Talk:RMS Queen Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Scotland RMS Queen Mary is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

Contents

[edit] RMS Queen Mary ToDo list

To-do list for RMS Queen Mary: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    The are plenty of missing pieces in the discussion of the Queen Mary in Long Beach. Among the topics that should be added or expanded are:

    • Apply Infobox
    • There is only a brief mention of the Disney years and their proposed theme park expansion in the Trivia section. This should be moved up as a subsection of the Long Beach section and expanded.
    • The Wrather Corp. era
    • The lawsuit between the city of Long Beach and the RMS Foundation
    • The lawsuit(s) between the Foundation and minority investors
    • More on the Spruce Goose, and especially more on the dome that remained (use for filming, proposed uses, etc.)
    • some information on the collection of tourist shops next to the queen Mary
    • some more info on the special events on or next to the Queen Mary (the Halloween attraction: Queen Mary Shipwreck, the Scottish festival, etc.)
    • the current article has nothing on the short-lived Jacques Cousteau museum.

    [edit] Specifications

    Okay, this is why I don't like putting ship's specifications in tables, you end up with a bunch of blank spaces. The "Cost" field is pretty useless, as very few people are going to know how to convert the currency of the time into today's money.--Nycto 19:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

    Just because many people don't know how doesn't mean NO ONE knows. I'm pretty sure I saw the price, both in British Pounds and American Dollars, somewhere on the ship's tour. I cannot recall what it was though. It even compared it to today's currency strength. --Ramfan2772 10:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Redundancy

    The SPECIFICATION subsection seems a bit redundant when there is a table of specifications citing identical information at the right of the page. -M

    Unless someone objects within a week I will delete it. Kablammo 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Tonnage

    A lot of these ocean liner pages seem to be confused between displacement and gross tonnage. Gross tonnage is the common measure for passenger ships, and is a measure of enclosed space, not weight. Displacement is usually considerably less.--Nycto 08:06, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

    --When it comes to older ocean liners, their displacement is usually somewhat larger than their GRT. Just look at Titanic. It has a GRT of 46,000, while its Displacement is 52,000 ton+-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunwang (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 August 2005.

    The GRT figure in the text differs from that in the table. Sources do not agree on the figures, but her tonnage apparently was increased over time, and the figure in the table is her 1947 tonnage.[[1]] Kablammo 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] QM vs. Normandie

    A secondary source, Miller, W., Famous Ocean Liners, Patrick Stephens Ltd. (1986) says that Normandie was the biggest liner in the world (gross tonnes) in 1935; that "a year later" (i.e., 1936) Queen Mary "took the title", and "not to be outdone", "that winter" (presumably after the 1936 season) Normandie was drydocked and enlarged to make it the largest. Therefore I changed the text on 21 June 2006 to reflect that QM took the title in 1936. I see however that other sources state that Normandie was enlarged earlier, the winter of 1935-36, after QM's size was announced but before QM entered service, and therefore kept its status as largest and was not surpassed by QM. Does anyone have definitive information? Kablammo 17:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    As sources other than Miller agree that Normandie's modifications occurred before QM entered service, I have changed the text back. Miller must have been wrong in his claim that QM "took the title". Kablammo 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    Normandie was altered as soon as the French line became aware that The Queen Mary's displacement tonnage would exceed that of Normandie. The figures were based on ENCLOSED area, Normandie received a new deckhouse and (it being roofed and thus constituting extra enclosed space) it was enough to tip the balance back in favour of Normandie. The Queen Mary was never, as popularly believed, the largest ship in the World at any stage of her career.

    [edit] Naming

    We state as fact here the ship was named after Mary of Teck, but quote the popular story of George V asking for the name as bunk. I'm fine with the second part... but surely the ship was named for Mary I of England? (That said, I note RMS Queen Elizabeth says she was named for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon rather than Mary I. I have my strong doubts about that, given the "no living people" tradition.) Shimgray | talk | 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

    The ship is in deed named after the Queen Mary of Teck. This can be proven at the front desk of the hotel, where in the back on the front desk wall, a sculpture of Queen Mary Of Teck is shown, with her name and title around it. --Ramfan2772 10:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    The Queen Mary was named for and by the queen consort of George V, H.M., Queen Mary. Nobody in their right mind would name a ship after "Bloody Mary." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CThornton (talk • contribs).


    We need a major section on the pre-war story of the Queen Mary that includes her design - both as a ship and her fantastic interior design. This was the period when the Queen Mary was new, the flagship of Cunard White Star, and won the blue ribband as the fastest ship on the North Atlantic. It was also the period of the greatest panache and elegance. After the war, the QM was refit on a tight budget and was never quite the same. CThornton CThornton

    [edit] WWII History

    I see a recent change that notes that both the Mary AND Elizabeth were nicknamed 'the Gray Ghost'. I've never heard of the Elizabeth called that. Can someone provide a reference? Also, which is the appropriate spelling of 'gray'? It seems that 'gray' is the common US usage. Given that, I would suppose that 'grey' is better, since she is originally a British boat. GregCovey 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    References: Gray Ghost: The R. M. S. Queen Mary at War by Steve Harding ISBN 0933126263 while the Scotsman.com uses "grey", as does Queen Mary's Meet. Both Queens were called "grey ghost" according to QE Ship History as well as others including RMS Queen Mary, Ships of State Queen Elizabeth, TGOL and this: the story's certainly widespread. Most pages seem to use "grey" ...dave souza, talk 10:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    The normal English English spelling is GREY, and that is how all British references to the QM were made. Of course Americans, with their penchant for doing things differently spell it as GRAY. But this is an encyclopaedia folks; we need to resist our normal human tendencies to rewrite history as we would like it to be. And ... "originally a British boat ..." The QM was always a British registered ship (boats are usually somewhat smaller). My understanding of the legal niceties is that when she berthed in Long Beach her propellers were removed, her engines immobilised and in the legal sense, she ceased to be a ship (or boat), and became a non-seagoing hulk. So the QM was never registered as a ship anywhere but in Britain. Brian.Burnell 17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Southampton UK.

    [edit] Titanic comparison

    I deleted the comparison with Titanic's size. Many ships were larger, longer, faster, heavier, more luxurious, etc. than Titanic and there is no reason to use her as the standard by which all other ships are judged. If any one feels strongly about it, revert that change, or discuss it here, but I can't see how it adds to the article. Kablammo 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

    I don't "feel strongly" about it, but the Titanic is a touchstone, especially for people who have not other meaningful frame of reference. Many warships are compared to a Nimitz class aircraft carrier or a WWII battleship. Many passenger liners are commonly compared to the Titanic. To most people, the comparison is meaningless if only for the fact that they have no idea how large the Titanic is. I say that the comparison is so common in contemporary society that it becomes reasonable even in an encyclopedia. But I don't care enough to ever get into a edit war over it. --JJLatWiki 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't have strong feelings either and will not revert, but given the length of time since my deletion I suspect most users (or at least editors) really don't care. Kablammo 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Expansion on paranormal activities

    The Queen Mary's involvment with EVPs and paranormalists that the article should be expanded much more. Paranormal activity may be doubtful and cannot be 100% explained to be true, however, it IS famous for it, and some works of studies should be cited (such as Peter James). Stories of paranormal activites should be included (Like the Lady In White, John Peddler, William Stark, etc.) and should include some witness statements. Basicaly, the fact of the Queen Mary's paranormal and ghost activites should be expanded and dedicated it's own section rather a subsection. --Ramfan2772 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Most of the paranormal stuff for the Queen Mary is just PR garbage, and doesn't deserve any more attention in an encyclopedia article than what is currently in the article. If you want to write more on it, use WikiTravel, World66, or other tourist websites. BlankVerse 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Agree with the above. The paranormal history of the Queen Mary began when she arrived in the the "land of fruits and nuts" and was turned over to the tender mercies of commercial operators eager for a quick buck. It is pure garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CThornton (talk • contribs).
    The only aspect of the alleged paranormal sightings which might interest liner afficianados is spotting the numerous technical and locational errors which instantly demonstrate their lack of factual foundations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnpedder (talk • contribs).
    Wikipedia articles, even those on their favorite topics, are not just for liner afficianados, or road geeks, or train spotters, etc., although their contributions are welcome. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the articles should reflect that. To that end, there are a whole bunch of rules and guidelines about what goes in to an article, and a Manual of Style on how the articles are written. BlankVerse 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Knowing that the Disney's Imagineering division created the "haunted cabin" by putting together two small cabins on b deck forward and then using effects to create the haunted features, it is hard to take any of the paranormal happenings seriously. They are simply a marketing ploy. Someone asked one of the Queen Mary's original shipbuilders, John Kean, if he ever encountered ghosts when he was building the ship. His response was "no, and I don't drink either." C.ThorntonCThornton 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Edit dispute over links in the External links section

    Two editors were temporarily blocked for three-revert violations, and the RMS Queen Mary article is now temporarily protected because of the edit warring over the article. If any of the editors who have been involved in editing dispute want to discuss matters, this is where it should happen. BlankVerse 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, my opinion is that the link should appear in the list as being particularly useful for those wanting to find out about her current use, with the description (as at present) making clear what the site's about. However it's not the best source for general description and could be better placed at or near the end of the list. "Queen Marys Meet", "RMS Queen Mary" and "The Great Ocean Liners: RMS Queen Mary" which describe her history appear to be more suitable for the top of the list. "Film of the Queen Mary on her sea trials 1936" seems to be so murky as to be useless, but that may just be my browser. ...dave souza, talk 16:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    The web site on the "construction and conversion" of the Queen Mary is a very thoroughly researched product that took 10 years to reach its current state.

    The "as built" deckplans and articles on all of the features of the ship as built were drawn from information in the "Shipbuilder" published at the time of the maiden voyage. The "Shipbuilder" is considered the bible on the construction of the Queen Mary.

    The "as is" deckplans were furnished by the City of Long Beach. The descriptions of the ship "as is" were researched on site and are accompanied by photographs.

    The "as proposed" deckplans and descriptions are simply an attempt to reconcile the great ship "as built" with what is left to us now. There are various options presented here that are outlined and rendered for clarity.

    This web site contains the first comprehensive review of the ship that has been undertaken since the Long Beach conversion in 1968-72. C. ThorntonCThornton 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    To be clear, that site looks fine and my suggestion is simply to do with sequence of the list: in my opinion the sites noted above give a more accessible overview and it's worthwhile listing them first. .. dave souza, talk 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    I will be honest here. I think the Queen Mary's current operators are threatened by the Alternative Visions website, and thus will do anything do delete the link. This entire thing is petty, childish and is the exact reason why that dang ship is in the current state she is in. Some people should be ashamed of themselves. ((ieguy))

    Post script: I have looked at the other links in the section and none of them offer the amount of useful information and detailed photographs that the website at The Maritime Heritage page. Anyone can take a look for themeselves. The other links only offer a few pages about the ship. -ieguy, talk 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    Since there is absolutely no evidence that the RMS Foundation has done any other editing to the article (and didn't delete or alter the huge chunk of text that was recently added by people from your website, which would have been the most obvious thing for them to do), I think that your speculation that they are behind the deletion of just the link to your website sounds like paranoia.
    Since the editor who did most of the deletions edited the Titanic article first, there is the possibility that they are just another liner enthusiast who decided that your website didn't meet their exacting, and probably biased, criteria for inclusion in the External links section. Or they could have been trying to exact 'revenge' for an encounter(s) with participants in your website in a forum outside the Wikipedia.
    The other major possibility IMHO is that the editor was just an Internet troll who was yanking your chain.
    There is one problem that I have the inclusion of a link to your website. Although it has some very useful historical information, a large proportion of the website is speculative, with proposals and advocacy for those proposals, and with 3D creations and recreations. If the link is kept, The link should be directly to the portions of the website with the historical information, or the link should be clearly labeled as an advocacy website (possibly in its own subsection). BlankVerse 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    I second the above remarks. Apart from a relatively small percentage of interesting historical data/images (all borrowed from other sources), the 'vision' presented by the 'Alternative Visions' site is entirely speculative. The people responsible for these imaginary plans have no connection with the operators of the ship; they have neither the funds or any permission to implement their questionable schemes and have shown no inclination, in the real world, to do more than idly talk about 'saving' the liner. Unfortunately, their 'vision' of 'saving' The Queen Mary is far removed from the standards of restoration and preservation as practised by legitimate experts. The site should be removed from this category; the little historical data it offers is dwarfed by its fictional content. Why was this site allowed to have TWO external links when it was of questionable relevance to this entry? User:TurbineLady: (comment added by User talk:195.93.21.68 at 10:18, 25 September 2006)

    note: The is no user currently named TurbineLady (talk • contribs). The previous was added by 195.93.21.68 (talk • contribs), an AOL proxy for the Los Angeles area.
    The above comment is total nonsense. Trying to surpress the truth of the situation is what this deleting of links is really all about. The site, besides having the vast amount of information on the design and construction of the ship, has a great deal of accurate information on its current condition -- all based on eye witness accounts. The photos of the current state of the ship were taken precisely for the web site, they were not "all borrowed from other sources." The suggestions for preservation and reuse conform to the best standards of preservation and reuse. The current commercial operators practice of adding "exhibits" while destroying the original fabric of the ship is what has brought the ship to its current sad state. A look at the website of the current commercial operator tells you where their focus is found - a questionable burlesque show and a guts and gore show for Halloween. C.ThorntonCThornton 16:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    The facts can't be changed by flaming other people's input. Blankverse and TurbineLady are 100% correct to state that The Alternative Visions site is largely speculative in nature. Bitching about bad cabaret shows and ghost tours won't make the website more factual. Nor will discourtesy alter the point that the site portrays a pipedream which will never escape the drawing board. If the site owners enjoy their game that's very nice for them, but let's see the site for what it actually is: a blend of fact and fiction. Your suggestion that the site should be labelled: "A website on the construction and conversion of the Queen Mary that advocates both its preservation and restoration" is partly nonsensensical as the webmasters have zero interest in restoring many of the less glamorous areas lost during the Long Beach conversions. I also noticed that the site had 2 external links in this entry; this is hardly fair or sensible given the nature of the material. Every time I have visited that site my spyware filters have gone crazy; you have to wonder why the webmasters are so eager to gather information about their visitors in that fashion. DevilDan

    note: The is no user currently named DevilDan (talk • contribs). The previous was added by 195.93.21.68 (talk • contribs), an AOL proxy for the Los Angeles area.
     :To both user:leguy and User:CThornton: You can 'sign' your posts by adding four tildes at the end, like this ~~~~. BlankVerse 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually adding a description like "A website on the construction and conversion of the Queen Mary that advocates both its preservation and restoration" would be great. CThornton 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding the recommendations for restoring and preserving the Queen Mary on the Maritime Heritage web site, how are these proposals any different from the discussion of the propsal to rebuild the Tuileries Palace on Wikipedia? C.Thornton208.8.110.194 17:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

    If I may make two points in response to "DevilDan":

    1) The Alternative Visions section of the site may be speculative in nature, but the "Deck by Deck" section is extremely useful. I actually printed out that entire section of the website and brought it with me on my last visit to the Queen Mary in March, and it made for a far better experience than I otherwise would have had. The information on the site may be available elsewhere (Is the Shipbuilder now in the public domain?), but heaven knows that you won't get it from the ship's current operators.

    2) I have corresponded with the website's operators re the spyware (SiteAdvisor used to go ballistic whenever I visited the webite). They confirmed that whatever the spyware was was coming from whoever they had hosting the website (cjb.net, if I remember right), and quit using that hosting service. Since then, I've had no problems with spyware.Mgy401 1912 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    By the way, I must agree with ieguy in that I suspect that this whole thing reflects an attempt by the current operators to stifle any dissenting voices. The operator in years past has taken legal action to try to shut these people up, and if the legal doctrine they advocated were universally enforced than this Wikipedia website on the Queen Mary would have to be shut down as well. Over the past six or seven months, I have personally replaced the links to the Alternative Visions site and to Diane Rush's website ("Queen Mary Long Beach Editorial") after they were removed by other users. This deletion of links to sites critical of the operator is not a new phenomenon. Mgy401 1912 05:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    It is curious to note as pointed out by Blankverse that both TurbineLady and DevilDan are unnamed Wikipedia users that show up with the same user ID# 195.93.21.68 (talk • contribs), an AOL proxy for the Los Angeles area. CThornton 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    There is nothing suspicious about AOL users having the same ID#. It is a peculiarity of the AOL system. Many AOL users in the USA have exactly the same electronic fingerprint. Let's try to avoid paranoid guesswork. There are enough trolls removing links at Wikipedia without the rest of us having to develop conspiracy theories. Observers of the Queen Mary scene would have to walk around with their heads in a sack to be unaware of the operators' complete failure to respect the integrity of the historic vessel in their care. It is sad that they allegedly feel obliged to stifle the suggestions made by the alternative visions people. They clearly represent no threat to the operaters because, as 'Devil Dan' bullishly but truthfully states, the alternative vision is a fantasy rather than a founded in reality scheme for reconstruction. Material from 'The Shipbuilder' is not in the public domain as changes to copyright laws in the USA and Europe returned many previously unlimited items back to the control of the heirs or asignees of their creators for longer periods. In the USA the Free Use laws may marginally apply to items such as the deck by deck plans, though a specialist in that area of corporate law would be likely to contend that Free Use does not allow detailed, full quality reproduction of owned graphics. You can buy a full set of deckplans from John Browns, they cost upwards of $200. As we all agree that censorship is a bad thing, may I ask when all the AOL users who are now barred from contributing to this entry will be given equal rights with other users? Either this is a public resource or it is locked facility for the benefit of a single website. Sealawyer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.61.213 (talk • contribs).

    I only pointed out that the editors were using the same IP because that is very unusual for AOL. For dial-up accounts AOL often changes the IPs after every access or edit. Because of that, AOL recently added a special tag so that when people from the Wikipedia report vandalism to AOL, AOL will be able to identify the specific user that was involved. BlankVerse 01:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sealawyer wrote: " They clearly represent no threat to the operaters because, as 'Devil Dan' bullishly but truthfully states, the alternative vision is a fantasy rather than a founded in reality scheme for reconstruction."

    My question is why do you consider these recommendations a fantasy? What operational recommendations do you suggest that might be more "founded in reality scheme for reconstruction?" CThornton 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Just a note on copyright: It is highly likely that all the photos and drawings on the Alternative Visions website besides those that they created themselves are still under copyright. Their extensive use certainly does not qualify as Fair use under US copyright law. If they were sent a cease-and-desist order from any of the copyright holders, they would have to remove the images post-haste. As pointed out by Sealawyer, some of the images are still being sold, so there is even the possibility of the website owners being sued for damages because of their copyright infringement.
    Keep in mind that many of the 3D images that were created for the website, as well as the preservation and reuse drawings, also look like they were created from the original plans, and therefore count as derivative works and would also be copyright violations. BlankVerse 01:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    The Maritime Heritage Website is published in the UK, not in the USA.CThornton 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    As I understand it, there is nothing directly equivalent to the fair use provisions of the US copyright law in the UK, so copyright may be more of a problem if your servers are in the UK. BlankVerse 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    I will be happy to have a day in court regarding the 3d renderings if anyone feels the need to get sue happy. Half of them are original works created by ME, using plans that I CREATED MYSELF. If anyone feels the need to challenge me, you may be my guest. I have worked too long and hard on these to be attacked and will stand my ground. Ieguy 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)ieguy
    I believe that the full set of deckplans that Sealawyer is talking about are what are refered on the ship as the "oil cloth set." They are huge and show the position of every feature and table and chair in the ship.

    The set on the construction and conversion web site are basic deckplans that have been used extensively in promotional materials from the time of the maiden voyage now over 70 years ago. They have been reprinted in various publication for reference purposes over the years.

    The promotional photos taken at the time of the maiden voyage were made available by Cunard with no restrictions applied. (Cunard was in the business of selling passages, not blueprints or photos.) They have been reprinted over the years in many publications and are found on various web sites. Their use on the construction and conversion web site is intended for study, discussion and advocacy purposes only. The photos of the current condition of the ship were taken specifically for the web site.CThornton 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Being reprinted "with permission", which is probably how the book publications have been done, is very different from the rampant copyright violations on the internet. And remember, "just because everybody else does it" is not a valid excuse--just anyone who has been sued for illegal downloading of copyrighted music CDs. BlankVerse 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    Notice how the tone of this discussion has changed. Now, rather than providing too little historical information to be "linkworthy", the website provides too much! Mgy401 1912 13:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    My own complaint has never been over the inclusion of the link, but over the overall advocacy tone of the website, which I felt needed to be labeled. BlankVerse 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with you BlankVerse -- as I noted above earlier. The advocacy nature of the website should be added to its description. I believe the creators point with the website is simply to show the original design of the ship using a neutral, authoritative source -- thus their reliance on the Shipbuilder. Their point in using the Shipbuilder was not to plagerize but to show that "they just didn't make it all up." They then went on to trace in detail what has happened to each area on the ship in the intervening 70 years.

    As I read it their good news is that enough remains of the pasenger accommodations at least, so that this aspect of the Queen Mary is recoverable for use in port. The engineering and crew/service aspects were unfortunately much more heavily compromised in the conversion. However, I understand from the web site that they believe that even these areas can be partially recovered and integrated into the in port operation. What results from this admitedly great effort is a ship and an operation that reflects the tradition of the RMS Queen Mary far more than any of the operations run on the ship since it reopened in Long Beach after the conversion. Moreover the business analysis shows that by restoring and intelligently using more areas of the ship it can generate the sustainable profits necessary to the Queen Mary's survival.

    The current strategy, based on reserving large areas of ship for use as a "shipwreck", in addition to a fake ghost tour, a "Tramp the Lounge" burlesque show, a shabby budget motel, and a boring, mislabeled tourist attraction does not generate the revenues required to sustain the operation. CThornton 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Consensus?

    It sounds like we're approaching a consensus here--that the link can stay, as long as it's more clearly described. So, where do we go from here?Mgy401 1912 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    What we have is a rough Consensus from all the editors who apprear to have some association with the "Alternative Visions" website, but there has been no input from the original edit warrior, Dan534 (talk • contribs). It also looks like the AOL/TurbineLady/DevilDan/Sealawyer editor(s) also seem set to resume the edit war if the protections are removed.
    Since the "Alternative Visions" is currently in the External links section, I see no rush to change the page protection. My recommendation is to wait a little longer to see if there is any more input from the no-link viewpoint (up to a week, perhaps), and then ask for the RMS Queen Mary article to be switched to semi-protection (where only registered users can edit, and there can be no editing by unregistered IPs). We can use that time to discuss some of the problems with the current state of the article to see if there can be some agreement on improvements.
    If anyone wants to make any substantive arguments for or against the inclusion of the link, I suggest that they refer to Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, including the guidelines specifically on External links and What the Wikipedia is not. BlankVerse 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    Looking through the edit history of the RMS Queen Mary article, there was also an anonymous Earthlink editor (195.93.21.65 (talk • contribs) and other Earthlink IPs), and the possible sock puppet, Johnpedder (talk • contribs) (see the Queen Mary article for where that name came from) that were deleting the "Alternatives Visions" website. BlankVerse 03:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Some Wikipedia policies on editor behavior

    Just a reminder: If anyone is going to participate on the Wikipedia, it is best to learn some of the Policies and guidelines. One of the most basic courtesies for discussions on talk pages is that you should not alter or delete comments made by others without their permission. BlankVerse 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    There are also a few more Wikipedia policies on the behavior of Wikipedia editors that I think should be reviewed by some of the editors in this discussion:
    • Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: This is what lead to a couple of editors being temporarily blocked from editing, and is the reason that I recommended that the RMS Queen Mary article be protected from editing.
    • Wikipedia:Civility: There have been a number of cross words and accusations exchanged in the discussion above. Please try to keep the discussion civil.
    • Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Another official Wikipedia policy that compliments the civility policy.
    • Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: I've had my doubts about some of the editors on both sides of the issue. Please keep to a single account as a registered user.
    These policies and guidelines have developed over the years, and help to keep people focused on the goal of creating a great encyclopedia. BlankVerse 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] RMS Queen Mary#The Queen Mary in Long Beach

    re: the The Queen Mary in Long Beach section

    Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia has one goal--to create a great encyclopedia. Towards that end, there are a number of policies and guidelines on article content, including:

    There is currently a modest list of things that need improving or adding at Talk:RMS Queen Mary/to do. I would like to suggest a few other things that need to be done.

    • The Long Beach section needs to be divided subsections, probably based upon the lessee.
    • The ghosts and radio room discussions should get their own subsections as part of a Present-day Queen Mary section that would also cover the Queen Mary Shipwreck attraction, the Scottish festival, etc.
    • The description of the changes to the Queen Mary is overly large, and should be summarized instead.
    • The tone of the section needs to made more neutral (see NPOV), because the current description seems intent on describing the changes in the worst possible light.
    • There are several statements that were recently added to the section that I know are true, some that I think are probably true, but are described in a biased manner, and a few that I have strong doubts about. Irregardless, I think that many of those statements will be very hard to verify from a reputable publication. Online, you might find some information in the subscription/pay-per-article Los Angeles Times archives. Otherwise, the verification will probably require going through the microfilm/microfiche for the Long Beach Press-Telegram or getting information from one of the local historical societies. The Long Beach Business Journal has probably had some valuable information in some of their articles, but I don't know if they have any archives available to the public.
      • If it can't be verified, the information will be deleted.

    Other editors can probably come up with some other suggestions. Please let's keep this section restricted to the Long Beach section of the RMS Queen Mary article. BlankVerse 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    Check out this article in the Press Telegram for an update on the bankruptcy. http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4414589 CThornton 20:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    I guess that I'm going to have to set a Google New Alert for the Queen to catch any new developments. BlankVerse 07:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    Read this for the the Downtown Gazette's view on the Shipwreck. http://www.gazettes.com/shipwreck10022006.html What is the right forum to question the Shipwreck? CThornton
    I am not sure that I understand your question. If you are asking "Where can I express an opinion on the Shipwreck attraction on the Queen Mary", then the answer is somewhere other than the Wikipedia. You could create your own blog, or use one of the travel wikis such as Wikitravel, or use other websites where you can express opinions such as 43places (which already has a Queen Mary entry that you can add to). I am sure that you could find other internet discussion groups and mailing lists where you can express your opinion. BlankVerse 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    For the latest news on the bankruptcy see: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4703061 C. Thornton 71.108.29.57

    [edit] Some Queen Mary trivia

    I'm not sure if it is worth putting in the article, but the Queen Mary has been featured on 11 different stamps [2]. If any of the stamps are US stamps before 1978, they are in the public domain and can be to illustrate the Queen Mary article using the {{PD-stamp}} tag. Almost all other stamps are copyrighted and can't be used for the Queen Mary article. BlankVerse 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/m/s/Talk%7ERMS_Queen_Mary_f9a7.html"