Talk:MS Queen Elizabeth

On 14 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Queen Elizabeth (2010 ship). The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Naming Criticism

I'm removing this paragraph:

"As experienced with Queen Victoria ship aficionados have criticised Cunard for naming this ship as a Queen. This is a designation customarily applied to the line's ocean liners and flagships: Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth 2, and Queen Mary 2. It has been suggested that the Queen Elizabeth should have borne the name of one of Cunard's previous smaller ships, such as the Mauretania or Aquitania, as was done with the last Caronia, which served Cunard between 1999 and 2004."

The reference given is to http://www.cruisepage.com, which seems to be a site for booking cruises, and has no editorial content. If the reference is supposed to be to the forums on that site, I would say that it fails WP:RS. Rojomoke (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Caption Box photograph

Replaced photograph from here [[1]] has no licensing information, no authorship information, no date information, no category information, no copyright, licensing information or permission, and without this will be automatically deleted seven days from 12 October 2010. George.Hutchinson (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery image

Barek

You removed not only an image, but the gallery also. A gallery provides editors, esp those less experienced, a place to add further useful images as they become available. Especially so for a new ship, and a gallery is a well-established feature of many similar shipping pages. No doubt that explains why the wiki software includes provision for a gallery. Your assertion that the image "added nothing useful" is patently untrue. It was shot from a position forward of the ship's bows to show the bridge from a frontal perspective, which the other image cannot do in a shot on the beam. Before removing content (twice in two days) you should consider obtaining agreement from other contributors first, otherwise you risk sparking edit wars. The article page is not your personal page or your personal property. George.Hutchinson (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to always assume good faith - and refrain from making false accusations. I have only once removed the image (although I will again now), so your claim that I have removed it multiple times in two days is false, which can be clearly seen in the article history. Also,

Be aware also that galleries are not overwhelmingly supported - they are, by many, viewed as sloppy usage. It's far better to add images next to text which the image illustrates rather than create galleries. Galleries do have a purpose, but certainly not for a single image which is redundant to the existing infobox image (and yes, I still view it as redundant). However, if you feel that adding a very slight and distant view of the bridge is beneficial, it may be better to replace the existing infobox image with the new one. There's is no need for both images.

Lastly, be aware that you have placed the burden of gaining consensus on the wrong party. When your image has been removed by multiple established editors, it's clear that the burden is on you to gain consensus for adding it, not the other way around. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I've added a link to commons:category:MS Queen Elizabeth in the external links section, which is a standard tag used on many Wikipedia articles to supply links to other images which are not in the article itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the gallery. The only image in it was already in use in the infobox. Removed per WP:NOTLINK. Please let's not see it re-added without consensus. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class of this ship

Is this ship a Signature Class or an Enlarged Vista Class? This page and the Vista class cruise ship article don't match up. - 63.70.138.254 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why QE2?

The current one is just called QE. Why was this one not? Or, why is the current one not called QE3? Some discussion in the article and sources would be good. 5.148.109.26 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MS Queen Elizabeth. 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/20100304155922/http://www.cunard.co.uk/OurShips/default.asp?Ship=QE&main=acc&sub=clb to http://www.cunard.co.uk/OurShips/default.asp?Ship=QE&main=acc&sub=clb

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) 21:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 04:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MS Queen Elizabeth → Queen Elizabeth (2010 ship) – We do not need ship prefix "MS" for cruise ships, as per WP:SHIPPREFIX. 49.150.12.134 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:SHIPPREFIX "the optional prefix is, in fact, optional, it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources". It does not say that MS should not be used. This proposed move would apply to a series of other ships as well e.g. MS Queen Victoria and MS Queen Anne to name just two. Dormskirk (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lyndaship - Oppose Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We need a dab of some sort and MS is both shorter and more natural than 2010 ship Lyndaship (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Lyndaship Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:NATURALDAB -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NATURAL. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above, the prefix is to be used if a disambiguator is required, preferring a natural one. The ship's name is not unambiguous. Dank Jae 03:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above, and spotting a snowberg ahead. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.