Talk:Royal Princess (2012)

File:Royal-Princess-Princess2013-.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Royal-Princess-Princess2013-.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Princess (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140416181642/http://www.naviecapitani.it/gallerie%20navi/Navi%20da%20Crociera%20----%20Cruise%20Ship/schede%20navi/P/PRINCESS%20CRUISE/Royal%20Princess.htm to http://www.naviecapitani.it/gallerie%20navi/Navi%20da%20Crociera%20----%20Cruise%20Ship/schede%20navi/P/PRINCESS%20CRUISE/Royal%20Princess.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019 floatplane crash

The article said the ship was en route to "Whittier", which I have assumed means Whittier, Alaska, but the cited source says it was en route to Anchorage. Which is correct? Both of them apparently have a suitable port with cruise ship facilities. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 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 section.

It was proposed in this section that Royal Princess (2012) be renamed and moved to Royal Princess.

result:
No consensus. See no agreement below to rename this article as requested. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this page move. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 04:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Royal Princess (2012) → Royal Princess – the two ships on List of ships named Royal Princess, resembling with the same name is now irrelevant since they're now have been renamed and now aren't called Royal Princess. 49.149.110.214 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make a DAB at Royal Princess (I've drafted one under the redirect), and retarget Royal Princess (disambiguation). It was a DAB until 2019 when User:Lyndaship moved it to List of ships named Royal Princess.

As a list, it need not follow WP:DABREDIR and so on, and thus lists the former names of the ships Azamara Pursuit (MV Royal Princess (2007)) and MV Artania (MV Royal Princess (1984)). But it would be less WP:EGGy actually to use the current names and put the former names in the description, like a DAB. (It is not clear from the nom, for example, which ships have been renamed.)

I can't see that the 2012 ship suddenly becomes primary topic just because other ships have been renamed. We also have Royal Princess (hotel chain) so that needs to be included to help navigation. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Existing article title conforms with WP:NCS, the fact that the previous ships have been renamed does not matter - they were still ships once called Royal Princess.

The article List of ships named Royal Princess is a set index and therefore a list article and not a dab, the new dab proposed should be created at Royal Princess (disambiguation) leaving the SI article intact as is Lyndaship (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

II appreciate that it is a SIA, that's why I said "Make a DAB". Since it appears to me there is no primary topic, it should be at the base page name. I said nothing about changing the SIA. 62.165.227.49 (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support move of main title header List of ships named Royal Princess → Royal Princess disambiguation page per 94.21.253.28 / 62.165.227.49, above. Since Royal Princess and Royal Princess (disambiguation) already redirect to List of ships named Royal Princess and since the dab page would represent more than simply a list of ships, but would also include a WP:DABMENTION hotel chain, the move proposed by 94.21.253.28 / 62.165.227.49, above, represents the most intuitive resolution. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. Notable topics do not cease to be notable when they are renamed. See WP:DEFUNCTS. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and redirect Royal Princess to Princess, since the term is often seen and is clearly primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose instead replace the list with a disambiguation page at Royal Princess and also point out to the topic article for women who are royal princesses and princess royals (princess) (and yes there are non-royal princesses) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.