Talk:MS Elation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why merge it? it's fine Jerrycobra 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

no it's not, it doesn't merit an article of itself. non-notable and looks like an advertisement. nothing encyclopedic about it. Berserkerz Crit 12:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think it should stay. Sercurity, missing persons and norovirus outbreaks can be documented. rastoddart 6:25, 27 January 2007

MS Elation should have its own article; it makes no sense whatsoever to merge it. Michael Merali 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The practice on Wikipedia has been to have a separate article for each large passenger vessel. Often pages for ships of the same class come from the same template, but differences in decor, routings, and histories soon differentiate the vessels. It is true that many articles, when started, have relied too much on copy from cruise websites or the cruise lines themselves, but the standard of edit work is rising. There are some active contributors to these articles and their efforts should not be stymied by trying to shoehorn all noteworthy facts about several dozen ships into one article about their owner. Does anyone really want to merge articles on RMS Mauretania (1906), RMS Lusitania, RMS Aquitania, RMS Queen Mary, RMS Queen Elizabeth, RMS Caronia, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, and RMS Queen Mary 2, and several dozen others, into Cunard Line? Each vessel is unique and should have a unique article. Kablammo 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to merge it. Every cruise ship has its own article, so theres no need to merge this one with Carnival Cruise Lines Splamo 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)