Talk:MV Hondius

Spillover from the AfD

Article removal

Alright we know that the origin the hantavirus is from the ship that kills 3 people but why does the information about ship matter in this situation? Let me know if we need to remove this. ~2026-27721-08 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about the deletion on the dedicated page. Tupsumato (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Because most ships already have things that may be of interest or criterion to make an article, despite having an ongoing article covering a current event about the ship. A shipwide article covers all about the ship, the virus article only covers a small amount of the ship. Theflashofbedford (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The outbreak occuring in the ship makes it an object of note in the broader context, similar to the Diamond princess ship during COVID-19 pandemic. I just think this article should focus on the ship itself and less on the Andes virus though. Davidjama (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The virus outbreak is important historical knowledge and should be preserved. No reason for deletion in my opinion. ~2026-28309-59 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Why? Like there is absolutely no reason to. It will probably still run cruises after disinfections take place, so no need to. Also, by the poster's logic, wouldn't the Twin Towers also be subject for deletion technically? ~2026-27026-51 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't delete it.

There is absolutely no reason to delete this article. Plenty of "insignificant" things have articles, let this be one of them. TiggiePops (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah y'all control freaks are why this site sucks donkey ~2026-28104-92 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about the deletion on the dedicated page. Tupsumato (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

„Don't delete it.“

It is the very important first example. Who knows, how it will develope? Dobroš (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about the deletion on the dedicated page. Tupsumato (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Change the title instead of deletion, or merge it

I don’t know man it isn’t really that bad for deletion Jasperhello (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about the deletion on the dedicated page. Tupsumato (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I think we should keep it I want to be eggowaffle but that's taken (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

just dont delete it, i think there are a lot of people in this discussion clearly not fit to be editors on this site.

There is absolutley no reason to delete this. It is an article about a ship, the same as any other article, and why does it matter if it was only made recently? it still provides valid and useful info on the topic. Celtscothebrides (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about the deletion on the dedicated page. Tupsumato (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"First Polar Class 6 cruise ship"

I had intentionally avoided including the claim that Hondius was the first Polar Class 6 cruise ship because Hanseatic Nature predates it by every major construction milestone (both ships referenced from S&P Maritime Portal):

• Hondius

• Ordered 8 November 2016
• Keel laid 11 December 2017
• Launched 10 June 2018
• Delivered 22 May 2019

• Hanseatic Nature

• Ordered 7 October 2016
• Keel laid 6 June 2017
• Launched 22 July 2018
• Delivered 30 April 2019

The only difference is that Hondius is classified by Lloyd's Register while Hanseatic Nature is classified by DNV. However, frankly speaking emphasizing Hondius as the first "LR-classed PC6 cruise ship" is like saying you built the fastest blue sports car at the time when much faster Ferraris were only available in red.

I have always treated such absolute claims like mathematical proofs: one valid counter-example is enough to strike it down. There are also other ships where some key milestones predate those of Hondius, but Hanseatic Nature beats it in every round. However, does this count as WP:OR or fall under WP:CALC? WP:VNT?

Your opinion is the most welcome!

Tupsumato (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No strong opinions on this, but I thought that it was noticeably absent from the article when I read it. Whether WP:OR or WP:CALC, ideally there'd be some sources to quantify Oceanwide Expeditions' claim. I can't find any sources to support Hanseatic Nature being first, though this may just be a case of the owners not advertising it as such. Teapotpie (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonetheless, thanks for your input. I also noticed User:Mjroots removed the {{dubious}} tag as the claim is attributed to the owner. I'm fine with that. Still, if someone has additional advise to give for possible similar future cases, I'm all ears. Tupsumato (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tupsumato and Teapotpie: - are we missing an article MV Hanseatic Nature? Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had a brief look at this yesterday. There's a German language article that can be used as a starting point. Unclear on the correct article naming: the ship's name appears to be stylised as MS HANSEATIC nature. Teapotpie (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't follow custom styling in the article titles (it can be included in the lead in brackets), so I'd go with Hanseatic Nature. Tupsumato (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We're also missing the Hondius' sister ship, MV Janssonius. Teapotpie (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

In popular culture

there is a meme about it being a plague ship. Due to ongoing events said meme is suficently notable and indeed more impactful than other item listed there ~2026-28888-40 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If it already meets minimum criteria for notability, why not. However, if it's just a meme going around in the social media, then I'd probably give it some time. Tupsumato (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Citations in refs

I do understand the use of citations in references, believe me, but what is the use of such in an English article, while the citation is in a non-translated different language? Either translate the non-English text, or leave it out if apparently it's not suitable for adding to the article text anyway. At the moment, there's three of those in this article. What do you think? Erremm (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Where a foreign language reference is used, titles should be translated to English. Mjroots (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots Which is what I've added to many of the references in this article, but that still means that those citations in Dutch don't bring much in terms of 'proof' or background, because hardly anyone can read them. They could just as well not be there (and can be found when following the link to the source anyway). Erremm (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Erremm: I've no objection to the removal of the quotes. Most browsers offer a translation service for websites, so its probably more useful going to the source. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)