Talk:Queen Elizabeth 2

message: : Many authorities ser she was named after an earlier war, the RMS Queen Elizabeth, rather than Queen Elizabeth II, who launched the ship in 1969, but some authorities associated with the war say she was, indeed, named after Queen Elizabeth II. 
This is just SILLY. It's hardly information that's lost in the Dark Ages, it's less than 40 years ago -- surely we can find this out! Has anyone tried writing to Cunard to ask them? -- Tarquin 23:41 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
:So, who were these ships named for, Shakespeare's Queen Elizabeth?  The present queen, second of that name, was queen when the RMS QE2 was launched, but she was a little princess when the previous RMS QE was launched.  Ortolan88
Check out the note here: http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:bRAPwcqoJBoC:www.zeitgaz.com.au/archive/000225/trends.htm+QE2+%22named+for%22+%22queen+elizabeth%22+cunard&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 -- isis 00:12 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
:Interesting - it appears that there is some genuine uncertainty who the ship was named after, as reputable sources disagree with each other.  
:I'm still pretty much certain that "Queen Elizabeth II", with the roman numeral, is incorrect.  I haven't seen any good source that suggests otherwise. Enchanter
Check out all the webpages with it the original way ("II"), and if that's not enough for you, go to the library and look in the paper encyclopedias.  My Funk & Wagnalls, ©1972, has only the Roman numeral. (And did you look at the note at the link I put above, that purports to come from the ship's master?) -- isis 00:40 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
:This quote, from the link above, seems so sensible it might even be the case, and should probably be in the article if we could come up with a name, of the ship's master who said it:
::"The QE2 is named after Her Majesty and not because she is the second ship of that name. We use the Arabic figure two so that our name is not confused with that of the monarch when it is seen in writing." 
:Ortolan88
::RMS Queen Elizabeth was named for Queen Elizabeth, then the Queen Consort of King George VI, later the Queen Mother. The earlier Queen Mary was named for the Queen Consort of George V, I believe. --rbrwr
::The first ship was named for the wife of King George VI, aka Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The second ship was named after the first ship.  It was no doubt considered a bonus that QE II was reigning then, but the QE2 was named after the ship it would replace, in the same way as the Queen Mary II is named after the ship it will replace.  (The Queen Mary was named after King George V's wife. A probably spurious story has Cunard asking George for permission to name their new ship "after England's greatest Queen" -- meaning Victoria -- and George answering "My wife would be delighted.") -- Someone else 00:22 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
:Two fish were swimming along in the Atlantic when a great shape passed overhead.  "What was that?" said the first fish.  "Queen Mary's bottom," said the second.  "God save the King then," said the first.  Ortolan88
According to Cunard's official website, "The new ship is not named after the Queen but is simply the second ship to bear the name - hence the use of the Arabic 2 in her name, rather than the Roman II used by the Queen." -- Zoe
:For some years after the ship was launched, its name was "Queen Elizabeth II"; that's the way we spelled it in term papers, and that's the way it appears in the reference books I have here.  My best recollection is that in about the 1980s there was some kind of major overhaul, with a new maiden voyage for the refurbished ship, and that's about when it started being called the "Queen Elizabeth 2."  The person I knew who had sailed on it then has retired and moved, so I can't check with him about when it was.  Does this match what anyone else remembers?  In the years when it was called "QEII," however, most authorities still said it was named for the old ship, not the current queen, but there were always a few reliable ones that said otherwise. BTW, didn't the queen "christen" it, not "launch" it, and didn't her mom christen the one named for her? -- isis 05:16 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
:This page http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=5484113&matches=5&qsort=r says the refit was in the 1990s, so I guess it wasn't as long ago as I thought.  I found a picture in my encyclopedia from the early 1970s, and altho it calls it "Queen Elizabeth II" in the text, the side of the ship says "Queen Elizabeth 2." -- isis 06:20 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
::qe2.org.uk says there was a steam-to-diesel conversion in 1986 and a major refit in 1994. Is that where the confusion arises? --rbrwr
:It sure is -- thanks for clearing it up for me.  I think that 1986 conversion and re-launch was when it generally went from "QEII" to "QE2" in the materials I was reading.  So I suggest that as a matter of NPOV, we use both names (maybe noting "II" as old-fashioned and "2" preferred now) and say it's not unanimous but most authorities think the new one was named for the old one, not the queen. -- isis 11:56 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
::We went through all this months ago, on one of the other talk pages, but I was outvoted then.  I clearly remembered the ship being launched with the words, "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth THE SECOND".  It's a relief to know my memory wasn't playing tricks on me after all. --Deb
:I'll just point out that on 15th January 1969 the Royal Mail issued a set of stamps honouring "British Ships", and the 5d value is quite clearly labelled "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2" - I've just dug out my stamp album to check! Arwel 19:13 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, the name on the ship's bow and stern has read "Queen Elizabeth 2" since she left her fitting out berth. As well, Cunard postcards depicting the ship have always read "Queen Elizabeth 2," never "Queen Elizabeth II." --gbambino 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, makes sense BKots-WMF (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: During her service as the Cunard flagship, the Queen Elizabeth 2 travelled all over the world, and now operates predominantly as a cruise ship sailing out of Southampton, England.
and
While she has been taken off the traditional "transatlantic" route which has been taken over by the QM2
If she travelled all over the world as Cunard flagship, does this mean she also did cruises before, not only transatlantic routes? And what does predominantly mean? What else does she serve than cruising? --212.204.66.66 17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did cruises though-out her career. I'd understand the "predominantly" part (the word meaning "mostly") as referring to Southampton, where she usually - but not always - sails from. -- Kjet 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well BKots-WMF (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent?

message: QE2 no longer carries the mail, so is therefore no longer a Royal Mail Ship (RMS), so should be correctly called MV (motor vessel).
:I think the ship is still entitled to the RMS prefix, until it is officially revoked, that is, and I personally haven't heard of that happening. --gbambino 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Douglas Wards' Complete Guide To Cruising and Cruise Ships, she is not allowed to use the RMS prefix. The precise quote is: "RMS Queen Mary 2 (designated a Royal Mail Ship by the British Post Office - a designation it's smaller sister QE2 does not have)" -- Kjet 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. given that the statement is technically incorrect in that only the Queen can approve the use of the prefix "Royal," whether for a mail ship or not, I have my doubts about its claim regarding the QE2 as well.  Personally, I've never heard of a ship losing permission to use the designation simply because it ceased the trans-Atlantic run, and, further, they've just installed Royal Mail post boxes on board both QM2 and QE2 .  Of course, nothing says for sure whether the ship still uses "RMS" or not, so I'll have to see if I can look into it more. --gbambino 15:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The QE2's Purser used to be authorised to cancel mail posted aboard ship with British stamps - if he/she still has that ability, then the ship still carries Royal Mail. However, what really matters is whether or not the ship continues to be contracted to carry Royal Mail, even if she doesn't literally carry it. I still can't find any info that verifies or denies this. --G2bambino 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically, it appears that today the QE2 isn't 'RMS'. However, it seems to be practice to refer to former designations in articles, e.g. RMS Carpathia or the original QM and QE. Mauls 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QE2 was entitled to be an RMS but was never made so. Cunard wanted to position the ship as something 'new' and labelling her as RMS was seen as too much of a throwback. However, this ruling does not seem to have been adhered to on the ship itself. Examples of cabin stationary (printed on board) clearly state 'RMS Queen Elizabeth 2' and several merchandise items do too. I think that is where the confusion comes from. One hand stated one thing while the other stated the opposite. (See http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309 - User Flagship is Cunard PR Executive. Also refer to publication QE2: Forty Years Famous ISBN: 978-1847370334. As such it was removed from article in an attempt to clean up one of a number of errors in the QE2 page. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:COMMONNAME the RMS titles are used since Cunard has referred to QE2 with the title regardless of how they currently style the ship. Also, the common name in the popular nexus includes RMS, therefore policy dictates that the titles as well as the article should remain with them. No move, no removal of the titles, or else we would also have to remove RMS from those liners which are no longer with us such as  and . Also, reverts should not be undone without discussion and consensus first per WP:BRD. -MBK004 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - Understand rationale. I would suggest, however, that the reliability of the encyclopaedia is lessened by using an incorrect name, despite how widely it is adopted? Was going to ask what the situation re: her now being owned by Nakheel and therefore absolutely not currently RMS - however this is answered in your above reply. Thanks. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Hello. Rob Lightbody here. I have spoken with Michael Gallagher who I would describe as the one person anywhere with most knowledge (and source material) of QE2.  There is no doubt at all that QE2 was never an RMS.  The best you could possibly say about the matter is that she was "sometimes mistakenly referred to as RMS."  Even if Cunard sometimes referred to her as this, they were mistaken too.  I have seen no evidence at all that she was "commonly" referred to as RMS, and I have followed her since the 80s.  The choice was deliberately made NOT to call the ship an RMS.  I hope to get a specific reference from Michael so that this can be put to bed once and for all.  It infuriates me no end that the article about this great ship actually has the wrong title, and the first sentence is factually incorrect.  If the ship had mistakenly been called "Big Bertha" by some people, is that what the article would be called?  Lightbody (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been reading up on WP:COMMONNAME - and for this reason I firmly believe this article should be renamed, simply, QE2.  This would be correct, and also the way in which the ship WAS most commonly referred to.  Lightbody (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are we going to have a formal request to rename the article? If not to QE2, then presumably to Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship) - or is there a different prefix that it would be correct to use?--150.254.82.243 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RMS no more

message: Cunard list the ships as "RMS Queen Mary 2" and just plain "Queen Elizabeth 2" in their official fleet lists. During the launch of the QM2 they also noted that the RMS designation was due to being contracted for a mail route (namely Southampton to New York), which was transferring to the new ship.
:Technically, it appears that today the QE2 isn't 'RMS'. However, it seems to be practice to refer to former designations in articles, e.g. RMS Carpathia or the original QM and QE. Mauls 12:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QE2 was entitled to be an RMS but was never made so. Cunard wanted to position the ship as something 'new' and labelling her as RMS was seen as too much of a throwback. However, this ruling does not seem to have been adhered to on the ship itself. Examples of cabin stationary (printed on board) clearly state 'RMS Queen Elizabeth 2' and several merchandise items do too. I think that is where the confusion comes from. One hand stated one thing while the other stated the opposite. (See http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309 - User Flagship is Cunard PR Executive. Also refer to publication QE2: Forty Years Famous ISBN: 978-1847370334. As such it was removed from article in an attempt to clean up one of a number of errors in the QE2 page. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:COMMONNAME the RMS titles are used since Cunard has referred to QE2 with the title regardless of how they currently style the ship. Also, the common name in the popular nexus includes RMS, therefore policy dictates that the titles as well as the article should remain with them. No move, no removal of the titles, or else we would also have to remove RMS from those liners which are no longer with us such as  and . Also, reverts should not be undone without discussion and consensus first per WP:BRD. -MBK004 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - Understand rationale. I would suggest, however, that the reliability of the encyclopaedia is lessened by using an incorrect name, despite how widely it is adopted? Was going to ask what the situation re: her now being owned by Nakheel and therefore absolutely not currently RMS - however this is answered in your above reply. Thanks. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Hello. Rob Lightbody here. I have spoken with Michael Gallagher who I would describe as the one person anywhere with most knowledge (and source material) of QE2.  There is no doubt at all that QE2 was never an RMS.  The best you could possibly say about the matter is that she was "sometimes mistakenly referred to as RMS."  Even if Cunard sometimes referred to her as this, they were mistaken too.  I have seen no evidence at all that she was "commonly" referred to as RMS, and I have followed her since the 80s.  The choice was deliberately made NOT to call the ship an RMS.  I hope to get a specific reference from Michael so that this can be put to bed once and for all.  It infuriates me no end that the article about this great ship actually has the wrong title, and the first sentence is factually incorrect.  If the ship had mistakenly been called "Big Bertha" by some people, is that what the article would be called?  Lightbody (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been reading up on WP:COMMONNAME - and for this reason I firmly believe this article should be renamed, simply, QE2.  This would be correct, and also the way in which the ship WAS most commonly referred to.  Lightbody (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are we going to have a formal request to rename the article? If not to QE2, then presumably to Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship) - or is there a different prefix that it would be correct to use?--150.254.82.243 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Never RMS

message: Power: 	10,625 kW at 400 rpm
Propulsion: 	9 MAN 9-cylinder medium speed turbo-charged diesel engines turning two five-bladed    propellers
Speed: 	32.5 knots (61 km/h), 20 knots (37 km/h) in reverse
My English is not that good. Should I read that each engine has 10,625 kW, shouldn't I?
:Yes.  She had 9 times 10625 kw of electrical power generation.  Lightbody (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power 

message: Why the bizarre little reference that she was "larger than the RMS Titanic"?  So where dozens upon dozens of liners by the time that QE2 entered service.  Titanic was the largest liner in service at the time of her tragic maiden voyage, but she was launched in the mids of an "arms race" amongst trans-atlantic operators, and there were larger vessels already on the blocks when the Titanic sailed.
I agree that it's useful to point out that QE2 was smaller than her immediate Cunard predecessors, but pointing out that she was larger than Titanic seems utterly pointless.
:I have to agree.  I'll suppose this comparison stems from the media's constant use of the Titanic as a base-line, even for ships like the QM2 and Freedom of the Seas!!  I think it's ridiculous there, so I'll have to say I think it should be taken out of this article as well; though mention should be made of her diminished size compared to her predecessor. --gbambino 12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic reference 

message: Lawsonrob, the removal of info from the Retirement section is not simply about npov on the Queen Victoria. My motives are as follows:
* 1) ...there was inevitable speculation...: "inevitable" is pov.
* 2) ...the Queen Victoria is not designed as an ocean liner.: Not pov, but irrelevant to this article. The design of the QV is covered at MS Queen Victoria.
* 3) ...which could not be justified given the age of the vessel.: the "justification" is pov; at least, the referenced source makes no mention of Cunard's position on the justification of making upgrades to QE2.
If I'm incorrect with any of this, please let me know how. --G2bambino 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement 

message: Does the QE2 still have Grim Wheels fitted to the propellers? 
"QE2 was the first passenger ship to use Grim Wheels (so called because they were invented by Dr Ing Otto Grim) in an attempt to make the new QE2 even more efficient. These wheels spin freely in the wake of the main propellers. The innermost parts of each of the 7 blades pick up speed from the propeller, while the outermost parts act as propellers themselves, adding some forward motion to the ship for "free", capturing energy which would otherwise be wasted. The Grim Wheels are 6.7 meters in diameter"  --Palmiped 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grim Wheels 

message: An anon changed "she" to "it" on a couple ship articles (RMS Antonia‎ and RMS Queen Elizabeth 2‎).  In the Antonia edits, the anon referenced the removal of "sexist language".  I am unsure how this is viewed as sexist, So I'm reverting it now.  My understanding was that all ships are commonly referred to as she in english speaking cultures, and being the english wiki, it seems appropriate to do so here.  For justification, I'm using the wiki article she which states "She is also used instead of it for things to which feminine gender is conventionally attributed: a ship or boat (especially in colloquial and dialect use) ..." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "She" seems to be common on Wikipedia, although in the UK at least it just seems odd. Most news reports use "the ship" or "the vessel" instead, e.g. this [BBC News report] about the newer Queen Elizabeth, which uses "she" once in a very low-key way. Or [this article] at the Daily Telegraph - not usually a bastion of political correctness - which consistently calls it "it" or "the ship" or "the QE2". I surmise the article uses "she" so often because (a) 85% of Wikipedia's editors and 100% of its naval enthusiasts are men (b) mostly from North America, which is a bit behind in this kind of thing (c) poor-quality writers tend to overuse the same phrases over and over again, because they don't have the skill or the inclination to put in some variations. Hence all the "she did X with her Y before she went to Z to have her A's changed so that she could N her K's". Time will cure this, as newer generations take over. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming late to this discussion, I'm extremely surprised to see "in the UK at least it just seems odd". Which version of the UK are you living in? In my UK, in which I have lived for over forty years, it's the common way of referring to a ship. Always has been. Still is. Probably always will be. Maybe you know nothing about ships and have never had any connection or contact with the shipping industry or the Royal Navy? I suspect that must be the answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I couldn't have said it better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "she" in the article 

message: I'm going to transfer this from my talk page to here: --G2
:Before you add your comments back about the "Dated" designs of the original Cunard Queens, can you prove what you are saying is correct and what does it have to do with the original RMS Queen Elizabeth?
:The Queen Elizabeth was launched in the 1930s and the QE2 was at the end of the sixties so there over thirty years of change and what you added to the article has nothing to do with the latter ship.
:Cunard designed the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to be nothing more than the smallest and slowest ship to carry out the task as an Atlantic ferry and nothing else - which was Sir Percy Bates' own discription of the two ships and he knew what the traveller wanted was not something light years away like the Normandie and more homely like the Queens.
:Cunard tried to send the Queens cruising and they both failed and lost money - they were deep draft ocean liners with fuel and water and other supplies for no more than five days service at 28.5 knots service speed and their design did not allow for cruising.
:The QE2 needed to be more of a cruise ship than a ocean liner for the majority of the time in service - so not only had time passed so had the role of the liner. Harking back to the design of the first Queen Elizabeth has nothing to do with the artice.
:This can be proved if you read the books written about the Queens by leading ocean liner officiados' and authors like William H Miller and John Maxton-Graham.
:Regards msa1701 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already addressed earlier at my talk page, but I will reiterate: The paragraph in question isn't meant to have anything to do with the purposes of the ships, but the appearances of the ships; QE was already outmoded in style before she took to full time passenger service at the end of the '40s. She, and the QM, carried her art deco look right through to the year before the first sailing of the QE2, excluding a couple of cosmetic attempts to update the decor. It was that stodgy, wood panneled lounges, riveted hull look that Cunard wanted to get away from with their new ship. I'm sure I can find where this was said before, but as I mentioned yesterday, I'll have to do a bit of re-research. --G2bambino (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceding Queens 

message: I've removed this edit re: QE2's rumored test drive - the Maritime Matters article has cited no references to back up these claims and generally it is believed to be untrue. QE2's engines are able to run (and move the propeller shafts via the propulsion motors) while keeping the ship stationary due to her Variable Pitch Propellers. 
The other information you added in this paragraph is repeated already in the QE2 article already in the previous paragraph (as referenced by Daily Echo article) and as you've not cited additional references it doesn't need to be repeated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Printpost (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had to remove this from the article once again. If I see it back one more time, I will protect the article so it cannot be added again. -MBK004 18:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions by RMSqetwo 

message: I just wanted to explain why I amended statements added to the article saying that QE2 is definitely for sale. If you read all the news reports so far, they are entirely speculation, using words like "likely to be" and "sources indicate". There have been no official announcements, that I can find, by Nakheel or their representatives, saying that QE2 is definitely up for sale, though we can all assume, given the circumstances, that if they can find a buyer, they will be highly likely to go ahead and sell the ship. But I don't think we should be saying in the article that the ship is for sale until or unless something more definite appears in the news. It seems to me that it's one thing to include info in the article about media speculation regarding a likely sale, another thing to translate that speculation into a definite statement that the ship is for sale. -- DMS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - there is no official information regarding QE2's sale. In fact in a recent report in Australia they are quoted as saying "a number of options" are being looked at (see: http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Freo-to-house-QE2/7560490// ). Save the QE2 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The City of Long Beach should buy it and place it next to the original Queen Mary.173.58.64.64 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  QE2 to be sold? 

message: QE2 has never been owned by Nakheel.  QE2 was bought from Cunard by Istithimar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istithmar_World) but was intended to ultimately be operated by Nakheel as part of their property portfolio.  A holding company called QE2 Enterprises was established to manage the project to convert the ship into a luxury hotel.  None of this is conjecture or speculation - Arabian Business.com article about Istithimar and QE2 and Gulf News article about Istithimar buying QE2.  
Lightbody (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nakheel / Istithimar 

message: She seems to be located at 
if anyone wants to place these in the article ( i haven't worked out how to do it yet). And anyone who thinks ships aren't called "she" hasn't read a lot of books on or featuring ships. Britmax (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-ordinates

message: * Object talk page shows this isn't uncontroversial. This should never have been requested as a speedy move, it should have used the standard move request instead. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from speedy

message: Twice some basic info on QE2's long career with Cunard (notably owner and registry) has been removed from the Career Infobox with the justification that it was "clutter" and that only latest info should be included. This is directly contrary to Ships Infoboxes guidance and to widespread practice.  I agree that where a ship career has been particularly complicated including all such details may be unhelpful, but that is most certainly not the case here.  The present version gives the impression that her illustrious career has been only with Istithmar under Vanuatu flag.  Response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Infobox_Ship_Career suggests views might be developed here in relation to this specific page, as well as there more generally.  The same considerations, though, would apply in the cases of MS Queen Elizabeth, MS Queen Victoria and RMS Queen Mary 2, I suggest.Davidships (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comment here, but taking into account discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Infobox_Ship_Career, I have restored two lines to the infobox, vital to the object of the Career Infobox.Davidships (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Suggest that we wait and see whether she actually has any "career" in present guise or subsequently.  A separate infobox section covering only an extended pre-demolition layup is not an attractive proposition.  In it's present form it meets guidelines and has not attracted any other specific objection.Davidships (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career Infobox 

message: I'm puzzled by this sentence "QE2 had no running mate and never ran a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York."
Articles such as MS Queen Victoria say "Queen Victoria is the running mate to Queen Mary 2, and the Queen Elizabeth. Until November 2008, she also operated alongside Queen Elizabeth 2." Does "running mate" have a specific definition for Cunard such that "QE2 had no running mate" is true?
Also, the second part of the sentence, "and never ran a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York," is unclear. Ideally, we'd need a citation for that and it's also unclear why we'd want to say what the vessel never did.  I'm sure it never went to the moon and back either. If there is regular confusion about how the QE2 was operated them perhaps "Unlike the RMS Queen Elizabeth, the QE2 was never used for a year-round weekly transatlantic express service to New York." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Had no running mate? 

message: Since QE2 retired, various plans, "news" and rumours have come and gone.  This has caused this part of the QE2 page to become extremely long and disorganised.  It is too long relevant to the length of the page overall.  QE2's career was over 40 years.  Her retirement has only been 4.5 years, during which hardly anything has happened.
Rob Lightbody (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement section far needs rewritten 

message: When and where in October 1984 did the alleged fire take place?  I was aboard QE2 from October 1 to October 24 1984 and she maintained her published schedule throughout that period.  Oct 1 - 6: Eastbound transatlantic nonstop from New York to Southampton. Oct 7 - 19:  12 night cruise from Southampton to Palma de Mallorca, Ajaccio, Naples, Palermo, Malaga, Praia da Rocha and Lisbon.  Oct 19 - 24: Westbound transatlantic nonstop from Southampton to New York.
The fire occurred on October 28, 1984.  It was a memorable date for me since it was my wife's 34th birthday.  We were crossing from New York City to Southampton (Tilbury?)  The lights went out and we glided to a halt.  Some lights were restored before bedtime but there was still no running water, flushing toilets, or hot food for a day or two.  My wife brushed her teeth with bottled water as I held a lighted birthday candle from earlier in the day and sang "happy birthday".  The ship did not resume its journey for several days as parts were manufactured on the ship.
The American actor John Malkovich was also on the ship although we didn't know who he was at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.182.37 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 1984 fire 

message: This ship which was never built is mentioned briefly in the article, but a dedicated page does not exist for it - there is a significant amount of information available for it online so it could be built up to a reasonable quality, perhaps this article could be created and linked in the 'Conception' part of the QE2 article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.12.16 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create a separate Q3 article? 

message: Is it possible we could update the infobox icon to something more recent, such as her current condition in Dubai? If that is not possible, can we update it to show her from bow to stern?Trevor Casey (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox Icon 

message: MR. KJ0923 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022 

message: I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation as a computer systems sales representative supporting the Texas Instruments account.  Hotels in Boston were full occupancy.  The most prestigious accomodations were the QE II.  I waited in queue over 5 hours to secure rooms for my clients at Texas Instruments.  I also was accommodated in the crew area.
Our meals in the first class dining room with caviar, vodka shots served in sterling silver "ash trays" were so British and so very memorable.  I also loved learning about the waiter's use of the "crumber" to keep the white linen tablecloth pristine at all times. 128.92.217.110 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  QE II Role as a temporary hotel DECworld 1987, Boston, Massachusetts