text:
Talk:Queen Elizabeth 2

Colour

 * Gbambino wrote - Service History - never seen anything about negative commentary from pax -. I sailed on the QE2 in 1982/3 and the light grey colour was not popular among the punters, something along the lines of - she looks like every other cruise ship the QE2 is special she should be in the traditional colours.

(Benno 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, I'm just going by the books I have on ocean liners. None mention dissatisfaction on the part of passengers as a deciding factor for Cunard to change the colour back to the original livery, only increased maintenance due to the light colour always showing rust. --gbambino 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * speaking of name i can see how people would get the ship mixed up with the person QE2 who has also resently of 2022 died of age at 96 years old.@Upton o god Upton o god (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it was a combination of the two, but the regular pax were not happy with the lighter colour

--(Benno 12:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC))
 * The negative reaction from pax is recorded in "The QE2 Story" ISBN-13 9780752450940
 * -- Save the QE2 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, really. That's epic! BKots-WMF (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Name

 * 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)

She was launched as Queen Elizabeth II; she was renamed Queen Elizabeth 2. Fionnlaoch (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

According to "Queen Elizabeth 2, the authorised story" by Neil Potter and Jack Frost (Harrap, 1969): "Four people knew the name of the liner, agreed by the Queen, was simply Queen Elizabeth. But, seconds before the launching, the Queen suddenly decided in her own mind that the ship should be called Queen Elizabeth the Second, and so she gave it that name ...  This immediately began one of the biggest maritime puzzles.  Surely this must have been the only occasion in history when a shipping company had to try to explain what the name of a ship meant." Their photographs of the wheelhouse being hoisted into position clearly show the name on the bow as Queen Elizabeth 2. Ropemaker (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In my memory it was QE2 from birth. The reason being that they did not want to call it Queen Elizabeth the Second, as this would have upset the scots, whom did not accept that they had had a previous Queen Elizabeth. Thus QE2. Bolluckybillfromharoldhill (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Okay, makes sense BKots-WMF (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent?
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)

 * 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)
 * I agree as well BKots-WMF (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. March to December - round trips from Southampton. December to March - World Cruise. Exceptions to the round trips from Southampton are down to nil since the Mary came on line. 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS no more
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

The post box on QE2 is not emptiedbybthe royal mail - the keys to it hung behind my desk when I worked in the Pursers Office onboard from 1988-1994. Staff open the box and the post within it is taken to ashore (also by cunard staff) and posted as usual. The official documents refer to the vessel as TSMV - meaning "twin screw motor vessel". HM The Queen has nothing to do with it - it whether the ship carries the Royal Mails or not - and QE2 no longer carries the Royal Mail in transit.

 * 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)

I spoke to the First and Third Officers about this whilst on the Bridge last year. Neither was able to tell me. However I did note that there was a recent message to Elizabeth R which was signed by the Master (David Perkins if I recall correctly) displayed on the quarter deck portside near the model of RMS Mauretania which clearly was signed "Master XXX, RMS Queen ELizabeth 2"Kindlychap 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Never RMS
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)

 * 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)
 * 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 RMS Queen Elizabeth and RMS Aquitania. Also, reverts should not be undone without discussion and consensus first per WP:BRD. -MBK004 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Power
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)

Titanic reference
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)

Retirement
Lawsonrob, the removal of info from the Retirement section is not simply about npov on the Queen Victoria. My motives are as follows: If I'm incorrect with any of this, please let me know how. --G2bambino 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Grim Wheels
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)

Nope - they came off during sea trials after the refit in 1987.--Ssdurn 06:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not true at all. The "Grim Vane Wheels" (their full name) did not fail on QE2's sea trials. They were both still intact when QE2 left Bremerhaven after the completion of the refit. The problem with the wheels started on the voyage back to Southampton. Commodore Doug Ridley was demonstrating the "flexibilty" of the new power plant and new props to journalists who were on board. While QE2 was travelling at about 30 knots, he ordered "full astern". As the ship was slowing down there was a horrible shudder and it was obvious something had gone wrong. It is possiblethat some vanes were already cracked and this was just the Last straw, but that is conjecture.

After QE2 arrived in Southampton divers were sent down to examine the props, etc. They discovered that acouple of vanes had snapped off. After some debate Cunard decided to "rebalance" the wheels by cuttibng off some more vanes and this was done. The ship sailed for New York on schedule. In New York divers found more damaged vanes and one again the wheels were rebalanced by cutting off a couple of more vanes. On QE2's return to Southampton the remaining vanes were all removed. The Grim Wheels were never replaced.

The problems with the Grim Wheels and where the problem was first discovered (Southampton), the subsequent trimming of the wheels in Southampton and New York and their final removal in Southampton were widely reported in the press in 1987. The details of the "incident" on QE2's return voyage was related to me in 1987 by crew members who were on board at the time and confirmed by an officer who was on the bridge at the time. The myth that the Grim Wheels failed during the sea trials is the result of "hearsay" that had been distorted along the way and then published in a book about QE2 written by someone who was not with the ship at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.212.72 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of "she" in the article
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)

 * "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)
 * 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)

I have just read this article for the first time, and find it absolutely ridiculous that it uses 'she'. It seems overused almost to make a point. The odd use of 'she' might be appropriate, but it is not proper English, it is casual. The use of 'she' implies a sense of pride and bias too- shouldn't Wikipedia be impartial? The ship is a ship, not a person. It should be 'it'. This really needs sorting out, it's an embarrassment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.44.232 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Very few words for inanimate objects in English have non-neuter gender, but ‘ship’ is one of them. It's nothing to do with sex or sexism; it's just grammar. It seems anomalous because it is, but English is a very irregular language in other ways too. While I have no doubt that the few remaining gendered words are in the process of being neutered (fuelled by misunderstanding of what grammatical gender is) it hasn't happened yet. I know that children are being taught a slightly different grammar, but the older school still exists. Therefore it remains correct usage in British English for now. Nobody thinks it's sexist to use the correct gender in French or Latin, so why English? JRYon (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

SHIPS ARE NOT WOMEN!!!!!!!! MR KJ0923 06:00, October 11, 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR. KJ0923 (talk • contribs)

 * From wiki article Ship.. "Ship” is an English word that has retained a female grammatical gender in some usages, which allows it sometimes to be referred to as a "she" without being of female natural gender. palmiped Talk  12:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Preceding Queens
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)
 * 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)

Reversions made by MickMacNee
Having taken on board your original comments regarding my additions and amended them accordingly, I cannot understand why you persist in removing them. The assertions regarding Scottish opposition because there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland are the personal viewpoint of the author of the book and have never been expressed elsewhere. I have read several books on the QE2 and come across them only on one other occasion,in The New Cunard Queens by Nils Schwertdtner, when the author was actually quoting from the book mentioned here.

All I have done is to point out the correct facts pertaining to the thrones of Scotland, England and Great Britain so that readers can decide for themselves. Without that explanation, the paragraph is actually misleading, as it infers to the casual reader that there is still a Queen of England, which ceased be the case in 1707. As most reasons put forward for the naming are hearsay, something borne out by the length of the section covering the issue and the number of explanations outlined therein, I believe it is important for each scenario to be properly explained. If your disagreement relates in some way to an agreement with the author of the book, that the naming policy was decided based upon fears of Scottish opposition, then I would suggest that the POV is on your part, not mine. --77.103.113.0 23.32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The fact it only comes from one book is clear because the entire section is only claims made in that book. There is no need for clarification, the section is already too long, it doesn't need expansion using facts that are readily obvious from other articles (if people don't realise there is no current Queen Elizabeth of England separate from Scotland, they aren't really going to understatnd the finer points of the rest of the page are they?). It is uneeded commentary, my removals are merely for brevity, please don't accuse me of anything else without basis, per no personal attacks. MickMacNee (talk), P.S. I have added (of the United Kingdom) - that is all the clarification that is needed imo without turning this page into a constitutional history article. MickMacNee (talk)

Revisions by RMSqetwo
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)
 * 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)

QE2 to be sold?
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)

 * 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)
 * 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).

Fuel Efficiency / Economy
Have removed references to QE2 being inefficient (fuel wise). She achieved 50/ft to the gallon at full cruising speed (28.5 knots) but was far more efficient at standard cruising speeds. No solid references are cited that states that this is a poor fuel economy for a cruise ship. QE2's engines were replaced in 1986/87 - MAN B&W diesel electric plant. Would be as efficient as any other diesel electric plant per engine. Save the QE2 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "meaning that per passenger, the QE2 is actually more efficient than travelling by most modern cars" is a moot point, as cars cannot travel over water, and as many large passenger ships are more efficient than a fleet of equivalent cars.
 * Although the BBC did not make any explicit comparisons, it has been implied that the QE2 was inefficient compared to contemporary cruise ships with new 2000s diesel propulsion arrangements. The original quote from BBC is this; "To bring the vessel up to modern safety standards would cost a fortune. Environmentally, the liner is a basket case with fuel economy: 49ft (15m) to the gallon." Therefore, this can be paraphrased to "fuel economy was poor at 49ft (15m) to the gallon".

 * The BBC report is hardly definitive. The article fails to note the 49.5ft per gallon is at the ship's maximum cruising speed of 28.5 knots; which is considerably faster than most cruise ships are able to achieve. Obviously, cruising at over 10 knots faster than modern cruise ships will result in a less efficient run... At QE2's slower cruising speed of around 20 knots, she achieves approx 125/ft per gallon, resulting in a far more efficient run... The BBC article uses words like "basket case" which is in its very nature a point of view. There are no books or other literature cited which suggest QE2's fuel efficiency as being a problem in her later years. As such, have kept your reference to her fuel economy (but added it is related to her sailing at max cruising speed) and also explained the difference between the max cruising economy and regular cruising economy, with far more reference than the one BBC article. Printpost (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Message for members of TheQE2story forum
Thanks for your interest in improving the article. Hopefully Peter will post a message on my behalf to you there. The most important thing for you to remember is that we do not accept original research on Wikipedia. All info added should be verifiable and sources quoted. Use cite web for website (but NOT forums, which are not reliable sources, but may provide links to such sources), cite book for books, cite newspaper for newspapers and cite journal for magazines. Any questions please feel free to ask on this section of the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you guys haven't posted yet, but if you do, we are still watching this page. :-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re your discussion, at Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred. In some circumstances it is appropriate to use primary sources.
 * It's not that we don't appreciate your desire to improve the article, because we do. The main problem is that you guys and gals don't fully appreciate how Wikipedia works - this is something that only comes with time. The truth and what is verifiable by reliable sources may at times be at odds with each other. In that case, we stick with what is verifiable, even if it is wrong. The RMS issue is a case in point. Documentation issued on QE2, such as menus, carried the title RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, the article is accordingly at the RMS title, even though she should correctly be described as SS Queen Elizabeth 2 and later MV Queen Elizabeth 2.
 * In any case, we look forward to discussion on this talk page, and are waiting for your questions and comments. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm going to partially echo what Mj said. To be honest, Wikipedia is one of the weirdest sites you will ever come across. To satisfy our "verifiabilty" policy, a citation to a reliable source ("RS") must be given. The best RS' are probably researched and in-depth books, and the list goes down from there. However, this does mean that an error made in a RS may be repeated in this article. If "the truth" isn't published in a different RS, then Wikipedia must follow the first RS. I told you it would seem weird.
 * Now, on to why we are so ecstatic that you are offering to help. Because of the need for citations, many articles are in need of improvement. While Mj or I don't have access to specialist books on QE2, you guys/gals already own and/or have written books on the ship.
 * So, food for thought: the easiest way for us to work together is for you guys to provide us with either a quote or information from a RS, then immediately follow it up with details of the book: author, title, publishing year, and page number(s). As long as you do that, we can add the new or corrected information into the article—but just to emphasize, we need this all to be sourced to a reliable book/journal article/etc.
 * I apologize the numerous and strict Wikipedia rules, but if you can work with them—even if you don't understand why you have to—it will makes things much, much easier on our end. Again, thank you for helping. You don't know how much we appreciate it. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I've just had another look at the forum thread. To edit a section, click on the [edit] tab on the right hand side where a section header is. To start a new section, click on the "new section" tab at the top of this talk page.

 * I also note a complaint about an external link having been removed shortly after it was added. I'm not making any promises, but this is also something that can be discussed. If consensus is that the link is a good one, it can be added and will be defended against removal. However, should consensus be that the link falls foul of policies and guidelines such as WP:ELNO, then its insertion will be reverted. I'm making no judgement either way until the addition of the link has been proposed and discussed. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nakheel / Istithimar
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)

Co-ordinates
She seems to be located at 25.27481°N, 55.29041°W 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)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The current title appears to be both inaccurate and almost never used, and the proposed title already redirects here. Readers looking for the queen can find what they're looking for in the hatnote, as they are now.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Cúchullain t/ c  17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 → Queen Elizabeth 2 –
 * The QE2 was never an RMS. Indeed even the opening paragraph of the article clearly states that the title is wrong! Shouldn't be controversial imo. Am unable to perform move myself because the redirect has a (tiny and irrelevant) amount of history Egg   Centri  c  01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved from speedy

 * 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)
 * To many people living away from large seaports, "Queen Elizabeth 2" without further disambiguation would likely mean the queen, not a ship. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. Queen Elizabeth 2 should redirect to Elizabeth II as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nobody ever refers to the Queen as Elizabeth 2. She is always Elizabeth II, using Roman numerals for her ordinal number just like every other monarch in the world. The hatnote at the top of this article is perfectly sufficient for those (I would have thought very, very few) who may be unaware of this. However, as far as I know all ships do have a prefix and we always use these if we can. If she was not RMS then presumably she was MS (Motor Ship), as is her successor. This needs to be established and the article moved there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - It does appear that the ship never did have the prefix designation of RMS. Further, The Queen (the monarch) is really Queen Elizabeth II and not Queen Elizabeth 2 and therefore there is not strictly a confusion of the two.  I might be inclined to support a move to Queen Elizabeth 2 (ship) or something similar, in order to differentiate this article further from the monarch, but as already stated that is not strictly necessary. If the ship does have a prefix (we already know that it is not RMS) it should be moved to a name with the correct prefix attached. -L.Smithfield (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like it ought be placed at MS Queen Elizabeth 2. I'm very confused as to why it is currently at RMS &c. RGloucester  (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support move At the moment readers who search for "Queen Elizabeth 2" are redirected to this article. For what possible reason would you not place the article under that name? The hatnote exists to send those looking for HM The Queen to the right article. As well as never being called "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2", she's never been called "MS Queen Elizabeth 2". 2.102.149.140 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - with no prefix. None of the possibles meet the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NC-S.  It is true that all ships could be given a prefix, and some people like that, but WP wisely decided against that.  No objection to a "(ship)" if enough contributors consider differentiation is necessary.  Davidships (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. "Queen Elizabeth 2" is far and away the common name, according to this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Kauffner if you add QE2 to the Ngram then QE2 is is far and away the most common name —palmiped | Talk  17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think that Queen Elizabeth 2 should redirect to Elizabeth II. I’ve actually had that happen to me, where I ended up here instead of the Queen’s article. While I’m aware that that is in no way the “correct” way to write her name, I’m sure many people might make the same mistake to avoid having to write the numerals. While a hatnote might work, with a ship, I think it is best to use a prefix. WP:SHIPNAME wisely suggests that prefixes not be required…but in this case I think it will be the best way to disambiguate, and this article tells us that the ship was in fact officially known as MS Queen Elizabeth 2. I therefore vouch for that. RGloucester  (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On principle I strongly disagree with redirecting from a title which is the incorrect term when the title may be used as a correct term. 92.39.201.235 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, can you restate that? I don't understand what you mean. RGloucester  (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means that as "Queen Elizabeth 2" is the correct name for the ship but an incorrect name for the sovereign, it is wrong to have a redirect to "Queen Elizabeth II". I agree.  A hat note would indeed be appropriate, as at present. Adding a prefix doesn't disambiguate anything.
 * The blog referenced says very clearly that SS, MV and MS were almost never used (and doesn't say who did use it rarely - Cunard or the maritime authorities); it supports the proposed move. Davidships (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Career Infobox
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 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)
 * In the absence of any comment here, but taking into account discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships, I have restored two lines to the infobox, vital to the object of the Career Infobox.Davidships (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What if the info box was sectioned with Cunard info first mentioning dimensions, construction and Cunard info and then a second section below with her current career and location etc (obviously with not too much info)?

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Had no running mate?
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)

Retirement section far needs rewritten
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)

New York 1991, Metropole Hotel - The end of the QEII Round 1
In 1991, I sat in a bar at the Metropole Hotel in New York. I was there for the novelty value of this remarkable space, for its time. As I sat there, a gentleman asked if I would mind some company. I said "misery loves company and I would love to have a chat". The gentleman looked bothered and slightly dejected but overly distinguished.

We shook hands and exchanged names. "Pleased to meet you".

The cause of the concern appeared to be employment termination. Apparently the QE2 had sailed her last World Tour. This was the end of the line and it was off to India for metal value. These types of ships had become a symbol of a greater time in history.

After some time spent contemplating the bartenders cocktail experiment. I said "I have no doubt in my mind that you sir are never going to be unemployed or the ship scrapped".

He looked at me with some bemused interest and asked me what precisely lead me to think along those lines. I said, well look at the Concorde, the Space Shuttle and the Ferrari. For the most part, these things are enitely useless but without them we are all lesser people.

There was an article published in a copy of the Hermes magazine not long ago entitled "The Need for the Superfluous" and what these things represent is achievement and self expression.

I then went on to talk about the Stradivarius violin and concluded by saying that one does not own such a violin but merely takes care of it for others to own in the future. To the same extent, Cunard never owned the QEII.

It belongs to those who lived, loved, married, died and threw up on her. Those are the true owners, the people who relied on her to sail through all kinds of weather and situations. Who carry those memories through their lives. To break up the ship and its crew would be to abandon those collective experiences. And there was no real justification to ever do that.

He said "I am the ships captain and till now I was quite certain of what I was told but I now think otherwise". He asked for a serviette and began writing notes as we reiterated what was just said. My second cocktail had just kicked in and it was a slow speech. But the captain started to embrace the notions.

He invited me to tour the ship the next day. Stood up with the type of stature only a naval officer would possess and pulled his clothing into alignment as though he were expecting to have an inspection. He paid my tab, shook my hand firmly and departed to his room with a confident and purposeful stride.

Several months later, there was a change of fortune in the future of the QEII and I recall that at the time, the captains speech before the board of directors was cited as the single most compelling reason for the new plans. It was said at the time that the speech given in the defense of the QEII was the single greatest speech ever heard at Cunard.

I never met with the Captain the next day. I was heading back to Australia soon and had very limited time in New York. But I never forgot the passion and affection that Ronald has for his ship. It imprinted me with a sense of understanding that Captains are more than just highly ranked members of a crew. But the best custodians of our collective experiences and people we can trust not only to be professional but also have a heartfelt concern for what is essentially a superfluous mode of transport.

October 1984 fire
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)

Create a separate Q3 article?
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)

New Infobox Icon
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022
MR. KJ0923 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC) i need to fix some typos and mistakes. that is all.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

QE II Role as a temporary hotel DECworld 1987, Boston, Massachusetts
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)

title: Talk:Queen Elizabeth 2


text:
Peter Osgood

Peter Leslie Osgood (20 February 1947 – 1 March 2006) was an English footballer who was active during the 1960s and 1970s. He is best remembered for representing Chelsea and Southampton as a forward at club level, winning the FA Cup with each, and was also capped four times by England in the early 1970s.

Personal life
Osgood was born at 26 East Crescent, Clewer, Windsor, Berkshire to Leslie Frank Herbert and Ivy Lilian (née Comley). He attended Clewer Green primary school in Hatch Lane, Windsor, and Dedworth secondary modern school. Osgood described himself as a tearaway and as not the brainiest kid at school (although he was captain at most sports) and was working as a bricklayer and playing football for Windsor when his uncle wrote to Chelsea on his behalf to secure a trial.

Osgood was married three times:
 * to Rosemary Heather Snow on 19 December 1964, with whom he had two children, Anthony and Mark. They married in Windsor Registry Office on a wintry Saturday morning. On the same afternoon he played for Chelsea against Peterborough, scoring a hat-trick in a 6–1 victory.
 * to Philippa Cooke-Smith on 17 October 1980.
 * to Lynette Ann Finlay on 1 June 1987, with whom he had one son, Darren.

Chelsea
Osgood had a previous trial with Arsenal, but said that he tore the papers up because he was happy playing for Windsor and working on building sites, and didn't fancy the travel. Osgood was signed in February 1964 by Chelsea as a junior and made his debut as a 17-year-old in the League Cup, scoring both goals in a 2–0 win against Workington AFC on 16 December 1964. The buzz surrounding the tall, skilful teenager's goalscoring for the club's reserves – 30 goals in 20 games going into that month – was already immense, and he soon became a regular first-teamer.

Following an end-of-season tour of Australia during which Osgood scored 12 times in eight games, the centre-forward's next senior match was the 22 September 1965 4–1 victory over AS Roma in the Inter-City Fairs Cup (a violent encounter dubbed "the Battle of the Bridge"). A run in the league followed, bringing seven goals, including one involving a 60-yard run past a number of Burnley players.

The teenager was soon hailed as a possible late call-up for Alf Ramsey's 1966 World Cup squad, having been included in the original 40-man squad announced in April 1966, but he was not included in the final 22.

A broken leg suffered in a challenge by Blackpool's Emlyn Hughes in the League Cup on 5 October 1966 seriously curtailed his progress, and he missed Chelsea's first-ever Wembley FA Cup final on 20 May 1967. Chelsea lost to Tottenham Hotspur 1–2. This was a major disappointment for Osgood, but after he returned from the injury his abilities were recognised by new manager Dave Sexton playing him often as a midfielder, notably wearing the number 4 shirt for most of the 1968– 69 season (reference page 70 'Ossie – King of Stamford Bridge' written with Martin Knight and Martin King ), but it is as a goalscoring centre-forward that he is best remembered. He was given the nickname "the Wizard of Os".

In total, Osgood made 289 appearances for The Blues, scoring 105 goals. He was one of only nine players to score in every round of the FA Cup (and, to date, the last to do so), helping Chelsea to victory in a replayed final against Leeds United in 1970. He scored Chelsea's equaliser in the second game at Old Trafford with a diving header from Charlie Cooke's chipped pass twelve minutes from full-time; his side eventually won 2–1.

In 1971, Osgood was part of the Chelsea team which lifted the European Cup Winners' Cup, defeating Real Madrid 2–1 in a replay in Athens after the original tie had finished 1–1, with Osgood scoring Chelsea's goal in that game. In the replay he scored again, the second goal to put Chelsea 2–0 up, as they went on to win 2–1. In 1972, he scored for Chelsea in a major cup final for the third consecutive year – this time the League Cup – though they lost 1–2 to Stoke City. Chelsea declined as a major force thereafter, but Osgood continued to score regularly; his volley from outside the area against Arsenal in the FA Cup quarter-final was voted BBC goal of the season in 1972–73. As a young player in the 1960s, Osgood enjoyed the trappings of fame, boozy nights out, gambling and owned a racing greyhound called Railroad Billy.

Southampton, Norwich and return to Chelsea
Following a series of disagreements with manager Dave Sexton over his lifestyle (during which supporters picketed Stamford Bridge to demand he stay) Osgood, along with several of his teammates, was dropped from the squad and placed on the transfer list. He was sold to Southampton in March 1974 for a club-record £275,000. During his time on the south coast, he won the FA Cup again in 1976 after a 1–0 victory over Manchester United. He left Southampton in November 1977, shortly before the club were promoted. He scored 36 goals in 161 games for the Saints. Towards the end of his career, he also had a brief loan spell at Norwich City.

Osgood signed a US $90,000 contract with the Philadelphia Fury on 12 December 1977. High taxes were the primary reason for his departure from England. He returned to Chelsea in December 1978 following a disappointing stint in the United States with the Fury where he scored only one goal in 23 matches for a team which also included Alan Ball and Johnny Giles. On his return to Stamford Bridge, the club were in deep decline and facing a relegation battle. He again scored on his debut to put his team ahead, though Chelsea still lost 7–2 to Middlesbrough. He stayed with the club for the rest of the season before retiring in December 1979.

England
In spite of his talent and goalscoring prowess, Osgood's England career was surprisingly limited, with England manager Alf Ramsey apparently disapproving of his playboy lifestyle. As a result, he only won four international caps, without scoring. Osgood made his England debut in February 1970 in a 3–1 win over Belgium. He was a member of the 1970 World Cup squad, making two appearances against Czechoslovakia and Romania as a substitute.

Retirement
In 1981, Osgood opened a pub in Windsor, the Union Inn, with his old strike partner Ian Hutchinson. In the 1990s, Osgood and many of his 1970s colleagues were banned from Stamford Bridge by chairman Ken Bates for perceived criticism of the club. Osgood returned to his role as hospitality host on matchdays in 2003.

Osgood was commonly called "Ossie" and also earned the nickname "The King of Stamford Bridge" due to his exceptional skills as a player as well as his personality and status. His autobiography 'Ossie – King of Stamford Bridge' written with Martin Knight and Martin King was released in 2003 and in 2004 Osgood appeared in a cameo role in the British film The Football Factory.

Prior to his death on 1 March 2006 following a heart attack at a family funeral, he was involved in football-related media work and was well known on the after dinner speaker circuit. Three weeks before his death he had enjoyed a standing ovation when presented to the Stamford Bridge crowd at half-time of a match.

At Chelsea's first home game after Osgood's death, against local rivals Tottenham, there were many tributes as well as a minute's applause. Many of his former teammates were in attendance and the matchday programme ran a tribute to him. Chelsea ran out 2–1 winners after a last-minute goal by William Gallas. Fans sang the chant in honour of Osgood to the tune of 'The First Noel'.

In a memorial service on Sunday, 1 October 2006, Peter Osgood's ashes were buried under the penalty spot at the Shed End of Stamford Bridge. Over 2700 fans attended the memorial service and they were joined by former managers, chairmen, players, colleagues and current Chelsea players. In December 2007 in a 4–4 draw against Aston Villa, Andriy Shevchenko scored the first penalty kick at the Shed End since Osgood's ashes were buried there.

On 24 September 2010, Chelsea revealed that the Peter Osgood statue had been completed and it was to be situated outside the West Stand. A week later there was a private unveiling of the statue, attended by Osgood's friends and family, and a day later the statue was available for public viewing.

Honours
Chelsea
 * FA Cup: 1969–70
 * European Cup Winners' Cup: 1970–71

Southampton
 * FA Cup: 1975–76

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Peter Osgood


text:
Curie temperature

In physics and materials science, the Curie temperature (TC), or Curie point, is the temperature above which certain materials lose their permanent magnetic properties, which can (in most cases) be replaced by induced magnetism. The Curie temperature is named after Pierre Curie, who showed that magnetism was lost at a critical temperature.

The force of magnetism is determined by the magnetic moment, a dipole moment within an atom that originates from the angular momentum and spin of electrons. Materials have different structures of intrinsic magnetic moments that depend on temperature; the Curie temperature is the critical point at which a material's intrinsic magnetic moments change direction.

Permanent magnetism is caused by the alignment of magnetic moments, and induced magnetism is created when disordered magnetic moments are forced to align in an applied magnetic field. For example, the ordered magnetic moments (ferromagnetic, Figure 1) change and become disordered (paramagnetic, Figure 2) at the Curie temperature. Higher temperatures make magnets weaker, as spontaneous magnetism only occurs below the Curie temperature. Magnetic susceptibility above the Curie temperature can be calculated from the Curie–Weiss law, which is derived from Curie's law.

In analogy to ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials, the Curie temperature can also be used to describe the phase transition between ferroelectricity and paraelectricity. In this context, the order parameter is the electric polarization that goes from a finite value to zero when the temperature is increased above the Curie temperature.

History
That heating destroys magnetism was already described in De Magnete (1600):"Iron filings, after being heated for a long time, are attracted by a loadstone, yet not so strongly or from so great a distance as when not heated. A loadstone loses some of its virtue by too great a heat; for its humour is set free, whence its peculiar nature is marred. (Book 2, Chapter 23)."

Magnetic moments
At the atomic level, there are two contributors to the magnetic moment, the electron magnetic moment and the nuclear magnetic moment. Of these two terms, the electron magnetic moment dominates, and the nuclear magnetic moment is insignificant. At higher temperatures, electrons have higher thermal energy. This has a randomizing effect on aligned magnetic domains, leading to the disruption of order, and the phenomena of the Curie point.

Ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, ferrimagnetic, and antiferromagnetic materials have different intrinsic magnetic moment structures. At a material's specific Curie temperature ($T_{C}$), these properties change. The transition from antiferromagnetic to paramagnetic (or vice versa) occurs at the Néel temperature ($T_{N}$), which is analogous to Curie temperature.

Materials with magnetic moments that change properties at the Curie temperature
Ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, ferrimagnetic, and antiferromagnetic structures are made up of intrinsic magnetic moments. If all the electrons within the structure are paired, these moments cancel out due to their opposite spins and angular momenta. Thus, even with an applied magnetic field, these materials have different properties and no Curie temperature.

Paramagnetic
A material is paramagnetic only above its Curie temperature. Paramagnetic materials are non-magnetic when a magnetic field is absent and magnetic when a magnetic field is applied. When a magnetic field is absent, the material has disordered magnetic moments; that is, the magnetic moments are asymmetrical and not aligned. When a magnetic field is present, the magnetic moments are temporarily realigned parallel to the applied field; the magnetic moments are symmetrical and aligned. The magnetic moments being aligned in the same direction are what causes an induced magnetic field.

For paramagnetism, this response to an applied magnetic field is positive and is known as magnetic susceptibility. The magnetic susceptibility only applies above the Curie temperature for disordered states.

Sources of paramagnetism (materials which have Curie temperatures) include:
 * All atoms that have unpaired electrons;
 * Atoms that have inner shells that are incomplete in electrons;
 * Free radicals;
 * Metals.

Above the Curie temperature, the atoms are excited, and the spin orientations become randomized but can be realigned by an applied field, i.e., the material becomes paramagnetic. Below the Curie temperature, the intrinsic structure has undergone a phase transition, the atoms are ordered, and the material is ferromagnetic. The paramagnetic materials' induced magnetic fields are very weak compared with ferromagnetic materials' magnetic fields.

Ferromagnetic
Materials are only ferromagnetic below their corresponding Curie temperatures. Ferromagnetic materials are magnetic in the absence of an applied magnetic field.

When a magnetic field is absent the material has spontaneous magnetization which is a result of the ordered magnetic moments; that is, for ferromagnetism, the atoms are symmetrical and aligned in the same direction creating a permanent magnetic field.

The magnetic interactions are held together by exchange interactions; otherwise thermal disorder would overcome the weak interactions of magnetic moments. The exchange interaction has a zero probability of parallel electrons occupying the same point in time, implying a preferred parallel alignment in the material. The Boltzmann factor contributes heavily as it prefers interacting particles to be aligned in the same direction. This causes ferromagnets to have strong magnetic fields and high Curie temperatures of around 1000 K.

Below the Curie temperature, the atoms are aligned and parallel, causing spontaneous magnetism; the material is ferromagnetic. Above the Curie temperature the material is paramagnetic, as the atoms lose their ordered magnetic moments when the material undergoes a phase transition.

Ferrimagnetic
Materials are only ferrimagnetic below their corresponding Curie temperature. Ferrimagnetic materials are magnetic in the absence of an applied magnetic field and are made up of two different ions.

When a magnetic field is absent the material has a spontaneous magnetism which is the result of ordered magnetic moments; that is, for ferrimagnetism one ion's magnetic moments are aligned facing in one direction with certain magnitude and the other ion's magnetic moments are aligned facing in the opposite direction with a different magnitude. As the magnetic moments are of different magnitudes in opposite directions there is still a spontaneous magnetism and a magnetic field is present.

Similar to ferromagnetic materials the magnetic interactions are held together by exchange interactions. The orientations of moments however are anti-parallel which results in a net momentum by subtracting their momentum from one another.

Below the Curie temperature the atoms of each ion are aligned anti-parallel with different momentums causing a spontaneous magnetism; the material is ferrimagnetic. Above the Curie temperature the material is paramagnetic as the atoms lose their ordered magnetic moments as the material undergoes a phase transition.

Antiferromagnetic and the Néel temperature
Materials are only antiferromagnetic below their corresponding Néel temperature or magnetic ordering temperature, TN. This is similar to the Curie temperature as above the Néel Temperature the material undergoes a phase transition and becomes paramagnetic. That is, the thermal energy becomes large enough to destroy the microscopic magnetic ordering within the material. It is named after Louis Néel (1904–2000), who received the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in the area.

The material has equal magnetic moments aligned in opposite directions resulting in a zero magnetic moment and a net magnetism of zero at all temperatures below the Néel temperature. Antiferromagnetic materials are weakly magnetic in the absence or presence of an applied magnetic field.

Similar to ferromagnetic materials the magnetic interactions are held together by exchange interactions preventing thermal disorder from overcoming the weak interactions of magnetic moments. When disorder occurs it is at the Néel temperature.

Listed below are the Néel temperatures of several materials:

Curie–Weiss law
The Curie–Weiss law is an adapted version of Curie's law.

The Curie–Weiss law is a simple model derived from a mean-field approximation, this means it works well for the materials temperature, $T$, much greater than their corresponding Curie temperature, $T_{C}$, i.e. $T_{C}$; however fails to describe the magnetic susceptibility, $χ$, in the immediate vicinity of the Curie point because of local fluctuations between atoms.

Neither Curie's law nor the Curie–Weiss law holds for $T_{N}$.

Curie's law for a paramagnetic material:

 * $$\chi = \frac{M}{H} =\frac{M \mu_0}{B} =\frac{C}{T} $$

 * $$C = \frac{\mu_0 \mu_\mathrm{B}^2}{3 k_\mathrm{B}}N_\text{A} g^2 J(J+1)$$

The Curie–Weiss law is then derived from Curie's law to be:

 * $$\chi = \frac{C}{T-T_\mathrm{C}}$$

where:

 * $$T_\mathrm{C} = \frac{C \lambda }{\mu_0}$$

$χ$ is the Weiss molecular field constant.

For full derivation see Curie–Weiss law.

Approaching Curie temperature from above
As the Curie–Weiss law is an approximation, a more accurate model is needed when the temperature, $M$, approaches the material's Curie temperature, $T_{N}$.

Magnetic susceptibility occurs above the Curie temperature.

An accurate model of critical behaviour for magnetic susceptibility with critical exponent $H$:

 * $$\chi \sim \frac{1}{(T - T_\mathrm{C})^\gamma}$$

The critical exponent differs between materials and for the mean-field model is taken as $B$ = 1.

As temperature is inversely proportional to magnetic susceptibility, when $C$ approaches $T_{C}$ the denominator tends to zero and the magnetic susceptibility approaches infinity allowing magnetism to occur. This is a spontaneous magnetism which is a property of ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic materials.

Approaching Curie temperature from below
Magnetism depends on temperature and spontaneous magnetism occurs below the Curie temperature. An accurate model of critical behaviour for spontaneous magnetism with critical exponent $g$:

 * $$M \sim (T_\mathrm{C} - T)^\beta$$

The critical exponent differs between materials and for the mean-field model as taken as $N$ = $λ$ where $T ≫ T_{C}$.

The spontaneous magnetism approaches zero as the temperature increases towards the materials Curie temperature.

Approaching absolute zero (0 kelvin)
The spontaneous magnetism, occurring in ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic, and antiferromagnetic materials, approaches zero as the temperature increases towards the material's Curie temperature. Spontaneous magnetism is at its maximum as the temperature approaches 0 K. That is, the magnetic moments are completely aligned and at their strongest magnitude of magnetism due to lack of thermal disturbance.

In paramagnetic materials thermal energy is sufficient to overcome the ordered alignments. As the temperature approaches 0 K, the entropy decreases to zero, that is, the disorder decreases and the material becomes ordered. This occurs without the presence of an applied magnetic field and obeys the third law of thermodynamics.

Both Curie's law and the Curie–Weiss law fail as the temperature approaches 0 K. This is because they depend on the magnetic susceptibility, which only applies when the state is disordered.

Gadolinium sulfate continues to satisfy Curie's law at 1 K. Between 0 and 1 K the law fails to hold and a sudden change in the intrinsic structure occurs at the Curie temperature.

Ising model of phase transitions
The Ising model is mathematically based and can analyse the critical points of phase transitions in ferromagnetic order due to spins of electrons having magnitudes of ±$T$. The spins interact with their neighbouring dipole electrons in the structure and here the Ising model can predict their behaviour with each other.

This model is important for solving and understanding the concepts of phase transitions and hence solving the Curie temperature. As a result, many different dependencies that affect the Curie temperature can be analysed.

For example, the surface and bulk properties depend on the alignment and magnitude of spins and the Ising model can determine the effects of magnetism in this system.

One should note, in 1D the Curie (critical) temperature for a magnetic order phase transition is found to be at zero temperature, i.e. the magnetic order takes over only at T = 0. In 2D, the critical temperature, e.g. a finite magnetization, can be calculated by solving the inequality:
 * $$M = (1- \sinh^{-4}(2 \beta J))^{1/8} > 0.$$

Weiss domains and surface and bulk Curie temperatures

Materials structures consist of intrinsic magnetic moments which are separated into domains called Weiss domains. This can result in ferromagnetic materials having no spontaneous magnetism as domains could potentially balance each other out. The position of particles can therefore have different orientations around the surface than the main part (bulk) of the material. This property directly affects the Curie temperature as there can be a bulk Curie temperature $T < T_{C}$ and a different surface Curie temperature $µ_{0}$ for a material.

This allows for the surface Curie temperature to be ferromagnetic above the bulk Curie temperature when the main state is disordered, i.e. Ordered and disordered states occur simultaneously.

The surface and bulk properties can be predicted by the Ising model and electron capture spectroscopy can be used to detect the electron spins and hence the magnetic moments on the surface of the material. An average total magnetism is taken from the bulk and surface temperatures to calculate the Curie temperature from the material, noting the bulk contributes more.

The angular momentum of an electron is either +$γ$ or −$γ$ due to it having a spin of $T$, which gives a specific size of magnetic moment to the electron; the Bohr magneton. Electrons orbiting around the nucleus in a current loop create a magnetic field which depends on the Bohr magneton and magnetic quantum number. Therefore, the magnetic moments are related between angular and orbital momentum and affect each other. Angular momentum contributes twice as much to magnetic moments than orbital.

For terbium which is a rare-earth metal and has a high orbital angular momentum the magnetic moment is strong enough to affect the order above its bulk temperatures. It is said to have a high anisotropy on the surface, that is it is highly directed in one orientation. It remains ferromagnetic on its surface above its Curie temperature (219K) while its bulk becomes antiferromagnetic and then at higher temperatures its surface remains antiferromagnetic above its bulk Néel Temperature (230K) before becoming completely disordered and paramagnetic with increasing temperature. The anisotropy in the bulk is different from its surface anisotropy just above these phase changes as the magnetic moments will be ordered differently or ordered in paramagnetic materials.

Composite materials
Composite materials, that is, materials composed from other materials with different properties, can change the Curie temperature. For example, a composite which has silver in it can create spaces for oxygen molecules in bonding which decreases the Curie temperature as the crystal lattice will not be as compact.

The alignment of magnetic moments in the composite material affects the Curie temperature. If the material's moments are parallel with each other, the Curie temperature will increase and if perpendicular the Curie temperature will decrease as either more or less thermal energy will be needed to destroy the alignments.

Preparing composite materials through different temperatures can result in different final compositions which will have different Curie temperatures. Doping a material can also affect its Curie temperature.

The density of nanocomposite materials changes the Curie temperature. Nanocomposites are compact structures on a nano-scale. The structure is built up of high and low bulk Curie temperatures, however will only have one mean-field Curie temperature. A higher density of lower bulk temperatures results in a lower mean-field Curie temperature, and a higher density of higher bulk temperature significantly increases the mean-field Curie temperature. In more than one dimension the Curie temperature begins to increase as the magnetic moments will need more thermal energy to overcome the ordered structure.

Particle size
The size of particles in a material's crystal lattice changes the Curie temperature. Due to the small size of particles (nanoparticles) the fluctuations of electron spins become more prominent, which results in the Curie temperature drastically decreasing when the size of particles decreases, as the fluctuations cause disorder. The size of a particle also affects the anisotropy causing alignment to become less stable and thus lead to disorder in magnetic moments.

The extreme of this is superparamagnetism which only occurs in small ferromagnetic particles. In this phenomenon, fluctuations are very influential causing magnetic moments to change direction randomly and thus create disorder.

The Curie temperature of nanoparticles is also affected by the crystal lattice structure: body-centred cubic (bcc), face-centred cubic (fcc), and a hexagonal structure (hcp) all have different Curie temperatures due to magnetic moments reacting to their neighbouring electron spins. fcc and hcp have tighter structures and as a results have higher Curie temperatures than bcc as the magnetic moments have stronger effects when closer together. This is known as the coordination number which is the number of nearest neighbouring particles in a structure. This indicates a lower coordination number at the surface of a material than the bulk which leads to the surface becoming less significant when the temperature is approaching the Curie temperature. In smaller systems the coordination number for the surface is more significant and the magnetic moments have a stronger effect on the system.

Although fluctuations in particles can be minuscule, they are heavily dependent on the structure of crystal lattices as they react with their nearest neighbouring particles. Fluctuations are also affected by the exchange interaction as parallel facing magnetic moments are favoured and therefore have less disturbance and disorder, therefore a tighter structure influences a stronger magnetism and therefore a higher Curie temperature.

Pressure
Pressure changes a material's Curie temperature. Increasing pressure on the crystal lattice decreases the volume of the system. Pressure directly affects the kinetic energy in particles as movement increases causing the vibrations to disrupt the order of magnetic moments. This is similar to temperature as it also increases the kinetic energy of particles and destroys the order of magnetic moments and magnetism.

Pressure also affects the density of states (DOS). Here the DOS decreases causing the number of electrons available to the system to decrease. This leads to the number of magnetic moments decreasing as they depend on electron spins. It would be expected because of this that the Curie temperature would decrease; however, it increases. This is the result of the exchange interaction. The exchange interaction favours the aligned parallel magnetic moments due to electrons being unable to occupy the same space in time and as this is increased due to the volume decreasing the Curie temperature increases with pressure. The Curie temperature is made up of a combination of dependencies on kinetic energy and the DOS.

The concentration of particles also affects the Curie temperature when pressure is being applied and can result in a decrease in Curie temperature when the concentration is above a certain percent.

Orbital ordering
Orbital ordering changes the Curie temperature of a material. Orbital ordering can be controlled through applied strains. This is a function that determines the wave of a single electron or paired electrons inside the material. Having control over the probability of where the electron will be allows the Curie temperature to be altered. For example, the delocalised electrons can be moved onto the same plane by applied strains within the crystal lattice.

The Curie temperature is seen to increase greatly due to electrons being packed together in the same plane, they are forced to align due to the exchange interaction and thus increases the strength of the magnetic moments which prevents thermal disorder at lower temperatures.

Curie temperature in ferroelectric materials
In analogy to ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials, the term Curie temperature ($J(J + 1)$) is also applied to the temperature at which a ferroelectric material transitions to being paraelectric. Hence, $µ_{B}$ is the temperature where ferroelectric materials lose their spontaneous polarisation as a first or second order phase change occurs. In case of a second order transition, the Curie Weiss temperature $k_{B}$ which defines the maximum of the dielectric constant is equal to the Curie temperature. However, the Curie temperature can be 10 K higher than $T_{C}$ in case of a first order transition.

Ferroelectric and dielectric
Materials are only ferroelectric below their corresponding transition temperature $T_{C}$. Ferroelectric materials are all pyroelectric and therefore have a spontaneous electric polarisation as the structures are unsymmetrical.

Ferroelectric materials' polarization is subject to hysteresis (Figure 4); that is they are dependent on their past state as well as their current state. As an electric field is applied the dipoles are forced to align and polarisation is created, when the electric field is removed polarisation remains. The hysteresis loop depends on temperature and as a result as the temperature is increased and reaches $T ≪ T_{C}$ the two curves become one curve as shown in the dielectric polarisation (Figure 5).

Relative permittivity
A modified version of the Curie–Weiss law applies to the dielectric constant, also known as the relative permittivity:

 * $$\epsilon = \epsilon_0 + \frac{C}{T-T_\mathrm{0}}.$$

Applications
A heat-induced ferromagnetic-paramagnetic transition is used in magneto-optical storage media for erasing and writing of new data. Famous examples include the Sony Minidisc format as well as the now-obsolete CD-MO format. Curie point electro-magnets have been proposed and tested for actuation mechanisms in passive safety systems of fast breeder reactors, where control rods are dropped into the reactor core if the actuation mechanism heats up beyond the material's Curie point. Other uses include temperature control in soldering irons and stabilizing the magnetic field of tachometer generators against temperature variation.

title: Curie temperature