —
1098:
1065:
1041:
1018:
995:
960:
932:
893:
863:
831:
765:
749:
682:
667:
652:
632:
617:
593:
557:
523:
506:
472:
659:
624:
294:
1106:
1071:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
605:
213:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
790:, so there's no change there. The only difference in measurements I see now between
639:
243:
1052:
1029:
1003:
983:
920:
881:
851:
844:
786:
are officially documented by their respective registries as being of the same
288:
284:
373:
352:
221:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
878:
Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of largest cruise ships/archive1
717:
is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject
314:
308:
713:
the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead
210:
643:
largest cruise ships by gross tonnage," this fact will remain.
474:
444:
142:
393:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1118:
Featured lists that have appeared on the main page once
811:
112:
93:
912:, that we increase the threshold to 120,000GT. If you
808:
added additional cabins during a October 2019 drydock
306:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
778:. The list continues to reflect the fact that both
1113:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page
63:This article appeared on Knowledge's Main Page as
982:larger than the 50th largest ship in service). --
1085:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
723:as well). This is why the article is called "
8:
385:, an attempt to structure and organize all
543:
492:
347:
255:
174:
72:
15:
389:. If you wish to help, please visit the
328:Knowledge:WikiProject Travel and Tourism
1148:WikiProject Travel and Tourism articles
349:
331:Template:WikiProject Travel and Tourism
257:
176:
973:I wrote about this a bit above in the
716:
712:
146:
7:
379:This article is within the scope of
300:This article is within the scope of
203:This article is within the scope of
974:
165:It is of interest to the following
47:. If you can update or improve it,
814:, the conclusion was correct that
14:
914:graph all the current ship sizes
798:is that the former has a larger
449:
372:
351:
287:
277:
259:
242:
196:
178:
147:
56:
19:
812:at the time as of December 2018
733:List of largest container ships
423:This article has been rated as
1143:NA-importance Tourism articles
303:WikiProject Travel and Tourism
1:
750:16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
683:22:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
668:22:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
653:22:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
633:21:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
618:22:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
594:21:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
558:20:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
524:17:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
507:16:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
322:and see a list of open tasks.
1158:Low-importance List articles
1123:Old requests for peer review
933:16:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
725:List of largest cruise ships
27:List of largest cruise ships
1133:All WikiProject Ships pages
1066:16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
403:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists
231:Knowledge:WikiProject Ships
209:, a project to improve all
1179:
1163:WikiProject Lists articles
996:17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
961:12:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
894:14:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
864:11:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
832:12:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
766:06:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
429:project's importance scale
406:Template:WikiProject Lists
234:Template:WikiProject Ships
33:, which means it has been
1138:FL-Class Tourism articles
1099:04:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
731:", and this is also why "
606:Oxford English Dictionary
447:
422:
367:
272:
191:
173:
133:
75:
71:
1042:19:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
1019:14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
735:", for example, is not "
1128:FL-Class Ships articles
969:Epistulae ad Familiares
953:Epistulae ad Familiares
824:Epistulae ad Familiares
804:only increased because
486:Definition of "Largest"
387:list pages on Knowledge
217:, or contribute to the
120:Featured list candidate
1153:FL-Class List articles
581:classification society
155:This article is rated
67:on September 7, 2020.
65:Today's featured list
910:List of cruise ships
711:, which states that
577:WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH
45:Knowledge community
39:as one of the best
1091:Community Tech bot
325:Travel and Tourism
267:Travel and Tourism
219:project discussion
161:content assessment
76:Article milestones
560:
548:comment added by
509:
497:comment added by
480:
479:
443:
442:
439:
438:
435:
434:
382:WikiProject Lists
346:
345:
342:
341:
254:
253:
250:
249:
223:full instructions
206:WikiProject Ships
141:
140:
129:
128:
1170:
1038:
1007:
992:
972:
929:
890:
875:
542:
536:
475:
453:
445:
411:
410:
407:
404:
401:
376:
369:
368:
363:
355:
348:
336:
335:
334:Tourism articles
332:
329:
326:
297:
292:
291:
281:
274:
273:
263:
256:
246:
239:
238:
235:
232:
229:
215:join the project
200:
193:
192:
182:
175:
158:
152:
151:
143:
134:Current status:
115:
96:
94:January 22, 2020
73:
60:
43:produced by the
23:
16:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1103:
1102:
1087:nomination page
1080:Disney Wish.png
1073:
1034:
1001:
988:
975:#Size threshold
966:
940:
925:
905:
886:
869:
848:
540:
534:
488:
476:
471:
408:
405:
402:
399:
398:
361:
333:
330:
327:
324:
323:
293:
286:
236:
233:
230:
227:
226:
159:on Knowledge's
156:
111:
92:
12:
11:
5:
1176:
1174:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1105:
1104:
1083:
1082:
1072:
1069:
1045:
1044:
1036:
999:
998:
990:
979:
939:
936:
927:
904:
903:Size threshold
901:
899:
897:
896:
888:
847:
843:last Edits of
841:
839:
837:
836:
835:
834:
810:. That means,
769:
768:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
585:
573:
564:
563:
562:
561:
527:
526:
514:
487:
484:
482:
478:
477:
469:
467:
464:
463:
455:
441:
440:
437:
436:
433:
432:
425:Low-importance
421:
415:
414:
412:
377:
365:
364:
362:Low‑importance
356:
344:
343:
340:
339:
337:
320:the discussion
299:
298:
295:Society portal
282:
270:
269:
264:
252:
251:
248:
247:
240:
237:Ships articles
201:
189:
188:
183:
171:
170:
164:
153:
139:
138:
131:
130:
127:
126:
123:
116:
108:
107:
104:
97:
89:
88:
85:
82:
78:
77:
69:
68:
61:
53:
52:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1175:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1070:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1005:
997:
993:
985:
980:
976:
970:
965:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
948:
946:
938:Trimming list
937:
935:
934:
930:
922:
917:
915:
911:
902:
900:
895:
891:
883:
879:
873:
868:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
853:
846:
842:
840:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
807:
801:
800:gross tonnage
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
767:
763:
759:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
747:
740:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
641:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
602:
597:
596:
595:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
559:
555:
551:
547:
539:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
521:
515:
512:
511:
510:
508:
504:
500:
496:
485:
483:
466:
465:
462:
461:
456:
454:
452:
446:
430:
426:
420:
417:
416:
413:
409:List articles
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
360:
357:
354:
350:
338:
321:
317:
316:
311:
310:
305:
304:
296:
290:
285:
283:
280:
276:
275:
271:
268:
265:
262:
258:
245:
241:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
202:
199:
195:
194:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
172:
168:
162:
154:
150:
145:
144:
137:
136:Featured list
132:
124:
122:
121:
117:
114:
113:June 29, 2020
110:
109:
105:
103:
102:
98:
95:
91:
90:
86:
83:
80:
79:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
55:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
37:
32:
31:featured list
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1084:
1074:
1046:
1000:
949:
944:
941:
919:Comments? --
918:
906:
898:
849:
838:
819:
815:
805:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
758:75.28.18.138
744:
741:
703:
701:
675:75.28.18.138
645:75.28.18.138
610:75.28.18.138
600:
588:
550:75.28.18.138
544:— Preceding
518:
499:75.28.18.138
493:— Preceding
489:
481:
457:
448:
424:
391:project page
380:
313:
307:
301:
204:
167:WikiProjects
135:
118:
99:
49:please do so
34:
26:
852:Cruise ship
845:User:Ahecht
746:Madrenergic
721:WP:LISTNAME
709:WP:LISTNAME
590:Madrenergic
520:Madrenergic
101:Peer review
1107:Categories
601:inevitably
458:Archives:
395:discussion
36:identified
660:Lyndaship
625:Lyndaship
802:, which
727:", not "
546:unsigned
495:unsigned
157:FL-class
125:Promoted
106:Reviewed
945:roughly
572:volume.
538:Help me
427:on the
315:tourism
84:Process
1058:IlkkaP
1053:Ahecht
1030:Ahecht
1004:Ahecht
984:Ahecht
921:Ahecht
882:Ahecht
872:HenSti
856:HenSti
820:Allure
796:Allure
788:length
784:Allure
776:length
309:travel
163:scale.
87:Result
816:Oasis
806:Oasis
792:Oasis
780:Oasis
719:(see
584:ship.
400:Lists
359:Lists
228:Ships
186:Ships
41:lists
29:is a
1095:talk
1062:talk
1049:Jbw9
1037:PAGE
1035:TALK
1026:Jbw9
1015:talk
1011:Jbw9
991:PAGE
989:TALK
957:talk
928:PAGE
926:TALK
889:PAGE
887:TALK
876:See
860:talk
828:talk
818:and
794:and
782:and
762:talk
679:talk
664:talk
649:talk
640:size
629:talk
614:talk
554:talk
503:talk
312:and
211:Ship
81:Date
1089:. —
739:".
704:are
419:Low
1109::
1097:)
1064:)
1040:)
1017:)
994:)
959:)
931:)
892:)
862:)
830:)
764:)
681:)
666:)
651:)
631:)
616:)
556:)
541:}}
535:{{
505:)
1093:(
1060:(
1051:@
1047:@
1032:(
1024:@
1013:(
1006::
1002:@
986:(
971::
967:@
955:(
923:(
884:(
874::
870:@
858:(
826:(
760:(
677:(
662:(
647:(
627:(
612:(
608:.
552:(
517:—
501:(
460:1
431:.
397:.
225:.
169::
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
