Talk:P&O Cruises

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

Transport: Maritime C‑class

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Carnival Corporation & plc#Carnival United Kingdom|Carnival UK]] The anchor (#Carnival United Kingdom) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ships Under Construction[edit]

I'm intrigued as to where 172.141.74.147 heard that the new 2010 cruise ship will be called Canberra? It seems an extremely unlikely choice considering her history and popularity. Newda898 12:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that comes to mind is that he's confusing it with Ventura, which was rumoured to be Canberra in some sources. My quick search into this found no sources stating the new ship to be called Canberra. -- Kjet 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it sounded a bit strange. Thanks for looking into it! Newda898 12:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:P & O Poster.jpg[edit]

The image Image:P & O Poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?[edit]

I have spotted this apparent error and am worried about how many others there are.

Canberra ran alongside her for two years until she was scrapped in 1997, replaced by Star Princess that was renamed Arcadia. Arcadia became the first ship in the P&O fleet to be dedicated for adults only.

I am almost certain that this is completely wrong, and I think it is confusing the Arcadia which is now the Ocean Village with the current Arcadia which is indeed adults only. I know this because I went on the first Arcadia, and there were many children on it and indeed children's facilities.

Also...

Aurora also has a larger Gross Tonnage partly due to the fact that she has an enclosed centre swimming pool.

While that is correct, it seems odd to put in, as the effect of the enclosed swimming pool is negligable compared to the effect of the large difference in length. It just seems like the writer wants to mention the pool somewhere. Jhbuk (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P&O Cruises to P&O Cruises UK[edit]

Have moved P&O Cruises to P&O Cruises UK to avoid confusion with P&O Cruises Australia --palmiped | Talk 04:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:BRD I have reverted since your move was completely without consensus and actually does not make much sense. The name of the company is P&O Cruises, so per WP:COMMONNAME that is what the article's title should be. Also, the hatnote at the top of this article is sufficient. It is not appropriate to re-name this article to a name that is not used by the company to distinguish what can adequately be done via a hatnote. I suggest that consensus be obtained before the article is moved again, possibly even via WP:RM. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with MBK004 on this, P&O Cruises Australia was originally a P&O Cruises subsidiary, named to distinguish it from its parents company, so there is no need to do the same in reverse. If there were some ambiguity the new article title would be necessary but there isn't, the two brands are very clearly defined. Crazy-dancing (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you are right the P&O Cruises is the brand name, I realised that after I`d moved page and expected move to be reversed. Regards --palmiped | Talk 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of the process for editing on wikipedia, but I think the third sentence of this article is currently wrong. P&O did not operate the world's first passenger ships, people have been travelling by ship for centuries. Were they the first leisure ships or first cruise ships, maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.215.31 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list incomplete[edit]

The list incomplete tag was removed. But many ships are still listed by the Template:P&O Cruises ships

For starters: MV Artania (Artemis), Arcadia (1953), Pacific Pearl (Arcadia 1988), carthage (1931), Chusan (1949), and so on.

Having different selection criteria is confusing. The template and this article have identical names: P&O Cruises. Either the ship roster should be identical or there should be some explanation why the article and template covers different subjects, I would think.

By the way, is Canberra 1960 or 1961?

regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, I haven't got round to checking the template, certainy some of the ships listed went to the scrapyard before 1977. Chusan for instance, was scrapped in 1973. Over the full life P&O has operated hundreds of ships but the 1977 registered company, P&O Cruises, which the article is about, has only operated the ships listed (subject to me missing the odd one, eg Arcadia, ex Princess Pearl)

As to Canberra, she was launched in 1960 but not completed until 1961. Her service career therefore started in 1961.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure to synch your decision for this article (to start in 1977) with the aims of those editing the template. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's me and me then… Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

In the article is states “P&O Cruises is the oldest cruise line in the world, having operated the world's first commercial passenger ships in the early 19th century“ but also states that P&O Cruises was formed in 1977. This is then compounded by Previous fleet section only showing the ships as in service with P&O Cruises from 1977. --palmiped | Talk 11:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll copy edit that! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With this in mind, I've been trying to clarify this article over the last few days. I've attempted to make it clear that P&O Cruises was formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of the P&O group. I think a good ongoing aim for this article would be to move most of the pre-1977 history over to the P&O article (but for perhaps a brief overview of the origins of the company and a link to P&O as the 'main article') and to focus this article on P&O Cruises. Useful321 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done just that, as well as adding citations throughout. I think it's much clearer now where P&O ends and P&O Cruises begins. Useful321 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I'm a little dubious about the earlier Arcadia though, when was P&O cruises Australia spun off from the parent? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this statement confusing “By the 1970s, Canberra and Oriana were serving the UK market on their own,”. Does this mean just for P&O? --palmiped | Talk 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cunard was still operating both cruise and liner services at that time. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that statement now. Regarding Arcadia, I found sources stating that P&O's passenger operations consisted entirely of cruising by the mid-1970s, and that Arcadia was based in Sydney cruising from 1976 to 1979. Regarding P&O Cruises Australia, it was very difficult trying to uncover exactly when that was founded, so in the end I wasn't too specific and simply acknowledged that by the early 2000s they had separated and were putting their own Pacific... ships in service which were independent of P&O Cruises. Useful321 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a fair bit of digging, I've uncovered something more concrete regarding P&O Cruises Australia and the separation of UK and Australian operations. Useful321 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have sorted things out re the earlier Arcadia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After more digging, I think I've cleared up the issue. Australian operations span off in 1988, when P&O acquired Sitmar Cruises rather than moving another ship to Australia. This evolved into P&O Holidays in the 90s and was still so by the P&O de-merger in 2000. By 2003, it had evolved into P&O Cruises Australia. But this article only needs to cover the separation and the link to today's P&O Cruises Australia, since the Australian operations essentially became irrelevant to P&O Cruises after separation. Useful321 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense, Arcadia was long gone by the time the split occurred. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21st century[edit]

21st century did not begin until 1 January 2001, according to wikipedia. So does the article need the century sub headings?--palmiped | Talk 18:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, perhaps the heading should be shifted down to where 2002 is mentioned, everything above that is 2000, the last year of the old century. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dunnit Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I only put century subheadings because I couldn't think how else to separate the main body of history from the 'Origins' section. Useful321 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Cockerel[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement over which ship now has the Golden Cockerel after the departure of Oriana. The press release prior to departure (currently cited in the article) said it would go to Arcadia, but one editor says Aurora has it instead. Can we find a source for this? I had a look earlier but I couldn't find anything. Useful321 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I can't find anything other than that press release which says Arcadia. Although wiki says it doesn't matter if it is wrong if sources say something we repeat it (not that I would claim the ref is RS) I think the best answer as I see you have done is to remove any mention of the transfer of the Golden Cockerel until a RS emerges Lyndaship (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can only find this Twitter post which says Aurora [1] --palmiped | Talk 14:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Paul Ludlow, president of P&O Cruises, so we can take it that Aurora does indeed have the Golden Cockerel. The question is, is a Twitter post a reliable source, and if not can we find anything better? Useful321 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it for now since it's Ludlow's Twitter, but ideally we'll find something better than Twitter soon. Useful321 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]