This is an archive of past discussions about RMS Queen Mary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. --Ramfan277210:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
==
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+-- —Preceding unsigned comment 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]] Kablammo03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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? Kablammo17:32, 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". Kablammo03:58, 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.
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. --Ramfan277210:56, 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." —Preceding unsigned comment 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
"Queen Mary left New York for Sydney, Australia, where she, along with several other liners, was converted into a troopship to carry Australian and New Zealand soldiers to the United Kingdom." Is that true? I thought most of the WW2 troops from NZ at that stage in the war, were taken to Alexandria (like they did in WW1.) Perhaps she went through Suez on to UK, but that seems quite risky. I won't alter it in case I'm wrong, but thought I should mention it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.101.61 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
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. GregCovey23:29, 21 March 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.Burnell17:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Southampton UK.
This article indicates that the HMS Curacoa sinking cost 338 lives and that escort ships were ordered to not go back and rescue survivors, but the HMS Curacoa article says that the lead escort ship turned back and rescued 99 of the 338. Which article is correct? 75.71.72.150 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In reference to the Curacoa sinking, this article states the QM continuing on with a fractured stem. In most accounts and references, this is referred to as a crushed bow. The citation of the stem seems to me to be confusing, as this seems excessively specific. It is my understanding that the damage was extensive to the front bow region beyond the leading edge and keel. I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough on shipbuilding or ship terms to know for sure and am requesting someone more knowledgeable to review.Professor Depressor (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
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. Kablammo03:39, 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. --JJLatWiki18:11, 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. Kablammo21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
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. --Ramfan277211:03, 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. BlankVerse20:12, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. BlankVerse00:55, 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.ThorntonCThornton04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Although coming late to this topic, I agree that all paranormal material now in the article should be removed. It's all "It is said..." and "Reports say that...", which is hardly encyclopedic. On top of which all the refs in the section are laughably unreliable. Unless serious and reliable sources can be found that document real and significant scientific investigation or other notable and verifiable aspects of this topic (which I seriously doubt), all material which reads like a paranormal message board should be kept out.Shirtwaist (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit dispute over links in the External links section
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, talk16:45, 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. ThorntonCThornton20:38, 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, talk19:53, 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). BlankVerse20:57, 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)
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.ThorntonCThornton16:39, 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
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. CThornton03:33, 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.Thornton208.8.110.19417:41, 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 191204:35, 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 191205:04, 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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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. BlankVerse01:34, 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?" CThornton00:45, 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. BlankVerse01:34, 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. BlankVerse00:36, 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. Ieguy04:11, 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.CThornton02:42, 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. BlankVerse00:36, 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 191213:23, 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. BlankVerse00:36, 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. CThornton05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
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 191200:57, 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.
BlankVerse? It appears that in your February 14 edit, you deleted the external link to Diane Rush's Queen Mary Long Beach Editorial site. I've put it back, but I'm wondering whether that was intentional on your part? Thanks. --Mgy401 191200:50, 21 February 2007 (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: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. BlankVerse02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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:
Wikipedia:Verifiability: Claims must be published by a reputable publication. To help with verifiability, you should cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Among other wisdom on this page: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
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. BlankVerse02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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. BlankVerse03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
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. BlankVerse09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Eyewitness account
The following paragraph was added here and is a firsthand, childhood eyewitness account of the launching (or at least says the edit summary, "Just what it was like on the day the ship was launched by a child who was there"), so really doesn't belong since it's OR. However, as a piece of oral history, I thought it deserved to be at least put on the talk page so it isn't lost altogether.
“
It was a cold rainy day when the Queen Mary was launched in Clydebank. The streets were crowded with wet chilled people. It was exciting for the local school children because Queen Mary and King George the Fifth were present with other members of the Royal Family. The plans had been to have an open carriage but that didn't happen of course. It was also exciting because the school children had been given small lapel buttons that said,"534". Walking to and from the Radnor Park elementary school the ship could be seen from the top of the hill. The three funnels identified it because most other ships then had two funnels. The local children and adults had fun trying to guess what the ships' name would be in advance. The three funnels made the Queen Mary recognisable whenever she sailed into ports like New York, even during WW2.
Akradecki-- I realize that Diane Rush's Queen Mary Long Beach Editorial page contains POV material--but then again, so does the White House's webpage, and I believe Wikipedia links to it. I personally think that the QMLBE page is "linkworthy" by virtue of the personal accounts of some of those who designed, built, worked, and travelled on the Queen Mary, as well as the presence of several relatively rare images. I have no desire to get involved in an edit war and will defer to your judgment on the issue, but I would ask that if you haven't done so you spend some time looking at that site and reconsider whether the information it contains might justify a link from Wikipedia. Mgy401 191204:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have free use photos of the RMS QM interior? It would be great to have one of the main dining room. I think it's still used today for Sunday champagne brunches. Enigma354200204:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Queen Mary didn't burn coal; she burned Bunker C oil (a concoction that at room temperature has the rough consistency of peanut butter; it had to be heated to thin it out before it was pumped into the boilers). The oft-used statistic is that one gallon would move her approximately ten feet, but I can't provide a source at present. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The article debunks the story of why the vessel was not named for Queen Victoria by stating that it "is probably apocryphal, since traditionally the names of sovereigns have only been used for capital ships of the Royal Navy." What about the Cunard ship MS Queen Victoria? This assertion doesn't seem to be true. fishhead64 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't really use the MS Queen Victoria as a precedent. That is a modern, mega cruise ship built a few years ago by a multinational corporation that owns the rights to the Cunard brand and wanted to capitalize on the name recognition of the Queen ocean liners by naming all of Cunard's current ships after Queens. When Cunard was a real, British, company and not a marketing conceit run from offices in California, it was indeed the practice in Britain to reserve sovereign's names for capital warships. The Cunard liners Berengaria, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth were all named after consorts, not monarchs. Even Queen Elizabeth 2 was technically named after the original ship and not Queen Elizabeth II herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.172.22 (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Infobox image
The infobox image was recently changed. The first attempts mangled the template format, so I reverted. The next attempt displayed a valid image, but it was reverted by another editor. So, rather than allowing an edit war to develop, I wanted to ask if there's concensus on which image should be used.
The original image
The new image
To me, it's a trade-off; the original is a bit better quality and has a more majestic angle; while the second image displays more of the ship. There's also some additional options over at the Commons if anyone wants to take this chance to suggest another available option.
I don't have a strong preference either way on this, both images have plusses and minuses to me. I'm just wanting to start a discussion on this to see if everyone can agree or at least accept a single image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: this may be a non-issue; it appears that the new image is missing copyright information. If the original uploader of the image isn't able to satisfy those requirements, the newer image may be removed regardless of what is discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I *do* have a preference, but I'd be happy with either. It looked to me as if there was an edit-war developing, which I gather from the above, and from our earlier discussion, is not in fact the case. Under the circumstances it's probably best if I apologise to both parties and step back!
(P.S. My preference is probably for the first one, as I think it's a very striking and unusual image, but I do see the logic in the second image - you can see more of the vessel, for example) This flag once was red20:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's already a better (higher res, sharper, better lit, complete) side-on image on the page than the second one Third image already on the page as well. When I added that image, I chose not to replace the top image as it is more eye catching than a side on view. The one that was recently swapped in is better than neither IMHO. Mfield (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I greatly prefer the shot off the starboard bow. Of the two side views, the brighter one is better as it doesn't obscure the extreme stern behind the rocks of a jetty. It has higer resolution, too. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
To update, the recent image was replaced by another:
The original image (until April 2010)
The new image (May 2010)
New image (January 2011)
Interesting images indeed, the latest shows the whole vessel, while the prior one (added by me) shows the ship more largely. Ideally, an image with a large view of the vessel, at an angle showing all three funnels, would be great. SynergyStar (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Found a new photo, and updated...it has the vessel as the primary focus, with no obstructions; a reference was Wikipedia:IMAGES#Image_choice_and_placement which has a foreground/background example; the previous photo is still used in several other articles. Because she's a 1,000-footer, direct lengthwise photos may appear very long and 'thin', so a side angled shot can capture all 3 funnels, the superstructure, hull, but also the bridge, bow design, etc. and in a more length x width friendly format. SynergyStar (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
FAC withdrawn
Regretfully, I have withdrawn the recent FAC nomination of this article, as principle contributors were not notified, and the article does not appear ready at this time. I am a ship lover myself—I have probably edited this article, too—and would love to see this article make it to FA, but it appears to need significant work first. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Queen's Project" link
The recently-added link to "The Queen's Project" website consists only of a history of the ship (drawn heavily from Wikipedia) and restoration plans that are "coming soon".
Perhaps when something substantive has been added to the page's "preservation" and "plans" sections, the site might merit a link here. At present, the link appears to be "mainly intended to promote a website" and thus improper under Wikipedia:External Links. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that a description of the project has now been added to The Queens Project website. It still strikes me that a link to the site wouldn't contribute anything substantive to Wikipedia, but I'm not passionately devoted to that opinion. At least now we know what the site is. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
New content procedures
I grew up in Long Beach and graduated from LBPHS. My parents are both college professors who teach history, so I have a lot to offer Wikipedia about the area. Is new content supposed to go here in discussion for review first? It's so hard to know what the etiquette is. Kind regards, VikingUsurper —Preceding unsigned comment added by VikingUsurper (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, just go ahead and be WP:BOLD - but it's a good idea to discuss major changes here, particularly on a high-profile article like this one. The most important thing is to make sure that provide as many references from reliable sources like books and newspapers to verify what you write. It sounds like your parents' bookshelves could be very useful! As you can see above, there's a dedicated LA WikiProject with a to-do list, as well as a California Project ( article list) - you might want to have a look around those, the project Talk pages are a good place to go for general advice. Oh, and if you write ~~~~ it automatically signs any messages you leave on a Talk page. <g> FlagSteward (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of RMS Queen Mary's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:QSTS Queen Mary.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The R.M.S Queen Mary was origanly a passenger ship . However , when world war 2 started it
was in America . Britian needed R.M.S Queen Mary to use her as a troop ship . America
refused because they were nutarul but R.M.S Queen Mary was a British ship and British
ships work for Britian . She was pulled by many tug boats the R.M.S Queen Mary was the
fastest ship of her time in fact she was so fast she broke a tug boat in half . The
R.M.S Queen Mary made it to Britian . H.M.T.S Queen Mary carried over 5000 troops to
Russia without sinking .
The end of world war 2 R.M.S Queen Mary is a passenger ship again . Today R.M.S Queen
Mary is a hotel in Calafornia .
The section on paranormal activities has been tagged for improvement for six months. In an earlier discussion on this page, there seemed to be a consensus to delete the section altogether. I believe it should be kept, but trimmed to include only material that can be sourced. If no one objects, I will undertake that trimming in a week or two. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be great! I have always considered the section to be more promotional than not. If it was trimmed to just facts I would be happier. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and rewrote the section, with references. I do think something on the subject needs to be included, since there is so much coverage of the issue - and since it looms so large in the venue's marketing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Italicizing name of the hotel and making it gender neutral.
It is my opinion that once the vessel was decommissioned it should no longer be referred to as "she" and its name should not be italicized. What say you? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Novel spam
I've seen an IP account add the same novel to this article three times over. Not a work that has gripped the popular imagination - yet. Until they make a movie out of it or it becomes a best seller or something, I'm going to treat this as an attempt to advertise a work of fiction. "In popular culture" might fit, but let's consider that word "popular", hmmm?
question: is the ship Queen Mary FLOATING at the long beach site? Im told that the ship is considered a building etc. and that the ship is connected to a base foundation with a land lock bay and ocean water pumped in to give the effect the ship is foating. If you are able to return my request, i thank you...
i have been looking on line for details on the queen mary all details on line suggest work started on 26sept1934
but i have certificates originals saying and signed 26sept 1935
The original image
The new image
The original image (until April 2010)
The new image (May 2010)
New image (January 2011)
