Talk:MV Aurora (2000)

can we add mention of the mutiny of 2009? it can be seen here MUTINY ON THE LUXURY CRUISE SHIP DOGGED BY PROBLEMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.111.224 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

done --Gibnews (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The closure of the frontier was quite un-necessary. It is not the norm for cruise ship passengers to visit Spain, and on this occasion those who were allowed ashore had to surrender their passports preventing them leaving Gibraltar.

The virus had been identified as one in common circulation anyway, far less dangerous than salmonella which is endemic in Spain.

The way they carried on one might have thought it was plague.

But lets stick to the facts, nobody else closed a frontier it was a unilateral act by the Spanish Government, and quite un-necessary.

I Interviewed a number of passengers and talked to lots more returning to the ship, they all said they had had a good trip, praised the crew and said that the media had hyped the whole affair.

I recall the frontier opened in the evening, the ship probably sailed then anyway, it was certainly not the next day.--Gibnews 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm pretty sure that the closure was unnecessary. But that's not the matter. If I read the BBC article, I will find the phrase you've removed ("Spain follows Greece's example and seals its border with Gibraltar"). BBC has been always regarded as one of the most respected media in the world, so that I can't see why you insist in removing it. Anyway, it doesn't matter... --Ecemaml 10:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC). PS: dates have been also taken from the BBC article. I don't know whether it's wrongReply

I had a long chat to the BBC at the frontier, and went out live on Radio 3. However in terms of being factual they are not always correct, often describing Gibraltar as an island etc. There were a number of conflicting reports on the treatment the 'Aurora' received elsewhere. However Greece did not seal its border with anyone AFAIK so whoever made the original comparison was wrong. All in all it was a strange reaction as the nature of the infection was known and mostly over by the time the vessel arrived, and in any event passengers do not normally visit Spain as they are on a tight timeframe and La Lineá has little in the way of tourist attractions currently. As it happened, the TV OB trucks were in Spain to cover another event and diverted to Gibraltar for the Aurora, the publicity that we got from the border closure was priceless :)

What was instructional was talking to one of the news reporters we agreed that the passengers were happy, and then she went on air to describe the 'doomed plague ship' ah well.--Gibnews 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I checked my database on this event and the best source is EFE who give times for the frontier closure. The BBC timeline given was total nonsense. Its been reported to them for correction.

There was a period after that when there were 'health checks' on people crossing into Spain, but they were quicky abandoned as worthless--Gibnews 11:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

POSTSCRIPT

The BBC have updated their website and it now agrees with the facts of the incident as reported by the Spanish press and the way I saw it happen--Gibnews 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is this page about the Aurora or on how bad the spaniards are?

Thats for the reader to decide after seeing the facts; its certainly not about covering up what the Spanish did. I have pictures of the medical officer briefing officials in Spain about the situation on the ship, the frontier closing and spent a lot of the day covering this story, including meeting around 50 passengers. The only thing that made me sick was what I saw at the frontier.

There are plenty of 'facts' but in Spain there are only opinions. --Gibnews 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Asterion 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

style guide --Gibnews 16:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"passengers were sickened with stomach infections caused by the highly-contagious Norwalk virus. During the epidemic"

is not good English, and the infection was more an outbreak than an Epidemic. Some of the rest of the wording was pretty awful too.

Health in Gibraltar is a matter for the Government of Gibraltar, not the 'colonial power' that the Spanish authorities have their head in the sand is their problem.

However, if anyone feels that there is insufficient evidence for the statement that closing the frontier was a political act, I could include some other instances of Spain refusing entry to cruise ships that have visited Gibraltar to explain the context.--Gibnews 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I hope the edit war is over, the quality of the article has improved as a result. It remains a sad fact that the authorities in Spain do not miss a chance to sabotage the economy of Gibraltar and refuse to recognise the competence of our authorities. If you need a question about Gibraltar answered, there is no point asking someone in London. --Gibnews 08:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Half the article seems to be about Gibraltar, even more if the long list of Gib topics is added at the end. This is a cruise ship, not the Spanish Armada. Perhaps there could be a different article, one about the incident of the bloody flux and the border closure, in which MV Aurora is a wikilink? --Pete (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definately a good idea. This article should concentrate on the material directly related to the ship, which a lot of the stuff isn't at the moment. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense, there is one section amounting to less than 30% of the content about the virus outbreak and the hysterical reaction of the Spanish Government. That was headline news around the world at the time. The bulk of the article describes the ship and the various problems it encountered before and after that event. --Gibnews (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the uncited claims that P&O would be selling the 1998-built cruise ship for scrap. Such scenario is highly unlikely considering the age and general condition of the vessel. I also did a quick Google search and nothing came up regarding the topic. Tupsumato (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/aurora/

  Triggered by \bship-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have uploaded two photos of Aurora in her new (post 2014) paint scheme one or other of which I think would be useful to the article, but am not sure how to add them. They are at:

Could someone more proficient at wiki editing have a go please? MacdonaldAndy (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Andy! I've been looking for updated photos for a while. There are a couple on Flickr, but not with a usable license. I've squeezed your new ones in, perhaps someone else can move them around a bit. She is certainly a handsome ship. I spent 30 days aboard her in 2008 (Hong Kong - Southampton) and got to know her very well. Not at all the cursed ship one might imagine from the article. Very much set up for British passengers, however, and we got rather weary of swedes and music hall after a month. They put on a seafood buffet one night and we few Australians took one look and the blood just drained from our faces. Rollmops and fish and chips do not constitute a seafood buffet! --Pete (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Aurora (2000). 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/20110720165653/http://www.meyerwerft.eu/print.asp?lang=e&main=3&subs=0&printid=1080 to http://www.meyerwerft.eu/print.asp?lang=e&main=3&subs=0&printid=1080

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) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Aurora (2000). 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/20100222024929/http://www.pocruises.com/Cruise-Ships/Aurora/Ship-Staterooms/ to http://www.pocruises.com/Cruise-Ships/Aurora/Ship-Staterooms/

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) 15:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply