This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
In the film Titanic II the Queen Mary was used as Titanic II. We should put that in there!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.31.157 ( talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this is why I don't like putting ship's specifications in tables, you end up with a bunch of blank spaces. The "Cost" field is pretty useless, as very few people are going to know how to convert the currency of the time into today's money.-- Nycto 19:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Just because many people don't know how doesn't mean NO ONE knows. I'm pretty sure I saw the price, both in British Pounds and American Dollars, somewhere on the ship's tour. I cannot recall what it was though. It even compared it to today's currency strength. -- Ramfan2772 10:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
==
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]] Kablammo 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A secondary source, Miller, W., Famous Ocean Liners, Patrick Stephens Ltd. (1986) says that Normandie was the biggest liner in the world (gross tonnes) in 1935; that "a year later" (i.e., 1936) Queen Mary "took the title", and "not to be outdone", "that winter" (presumably after the 1936 season) Normandie was drydocked and enlarged to make it the largest. Therefore I changed the text on 21 June 2006 to reflect that QM took the title in 1936. I see however that other sources state that Normandie was enlarged earlier, the winter of 1935-36, after QM's size was announced but before QM entered service, and therefore kept its status as largest and was not surpassed by QM. Does anyone have definitive information? Kablammo 17:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
We state as fact here the ship was named after Mary of Teck, but quote the popular story of George V asking for the name as bunk. I'm fine with the second part... but surely the ship was named for Mary I of England? (That said, I note RMS Queen Elizabeth says she was named for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon rather than Mary I. I have my strong doubts about that, given the "no living people" tradition.) Shimgray | talk | 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The ship is in deed named after the Queen Mary of Teck. This can be proven at the front desk of the hotel, where in the back on the front desk wall, a sculpture of Queen Mary Of Teck is shown, with her name and title around it. -- Ramfan2772 10:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Queen Mary was named for and by the queen consort of George V, H.M., Queen Mary. Nobody in their right mind would name a ship after "Bloody Mary." —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)
I see a recent change that notes that both the Mary AND Elizabeth were nicknamed 'the Gray Ghost'. I've never heard of the Elizabeth called that. Can someone provide a reference? Also, which is the appropriate spelling of 'gray'? It seems that 'gray' is the common US usage. Given that, I would suppose that 'grey' is better, since she is originally a British boat. GregCovey 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
I deleted the comparison with Titanic's size. Many ships were larger, longer, faster, heavier, more luxurious, etc. than Titanic and there is no reason to use her as the standard by which all other ships are judged. If any one feels strongly about it, revert that change, or discuss it here, but I can't see how it adds to the article. Kablammo 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The Queen Mary's involvment with EVPs and paranormalists that the article should be expanded much more. Paranormal activity may be doubtful and cannot be 100% explained to be true, however, it IS famous for it, and some works of studies should be cited (such as Peter James). Stories of paranormal activites should be included (Like the Lady In White, John Peddler, William Stark, etc.) and should include some witness statements. Basicaly, the fact of the Queen Mary's paranormal and ghost activites should be expanded and dedicated it's own section rather a subsection. -- Ramfan2772 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Two editors were temporarily blocked for three-revert violations, and the RMS Queen Mary article is now temporarily protected because of the edit warring over the article. If any of the editors who have been involved in editing dispute want to discuss matters, this is where it should happen. Blank Verse 08:52, 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. Thornton CThornton 20:38, 25 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)
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 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
:To both user:leguy and User:CThornton: You can 'sign' your posts by adding four tildes at the end, like this ~~~~. Blank Verse 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If I may make two points in response to "DevilDan":
1) The Alternative Visions section of the site may be speculative in nature, but the "Deck by Deck" section is extremely useful. I actually printed out that entire section of the website and brought it with me on my last visit to the Queen Mary in March, and it made for a far better experience than I otherwise would have had. The information on the site may be available elsewhere (Is the Shipbuilder now in the public domain?), but heaven knows that you won't get it from the ship's current operators.
2) I have corresponded with the website's operators re the spyware (SiteAdvisor used to go ballistic whenever I visited the webite). They confirmed that whatever the spyware was was coming from whoever they had hosting the website (cjb.net, if I remember right), and quit using that hosting service. Since then, I've had no problems with spyware. Mgy401 1912 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
My question is why do you consider these recommendations a fantasy? What operational recommendations do you suggest that might be more "founded in reality scheme for reconstruction?" CThornton 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Maritime Heritage Website is published in the UK, not in the USA. CThornton 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The set on the construction and conversion web site are basic deckplans that have been used extensively in promotional materials from the time of the maiden voyage now over 70 years ago. They have been reprinted in various publication for reference purposes over the years.
The promotional photos taken at the time of the maiden voyage were made available by Cunard with no restrictions applied. (Cunard was in the business of selling passages, not blueprints or photos.) They have been reprinted over the years in many publications and are found on various web sites. Their use on the construction and conversion web site is intended for study, discussion and advocacy purposes only. The photos of the current condition of the ship were taken specifically for the web site. CThornton 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you BlankVerse -- as I noted above earlier. The advocacy nature of the website should be added to its description. I believe the creators point with the website is simply to show the original design of the ship using a neutral, authoritative source -- thus their reliance on the Shipbuilder. Their point in using the Shipbuilder was not to plagerize but to show that "they just didn't make it all up." They then went on to trace in detail what has happened to each area on the ship in the intervening 70 years.
As I read it their good news is that enough remains of the pasenger accommodations at least, so that this aspect of the Queen Mary is recoverable for use in port. The engineering and crew/service aspects were unfortunately much more heavily compromised in the conversion. However, I understand from the web site that they believe that even these areas can be partially recovered and integrated into the in port operation. What results from this admitedly great effort is a ship and an operation that reflects the tradition of the RMS Queen Mary far more than any of the operations run on the ship since it reopened in Long Beach after the conversion. Moreover the business analysis shows that by restoring and intelligently using more areas of the ship it can generate the sustainable profits necessary to the Queen Mary's survival.
The current strategy, based on reserving large areas of ship for use as a "shipwreck", in addition to a fake ghost tour, a "Tramp the Lounge" burlesque show, a shabby budget motel, and a boring, mislabeled tourist attraction does not generate the revenues required to sustain the operation. CThornton 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like we're approaching a consensus here--that the link can stay, as long as it's more clearly described. So, where do we go from here? Mgy401 1912 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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 1912 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder: If anyone is going to participate on the Wikipedia, it is best to learn some of the Policies and guidelines. One of the most basic courtesies for discussions on talk pages is that you should not alter or delete comments made by others without their permission. Blank Verse 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
re: the The Queen Mary in Long Beach section
Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia has one goal--to create a great encyclopedia. Towards that end, there are a number of policies and guidelines on article content, including:
There is currently a modest list of things that need improving or adding at Talk:RMS Queen Mary/to do. I would like to suggest a few other things that need to be done.
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. Blank Verse 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
For the latest news on the bankruptcy see: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4703061 C. Thornton 71.108.29.57
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. Blank Verse 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
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 17:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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 1912 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is she realy a RMS? Shes in traffic.
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. Enigma3542002 04:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
How much coal did she burns at cruise speed in one hour (a French magazine indicates one metric ton)? 216.86.113.233 ( talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (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)
Bunker C consumption was 1 gallon per 13 feet. My source is my Tour Guide Manual from 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folksiegrl ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 July 2009 (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)
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.
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)
To update, the recent image was replaced by another:
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)
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 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".
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)
According to Unsolved Mysteries, during the QM's years as a liner she saw 4 births and 49 deaths on board. This warrants mention in the article, to me. Any thoughts? -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 08:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"often carrying as many as 15,000 men in a single voyage" Is that each, or together? (I've always presumed each.) Also, were they armed? If so, how? I recall a WW1 liner ( Mauretania?) carrying 6x6". TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:49, 6 December 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.
Reference named "HIST":
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
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:QSTS Queen Mary.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
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 .
File:R.M.S Queen Mary , William — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.104.67 ( talk) 08:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
Advertise elsewhere, please. -- Pete ( talk) 22:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
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...
from Joseph of jgbuilding Jgbuiling ( talk) 23:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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