Talk:Queen Mary 2

Beefeaters?

• Passengers annually consume:

• enough beef to supply the city of Southampton for one year: Cunard Line: Queen Mary 2: A ship of superlatives

The annual beef consumption would supply a city the size of Southampton each year. -- Their official PDF.

There are about 4,000 passengers and crew on the boat. Do you really think they can eat so much beef that feeds a city of 300,000 people. Do they burn steaks as fuel? Do they force cows to walk the plank? -- Toytoy (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are frequent ritualistic sacrifices.

Seriously, though, what do you propose? --G2bambino (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The city of Southampton has about 300,000 people.

There are only 4,000 passengers and crew on the boat.

How could 4,000 eat as much beef as 300,000? -- Toytoy (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know, but, then again, I didn't write the Cunard fact-sheet.

Again, what do you propose? --G2bambino (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. Partly because of the dispute here, but also because it is completely unnecessary, and simply trivia. If you still think it's beneficial then put it back in, but I just don't think it is. Jhbuk (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

This article is very well-illustrated with freely licensed photos, yet it still contains several fair use images. The following images are included with fair use rationales:

• Image:QM2-hull door.jpg
• Image:QM2-stern.jpg
• Image:QM2-Brit.jpg
• Image:QM2-1.jpg

The only one of these images which has a reasonable claim to be included is the last one, since it depicts the ship in construction. The rest are merely details of the interior and exterior of the ship which are anything but difficult to replace with free images. I would be less stringent about this if it weren't for the fact that the article contained an additional fifteen photographs.

I've removed the photos and I believe they should stay out unless a better motivation for their inclusion is presented.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything but difficult? Could you give me $5000 + so I could go on board and get some pictures? Seems free images for this article would be pretty expensive. --G2bambino (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I also question the inclusion of the gallery. None of them illustrate anything about the ship beyond what is already shown in multiple other photographs elsewhere in the article. The gallery seems nothing more than a photogallery for people to add their personally experienced encounters with the ship. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And I assume you've tried requesting pictures, right? Either way, the cost argument applies only to the interior. Fair use images shouldn't be used merely because they're pretty or because no one has bothered to taken a shot from a very specific angle.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point with the interior and hull door shot. However, the image of the stern is directly relevant to illustrating a criticism of her design, which is described in the exterior description, no other image in the article illustrates that issue. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's very illustrative, but the issue here is replaceability, not usefulness. Fair use should only be applied when it's virtually impossible to find a freely licenesed image.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the shots are useful (the bow and flank ones, for example), but, yes, some of them seem redundant or downright useless (unlike the pictures Peter deleted). --G2bambino (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all of the images deleted by Peter provide unique illustrative images of the ship/article which are not duplicated by any other image in the article; removing those did does reduce the quality of the article; but I know there's a strong momentum in WP lately to contain the overuse of fair use images. But regardless of their status, all of the ones in the gallery seem redundant to me; the bow and flank shots are already illustrated by other images in the article. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be on the QM2 later in the year, if any images are required let me know and I`ll try to take them -- Palmiped (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An image of the stern is needed to illustrate the criticism of its design, as described in the exterior description within the article (the fourth paragraph that starts with "One aspect of the QM2 that has been criticised is the counter of her stern ..."). That's the only specific angle that I would request. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unable to take image of stern on my recent voyage due to security but one exists on Wikimedia Commons --palmiped |  Talk  20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A ship's stern is not a copyrighted work of art. Arguments that are mainly concerned with stills from motion pictures or scans of paintings that are still protected by copyright aren't applicable here. What's relevant here is primarily replacability, which is in this case not particularly problematic.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Read what you are replying on. Someone stated they would be on the QM2 and asked what images are requested from it, the anon asked for images of the stern to be taken. Further above was a discussion on fair use/replacability, to which you had already replied - this part of the discussion was someone offering to take an image themselves, to which a lecture on copyright is out of place. Please read and don't assume. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Accident in 2003

Why no seperate article or at least section about the horrible accident in 2003 in which 16 people were killed? I came to wikipedia to look up the details and had a difficult time finding it. Are some people trying to ignore it? This deserves much more attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"The final stages of construction were marred by a fatal accident on 15 November 2003, when a gangway collapsed under a group of shipyard workers and their relatives who had been invited to visit the vessel. 48 people on the gangway fell over 15 m (50 ft); 32 were injured and 16, including a child, were killed." What more needs said? --G2bambino (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant AT LEAST a seperate section, so that people can look it up more easily. And BTW more details could be added.

A separate section would only be needed if there were more detail. But, what more detail is there? If you have sources and such, go ahead an add some more in. We can go from there. --G2bambino (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the details, that's why I came to wikipedia. But really, you think there aren't more details available? Why did the accident happen, who is to blame, did the victims and relatives get any compensation? I don't really care for the article about this ship and I'll just look for my information elsewhere on the internet. But I do believe that this article should include more information about and give more attention to the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are, but I don't have them. Plus, I don't know if they're encyclopaedic or not. Wikipedia is, of course, always a work in progress; so, if you come across information on the matter, feel free to add. (PS: you should indent using colons and sign your posts with the four tildes.) --G2bambino (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Largest ocean liner?

Per the removal of the text for a second time. Is this referenced info correct and should it be in the article. I reverted the first removal as no edit summary was left. I'll not revert a second time, but am bringing it up here. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The QM2 is the world's largest ocean liner, oasis of the seas is the world's largest cruise ship. The QM2 does a regular transatlantic route which is the main difference, among others, between her and a cruise ship. See classification above^.Jhbuk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Good Article?

Reading through this article, I don't think it would be too much of a leap to get this up to good article status WP:WIAGA, if it isn't already there; it is quite substantial and doesn't appear to have any significant problems. What do people think about either putting it up as a good article nominee or deciding what needs to be done for it to be considered? Jhbuk (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. This article seems to have little vandalism from users, and appears to have a lot of substantially reputable information. I'm not sure how to add the article towards WP:WIAGA status, but I completely endorse the action, nonetheless. If anyone knows how, please do so. BalticPat22Patrick 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is not anywhere near the level of a GA. There are still whole sections that lack in-line citations which means that there is the distinct possibility that original research might reside in the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start with putting citations in; I think I have covered almost all of the main points (almost every paragraph), but there is the odd section I haven't been able to find refs for and appear to be OR; particularly the 'exterior' section, although the points do appear probable, so I've left them:

"While the vessels design appears to most resemble that of her running mate Queen Elizabeth 2, her exterior lines also show aspects of other vessels. She resembles her predecessor Queen Mary in the curved forward bridge screen, the tower-like ends of which rise to the bridge wings. The forward whaleback is reminiscent of many CGT liners, particularly the Normandie and the France" and, in reference to the black lines on the ship:

"The purpose of these seem to be to recall the appearance of the crossovers of the forward decks on the original Queen Mary." Jhbuk (talk)

I may have a reference for this in a book by a well-respected ocean liner historian that also has its foreward written by the chief naval architect of QM2. Let me get back to you on that. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article will not make GA class until each and every [citation needed] tag has been removed. Keep plugging away at finding refs before even considering a WP:GAN. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I put most of those in for things I couldn't find direct references to, but I think there should be suitable references in books such as the one MBK004 mentioned, as, as I wrote, they seem likely to be true. Jhbuk (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Besides what has been mentioned above there are several things I noticed that will be an issue for GAR:

• See wp:overlink The article is over linked. In the introduction alone gross tonnage is linked twice. Linking to things like swimming pool and casino aren't really necessary.
• The layout of the article is a bit backward. It should have the design and construction areas first including the power and systems aboard. The career section should follow afterward.
• Photos need fixing up. Only one relevant photo per section. If you have too many, leave a link to commons where the reader can find the remaining ones if they wish.
• Your footnotes need to use a template of some sort, probably {{cite web}} or something similar. They all need a standardization with updated retrieved on dates. --Brad (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Other measurement units in the article need {{convert}}

Thanks. I've just made a large edit: I got rid of a few pictures, moved some sections around and removed the hotel statistics, as it's really no more than trivia. As I was reading through it, I was a little unsure about the 'environment' section, as there doesn't appear to be a huge amount of significant data there which is not equally applicable to any cruise ship. I was also a little unsure about the media section. Jhbuk (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks better already! I hadn't looked very closely at the media section but now that I have, I certainly recommend blasting that section into cinders. The only thing worth saving from that section is the mention of the documentary filmed which already has a citation. That particular mention can be moved into the service history of the ship at the appropriate date. If the environment section doesn't add much more value to the article than Cruise ship pollution can tell us then I would definitely shorten that down as well --Brad (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done more-or-less everything discussed here. I've also removed quite a few statements that I didn't think were particularly necessary. I think more refs would still be beneficial, especially in the places I have pointed out, but there don't appear to be any more significant problems in that regard., although there is a ref in the 'Interior' section that appears to have some sort of problem. Otherwise, if anyone else can see any other significant issues with it then make them known. Jhbuk (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

John Maxtone-Graham's book should be consulted. Some parts are available at Google books;[1] page 20 supports the displacement estimate, and 20–23 draws the distinction between ocean liner and cruise ship. Kablammo (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the reference for JMG's book occurs, his name should be wikilinked since he does have an article. The cite templates allow you to do this I believe. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just some nitpicking left.

• Throughout the article I see instances of "Queen Mary 2" and "the Queen Mary 2". There needs to be consistency in how the ship is referred to. My personal preference is not using "the" before a ship name.
• There are some measurements that still need the {{convert}} template.
• Any other issues should fall out at the GA review. Article look great for GA. --Brad (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RMS Queen Mary 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ---Dough4872 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments:

1. Citations should not be in the lead unless that information is unique.
2. The lead looks a little short. Is there any more information that can be added?
3. The word "she" is used too much in the article to describe the ship. Can the use of this word be cut down?
4. The sentence "48 people on the gangway fell over 15-metre (49 ft); 32 were injured and 16 were killed." should not begin with a numeral.
5. The sentence "Due to the size of the ship, the high quality of materials, and that, having been designed as an ocean liner, she required 40% more steel than a standard cruise ship, the final cost was approximately $300,000 US per berth, nearly double that of many large passenger ships." needs to be split into two.
6. Citation needed for "In common with many modern ships, both passenger and cargo, Queen Mary 2 has a bulbous bow to reduce drag and thereby increase speed, range, and fuel efficiency."
7. "Cunard decided to pass up the convenience of the occasional Canal passage": add "Panama" before "Canal".
8. The sentence "(Queen Mary 2 carries 8 spare blades on the foredeck, immediately forward of the bridge screen.)" should not be in parentheses.
9. The sentence "Concentrated salt solution (brine) is being discharged to the sea closer to the ship’s stern together with cooling water from the engines." sounds awkward.
10. Citation needed for "With 1,600 passengers leaving the ships in Sydney, Cunard estimated the stopovers injected more than $1 million into the local economy."
11. Citation needed for "In July 2007 the National Geographic Channel broadcast the documentary Megastructures about Queen Mary 2."
12. "(on 27 November 2008 [57])" does not need to be in parentheses.
13. Citation needed for "Cunard had selected Boston as the American port for his Atlantic service which resulted in a strong connection between Boston and the Cunard Line."
14. Citation needed for "It now forms part of the Maritime Quest aboard."
15. The first paragraph of the Environmental performance section needs citations.
16. "Footnotes" should be changed to "References".
17. Throughout the article, there are many short one- and two-sentence paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs.

I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough4872 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Removed all but one.
2. I added a paragraph about the ship's speed and technical design and rephrased some of the rest of it.
3. Haven't changed this as I don't see what would be better.
4. Changed
5. Changed
6. Added
7. Changed
8. Changed
9. Removed "being"
10. Added
11. Added
12. Changed
13. Added
14. Removed sentence
15. Added some; possibly more would be better
16. Changed
17. I have changed some, but I can't really see a way around most of the ones that are left.

Jhbuk (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There are still some one-sentence paragraphs in the Service history section. Once these are fixed, I can pass the article. ---Dough4872 01:25 , 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have improved it, but there are still two at the end that I can't see any obvious place for. Jhbuk (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They can be combined with the prior paragraph. ---Dough4872 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done so, it's just I didn't think itwould be appropriate as they are unrelated. Jhbuk (talk)

I will now pass the article. ---Dough4872 01:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

English ("for the use of")

I'm not a native English speaker, but shouldn't "Four of the ship's five swimming pools are outdoors (although one of these is only one inch deep for the use of small children)" be "by small children"? Joepnl (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are actually two slightly different ways of saying this - "for THE use OF" and "for use BY" (no "the"). Both mean the same thing, but use slightly different grammar to express it. I'm trying to think if there are any "rules" for when one might use one rather than the other, but I don't think there are any. "For use by" is slightly simpler and more direct, so if you think that would be clearer for people whose first language is not English, feel free to go ahead and change the text. :) -- DMS (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you elaborate response. I did change it. Though the intended meaning is obvious, to me "the use of children" sounds like it's the children instead of the pool being used :) There must be a "by-ish" meaning of "of" I never noticed. It does makes me wonder how big the difference is between what is said and what I think is said in any English text. Joepnl (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh... I know what you mean. It always amazes me how well many non native speakers of English speak, write and understand the language, and in fact, the same phrase, when used in a slightly different way, can mean what you're saying. For example "he was jailed for the use of drugs" - here, it's clearly the drugs that are being used. The difference actually revolves around whether "use" is being used as a noun or a verb, and not a difference in the meaning of "of". In "the pool is for the use of children", "the use" is a noun, and "of" is possessive - it's similar to how you'd say "X is for the benefit of children". In "he was jailed for the use of drugs", it's the verb form of "use" that's being used. You've highlighted a useful example of how some phrases can be slightly confusing, and I'll try to remember to use "for using X" or "for use by X" as appropriate, in future - those are simpler and clearer. :) -- DMS (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting pretty much off topic, but whatever :) I'm starting to understand, but in "jailed for the use of drugs", "use" still sounds like a noun to me. Like "for the possession of drugs" instead of "for possessing drugs". It would be "convicted for the extensive use of drugs" and "convicted for extensively using drugs" isn't it? (I mean the -ly implies it's a verb). Joepnl (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tonnage figures

The figures for the ship's gross tonnage have been changed twice to correspond with the Cunard figures. This discrepency between the classifier's and the operator's figures was mentioned here, and there are several RSs to demonstrate it. The reason why the Lloyd's figures are better is because they are the official register of shipping, and are not affiliated with the vessel, and are therefore more authoritative. They are more likely to use more standard techniques to generate the figure, without wanting to make the ship seem larger than it actually is, ie:over 150,000 tonnes. Jhbuk (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is Not true, Queen Mary 2 has always been officially 151,400 Gross Tons, they wouldn't make up a number to make their ships seem larger, otherwise that would be fraud (for misleading info) and could lead to lawsuit, Plus all your information is outdated it says 2005/2006 and QM2 was refitted in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.49.205 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "officially"? The "official" figure is surely the one from the Classification society, in this case Lloyd's Register. A ship's gross tonnage depends upon the enclosed volume of a ship, which can be calculated in slightly different ways. This britannica article is very good for explaining this. That is what I mean by using standard measurements - a figure can still be 'correct', if you calculate it using a particular method, which happens to make the ship seem bigger, which is what the marketing department want. Here's another example. Regarding the refit figures, if you look at the ref, QM2 actually had refits at both times, and the 2006 one is when the actions described occured. Jhbuk (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jhbuk. Figures issued by Cunard fail WP:NPOV as they have something to gain from getting a higher figure out. The figures from Lloyd's meet NPOV. Lloyd's don't care if its 149,000, 150,000, 151,000 or whatever. They simply record the actual figure. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

anti-Semitism Aboard RMS Queen Mary 2

I was sorry to see that IP # 76.22.4.201 removed without discussion a perfectly documented new section about anti-Semitism aboard RMS Queen Mary 2 (difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RMS_Queen_Mary_2&action=historysubmit&diff=390051544&oldid=390025944)

Wikipedia is not an advertising agency that blocks unflattering or inconvenient information about subjects. So long as something is true and well documented, there is no call for removing it.

Also, Wikipedia is not a jungle where you remove sections without cause and without discussion. This is what this particular section is for: discussion. I placed edit-war warning on the page of IP # 76.22.4.201 and I invite this person and anyone else to discuss the section and reach an agreement.

I am withholding the section pending discussion as to avoid an edit war. But if IP # 76.22.4.201 or others will continue to remove sections without discussion, I will report abuse and vandalism to senior editors. 2knowledgeable (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think what's more important about this is giving undue weight to what is a single fairly insignificant, albeit unpleasant, incident. Simply having passengers on who hold these views is not significant; you could find that in any environment like that. I don't even think that there's anything especially scandalous about the actions of the officers; maybe just a misunderstanding/overreaction, if that, and certainly nothing to suggest the crew are anti-semitic. To cover this story in a balanced way would require much more context than was put on before, but as there is no evidence to suggest this is anything more than an isolated dispute amongst passengers, then I think it's probably best left off.178.105.174.171 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But these are not grounds for deleting the section. The criterion for adding and removing information from Wikipedia is documentation – and whatever relevant information is documented sufficiently stays.

As for anti-Semitic incidents being isolated, insignificant or non-representative, this is a repeated argument by editors who constantly try to block information about it. The best way to maintain and nourish racism is to keep it away from public view. I am not suggesting an editorial about this, but so long as the information is out there, and it is properly documented – you do not have the right to censor it. 2knowledgeable (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:UNDUE. That is justification enough for removing it. Not to mention that the section's wording was in violation of WP:NPOV. Prove that the section abides by these two policies... -MBK₀₀₄ 08:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's your job to prove that the section does not abide by these or other policies, rather than send me out to do your homework for you. However, in reference to this, let me point out that this is not "minority view" since the section does not present disputed facts or theory. There is also no issue of compromising neutrality since the section merely repeats the facts in the case, mentioning the claims of both sides.

Since the article covers all aspects regarding the ship, whether technical, environmental and historical, there is no cause to claim that this issue is irrelevant. In addition, since this is a news event that was covered widely by the world news, it is also impossible to dismiss it as negligible or unimportant.

I do see the possibility of adding this as a sub-section of "Service history" where it will be relevant and receive due balance in the context of the ship's entire history. However, if an agreement about this cannot be reached I will go on to logging a formal dispute. I hope that this will not be necessary. 2knowledgeable (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)