Jump to content

Talk:Queen Mary 2/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Beefeaters?

  • Passengers annually consume:
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:

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)

Talk:Queen Mary 2/Archive 2/GA1

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)

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)

Ownership

The "Owner" field listed Carnival as the owner, rather than Cunard. Cunard is owned by Carnival (as are other lines), but that does not make it the direct owner of the vessel. Is there reliable authority that the ship is directly owned by Carnival? The page for this ship at marinetraffic.com, [2], is not a reliable reference, as the section containing that assertion appears to be a wiki. Kablammo (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Llyod's Register gives the owner as Carnival plc.[3] I have made the change and added a cite. Kablammo (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

Can someone explain please why we have the Cunard logo in place of the Bermudan flag? Surely per Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide it should have the flag of the port of registry? There seems to be little consistency across the category with this.MatthewHaywood (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Page history shows that the Cunard logo was inserted by User:Blue predetor. In any case the Bermudan flag - defaced Red Ensign - is wrong per the Merchant Shipping Act described here "Any ship registered in a British port, which includes ports in Overseas Territories and Dependencies, is subject to the Merchant Shipping Act. Certain sections of the Act describe the flag that should be flown, which is the Red Ensign without any defacement or modification whatsoever." QM2 flies the Blue Ensign when Captain Christopher Wells, retired from the Royal Navy Reserve, is her master. Blue Riband► 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Maiden voyage

The section on the maiden voyage is confusing:

On 12 January 2004 Queen Mary 2 set sail on her maiden voyage from Southampton, UK, to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in the United States, carrying 2,620 passengers under the command of captain Ronald Warwick.... The ship arrived in Southampton late from her maiden voyage after bow doors which covered the thrusters failed to shut in Portugal.

If the maiden voyage was from Southampton to Fort Lauderdale, how could she have arrived late in Southampton, and what was she doing in Portugal? Pburka (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done She was returning to Southampton from her maiden voyage (round trip). I have fixed the wording so this clear (as in the source). —Diiscool (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What is her Home Port?

I believe it is Hamilton, Bermuda. Some one else appears to disagree and thinks its Southampton. I'd like to discuss the point here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Frenchmalawi, after November 2011 Queen Mary 2 was re-flagged from the Great Britain to Bermuda and her home port became Hamilton, Bermuda. She still however flies the undefaced "red duster" as ships registered in British overseas territories are part of the Red Ensign Group. See the comment above regarding "Flag in Infobox" for an explanation. Blue Riband► 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RMS Queen Mary 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on RMS Queen Mary 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not in Boston

"From Halifax, the ship sailed to Boston and was there for a full day at the cruise terminal. (Boston was the terminus of the original crossing in 1840.) In the evening, the captain backed the ship out of the slip and continued backing up all the way to the Maritime History Museum, where a fireworks display was presented before Queen Mary 2 sailed away."

This doesn't make sense. There is no "Maritime History Museum" in Boston. There are two small museums in the Charlestown Navy Yard, but neither is of any real significance. The only significant maritime museum in Massachusetts is the Peabody Essex, in Salem. Unless this can be clarified and cited, it should be removed. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 10:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of that on Cunard's site or elsewhere. FWIW, the LA Times has a brief description of the itinerary which would make a better reference than the press release we're currently using. Pburka (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Request to watchlist

RMS Queen Mary 2 is being edited by an IP, 202.128.68.82, to use an old approximate GT figure rather than the tonnage of Lloyd's Register, the rating agency. I would appreciate more eyes on the page. I have engaged the IP but without response. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Puzzled

Instead of the diesel-electric configuration found on many ships, Queen Mary 2 uses integrated electric propulsion to achieve her top speed. Diesel engines, augmented by gas turbines, are used to generate electricity for electric motors for propulsion and for on-board use.

What is the significant difference between 'diesel-electric' and 'integrated electric' ? The links to each don't make it clear that there is any.

86.162.138.215 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Rank of captain

The captains rank was Commodore. Cargohatch (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Flyers as sources

Using a company flyer as a source for environmental impact claims sounds greatly inadequate. Such statements can be as well considered unsourced. Nemo 09:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I would go as far as considering it unsourced but certainly not a neutral RS. Common problem with all cruise ship articles, the only sources tend to be the companys promotional press releases or enthusiasts blog sites regurgitating it or sites which use promotional stuff to sell you a cruise Lyndaship (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2019 (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." (Bermuda Post Office Act 1900 | http://www.bermudalaws.bm/Laws/Consolidated%20Laws/Post%20Office%20Act%201900.pdf.) 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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2020

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 section.

RMS Queen Mary 2 → Queen Mary 2 – More concise title; prefix is unnecessary disambiguation. Virtually all the sources cited refer to the ship simply as Queen Mary 2. Similar situation as Queen Elizabeth 2. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support nom, brevity and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Support. RMS itself is antiquated and does not apply. Ships have not been racing across oceans carrying Royal or any other letter type mail since air mail got going solidly. As an aside, for "ship people" here, memory of a whole culture is lacking in articles. Newspapers used to print ship schedules with "carrying mail for" and "last mail" at a given time. In family letters I've often seen "I have to close now to get this to the (train name) for New York and the (ship name)". Businesses and individuals corresponding overseas kept track of both train and ship schedules. Palmeira (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Cunard doesn't even use the RMS honorific in their advertising. Pburka (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, following the sources - it is sufficient that it's largely-honorary application is explained in the article. Davidships (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as long as your happy that your count of page views will restart from zero with the name change. Broichmore (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Antiquated or not, RMS is still her official prefix as in RMS Segwun, RMV Scillonian III, and until sold the former RMS St Helena. We use prefixes of MS for the other Cunard ships: MS Queen Elizabeth and MS Queen Victoria. Will be remove prefixes from all ship articles? Blue Riband►
  • Comment. For better or worse, we have long used prefixes such as RMS, HMS, SS, MV, etc. in article titles. They serve to disambiguate, and are immediately recognized as articles about ships. I realize that the "RMS" here does not have the same historic meaning, but it still is used for this vessel. Moreover, we probably don't want to start down the road of, for example, removing the "RMS" from the Titanic article, although the ship likely has been the most common use for the name. (But I do think that using the prefix in ancillary articles such as Sinking of the RMS Titanic or Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic is both clumsy and unnecessary.) Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think there's even more of a case for removing the prefix at RMS Titanic, despite the protestations of users who think Titanic is too ambiguous (despite being a clear primary topic) or that WP:SHIPNAME mandates prefixes (it doesn't). But that's another discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment. In the interest of full disclosure (although it has nothing to do with Wiki standards) I've sailed several times on RMS Queen Mary 2 and am completely biased. She is a special ship being the only ocean liner in service. I'm really disappointed to see this proposal and even more disappointed to see editors from the WikiProject Ships concur to have the special RMS stripped from her. Blue Riband► 00:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, we should follow the sources. Nothing is this proposal affects the content of the article one iota, only the name of this page (and other favourite titles for the ship will link anyway). Wider discussion on ship prefixes in page titles would be more appropriately held at WT:SHIPS Davidships (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I've transited the Atlantic twice aboard the Queen Mary 2. I don't recall seeing the letters RMS anywhere on the ship. (But perhaps there's a plaque somewhere.) I suspect that most passengers would not know what RMS means, as the ship's common name is simply Queen Mary 2 or the abbreviated QM2. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This proposal would removed the prefix which is a change in genre from other ship articles here. Then there's the TS Queen Mary which is unrelated to either ship. Blue Riband► 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
To your first point, there has been a movement away from prefixing ship articles (see Talk:Symphony of the Seas#Requested move 6 December 2018). To your second, there's no TS Queen Mary 2 (and even if there was, the ocean liner/cruise ship would be, by far, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the RMS quickly distinguishes the article from one about a person. These sort of prefixes (like HMCS) are quite helpful in identifying quickly for readers that we are talking about a ship. It avoids confusion that could arise about Queen Mary II (ie Mary II of England) and other persons, places, institutions and objects. I do not see a good reason to drop it and many good reasons not to.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's doubtful the prefix will be that helpful for general readers. The "RMS" prefix itself has virtually disappeared from use; therefore, most readers probably won't know what it means.
Persons called "Queen Mary II" are disambiguated by using Roman numerals, and hatnotes can handle any further disambiguation.
Addressing your other links, there is no Queen Mary Land 2, Queen Mary University of London 2, or Queen Mary 2 trailer.
For a sense of how closely a term is associated with a given topic, I like to do a Google image search, which in the case of "Queen Mary 2" shows only pictures of the ship. So I doubt there's much risk of confusion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If disambiguation were ever necessary, Queen Mary 2 (ship) would be far clearer. We don't disambiguate royals by prefixing them with HRH, nor should we prefix ships unless it's how they're commonly referred to. Pburka (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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.

pandemic should be in the article

Status: Sailing to Southampton, England The Queen Mary 2 set off on a 113-day New York to New York voyage on January 3, 2020.

"Queen Mary 2's World Voyage was canceled and the ship is currently en route to Southampton from Australia," says a Cunard spokesperson. Most guests disembarked in Perth and flew back home from there. "The only guests who remain on board are those who are unable to fly due to medical reasons," said Cunard in a statement. There are 264 guests still on board. There are no known cases of Covid-19 on board."Cruise ships are still scrambling for safe harbor". CNN. 3 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is notable. Nothing happened on QM2 that didn't also happen on every other cruise ship (yes, I know it's a liner). This is just WP:NEWS. Do we expect that every article in Category:Cruise ships will have a COVID-19 section describing the ship's response? Clearly, it's suitable for Diamond Princess and a handful of others that had exceptional experiences, but, in the circumstances, QM2's mid-voyage cancelation is WP:run-of-the-mill. pburka (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:Proseline is a worthwhile read. The Career section of the article is up to 14 subdivisions, many of which are not really noteworthy. I believe that the Covid section is as noteworthy of many of these, especially as the vessel is and will be idle for a period of time. But the subject could be addressed in two or three sentences-- the detail is unnecessary. Kablammo (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Markup error in Characteristics

There appears to be a markup failure under the Characteristics section. I don't know enough to fix it. The text starting from the s of the first "Queen Mary 2s" to the 2 of the second one is rendered as (I think) Bold and partially Italic (in FireFox). Queen Mary 2s 30-knot (56 km/h; 35 mph) open ocean speed sets the ship apart from cruise ships, such as MS Oasis of the Seas, which has a service speed of 22.6 knots (41.9 km/h; 26.0 mph); Queen Mary 2s normal LurkingKiwi (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

government requisition?

Could the current Cunard Queens, at least in theory, ever be requisitioned by the British military? As I understand it, the previous Queens were subsidized by the government, hence their being requisitioned. But that doesn't apply here, does it? Elsquared (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Any vessel is liable to be requisitioned by the government of the state in which is it registered. So, in theory, QM2 could be requisition by the UK government. Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not just a theory. QE2 was requisitioned as a troop ship during the Falklands War. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:180B:A3E6:C73E:A621 (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was she reflagged?

“On 19 October 2011, Queen Mary 2 had her registry changed to Hamilton, Bermuda, from her previous home port of Southampton, to allow the ship to host on-board weddings.”

Article should explain the legal background, and why UK registry means there can be no shipboard weddings.

Here is an interesting reference about a wedding on QE2:

https://www.qe2.org.uk/wedding.html 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8518:C98C:1A85:3BA0 (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Panama Canal

Article states that QM2 will not fit in the Canal. But the 2022 world cruise itinerary states that QM2 will pass through the Canal. Which is right? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:180B:A3E6:C73E:A621 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Which voyage are you referring to? M202F (New York to New York) traverses the Suez Canal twice, but doesn't use the Panama Canal. The ship will visit five continents, but won't circumnavigate the globe. pburka (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at Panamax, it seems the canal was expanded in 2016. I'll update the article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
It's unclear if QM2 is even Neopanamax. The ship might be too tall to squeeze under some of the bridges over the Panama canal. pburka (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Mary_2/Archive_2&oldid=1193176802"