Talk:Holland America Line

Untitled

The subsidiary-ness of HAL is not obvious online, but http://www.hollandamerica.com/aboutus/news/press/3oost07f.htm mentions the 1989 acquisition for instance. Stan 03:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Title of ships?

Why are the Holland America ships entitled "ms Ryndam" instead of "MS Ryndam"? If someone doesn't respond I'll go ahead and change it to all caps. Jarfingle 23:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's how the line refers to their ships. E.g., on their fleet description[1] --PatriciaRF 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that typical usage on Wikipedia overrides using a nonstandard lowercase prefix for ships. Related guidance may be gleaned from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) where non-standard capitalizations are eschewed in favor of more standard punctuation and/or formatting. I have change to the more standard capital letter prefixes. I also have eliminated the exceedingly long piped links that incorporated information about the ships expansions, etc. that did not need to be a part of the link text — Bellhalla (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Signature class vs Vista class

Does anyone know what differences actually exist between the Vista class and the Signature class? Just based on deck plans, they appear nearly identical (vista/signature) - the only differences being mainly on the Observation deck and the Sports deck, plus less major shuffling of walls on other deck. Are the two classes mechanically different in their operations, or was the class name change more for marketing rather than being a design shift? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know as such, but based on the deck plans and the general laxity with which cruise lines treat the term "class" I'd say the name change is a marketing thing. -- Kjet 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it's an additional floor being added between the nav and lido deck, with an additional hundred or so passengers as a result. --Randal L. Schwartz 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the deck plans, there is no extra deck (same number on both ships). The main difference that I can see is that the navigation deck now has standard rooms rather than suites, allowing for more cabins, the observation deck now has cabins on it where the crows nest used to be located, and the sports deck has been expanded to include the new crow's nest, some cabins, and a specialty restaurant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the "sports deck" is open air on the Vista Class except for the existing Crow's Nest (it's the area above the Lido Deck), the fact that there are some cabins, and a specialty restaurant means... they added a deck! --Randal L. Schwartz (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an existing deck, already accessable - just expanded with ten cabins, the crows nest, and a specialty restaurant. These changes appear no more extensive than what was done on the Noordam vs the earlier Vista class ships (extending several decks and redesigning the crow's nest) - yet those changes are being retrofitted into all earlier Vistas, while the changes on the Eurodam are called a new ship class. That's why I asked if the two classes are mechanically different in their operations. If the expansion of an existing deck and shifting of some walls on other decks are the extent of the differences, then it's clear that it's just a marketing thing to call it a new class. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"notable" dates/events

This section is considerably longer than needed, and contains several presumably "notable" entries that do not meet the criteria in WP:NOTE. In fact, the entire section seems to be a mirror of the dateline from Holland America's website. A simple link to that existing history article on HAL's website is all that's really needed. While some of this content may be notable, much of it serves no purpose other than marketing for the brand. --161.88.255.139 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this comment from six years ago. Too many people go no further than Wikipedia. This article should include a lengthy and comprehensive overview of the Dutch history of this cruise line. Schildewaert (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring article fixes

I re-removed content that had been inserted by an anon (user:71.231.130.81) - the anons edit was a reversion to an older version of the article. The re-removal of this content addressed multiple issues - the user had restored a long list of "key people" to the infobox; however, per {{Infobox Company}}, the infobox should be restricted to at most 3-4 key people. The anon also restored the sections "Notable Dates/Events In Holland America Line History" and "Awards and Accolades". These sections clearly have more to do with advertising/marketing rather than encyclopedic content - additionally, both sections appear direct copies of text from the Holland America website (the awards and history tabs), which is already reachable via the external links section. Lastly, the anons edit remove multiple minor edits/fixes to the article (fleet navbox, commoncat link, image size in infobox, etc). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the comment above, I'm wondering whether Dutch enthusiasts over the years have tried (perhaps inexpertly) to add more substance to this article about the Dutch history of the HAL, only to find that their additions were removed by those who are more interested in promoting HAL as a modern cruise line. Schildewaert (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

MS or ms?

I'd like to revive this issue. (See the comments above.) In particular, I'd like to invite users to rethink this justification by user Bellhalla: "I think that typical usage on Wikipedia overrides using a nonstandard lowercase prefix for ships. Related guidance may be gleaned from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) where non-standard capitalizations are eschewed in favor of more standard punctuation and/or formatting. I have change to the more standard capital letter prefixes...."

Holland America Line (for a long time now an American company run by English speakers) has chosen to use the Dutch nomenclature and style to refer to its ships in English (e.g. ms Maasdam, with "ms" being the standard Dutch abbreviation for "motorschip").

Any decent style guide (including presumably Wikipedia's) will tell you that a foreign name is to be respected and not willy-nilly "corrected" by English speakers. In this case, we have the English speakers at HAL who have quite consciously decided to use the Dutch capitalization style in the references to their ships. I don't know why they have done this, but presumably it was out of deference to the (real or imagined) Dutch heritage of the HAL. I think it is inappropriate to correct this naming decision on their part.

Yes, I do agree that English capitalization conventions should ordinarily apply to foreign references used in English, especially if the application of those conventions in any case have a long history in English. However, that is not the case here. To the contrary, it seems that most English speakers are willing to respect HAL's idiosyncratic decision to retain the Dutch capitalization in English references.

If no one disagrees, I will change the references back to "ms", but I will add an explanation of its origin. Schildewaert (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Object because the templates will not work with lower case, in fact every ship will change to "(Malay)" unless you eliminate every template. Yes, some countries may use ss or s.s. or ms and m.s. or mv, but as many and those in English do generally capitalize. So, yes, there will be objections and I expect reverts if you make such a change. Palmeira (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm not sure what "template" you are referring to. And if the templates are interfering with the use of the right style, then surely something is wrong with them? It is not necessary to refer to every ship in the same way, surely? There must be room for accuracy and divergence? Schildewaert (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Another point: if there is some technical reason why Wikipedia's complicated array of articles is required to refer to these ships incorrectly, surely that should be referenced in each article in some way? What I object to is not just the setting out of the names of these ships in an incorrect style, but also the unspoken assumption that "Wikipedia knows best" when it comes to this naming style. It seems culturally arrogant to me. There should be a reflection in each article (perhaps in a footnote?) that the incorrect names are necessary because of a flaw in Wikipedia's "templates". Schildewaert (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The template is a format that can be seen at Template:USS that is convenient, commonly used, solves some linkage problems, used in parts of this article and does this: {{ms|Statendam}} instead of MS Statendam when changed as you suggest. An interesting problem solving aspect is in a case of rather antiquated Dutch as in one of my interests. SS 's Jacob (1907) if done with the bracket links forces an extra space in the unusual first characters for any links. You have something of a point and in many cases Wikipedia "style" is off badly. One example that irritates me is the use of "USS" for U.S. Navy vessels that by both Navy tradition and regulation are not entitled to that title as a United States Ship because they are not in commission and never have been commissioned ships—a status that is not "just a formality" as that status has definite legal consequences (Think of armed "NO!" if foreign customs officials try to inspect without permission and agreement and state or war if they do an armed "Yes" as one example). That said, this is the English version, with Australian and American variants allowed in articles. It is not going to change a standard look and feel to meet every non-English usage of prefixes (another irritant to me is not using official local place names but that is a losing battle too) for ships and such. As I said, I have huge "problems" with some of the style and other "rules" here and do not at all like "drama" that shows up, but to get some content for a wide audience where it is not easily found elsewhere I put up with most of the rules and to some extent even endure common usage when completely ridiculous (as in making some non-commissioned yard vessel the "USS Trash Barge) for the most part." Life is too short to correct every relatively small misuse and "consensus" here can be just flat wrong from an expert view, but that is the nature of the beast. Your "ms" instead of "MS" is not universal even for non-English usage and, though I might not bother, you can count on reverts if you start just changing usage. Palmeira (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

General quality of this article

This article's strength is in its listing of the various ships. It's handy to have a page like this.

However, the article is oriented towards the modern HAL, not dealing fully with the rich and fascinating history of this formerly Dutch line. I suppose this reflects the strange thing that has happened to HAL. A proud Dutch shipping line with an incredibly rich Dutch history has been transformed into something completely different. I suppose a decent Wikipedia article about this cruise line would have to have to be in two quite different parts: the first part would be a lengthy description of the history; the second part would be an objective verview of the cruise line's current operations.

The article seems too anglo-centric, not just in its content but also in its style and general approach. Has HAL really been so thoroughly severed from its Dutch roots? The Dutch version of the article is not much better so I cannot draw material from there. There are many HAL enthusiasts in the Netherlands who could write better about the pre-Carnival days. I'm wondering why none of them have taken the time to add depth and substance to the Dutch article.

Parts of the article seem to be drawn from the HAL website, not from proper historical sources. Is this article being maintained by HAL's public relations department? This article would only be complete if it included critical and even negative comments about HAL.

The introduction is poor. Not a true intro at all. The historical references there are too specific and should be moved to the historical section.

Not enough of the material has been footnoted. Schildewaert (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points. The answer is simple. This whole encyclopedia is a catch-as-catch-can volunteer effort largely composed of amateurs. Most only know and use current popular references. That often means the top of Google hits and thus a modern company or other such web site. My guess is that almost none of the "ship editors" in the cruise ship arena know anything about the escape of the Dutch ships when the Germans invaded or the huge merchant fleet at sea at the time that became an important Allied shipping resource. Then, when war came to the Pacific, the Dutch merchant fleet, particularly KPM ships, were the core of Allied hulls in the Southwest Pacific (another language glitch: Australians insist on that U.S. command name being South West Pacific—a usage "foreign" to every U.S. reference, but then the command, almost exclusively U.S. Army at the top, was in Australia until the Philippines were taken) without which the early holding of New Guinea probably would have been impossible. Those KPM ships, chartered by the British with involvement of the U.S. WSA, and under U.S. Army operational control formed the core of the U.S. Army permanent local fleet through the early New Guinea campaign. Running across MS Sommelsdijk (III) in one of the references I use caused me to add that ship to the list. Bloemfontein, found in the Pensacola Convoy, was an important U.S. transport before Pearl Harbor. That ship of the Nederlandsch Zuid-Afrikaansche Scheepvaart Maatschappij took elements of the Flying Tigers to war and shows up in many personal accounts as a troopship (though some thought her Maierform bow indicated an "icebreaker"!). There were no few others, but they are outside my current interest area that largely has nothing to do with this site. By the way, most references to that wartime fleet are in Dutch, so that is an area you might work on. Palmeira (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The cargo ships are completely ignored. Anyone wanting to provide a more complete listing of ships might find the fleet list at https://www.verenigingdelijn.nl/index.php/vlootlijst/hal and the extensive indexed fleet list at http://www.halpostcards.com/index.html useful. Even adding a count of vessels to the Wikipedia article would significantly improve the content. brian|bp 22:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian abp (talk • contribs)

Revert of Angelgreat's major revision of sequencing

I tend to agree with Angelgreat on the ship listing sequence but the actual revision caused some damage with Future being split. The larger problem is the overall flow with History as a Dutch shipping and passenger line (1873 — 1989) logically preceding History as a US-based cruise line (1989 — today) (old to new) and then the ships listed being disassociated and reversed (new to old). Perhaps two top headers in matched sequencing? History with either new/old or old/new and then Ships in matching sequence. A matching table for former ships might also be nice if someone is so inclined. Palmeira (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that an alphabetical listing might be handier for the former ships. By the way, I apologise if my editing stepped on any toes. I know that there are many modern HAL enthusiasts out there. It's a great cruise line. However, HAL also has an incredible history that this article only touches on. I tried to bring that more to the fore. When I have time some day, I'll write a more comprehensive history, maybe hiving it off to a separate article. Schildewaert (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ERROR IN ARTICLE

This article states that the SS Nieuw Amsterdam and RMS Queen Mary were the only ships in the 1930's to make a profit. Not correct. The Cunard-White Star liners M.V. Britannic and M.V. Georgic were also making a profit due to their low operational costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Logo

Seem to be using the old version of the logo. New branding was introduced Jan 22 2016 http://www.hollandamericablog.com/2016/01/22/hal-embarks-on-the-next-great-chapter-with-new-logo-brand-campaign/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petervcook (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holland America Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208123551/http://www.planyourmeetings.com/newsbrief/2007/01/03/sailing-the-seas-of-green/ to http://www.planyourmeetings.com/newsbrief/2007/01/03/sailing-the-seas-of-green/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the COVID-19 Pandemic not be discussed in this article??

FROM MS Zaandam

Coronavirus pandemic

Main article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic on cruise ships § Zaandam

On 7 March 2020 Zaandam departed Buenos Aires, Argentina, sailing for San Antonio, Chile. She became stranded off the coast of Chile after being denied entry to ports since 14 March. Of the 1,829 people (1,243 passengers, 586 crew) aboard, 13 passengers and 100+ crew members had fallen ill with "flu-like symptoms." As of 24 March, the vessel was sailing for Port Everglades, Florida hoping to dock on 30 March. The total of sick persons aboard had risen to 77 as of 24 March. Four passengers died while waiting for permission to transit the Panama Canal with the number of sick aboard climbing to 148. Holland America dispatched sister ship Rotterdam to aid the ship by bringing supplies, additional medical staff, and COVID-19 tests, and also with the intention of transferring healthy passengers onto Rotterdam.

On 27 March, Zaandam was denied transit through the Panama Canal due to the number of sick people on board. On 28 March 2020, however, both Zaandam and the accompanying vessel Rotterdam were cleared by the Panama Department of Health to transit through the Panama Canal towards their destination in Florida. Rotterdam had followed Zaandam through the Panama Canal on her way to Port Everglades, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. An unstated number of passengers from Zaandam were transferred to the second vessel on 28 March 2020. At that time, the crew of Zaandam included four physicians and four nurses while Rotterdam's roster included two physicians and four nurses.

By 31 March 2020, the number reported as being "ill" had increased to 193. By 31 March, Rotterdam had taken almost 1,400 people from Zaandam; none had flu-like symptoms, 450 passengers and 602 crew members on her sister ship.

As of 30 March 2020, Holland America had not received permission to dock either vessel at Fort Lauderdale as planned. According to an Associated Press report, the city's mayor, Dean Trantalis, "said he didn't want the ship to dock near his city, at least without extensive precautions." The governor of Florida was also hesitant to accept Zaandam at Fort Lauderdale because the state already had so much to deal with during the pandemic; as of 31 March 2020, a decision had not yet been made. The president of Holland America made a public plea for acceptance of the ship and expressed concern that various ports in several countries had been reluctant to provide provisions and medical supplies. During the governor's press conference on 30 March, he said that the best solution might be to send medical assistance to the ship. On 1 April, the governor relented by saying that citizens of Florida could disembark when the ship arrived off the state. 190 passengers and crew reported "flu-like" symptoms and eight tested positive for COVID-19.

President Donald Trump said on 1 April 2020 that "we have to help the people" [on the ships] and that discussions were underway about Canada and the United Kingdom "arranging flights to retrieve their citizens from the ship". News reports on 2 April stated that the ships would be allowed to dock at Port Everglades that afternoon. Nine passengers were to be taken to local hospitals but 45 others who are ill would not be disembarking. The cruise line was making arrangements for passengers from other countries to leave via chartered aircraft. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References