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)

This accident happened before the vessel service and would more likely be considered a shipyard accident rather than anything related to the operation of the QM2.Mariepr (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2011 (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)

Correct figure of 148,528 gt now substituted, taken from this source. Kablammo (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion continues, as many sources (including Cunard) continue to use the nominal tonnage figure of 151,400. Recent edits using that number rely on a Lloyd's publication advertising its services for cruise ship classification, Cruise ship services -- First choice for cruise ship classification, which states: "We currently class more than 100 cruise ships a total of over 5 million gt including the 151,400 gt, Cunard flagship vessel Queen Mary 2 . . .". This figure however at odds with the US Coast Guard data which rely directly on the tonnage certificate, and give gross tonnage at 148,528. United States Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange, Queen Mary 2. More importantly, the higher figure differs from the actual figure measured by Lloyds and published in the Lloyds Register itself, which is 148,528. Queen Mary 2, inquiry for IMO 924106, Ships in Class. (You must register to see the page, but registration is free.)

Therefore the actual gross tonnage is 148,528, regardless of what the marketing departments of Lloyds or Cunard may say. Kablammo (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2012 (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)

I am becoming impatient with people who delete other people's contributions with no reason and without condescending to discuss changes, as Miesianiacal does (difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RMS_Queen_Mary_2&action=historysubmit&diff=391865753&oldid=391797620). If you can't be bothered to discuss the article, than don't be involved in editing it. Additionally: Referring to other people's contribution as "irrelevant nonsense" is rude, unprofessional and immature. 2knowledgeable (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to be said that hasn't already been mentioned? The incident, even if true, is a miniscule blip in the vessel's history (ie. irrelevant to this article). If you want me to explain more: your addition was also unencyclopaedic (it was blatantly one sided, thereby breaching WP:NPOV, and editorialised) and careless (using a date format inconsistent with the rest of the article and referring to the non-existent "Conrad Cruise Line"). My edit summary was a bit harsh, yes, but when you pushed your edit in there again over the objections of two other editors who'd already made their case quite clear, it seemed that we were past the point of genteel politeness. If you disagree with them (and me, and Onorem), then your next course of action is pretty much what you said you'd do: "logging a formal dispute"; though, we call it seeking dispute resolution. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

3,000+ passengers a trip, two got bitched at. Life happens; not notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the others who have commented here. This appears to be exactly the type of thing that WP:UNDUE is there for...unless this doesn't happen to be an isolated incident that stemmed from an argument between passengers, not crew. --Onorem♠Dil 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't fight a universe of closet anti-Semites who serve the finacial interests of The Conrad Cruise Lines. Unless someone with integrity would come along and see this racist attitude for it is, I will have to give up at this point. Happy racist censorship to y'all. 2knowledgeable (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Almost two years passed since I invited "someone with integrity" to review this talk section and consider that there is some agenda in the decision that the "Boston Cup" is a highly pertinent part of the ship's history, but that a shameful anti-Semitic incident that was carried out both by the passengers and the crew is "irrelevant" and should be silenced. I have no idea how many people read this section since, but there wasn't a single person with integrity among them. I wonder if shipping is a subject matter that attracts few Jews, and is therefore a traditional haven for anti-Semites. At the very least, however, I believe that the article should carry a travel warning advising Jews not to come on board. They would have to survive without seeing the glitzy Boston Cup and the Mall-like grand lobby. 2knowledgeable (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A "warning"? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. —Diiscool (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. Wikipedia is more of a glorified advertising brochure. But if you bother to provide so much information about a ship, shouldn't you also mention that it is Jews-unfriendly? You don't want all those Jew aboard anyway (they always complain about something, as you can well see…) 2knowledgeable (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know a couple of British people who were treated badly on the ship, should we add this to the article as well? or should we just make a special case for Jewish people?81.153.148.85 (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody POST the text in question on here? Alright, apparently I have to do it myself. Here goes.. --RThompson82 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On October 3, 2010, The New York Post reported that an elderly Jewish couple who traveled aboard the Queen Mary 2 were the subject of racial slurs. According to the article, the couple was threatened that they would have to leave the ship and were finally confined to their cabin after they protested against anti-Semitic insults. The Conrad Cruise Lines fully supported the behavior of the ship's captain, claiming that the couple, both in their eighties, displayed rude and disruptive behavior. The citation: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/the_hate_boat_j7PF4V3pbpKwIbssYw6GwO --RThompson82 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The question remains. Why is "The Boston Cup" or any other trivia worthy of lengthy descriptions, but a serious incident of racism and violence against an old couple is considered unimportant? It's like writing about the transit system in Montgomery, Alabama and refusing to say anything about Rosa Parks. Shame on you! 2knowledgeable (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The anti-semitism stuff is irrelevant to the ship; the SHIP which this article is about. It could have happened on any cruise ship or ocean liner. You would be better off adding to the article about the companies that own and operate the ship, Carnival Corporation & plc or Cunard Line since it is they who presumably set the customer service standards. —Diiscool (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The "anti-Semitism stuff"... :-) I think it's very clear what your attitude is, and how you feel about any discussion of racism and segregation. Obviously you feel on safer ground telling readers that "The King's Court area on the ship is open twenty four hours a day, serving as a buffet restaurant for breakfast and lunch." Shouldn't this, related to "customer service standards," be added to "the article about the companies that own and operate the ship…" But I encourage you to take to the open seas of a history that does not shy away from uncomfortable events and ethical questions. Stop hiding at the "Britannia Restaurant [that] takes up the full width of the ship on two decks" and face up to the truth about the ship, and about yourself.2knowledgeable (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that the King's Court stuff should be removed. The hours could change at any time and it is not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to be a travel brochure or a record of every instance of poor customer service. —Diiscool (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good way of avoiding the issue, but the fact is that your argument about "the "anti-Semitism stuff" doesn't hold any water. 2knowledgeable (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Propulsion system

Since the gas turbine shafts are not mechanically connected to the prop. shafts (which is impossible since these are located in pods outside the hull) the propulsion system is not 'CODLAG'. Both the diesel engines and gas turbines drive electric generators which provide power to the electric motors in the pods. This is termed 'Integrated Electric Propulsion'. ---- dudpal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudpal (talk • contribs) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello to add to this, the propulsion is CODAG. If you read the note in the QM2 article you will see that the propulsion is all electric: "The Tale of the Mermaid Pods". 2009-01-08. http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2011/01/08/the-tale-of-the-mermaid-pods-carnival-awarded-24-million-in-lawsuit-with-rolls-royce/. Retrieved 2011-01-19. or From RR: http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/products/propulsors/podded/index.jsp

The turbines are located ON TOP of the ship, in the large white block behind the funnel. They are in the section with the ship name in large lighted lettering. http://www.cunard.com/Documents/Press%20Kits/Queen%20Mary%202/Queen_Mary_2_Fun_Facts.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.255.152 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

CODAG is the term used by GE, the builder of the aeroderivative gas turbines Turbines Mariepr (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RMS (Royal Mail Ship) prefix

User 90.206.49.71 had removed the reference to the Queen Mary 2 losing the RMS (Royal Mail Ship) prefix upon leaving the Great Britian registry, noting that it was only internet speculation. The vessel currently carries a token amount of mail between Britian (current registry) and ports of call. However the ship has no scheduled calls in Bermuda (registry effective December 2011) through 2012. Section 48 of the Bermuda Post Office Act of 1900 states, "...the Postmaster-General may enter into contracts for the carriage of sea mails and air mails between Bermuda and places out of Bermuda, upon such terms and conditions as the Minister may approve." . However the postal system is named Bermuda Post Office and does not use the name Royal Mail. The combination of the vessel's itinerary and Bermuda having no authority to designate the RMS prefix would indicate that the loss of the RMS prefix is beyond internet speculation. Mariepr (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I thought the RMS designation was only honorary these days decided by Royal Mail itself, an article in Royal Mails employees Courier newspaper page 20 August 2007 explained all about Royal Mail Ships, unfortunately I do not have a copy.--palmiped |  Talk  08:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't assume they will drop RMS based on your interpretation of Bermuda law. You need a reliable source and I'm sure you know that. Please don't add speculation to the article. —Diiscool (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Courier publication cited by palmiped is not available online back to 2007. The logical place to look regarding the RMS prefix would be the Royal Mail since they granted the title. Cunard information about the ship does indeed state that the vessel carries a token amount of mail to meet the requirement. Although the vessel will continue to make scheduled US-UK transatlantic crossings, as of December 1, 2011 the ship will no longer be a UK registered ship. Out of respect for the "verifiable" standard, I will refrain for making changes regarding this subject on the article page until then. I bring it up here because others maybe able to locate a definative answer to this one way or the other. Mariepr (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• A reliable source is required before removing the RMS tag. --palmiped |  Talk  16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunards website refers to QM2 as RMS QM2 here...QM2 facts on pages 2&3.--palmiped |  Talk  22:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above link is from Cunard's UK site. On Cunard's US site. none of these three press documents make any mention of the RMS title:Overview, FactSheet, and Technical. On the US website it appears that Cunard just scrubbed any reference to QM2 being a Royal Mail Ship. Cunard's president did boast when RMS status was granted in 2004. Well, are they really going to publically announce that one of their ships had a title revoked? Mariepr (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Cunard, and they said that the QM2 is still designated R.M.S., but that it is only a title, and always has been.

Royal rendezvous?

Two years after the first Cunard Royal Rendezvous
Does this mean the meeting of the QM and QM2 at Long Beach? The article doesn't specify. --RThompson82 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)