Jump to content

Talk:MS Queen Victoria

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

Untitled

[edit]

I have deleted future dates from the table-- Those should be entered only after they occur, as they could change. The text adequately handles the anticipated dates. Kablammo 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

renaming proposal

[edit]

I am proposing renaming this article MS Queen Victoria (2007), which is the accepted naming convention per the Ships project and will disamiguate from earlier ships named Queen Victoria I'll leave this note up a couple days before doing so, though, to make sure no one objects. Akradecki 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But the only other Queen Victoria to exist was a PS, and not an MS. Further, as there was a TS Queen Mary, does the article RMS Queen Mary therefore have to become RMS Queen Mary (1936)? --gbambino 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Prefix

[edit]

Email message from Cunard:

Dear Gary:

No, the Queen Victoria will not be given the official designation of "Royal Mail Ship.". This designation was given for ships who carried the mail on a regular basis and Queen Mary 2 was given this designation in more of an honorary sense.

Kind regards,

Jackie Matthews Manager, Public Relations Cunard Line 24303 Town Center Drive, Suite 200 Valencia, CA 91355-0908

Cruise Ship/Ocean Liner

[edit]

In this article, the ship is referred to as a cruise ship, while on the Cunard Website on multiple occasions, (link in many of the sources), it refers to it as "the worlds newest ocean liner" etc.

Should we change this?

156.34.186.37 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Queen Victoria is not an ocean liner. The only ocean liners operating today are the QE2 and QM2. By definition, the Queen Victoria is a cruise ship. Fionnlaoch (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owners

[edit]

Is there a source that states Cunard owns QV as opposed to Cunard's parent company, Carnival? With the involvement of Mickey Arrison and Carnival brass in the workings of the purchases and distribution of ships throughout all of Carnival's subsidiary lines, I have my doubts the owner would be Cunard and not Carnival. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site states that she was "delivered to Cunard Line" (and they are quite particular about the official registered owners of each ship). In any case it would be extremely irregular for Carnival Co & plc to own the ship directly, as most of the ships of Carnival's subsidiaries are owned by the subsidiaries themselves, not Carnival. Costa ships are owned by Costa, Princess ships by Princess, HAL ships by HAL... even Carnival Cruise Lines ships are owned by the subsidiary Carnival Cruise Lines and not the parent company Carnival Corporation. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I remain unconvinced; that site you've pointed to isn't official in any way. I'm still of the belief that it's the execs at Carnival Corp. who order and pay for the ships; it was they who ordered the original QV, and then later decided to shift it to P&O as the new Arcadia, and build another QV. So, it seems to me that Carnival Corp. owns the ships, but Cunard operates them. --G2bambino (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that Carnival owns the ship through Cunard. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 12:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. That is the point. Hence, the infobox should state Carnival Corp. as the owner and Cunard as the operator. No? --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. It should state the registered owner of the ship, not the owner of the company it operates under. Carnival Corp own Cunard, Cunard in turn own the QV, QM2 and QE2. Carnival might have ordered to the QV, but that doesn't automatically mean they own her directly.
Since it seems we cannot reach an agreement on this, at leats not between just the two of us, I propose we follow Jimmy Wales maxim "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and leave the owner field blank until someone can provide a source we both can agree is reliable. -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon

[edit]

The port of registry field was showing  United Kingdom, but it was removed with just the note "cleanup infobox". Was the flag incorrect? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the flag she flies, so I too am a bit mystified as to why it was removed... -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - adding it back. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

content re: ex-crewmember

[edit]

Content concerning possible wrongful termination of an employee and a resulting court case (example), has been repeated re-added by ShipNews (talk · contribs), as well the IPs 91.107.200.188 (talk) and 91.105.165.76 (talk).

The problem is that the content is both unsourced, and written in a strongly POV tone that only presents one side of the claimed incident. The content has been removed by a couple different editors, each time mentioning in the edit summary that it's unsourced POV. However, the original wording keeps getting re-inserted with no reliable sources provided for verifiability, and no attempt to cleanup the POV wording.

I'm not against the material being included, IF the issues of POV wording and a source can be found. But as yet, no such corrections have been provided. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have had to semi-protect this article due to the constant reverts by the IPs and new account to try and keep this information in the article in violation of all of the policies cited above. If there is more removals of this section from the talk page (which I have reverted) there will be individual user blocks and IP rangeblocks issued. -MBK004 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox errors?

[edit]

The infobox seems to suggest that the ship is out of service, sank, and/or scrapped? Not sure what is happening. Jdong8 (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MS Queen Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on MS Queen Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MS Queen Victoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service suspended?

[edit]

Anyone know why it's not mentioned anywhere in the article? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MS_Queen_Victoria&oldid=1213138092"