Jump to content

Talk:Superliner (passenger ship)

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

Definition

[edit]

The definition here is not self-consistent - there must be over a hundred passenger ships today topping 10,000 tons currently, and maybe a dozen over 100,000 tons. So I think it would be more secure to say a "superliner" is one significantly larger than the average for the time, and that it is more of a marketing term than a technical one. Stan 04:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True, but very few passenger ships today are liners. The term persisted right into the fifties to describe ships that were not all that large.--Nycto 05:00, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Debatable. Some people consider cruise ships to be liners. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is authority for the 10,000 ton definition (but not yet added here). Cruise ships are often referred to as cruise liners, but the ocean liner category is more restrictive. Many modern ocean liners also were built to serve as cruise ships, but most cruise ships are not ocean liners. Kablammo (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I can't see this ever being much more than a dictionary definition, and it would benefit from the context of being merged into ocean liner. 82.3.242.144 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we might as well merge it into cruise ship, given that the newer ships are bigger. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 10,000 grt definition, although accurate, may well be archaic now. If the article is to be merged, it likely should be merged into Ocean liner. But the merger discussion should be centralized in one place; a section should be started there (this section would do); and the templates should all link directly to that one section, rather than to each individual page. I have removed the merge templates as they are old; if they are readded please link them to one talk page only. Kablammo (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]