Jump to content

Talk:List of motor yachts by length

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.148.76.115 (talk) at 15:26, 4 April 2016 (→‎BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25)?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Missing yachts

Royal Norwegian Yacht KS Norge is missing. 80,5 meters. http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS_%C2%ABNorge%C2%BB

-I Believe Andrey Melnichenko's yacht, "A", is missing from the list..? http://yachts.monacoeye.com/files/blohm_voss_970_a.php http://www.fvn.no/bilder/bildeserier/article595786.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.147.6 (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) --certainly was missing, and this yacht is for real, I just saw it here in Gibraltar, it seems to be as fast as the catamaran ferries, added it at number 12, it was too quick to get a photo myself kokey (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have a picture of this yacht, how do i upload it? Thanks. Mitesh003 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The Royal Danish Yacht "Dannebrog" measuring 78,4 meters should hold the 39 th place in the list Gibler (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The Siren, measuring 73 meters, should be on here as well : http://yachts.monacoeye.com/files/category-nobiskrug.php

== Deletion == I will be proposing this page for deletion as yacht names change very often, at the beck and call of ownership changes and refits and wives and children and mistresses and sports teams. There is no way this article can have any lifespan.--Tallard 12:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, I realise that this is only for yachts over 70 m and hence these yachts' names have more longevity. However the 70 m detail should be in the first paragraph or the title as it's quite an arbitrary number.--Tallard 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen M is now called Queen K and it is owned by Oleg Deripaska. (83.143.248.21 (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Staatsyacht"

Helsinki 2008 217.140.172.251 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnage

The second sentence describes tonnage as "a measure of volume" and displacement as "a measure of weight". Shouldn't this be the other way around?

Yes, gross tonnage is a measure of capacity - it is used in commercial shipping to measure the volume that can be accommodated by cargo as opposed to how much weight the vessel can carry. It is a common misconception hence i thought it pertinent to this particular wiki-entry. In the yachting industry it is a much more important measure of the size of yachts and the work required in a build or refit.

81.133.30.82 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dannebrog owner

Just a doubt... is the Dannebrog owned by HM The Queen of Denmark herself or is it owned by the Danish State?

I'm asking this because it is posibly the same case as the Spanish Royal Yatch Fortuna. The King's Yatch "Fortuna" is of National wealth, forming part of the properties of the Spanish state agency Patrimonio Nacional (National Heritage). --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it Dannebrog is similar to an English crown possession, i.e. the Monarch (or the Royal Court) owns it. It is not listed alongside various National Heritages, but rather as a part of Kongehuset (The Royal Court). See this link for more info. Mecil (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length errors

Some of the lengths are inconsistent. For instance the Eclipse is listed at 508'11" (167.1) but the Dubai is 524'10" (160). How is the Dubai shorter in feet but longer in meters? Could someone check to see which is the right measurement?

Tonnage paragraph

Is there any point in having the section regarding tonnage and how some countries build bigger yachts than others? It seems irrelevent to the artical, which by the name is a list, and therefore not a definitive informational article about this sort of thing.

This article could probably progress to a Featured List in a very short time if that section was just removed as it smacks of POV.

Does anyone think it adds anything to the list? Miyagawa (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Price' column

Anyone else think it would be a good idea to add a 'price' column to this chart? I think it's another fact that many users like to see, and the statistics are readily available.

Nickf77 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what about a charter price column too? Mitesh003 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good idea, but most of the prices of these yachts are not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1472 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number

28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.53.106 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rank column removed

I removed the column which ranks the boats numerically. First, the ranking is not accurate (the two external links disagree with ours), and second, such a column makes it much more difficult to add a new yacht to the list ~ you'd have to manually renumber every older yacht below the one inserted. It also has the benefit of yielding a little more space, which can be used to add a column for references. At the moment sorting by length (which should give the same order) isn't working, but I'll sort that out ASAP. The default order when the page loads is still as before. Column sorting now functional. --DeLarge (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest yachts template?

Maybe someone would be interested in creating a template similar to this one about motor yachts - which one was the longest at which year. I'd be happy to help with information and research if someone takes up making the template itself - it's really boring to do such things alone. If you're interested, find me at my talk page. BadaBoom (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

200m+ LOA intro

@Skjoldbro: the introduction includes proposals (drawings and speculative price point if they were to be signed into a build contract) which should *not* be part of the encyclopedia. Reference shipyard orders (Boat International Media's 2016 global orderbook for example) to discuss upcoming projects. If growing sizes should be discussed in the introduction, why not discuss the Gross Tonnage of the recently launched Lürssen 156m project Omar / Dilbar II? Though undisclosed, it has been described as the largest GT in yachting history and could improve the introduction significantly. Delete the proposals themselves from the introduction-they have no place here. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 22:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed Everest and Double Century gigayachts are both design to have a length of 200 m (660 ft). The design of an even larger yacht is also in full swing, which is covered under the name: Project Triple Deuce. It will be a yacht of 222 m (728 ft). The broker, who sold the yacht, expects that the yacht will be delivered in 2018. She will not only be the biggest yacht ever built, but also the most expensive with a cost of more than $1 billion.

Index layout

Most countries today are metric, so why would the table of contents (subdivision) only show in Imperial units? The table of contents would therefore also have to be in both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.232.76.218 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the use of the subsections? They donot split on mobile devices like sections do and they donot enable a full column sorting on the desktop. Obviously I am comparing this with the list of large sailing yachts where both Imperial and SI units are used (incidentally the single click to sort country+shipyard in that article is a useful feature in my view).
To answer your question I do think that using both units is useful signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re WT:SHIPS#List_of_motor_yachts_by_length...
all rows are sourced from the yacht registers, no problem, except for 90% of the data in the owner column. (not private individuals, all companies registered in Island havens, herego untraceable ownership and ownership changes, except for a few owner or courthouse disclosures).
the image column is indeed sparsely populated and the small size does not work.
suggest removing both columns signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The issue of sourcing has been raised at WT:SHIPS. Therefore I propose the following - Vessels which have a linked article are includable in the list. Verification is possible by the linked article. Vessels which do not have a linked article (i.e. a redlink) need a reference. Said reference to be placed in first column. Any vessel not having either an article or reference on 1 May 2016 will be removed. Any vessel not having an article or reference, and which is added after 30 April 2016, will be removed.

Any objections? Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a reasonable proportion probably could be completed but, to be honest, the only way to know is to try! In many cases it will be a question of carrying over a cite from the yacht's article. On a different point, can a numerical ranking be re-instated, but of course automatically set as manual changes were rightly considered unacceptable? Davidships (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the owner column is interesting. Agree that there is a possible BLP issue here; but possibly there is no need for that column at all. If anyone wants to start a separate discussion re the need for it, please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see populating the 'owner' column with info as an issue (BLP or otherwise), as long as the info is properly supported by WP:RS. However, if we find that very few cells in the column are populated, leaving most of them blank (or "unknown"), then it would probably be best to just do away with the column altogether. - theWOLFchild 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clean up

Mjroots, Llammakey, Davidships, Donan.raven and anyone else;
I merged all the tables back into one, (it used to be that way). It's a cleaner look and it's easier to find specific boats. I added an additional "Note" column on the end to add refs to, then added all the refs through-out the table to that column. I then removed every entry that didn't have a ref or link to a parent article. I know we were going to wait until May 1st, but I have to ask, does anyone object to making this change now? All I see happening in the next month is more boats being added with no refs, no linked articles and very little info. Lemme know. - theWOLFchild 18:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with it. Thanks for doing it. Llammakey (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here either. Saved me a job. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, restoring the continous table as it was before is an improvement because the subsections were superfluous as the separate/split tables were all sorted by length anyway and because the continuous table makes the sortable option work for the whole article. There is still a major outstanding issue with sources, almost all of them verify nothing more than that which needs just one source, except for ownership. I motion that adding reliable sources verifying the ownership, like that for Symphony (2015), should be given top priority. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Over time I'll restore those for which I can find RS. Would I right to assume that the list is intended to include only active yachts? or existing yachts? or all motor yachts >60m (excluding therefore steam-powered/turbine yachts)? Davidships (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Also, as mentioned above, can an automatic numerical ranking be incorporated? Davidships (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring all the removed yachts would be quite a task. There were 224 listed, and during the clean-up I removed 112, literally half the list. Personally, I think we should keep it to current/active yachts only. If you have a strong interest in past yachts, perhaps you could create a new a page, "Historical luxury yachts", (or something along those lines). If anything, I would like to see any effort here go towards the already existing entries; creating articles (or stubs at least) for the red-linked yachts, finding and adding photos (a big plus) and updating missing info, such as owners. Also, if any copywriters here are so inclined, maybe write a lead for the page. Cheers - theWOLFchild 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I don't have a particular mission, but do think that the top range (say, >100m) ought to be as complete as possible. I was about to put back the 121m Iraqi Al Mansur, but she was bombed in the war and since broken up, so I'll leave her out; I had also wondered about HMY Britannia, which exists though static, but is a turbine yacht. Hence the questions. Davidships (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking

I've added this page to the (hidden) Category:Tables that may need a separate rank column. This list is an obvious contender and I would like to see a numerical ranking column added to the far left. That way, a reader could easily say that "Octopus" is number 16 or "Seven Seas" is number 44 on the list, without having to actually count. (Can anybody tell me what number "Predator" is? LOL! Does anybody want to?) - theWOLFchild 03:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?

Could we please add a cost section? 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see a benefit to that. Too many yachts would be difficult to find the exact cost with reliable sourcing, meaning we'd have some cells with ridiculous ranges (ie: $60,000,000 to $150,000,000), plus we'd have some values in US dollars, some in Euros and some in pounds. And still most cells would probably end up as "unknown". It's not worth it. - theWOLFchild 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Owner check

Can we verify the owners? For example Azzam is reported to be owned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, but the owner is not mentioned in the link from the notes column or the confidently in the citations in its own article. Or Prince Abdulaziz is being listed in the table as owned by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (who is now deceased), but in its own article the only owners who are mentioned are King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (who is now deceased) and Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start going through some of the sources and check the owners. Gimme a little while to get through the list. - theWOLFchild 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes column

Can we delete the notes column please? It appears to add no information which can't be gained from the articles that are listed. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just added it. We want all the entries to be sourced and having the extra dedicated column helps with that. It also keeps the table more organized. - theWOLFchild 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ 78.146.137.190; Please don't remove the red links from the entries. Per WP:REDLINK they encourage article creation. If you don't link the red links, start creating some articles and turn them blue! - theWOLFchild 22:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild I'm sorry for the reversions, but I did multiple edits as well as the red links. When you reverted my edits they were reverted too. I was just trying to quickly restore the other changes, but thanks for clarifying the red link issue. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once you're reverted, you don't re-revert again. Read WP:BRD. I went through your edits and most, if not all, were needless, hence the reason they were reverted. Now that you're on the talk page, this is your opportunity to explain them. We can discuss them and sort something out. Keep in mind that above I did say I was going through the entries, and I asked for some time to do that, so how about you allow me that? - theWOLFchild 23:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I'll allow you some time to do that then, but I'm sorry for being so hasty. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but did you want to explain some of the changes? For example, Oman already has "unknown" for the owner. Why are you blanking that with a hidden comment, demanding that owners must be sourced? It states that already at the top of the page. And why are you removing the titles of some of the royalty? That's couple of examples. Maybe you can explain the rest? - theWOLFchild 23:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The change about Omar was to get rid of what was no information basically. I was changing the titles of some royalty so it was standardised among royalty. E.g. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan isn't listed as Sheikh Khalifa, but Sultan Qaboos of Oman isn't referred to similarly as Qaboos of Oman. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, WP:COMMONNAME applies. There's a reason their articles are named a certain way, and that's how they should be listed here. Another issue I noticed is that you removed every instance of (yacht) from the entry name, ie: changing ''[[Bounty (yacht)|Bounty]]'' to just ''[[Bounty]]''. In the entries where that occurred, those are common names that are likely to have articles already, (several even), as other people. places and things will have the same name. Adding (yacht) is a disambiguator and it's necessary, so it has to stay. When and if those article get created, it will be needed. For an example; I just updated the page for the yacht "Dilbar", by page-moving it to it's new name "Ona". But I had to use Ona (yacht), because there is already another page called Ona. See? - theWOLFchild 23:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the assistance. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue for discussion

The "exes"... A few of the entries had both the current name as well as a previous name (ie: MV Thewolfchild, ex-Eclipse). There was also an example of this among the owners (ie: Charter, ex-Richie Rich). I have boldly removed these as I basically think it's a bad idea. If we start, where does it end? Many of these yachts will change names over the course of there lives, some of them more than once. Are we supposed to chart and source all these names, then cram them into the table? Same for owners... these boats change hands, often. This is just a list after all, each yacht has it own page (or should have) and I think that is were all this history can be documented. I think it should just be current name and current owner only. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to speak on it here. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this shouldn't be mentioned for every name and every owner, but perhaps the inaugural or most notable owner and name could be mentioned? The formers could also be line broken and put in smaller text as I did previously. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's let it sit for now and see if anyone has a comment.- theWOLFchild 01:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of large sailing yachts, we got rid of all the instances of "ex" and replaced them with "originally", citing *only* of the vessels' names as they were registered/christened at launch. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. But on that list, the "original" name is noted in the "notes" column, not crammed in with the current name. But then, that list has a larger "notes" column than here. Personally, I don't see the need for the addition of original names here, but it's up to the community. - theWOLFchild 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to "originally xxx" in the Notes column (plural please). The table could be a little wider and the width of cols 3/4/5 could each be narrowed by about a third - it doesn't matter if some longer names go onto two lines (unless there is a tech problem with wikilinks). Davidships (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could look at re-sizing the columns. I think a big difference between the two tables is this one has the photos. - theWOLFchild 21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
indeed copyleft photographs of sailing yachts are not as widely available as those of motor yachts, so in the list of large sailing yachts there is no column for thumbnails, except (in order of preference) an article wikilink, commons cat wikilink or a file wikilink, where available, for the first column "yacht name". Merging the shipyard+country column and omitting the owner column (ownership changes too complicated to verify reliably) enables a wider more descriptive notes column. Owners are simply hinted to with a II or III suffix when namesake yachts are mentioned in the press with the same owner or captain as the original yacht. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like how they have the national flags to represent the countries of the shipbuilders on the other list. I was thinking of doing that here in the builder column and eliminating the country column. - theWOLFchild 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Fast

https://www.burgessyachts.com/en/sale-purchase-category/yachts-for-sale/motor-yachts/silver-fast-00004701.html This ought to be on the list, right? It was completed in 2015. --RThompson82 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - theWOLFchild 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25)?

The BRP Ang Pangulo (AT-25) is a Presidential yacht for the president of the Philippines. Why should this yacht not be on the list? If it is because it is a presidential yacht, there should be more yachts removed from the list. 102Legobrick (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it (for now) so the community could discuss the larger issue of these specific types of boats and determine what should and shouldn't be included. Some appear to be luxury yachts that are owned by the state, (in some cases the state and the owner and difficult to differentiate, such as with Arab Emirates and Kingdoms), and in some cases the boats appear to be naval vessels being treated as yachts, such as HTMS Chakri Naruebet. I would like to see some other editors weigh in with their ideas and opinions on this and see if we can come to a consensus. I'm not dead set against the inclusion of this particular boat, but if we add it, then what else are we opening the door to? - theWOLFchild 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_motor_yachts_by_length&oldid=713527066"