Talk:RMS Queen Mary 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RMS Queen Mary 2 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Name

So she's not a RMS yet? What was that taken out? --Jiang 19:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

She is RMS as of 2004 [1]

--ScottyFLL 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

So what's the difference between a cruise liner and an ocean liner? Neither article tells me. Perhaps there should be a line to the effect of "In addition, her predecessors were all transatlantic ocean liners but the QM2 is considered a transatlantic cruise liner because the poop deck is aft of the forecastle" or whatever the key distinction is.--Max power 15:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Purpose - cruise ship already says "for pleasure", and I just clarified ocean liner to say "for transport", which was sort of implicit in the rest of the verbiage but apparently not obvious. Stan 17:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Ocean liners' have to be built to withstand the worst seas in the world, which is also the deepest draught reading on the sign at the waterline, 'WNL', which stands for 'Winter North Atlantic.' Such ships must have much stronger and flexible steel, and they themselves will have a higher length-to-beam ratio - they will be thinner - than 'cruise ships', which, while they do sail the seas, they are not structurally designed to punch their way through tough storms and maintain a schedule. They float in largely protected, coastal waters and can not go very fast, as speed is not a requirement. This is primarily the reason so many older cruise ships break apart while being towed to the breakers - they're not moving faster than storms they get caught in, thus they get severely beaten, and their steel was never intended to take such kinds of pounding. I hope this helps. MBD, Washington, DC.

The distinction seems quite slight to me and untenable. Most people on the QM2 are there for pleasure surely - if it was for transport they'd fly. Maybe some cruise ships aren't ocean liners, but I doubt there are many pure ocean liners left (according to the definition you've given). NZnewsguy

There may be no sharp dividing lines in function, but perhaps an objective comparision of the construction of the different types shows that QM2 is more robustly built, has a higher freeboard (and a set-back superstructure), and is faster than cruise ships; these features all increase her seaworthiness. One may, on the basis of function, argue that QM2 is a cruise vessel as well as an ocean liner, but pure cruise ships are not ocean liners. But in any event the distinction is not an invention of Wikipedia. Kablammo 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We shroud remember that the topic covered by the ocean liner article is not a definition of the term. It can have other meanings. I'd imagine there trying to create a nostalgic brand and keep fans of the QE2. Seano1 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two names Ocean liner and Cruise ship is quite obvious. An ocean liner was a way of getting around the world mainly before air transport (hence the name airliner) If you needed to get from London to New York for instance, you would take an ocean liner. In modern times a cruise ship's journey ends usually where it began, people go for holiday (vacation) and not to get from A to B. In fact if you sail on a cruise ship in the US and want to get off before the cruise ends, the cruise ship company can be fined for allowing guests to disembark.

[edit] "Queen Mary 2 Sails the High Tech Seas"

If any one wants to add any details on her information technology, there's an article at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114313,tk,dn011904X,00.asp to look at. I would do it now, myself, but I can't figure out how to incorporate such a small amount of information and not make it awkward. —Vespristiano 22:15, 2004 Jan 19 (UTC)

There is NO technical definition of 'ocean liner' as opposed to 'cruise ship'. Both are passenger ships. Whereas QM2 is built to high standards the use of this term is therefore not justified and at best a marketing too of Cunard. Not every liner was fast or more robustly built and cruise ships are by far not as inferior as indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.128.144.66 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Building No. was G 32 ?

This was the number of her keel - and the name of the excellent night club on board.

[edit] Cost

£550 million = $600 million? That doesn't sound right.

A quick web search comes up with $800M, but I've simply kept the £M value. Thanks/wangi 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In the info box the cost is also repeated twce.

[edit] Size

"At the time of her construction in 2003, the QM2 was in every dimension the largest passenger ship ever built." QM2 did have the largest gross tonnage. But both of its predecessors RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth had deeper drafts, and in partial consequence, likely also had greater displacements. Does even Freedom of the Seas (whose hull is actually narrower and shallower than QM2's) exceed any of these three Cunard Queens in displacement? As mentioned above, an ocean liner is more heavily built which implies a higher displacement per unit of volume (gross tons).

It's true that the original Queens had deeper drafts, and Freedom of the Sea 's hull is actually some fifty feet wider than QM2 's, but not as long. I'm not sure about displacement, but as far as I know gross tonnage is what's used when determining a ship's status in terms of size. --gbambino 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

--Gbambino: You are of course absolutely correct that gross tonnage is used to determine the size of civilian passenger ships. And as you know from your own clarifying edits of the Freedom of the Seas entry, Freedom is wider overall but her hull is narrower than QM2's. The debate, if there is one, as to which ship is bigger depends on what is being discussed. In your 16 May edit you state that QM2 is the heaviest passenger ship ever built, which I believe is incorrect, as Queen Mary is listed as having a greater displacement, and therefore Queen Elizabeth likely was heavier also.Kablammo 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If gross tonnage is what determines the size of a passenger ship, and the QM2's 153,000 tons is clearly heavier than the Queen Mary's and Queen Elizabeth's approx. 80,000 tons, then it logically follows that the QM2 was the heaviest ship built until the Freedom of the Seas. --gbambino 00:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is the word "heavier." See the article on tonnage for a discussion of gross tons vs. displacment tons. In the context of gross tonnage, the word tonnage has nothing to do with weight. A ship with a higher figure for gross tons is larger than one with a lower value, but not necessarily heavier. It is larger because it has a higher volume, while it may not be heavier because it could weigh less. Two equally-sized pieces of wood, one of ash and one of cork, will have the same gross tonnage, but the ash, weighing more than cork, will have a higher displacement. See also: http://www.titanic-titanic.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1973&sid=117374ef9ec55baa425b05a21138f3ac

I have corrected the intro to delete references to "heaviest" as that is unproven and likely is incorrect. I have also deleted references to "tallest". The height above the waterline of the largest ships is constrained by bridge clearances, at least at New York. The overall dimension from keel to masthead or funnel is also a function of draft (from the keel to waterline). Queen Mary, with a deeper draft than QM2, has a greater overall height than its namesake. Kablammo 12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe I understand now, so your corrections to the intro paragraphs do seem to read better. But, now I'm not sure about your contention over the statistic of being the tallest ship built. Mostly a ship's height is measured from keel to funnel-top. The Queen Mary may well have had a deeper draft, but her height of 55.17m is still dwarfed by QM2's overall height of 72m (keel to funnel). --gbambino 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--You are correct if measured to the funnel. To the masthead it is higher. http://www.queenmary.com/factsandhistory.php?page=statistics Kablammo 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bow

One of the things I wanted to read about in the article on the QM2 was the bulbous nose at the waterline that reduces the bow wave. Does this structure improve fuel efficiency because the ship doesn't have to create a bow wave at high speeds, or does it just act as a cosmetic enhancement? If someone who knows about this topic could add said information to the article on the QM2, it would be appreciated/

An event in this article is a January 8 selected anniversary Henryfarkas 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the QM2's bulbous bow - more detailed information on how these work is included in the linked article. --gbambino 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Launch v/s Floated

Nowadays very few ships are "launched", having instead floated from their drydock construction berths. We should have an article for this. The "launching and naming" article does not go into this. Besides, "launch" gives a very dated impression.Gary Joseph 01:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Potter Book

"This marked the first time a book had been transported to its international launch aboard an ocean liner." Really, even during the times when ocean liners were the primary route for mail between Europe and the US? A Press release is not a suitable source for this kind of statement. --Barberio 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure books had simultaneous international releases until relatively recently. Seano1 22:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So? The line says nothing about 'simultaneous international releases'. And even so, this is a ridiculous and contrived 'first' of the 'first man named dave to hop backwards while singing the top 10 songs' kind, and not noteworthy. --Barberio 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you have against it. In the absence of any information to the contrary, you have no proof that this was not the first time a book was transported to it's international launch aboard an ocean liner. --gbambino 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't meet requirements of notability or verifiability. It's a fabricated and contrived 'First' that would not have been independently noted without the Press Release. The claim is un-verifiable, and a press-release is only a valid source for information directly related to the announcement, extraneous claims such as this are not verifiable and should not be repeated. The press-release in question is only a reliable source that the PR event occurred, claims about the PR event being a significant 'first' are unreliable and unconfirmable. This would need to be backed by a other cites to verifiable independent confirmation. As the verifiability policy notes, burden of proof is upon the person adding or restoring information to provide reliable sources on the issue. Please find an independant confirmation of this if you want to retain the line. --Barberio 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're accusing Cunard of lying, yet you have no evidence of whether they are or not. What we know for a fact is this: Cunard claims it is a first. That is part of the announcement, and the way the sentence is worded now makes that clear; it does not purport to affirm whether that claim is correct or not. Thus, there is no real argument against it. --gbambino 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Press Releases have often been written by uninformed PR copywriters who may not know the facts, and are willing to embellish. Including it in as 'According to Cunard' fails the weasel words test, since it does very little to provide the reader with information about the origins or reliability of the statement. --Barberio 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And this still doesn't make the line notable. --Barberio 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"According to Cunard" is precisely what weasel words are not; "Some people say," or "it has been claimed" are weasel words, but in this instance we're making clear exactly where the claim is coming from.

There's no other evidence that the assertion Cunard makes is correct, but nor is there any that affirms the claim is incorrect, so there's as of yet no reason to doubt its accuracy. Everything you say about wilful embellishment, etc., may well be true, but so far is merely opinion, and not fact. It should also be noted that press releases contain information for journalists to use in their pieces; thus, are you accusing Cunard of misleading the press by promoting lies in the hopes that they'll be promulgated in the media?

As for notability: if this is a first, then it is notable. --gbambino 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As already mentioned, it's a contrived first, so not notable. In the same way as 'The first person named bob to sing backwards at Carnegie hall.' would not be notable. And you need to cite a *reliable source*, and for this issue a Press Release is not a reliable source. Cite a reliable source, and provide more reason for it being notable, or the line should be removed. --Barberio 18:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please point out where it is stipulated that a press release is not a reliable source. --gbambino 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Press Releases count as a form of 'Self Publishing', and as such can only be used in limited situations. The line "it does not involve claims about third parties" from WP:V applies in this case since the claim is that no-one else has done this before. --Barberio 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does not make a claim about a third party, using the press release as a source - it factually states that a claim was made by the source of the press release, which the press release itself verifies. If the transport of the book was the first that Cunard states it is, then it is indeed notable. Until you have ample evidence to prove that Cunard is flat-out lying about this, I'd recommend you leave it alone. If, however, you wish to continue your dispute, I'd prefer that others come in to give their opinion and/or direction. --gbambino 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:V, I don't need to give any evidence about Cunard's claim, you need to supply evidence that the claim is credible or we should either a) Not include the claim, or b) Include the claim with clear mention that it is unverified. --Barberio 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence states that Cunard makes the claim. It's not really up to us to verify whether Cunard's claim is correct or not, but if you are going to state that Cunard is incorrect, you need to provide evidence that they are. I'm not weighing in on the accuracy of the statement (as I too can't prove whether or not it's correct), simply pointing out that Cunard made the statement. --gbambino 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we shouldn't repeat unverifiable claims without being clear about them being unverifiable claims. --Barberio 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cunard's claim may not be verifiable. Then again, it may well be verifiable. Who really knows right now? But the point that Cunard made the claim is certainly certifiable, and all the sentence says is that Cunard made the claim. Period. Why is the claim notable? Well, if it's true then it announces a first, and if it's false, then Cunard are liars. Either way it's of note. --gbambino 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gross Tons the accepted criterion for largest?

I'd be surprised if Gross Tonnage is recognized by a reputable body (say, a professional society as opposed to Guiness Book of World records) as the sole or leading criterion determining world's largest passenger ship. It's a measure of how much a ship can carry and is subject to all sorts of dodges. Let's say Huge Ship A has relatively thick walls between passenger cabins to cut down on distracting noise while Huge Ship B went with thin walls. The thin walls will add to Huge Ship B's Gross Tonnage since there is more vacuousness to be potentially filled. But do we admire this?... I'd say the QMII still has the right to claim World's Largest. The article should at least state it's open to definition rather than handing the prize to Freedom of the Seas. JDG 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonnage, rather than displacement, has long been used to measure the size of passenger ships and virtually all comparisons of size of such vessels use gross tons or some variation thereof. And while GT is a measurement of enclosed volume, I believe it is the volume of the enclosed spaces of a vessel as measured from the inner side of the metal shell of the ship, not the sum of the volumes of all individual spaces between the bulkheads and decks surrounding those spaces. Consequently the thickness of partitions does not matter.

Measures of volume are more important to convey the spaciousness of passenger ships than displacement, although of course the latter value may be a better measure of seakeeping. The use of tonnage as the conventional measure however probably has more to do with taxation and tolls than anything else. But whatever the reason, historically it is tonnage which is measured (and that term has nothing to do with weight).

To your specific point: Likely the word "largest" signifies to most people size in the sense of dimensions, rather than weight. If so, Freedom of the Seas and her sister are the largest, even thought she is lighter than QM2, and QM2 has more ship qualities than modern cruise ships with hotel-on-a-barge configurations. Kablammo 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'll be pretty surprised then. Cruise ships and passenger liners are universally ranked by their GRT. GRT or Gross Registered Tonnage measures total enclosed volume and does not account for any internal subdivision. I have completed engineering (mostly structural design) for three cruise ships and they were all referred to by their GRT. A some-times used alternative is "number of passengers" but that becomes contentious when Cruise Lines begin to argue that their ship is more luxurious and has more amenities for the same number of passengers. GRT is a valid yardstick as it is a measure of volume ... bigger ship ... more volume QED. Jmvolc 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers... I just know there's something demonstrably wrong with GRT as sole criterion for Largest, but I gotta go sit in the corner with my thinking cap on. I'll let you know when I'm done... By the way, maybe one of you knows-- why are Displacement figures so hard to come by for the big cruise ships? I'm not saying Displacement should be used instead of GRT, but it may possibly be one measure in a multi-measure approach to the question. I'm sure the QMII has a much larger displacement than the Freedom class ships (hell, I bet the Titanic's displacement comes close to theirs), but it's almost impossible to find this number (do companies like Royal Carribbean, Norwegian Cruises, etc.,. have a policy to not include Displacement in their press releases and other communications with the media?).JDG 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Displacement was a popular way measuring of battleships since a lot of what makes a battleship effective in combat, guns and armor, are heavy. It was never used that way with merchant ships. The reason it’s hard to find info on passenger ships displacement is the same reason it's hard to find info on something like fuel consumption. It's just not of interest to potential passages. Seano1 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At all of these links (including line websites and personal pages) the ship's statistics are given: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.; and they all list gross tonnage. Displacement is never mentioned. I don't particularly know why GRT is what is used, but it certainly seems to be the norm. --gbambino 00:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as an update, I checked the 2007 Guinness Book of World Records at the bookstore last night. For some reason, they no longer list the largest passenger ship; in fact, the ship section was pretty slim in general. The only one they did give was the world's biggest ice-breaking passenger ship, and the tonnage listed was displacement. --gbambino 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Displacement is a tough number to come by because it is a very useful design parameter and the folks that just spent millions designing a ship to MINIMIZE the displacement would rather that you not know how good a job they did. Yes, that's right ... most ships are designed for minimum displacement as that means they need less power to push them along. Power/Displacement is not a bad measure of a hullform's efficiency. The designer's can't hide the total installed power beacuse the engine manufacturer's like to brag about that but they don't have to advertise displacement unless they want to. GRT is another number shipping lines can't hide as the underwriters (the people who ensure them) often publish the value so harbour authorities can assess pilot, tug and harbour fees accordingly. Jmvolc 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. As I noted above, GRT is what most lines and other sources use, and displacement is also usually minimised to allow for access to ports and canals. However, the original question was what was officially used to determine the largest ship, specifically mentioning the Guiness Book. It seems Guiness uses displacement to classify the ship as largest, whereas everyone else uses GRT. --gbambino 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A meter-long oak two-by-four displaces more water than a thin balsa wood platform with the surface are of two king beds. If we get a bag of those old miniature green plastic army soldiers, we could fit maybe 40 at most on the oak plank and at least 2,500 on the balsa. So, we readily see why GRT (a measure of carrying capacity) was adopted instead of displacement in the attempt to quantify the "largeness" of a passenger ship... But is that balsa platform with its huge surface area the last word? If we were to take "capacity to transport lotsa humans in comfort" as the sole criterion in determining largeness, we can imagine a floating skyscraper built of lightweight stuff, almost no steel in the thing because whatever displacement occurs we want to be caused by our human cargo; yes, transports to and from harbor would be needed for this ship in all cases, as only a harbor without bridges could accommodate her dizzying height... This is the balsa strategy taken to its logical conclusion, and this is what "Freedom of the Seas" would be if certain other constraints didn't hold down her verticality... Meanwhile, the QMII plows the water with a real heft and a displacement of her own making. The oak 2x4 taken to its logical extreme, it nonetheless retains some nobility and is certainly more seawotrhy... I submit that "Largest" should be determined by a formula in which x is maybe 75% GRT, 15% Displacement, 10% length/breadth... But until shipbuilders and/or enthusiasts and/or the media gets around to enshrining this, I guess this article can't avoid GRT as sole criterion. JDG 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size reprise

The actual rated gross tonnage of the vessel is 148,528, according to Lloyd's Register. I do not have access to the Register itself, but it has been reported elsewhere, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and Lloyd's publications give that datum. E.g. [19], [20]. As Lloyd's was the classification society which rated the ship, the figure appears to be authoritative — moreso than the PR releases upon which the larger figure likely is based. I will change the article, and related references, to conform. Kablammo 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many external links may violate WP:EL

Someone just added a questionable link, "Queen Mary 2 visits San Francisco, California, February 4-5, 2007", to the article. Looking the external link list, I have to wonder about the following links:

If I check back later and find those links still present with no comment here, I will assume that it is OK to remove them. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Maritime Matters page (it doesn't seem to offer much that isn't already here), or the Yahoo groups page (might be link spam), but I certainly don't see an issue with the pages that have pictures of the liner - they provide illustrations that aren't in this article, and can't be due to copyright policy. --G2bambino 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco

Over the past couple of weeks there's been a bit of a campaign to add text about the QM2's maiden arrival at San Francisco. While I'm sure residents of San Fran think this is important, the ship has made numerous maiden calls at various ports around the world in her first couple of years of service. Is there really any reason to single out San Francisco as something special? --G2bambino 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison Image(s)

Click for more detail and list of items included.

Greetings, I have made an image to give a size comparison to other large ships, buildings etc. I can see there is already a comparison image in there, I was wanting some opinions if we should have both or not. I have included the image to the right. - Fosnez 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here are my two cents. I like this one better, just because it seems more accurate. But here are my suggestions. Use things that are more likely to be found or come across in everyday like (buses, train car, regular car, etc). Add some item that gives a sense of scale that one can derive, like a grid of 50 feet increments, etc. We trus that you scaled everything correctly, but also give someone the oppurtunity to decide themselves. Get rid of the Enterprise.Gary Joseph 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the recommendation of adding some things more familiar to more people; ie. a bus or car. Along the same lines, I don't think there are many who can imagine the width of the Pentagon. I'd say get rid of the Enterprise and the Pentagon, add another building (say the Petronas Towers or CN Tower, and label what each is. --G2bambino 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Enterprise (NCC-1701) or Enterprise (CVN-65)?--160.36.118.62 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New version uploaded - opinions? Fosnez 12:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference - though I don't remember details about the previous incarnation. Regardless, maybe it's just me, but as I don't really know the size of the Pentagon or certain warships, I have a hard time understanding the QM2's size in comparison. On the other hand, I know the size of a bus, a car, and an Airbus plane. I think your comparison subjects are just too obscure. --G2bambino 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannot see point of this comparison chart, would be OK if it showed other cruise ships or Liners. --Palmiped 16:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be good! --G2bambino 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my picture

... i added it because i thought it was quite a good image, but p'raps it's a little too postcardy - please do move or remove it as you see fit. Thanks! Petesmiles 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

are you kidding. it is the best phto in the article. if it is removed, it should go in Commons. i would only recommend cropping it to include just left of the skyline, or all the way to the ship to include the harbour bridge and the opera house. thanks for the great shot!!Gary Joseph 13:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we mention...

That prior to launch a host of guests visited the ship only for tragedy to strike when a gangway collapsed killing 16 people? Another 30 were injured I think.

If you read the article it is included. Palmiped 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth/Maps Changes

The "Media Appearences" section refers to Google Maps/Earth, but the entry for Lisbon is now outdated as the ship no longer appears here [[21]]. Should we just delete the Lisbon reference, or maintain that it was here, as there are still several placemarks on Google Earth. The New York reference is still valid. cake_taken 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it should just be deleted. --G2bambino 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed/pax

G2bamino, you basically removed "'Built for crossing' refers primarily to speed, and QM2's 30 knot open ocean speed (compare to 21.6 knots for the largest cruiser, Freedom of the Seas) qualifies her as the fastest transport over earth, sea, air or space yet implemented for 5,000+ people simultaneously."... In your edit summary you call it "Original Research". I think this is a misapplication of the OR concept. This is simply logic, not "research". Can you name a transport that carries 5,000+ people as fast?... And understanding this is crucial to understanding the need for a division between "cruise ships" and "ocean liners". JDG (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't. Is that important, though? That's a pretty big claim, but there's nothing to verify it, as far as I can see. --G2bambino (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

G2-- there is an irreducible minimum when it comes to writing like this. Statements concerning objects and conditions of common observation or common deduction cannot be treated as in need of sourcing. Soon, you couldn't even use descriptors like "down" or "wet" without reference... It's simply a physical fact that as a human conveyance the "ocean liner" has certain unmatched properties, and that QM2 currently leads in those properties. Is it important? I think so. It's key to understanding why this class of ship still has a role to play. JDG (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there are characteristics that set the QM2 apart as an ocean liner; I've added many to this article, and your addition about speed remains there now. It's just the whole "fastest thing for its size in the universe" claim seems a bit, well, over-the-top. It sounds more like an advertsing line than an encyclopaedic one. Maybe it just needs to be worded differently. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JDC I agree that it is not original research, but I also agree with G2b. The whole point about superlatives is that they are general and specific at the same time- a general statement applied to a specific object. The line by JDG goes too far to the specific to have any generality to it. For example, "world's tallest building" versus "world's tallest building with 50% or more reflective glass". In the process it loses some meaning. The loss of "meaning" may not sound quantifiable and it may sound like an arbitrary rule, but is is the point of a superlative. Instead of re-wording it, I would suggest making it into two discrete categories.Gary Joseph 13:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George H. W. Bush vs. George W. Bush

George H. W. Bush the 41st and former President

George W. Bush the 43rd and current president

[edit] Info Box

Can someone fix this in the info box.... Career [[{{{ensign2}}}|60px|{{{ensign_description2}}}]] {{{ensign_description2}}} Palmiped 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is a bigger ship in the works?

Anybody know if a longer cruise ship is in the works? It seems like its just a matter of time --Ragemanchoo (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Royal Caribbean has their new Genesis Class cruise ship in the design stage. As it's still in design, the numbers could change; but the currently released figures would make it slightly longer that the QM2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly Confusing

At the risk of sounding stupid, I find the sentence the end of the first sentence in the 'History' section rather confusing. It reads "his company bought Cunard to create Queen Mary 2, not vice versa". What's the vice-versa? "his company bought Queen Mary 2 to create Cunard", "Cunard bought his company to create Queen Mary 2" or "Queen Mary 2 bought his comapny to create Cunard"? Ok, probably not the last one... Davidelit (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media appearances - Google earth/maps

On the image for Google earth, User:Three-quarter-ten had commented out the note "However the image is an obvious composite by Google Maps, as the bow of the vessel clashes with the foot of the Pier." and added the commented out text "Maybe, but it looks to me like that roadway is elevated and is passing above the bow of the ship". This type of discussion should take place in the talk page rather than in-article comments, so I'm moving it here and reverting the edit in the article.
I agree with the original note, that it's a composite image. When you zoom in, you can see water on top of the bow and port side of the ship - so either it's a composite, or the QM2 sank at that pier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question is: why mention it's a composite image at all? The ship is there, so it's a media appearance. What need is there for excessive postulation about how the image was constructed? --G2bambino (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... I was too focussed on the content of the commented out discussion and where it was taking place ... I should've taken a step back to ask if it even merited mentioning in this article regardless of it being an acurate statement or not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beefeaters?

Passengers annually consume:

enough beef to supply the city of Southampton for one year^[1]

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)

[edit] Fair use images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)