This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Replica Titanic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Article history | |||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Most of the article covers the South African project which was abandoned. The new addition isn't a revival of the same project, but a completely separate project and according to media reports the Chinese shipyard has actually been commissioned to do the build. Should the article be split as these are two separate projects? ShipFan ( Talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that the page I think I was talking about above is this (older versions of which, as far back as December 1998, can be had via Wayback). It seems quite exhaustive as regards replicas proposed since James Cameron's film came out in 1998, but it doesn't mention any earlier proposals like the one I though I recalled. Grover Snodd ( talk) 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A move request was opened
The name used for the proposed replica is Titanic II, and this intention has been made clear for several months. This means that this article should be moved to the page Titanic II. The page would be primarily about the 2012 replica, with the feasibility study and 2000 project part of the history of the ship.
The situation we are in now is that content which should be part of an independent page is forming under a section in this article, including a separate infobox. This is highly undesirable.
The move would require the prior move of the page Titanic II (the film) to Titanic II (film), and suitable changes made to the disambiguation page.
I intend to begin the work in a few hours, when I'm satisfied there are no objections and that no edit war will result. I will check this page regularly for any suggestions or objections.
MatthewHaywood ( talk) 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Replica Titanic → Titanic II – The name of the vessel has been determined as Titanic II and the name of the page should reflect this, as discussed on the talk page. The article should be moved to Titanic II before restructuring to focus on the current project, with the past projects as part of a history section. I intend to do the work once the page has been moved. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Gous project should properly be a separate article from the new 2012 project, or the feasibility study. The feasibility study is unlinked to either project, so should not be part of either project's articles.
The Gous project would have this page's edit history (this page's edit history is mostly about that); for example Titanic II (Gous project). The overview article should have this name " Replica Titanic", the new project should be a different article (such as Titanic II (Palmer project))
-- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I am excited about this new Titanic too. I have also been reading up on Clive Palmer's project a little more - just taking notes of details here and there. I read of Titanic II's dimensions on this Wikipedia article. Also, Titanic II's size is listed differently in various articles that have been released in the last five days maybe giving a lead to the possibility that Palmer wants the boat to be closer to the real 1912 Titanic than has been reported. "Titanic II would be about one meter wider when it departs to increase “stability”, as the billionaire claimed", according to a recent article by Aldrin Loyola off of the PinoyTechnologies.com website. [1] Also, in Loyola's article, Titanic could be slightly longer to make up for added width due to the safety deck as she states, "The passenger liner, which will be close to 270 metres long (885 feet), will have an estimated gross tonnage of 65,000 tonnes".
This has caught my attention, and I just wanted to throw it up anywhere I could. This is fantastic that Palmer is pulling this off! Rod Hayes ( talk) 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Even so, try to have a little more faith this time. Titanic re-make idea seems like a good idea right now. Timing is good. I think it'll work out, God willing. Rod Hayes ( talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
[2] The PM article clearly covers multiple projects, not just the Gous project. The feasibility study is PM's study, not Gous' study. Putting the PM study as part of Gous' project is conflating two different items, a study based on the feasibility of an updated ship to PM's contractor's design, versus the Gous design, which isn't the same ship as the Gallagher study ship. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there now enough evidence to move the Seven Star energy project to its own stand alone article? RS show that construction is well underway and it's no longer another Titanic replica proposal with more ambition than actual planning or funding. The project can still be mentioned here but with a link to the main article. Blue Riband► 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Replica Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Page deleted
The article TITANIIC is another Titanic rebuild proposal by a Czech entrepreneur. At the moment it is a stand-alone article but some AfD arguments could be made due to COI editing, lack of reliable sources for the third parties claimed to be involved in the project, limited coverage per WP:ORG, and WP:CRYSTAL. TITANIIC was first announced in 2010 yet does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage nor does the project leader have a clear fund raising plan to build a ship that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So it does not appear that it will likely happen. (The Clive Palmer Titanic II at least had broad press coverage and he spent money to have a marine architectural firm develop formal project plans and run model basin testing.)
Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. TITANIIC does not seem to fit notability and verifiability as a stand alone article and if kept at all should be merged into past Replica Titanic proposals. Blue Riband► 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Replica Titanic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Article history | |||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Most of the article covers the South African project which was abandoned. The new addition isn't a revival of the same project, but a completely separate project and according to media reports the Chinese shipyard has actually been commissioned to do the build. Should the article be split as these are two separate projects? ShipFan ( Talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that the page I think I was talking about above is this (older versions of which, as far back as December 1998, can be had via Wayback). It seems quite exhaustive as regards replicas proposed since James Cameron's film came out in 1998, but it doesn't mention any earlier proposals like the one I though I recalled. Grover Snodd ( talk) 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A move request was opened
The name used for the proposed replica is Titanic II, and this intention has been made clear for several months. This means that this article should be moved to the page Titanic II. The page would be primarily about the 2012 replica, with the feasibility study and 2000 project part of the history of the ship.
The situation we are in now is that content which should be part of an independent page is forming under a section in this article, including a separate infobox. This is highly undesirable.
The move would require the prior move of the page Titanic II (the film) to Titanic II (film), and suitable changes made to the disambiguation page.
I intend to begin the work in a few hours, when I'm satisfied there are no objections and that no edit war will result. I will check this page regularly for any suggestions or objections.
MatthewHaywood ( talk) 17:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Replica Titanic → Titanic II – The name of the vessel has been determined as Titanic II and the name of the page should reflect this, as discussed on the talk page. The article should be moved to Titanic II before restructuring to focus on the current project, with the past projects as part of a history section. I intend to do the work once the page has been moved. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Gous project should properly be a separate article from the new 2012 project, or the feasibility study. The feasibility study is unlinked to either project, so should not be part of either project's articles.
The Gous project would have this page's edit history (this page's edit history is mostly about that); for example Titanic II (Gous project). The overview article should have this name " Replica Titanic", the new project should be a different article (such as Titanic II (Palmer project))
-- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I am excited about this new Titanic too. I have also been reading up on Clive Palmer's project a little more - just taking notes of details here and there. I read of Titanic II's dimensions on this Wikipedia article. Also, Titanic II's size is listed differently in various articles that have been released in the last five days maybe giving a lead to the possibility that Palmer wants the boat to be closer to the real 1912 Titanic than has been reported. "Titanic II would be about one meter wider when it departs to increase “stability”, as the billionaire claimed", according to a recent article by Aldrin Loyola off of the PinoyTechnologies.com website. [1] Also, in Loyola's article, Titanic could be slightly longer to make up for added width due to the safety deck as she states, "The passenger liner, which will be close to 270 metres long (885 feet), will have an estimated gross tonnage of 65,000 tonnes".
This has caught my attention, and I just wanted to throw it up anywhere I could. This is fantastic that Palmer is pulling this off! Rod Hayes ( talk) 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Even so, try to have a little more faith this time. Titanic re-make idea seems like a good idea right now. Timing is good. I think it'll work out, God willing. Rod Hayes ( talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
[2] The PM article clearly covers multiple projects, not just the Gous project. The feasibility study is PM's study, not Gous' study. Putting the PM study as part of Gous' project is conflating two different items, a study based on the feasibility of an updated ship to PM's contractor's design, versus the Gous design, which isn't the same ship as the Gallagher study ship. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there now enough evidence to move the Seven Star energy project to its own stand alone article? RS show that construction is well underway and it's no longer another Titanic replica proposal with more ambition than actual planning or funding. The project can still be mentioned here but with a link to the main article. Blue Riband► 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Replica Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Page deleted
The article TITANIIC is another Titanic rebuild proposal by a Czech entrepreneur. At the moment it is a stand-alone article but some AfD arguments could be made due to COI editing, lack of reliable sources for the third parties claimed to be involved in the project, limited coverage per WP:ORG, and WP:CRYSTAL. TITANIIC was first announced in 2010 yet does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage nor does the project leader have a clear fund raising plan to build a ship that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So it does not appear that it will likely happen. (The Clive Palmer Titanic II at least had broad press coverage and he spent money to have a marine architectural firm develop formal project plans and run model basin testing.)
Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. TITANIIC does not seem to fit notability and verifiability as a stand alone article and if kept at all should be merged into past Replica Titanic proposals. Blue Riband► 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)