Talk:Replica Titanic

Split new article? (2012)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

I think there have been several projects over the years—I vaguely recall one (perhaps Japanese?) from the mid- to late 1980s, and I seem to recall seeing a webpage on the various efforts 10 to 15 years ago, but I'm so far not having any luck locating it via Wayback. If there actually were other replica projects, it might be better to expand the article to cover all of them. Grover Snodd (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree - there needs to be a second article in regards to the ship that is now set in stone to have built. We should also rename Titanic II to reflect that it is a movie, and have the new 'ship' article reflect ship in the title. Then have a disambig page with Titanic II that can direct users to the movie or to the ship. swinquest (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Swinquest. This is how the articles should be named:

• Titanic II (about Palmer's ship)
• Titanic II (film) (about The Asylum film).--Max Tomos (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was reading the article and wanted to obtain other opinions. Do we REALLY need to split the article? Is the information NOT pertaining to the 2012 'rebuild' necessary as it never made it past the planning stages? If we don't really need that information, we could just remove it and rename this article. Thoughts? swinquest (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I had some involvement with this article prior to the announcement of the 2012 rebuild, when it only contained material on the aborted 2000 attempt. I wouldn't particularly like the idea of removing the information on the 2000 proposal, because although it never really got off the ground, it still attracted a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources. It was only a proposal, but it seems (to me at least) that it was notable as a proposal. Another issue: do we really know enough about the recently-announced one to support a whole article yet? I can see the benefits of splitting further down the line as more details become available, but in the short term the article seems reasonable enough as it stands. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think it would be appropriate to decide ahead of time (like now when it is fresh) to determine to split the article and then just continuing to build this current one and branching it out when appropriate. swinquest (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous efforts

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)

Page move to 'Titanic II'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Is Titanic II the final name of the proposed replica ship? Tupsumato (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been in every press release and conference so far, and is the name used on the published designs. See http://www.titanic-ii.com/ MatthewHaywood (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the move is okay then. Tupsumato (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose the name of the two proposals is "Titanic II", but the feasibility study is not indicated as such. Indeed, the second proposal should not even be in this article, nor the first. Each should be in separate articles. If they are notable, they should be able to support articles. Since the three different topics are unrelated (study, proposal 1, proposal 2), this should only be an overview of creating a replica Titanic. Any specific project should be off in their own article (only a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE paragraph should remain here). There have been many attempts to create replica Titanics, and from the header information on this Talk Page, several of the articles on them have been deleted. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Titanic II (film) is a film. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been hundreds of these proposals, from the likes of adolescent kids to business moguls. And they call their pet projects a range of names from Olympic III, Titan, Titanic II, and other impressive variations (see the previous Afds above). They do not relate to each other, so having them in one article on the Palmer project is inappropriate except in the most general way. The article currently only covers two of those projects and the study, if anyone wanted to take this in hand it can cover all those in the detail they deserved. As a title 'Titanic II' for this present article is inappropriate since it doesn't cover the names used by those projects, it just takes one and applies it to them all. If (and its a big if) Palmer's project actually goes the distance and a ship results, we'll have a new article on the history and development of that, titled something along the lines of 'MV Titanic II' or whatever he chooses to call it. And this article, about the histories of the attempts to build replicas of whatever name and design. Benea (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Without the detail of the Palmer project, the article would consist of an extract from Popular Mechanics magazine and a few paragraphs on an abandoned project (publicity stunt?) in 2006. As per WP:N it is doubtful this would constitute an encyclopaedic article, and a split of Replica Titanic and Titanic II is therefore undesirable, but would be the inevitable result of this article remaining as Replica Titanic. The most appropriate course of action is for this page to be moved to Titanic II, which would primarily cover the Palmer project, and for the Popular Mechanics and Gous sections to form part of its history section, as being notable only as a background to the present project. MatthewHaywood (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the ip on this one. At the moment there is no telling whether Palmer's project isn't just another publicity stunt. Certainly it is too early to have an article yet just about his project, as the previous afds have all shown. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Split and change the focus of this article as and when concrete work begins. No need to change now, and afd is probably where I would take this if the focus were changed to just Palmer's project. It is way too soon to be building an article on this yet. (and as the nominator, your support for the move is implicit, you don't need another entry to indicate that). Benea (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

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)

I don't think that there is sufficient reason to have a separate article for the Gaus project and feasibility studies. There is insufficient information on either to form a proper encyclopaedic article - we would be creating two 'stub' articles. I still believe that the most appropriate way forward is for the Gaus project and feasibility study to form subsections of the 'History' section of what will eventually become a much larger work on the Palmer project. While they both form part of the history of this project, neither is notable enough to warrant a separate article. MatthewHaywood (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They do not form part of the history of the second project. Just look at the top of this talk page, for many other Titanic recreation projects whose articles have been deleted. Just because some people have come up with a project to rebuild Titanic does not mean that any of them are related. They are only superficially related to one another, through the name, and the original ship they are trying to replicate. If the feasibility study and the failed 2000s project form part of the history of the 2012 project, then so do all of those documented in previously deleted articles. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So you advocate creating a separate article for the Palmer project, and retaining this page as a general overview of the 'Titanic replica' concept? In my opinion, the 2012 section is already far too detailed for a general overview, so if I was writing a new article I would have to cut down this section to avoid excessive duplication. I think this page would then be reduced to the point that it would be more appropriate for it to be merged in to the Titanic II page. You seem to want to avoid creating pages which would then be deleted (don't we all!), surely the best way of avoiding this is to retain this as as single page, rather than what would amount to a page split? I am keen to avoid this becoming a 'stub' article alongside a larger Titanic II article, and I think the best way is for this article to be moved to Titanic II and form the basis of a more detailed article on the most recent project. MatthewHaywood (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that any project that exceeds the size of a reasonable summary should be split off into a separate article. Anything else would unbalance an overview article. As for avoiding deletion, if it isn't notable enough to stand on its own, then it should not have a large section. If it is notable enough to stand on its own, then it should have its own article, and not have a large section. So either way, the section in the overview article should not be very large. It should not be moved to "Titanic II", because "replica Titanic" is an overview article as it stands, not a specific Titanic project. If you move it there, then it should be split into three articles, one on each of the two projects here, and the overview article which would contain the feasibility study. The edit history of this page is mostly about the Gous project, not the Palmer project, so it would not make sense for the page to be renamed to account for the Palmer project, since the edit history is not mostly about that. It would make more sense to split off the Palmer project, if it were to be called "Titanic II". If you also want the Gous project to be called "Titanic II", then Palmer and Gous projects should have separate pages, because they are unrelated. Not all recreations of the Titanic are called "Titanic II", and we should not imply that they do. Thus we end up with three articles. Unlike the Gous project, the Palmer project has not yet survived a Wikipedia page deletion request. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK then, it's clear we disagree here! As I think we've both put our case forward as fulsomely as we can, we should leave it at that and let the RM process run (once RM bot is working again). MatthewHaywood (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Titanic II different size reportings

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. 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)

In the plans he has released on the website, LOA is quoted as at 269m (the same as Titanic) but the beam is 4.2m greater at 32.2m (around 15% increase). He hasn't pulled anything off yet... I'll believe it when I see it. The plans are little more than like-for-like copies of the original blueprints for the most part, so little effort has been expended on them that I wonder if the whole thing isn't just a publicity stunt for the cruise line he claims to be launching. MatthewHaywood (talk) 01:21, 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)

Popular Mechanics

[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)

New article for Seven Star project?

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817193413/http://www.put.com/gigantic/ to http://www.put.com/gigantic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720134907/http://archief.nrc.nl/index.php/2001/Januari/12/Overig/28/Geredde+baby+tegen+herbouw+Titanic/check=Y to http://archief.nrc.nl/index.php/2001/Januari/12/Overig/28/Geredde+baby+tegen+herbouw+Titanic/check=Y

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Merger Discussion: TITANIIC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

I support deletion. We should not host such articles until an order has been placed and steel has been cut. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (ship). Kablammo (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

TITANIIC has now been sent to AfD dicussion. Blue Riband► 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to use "steel cut" - it may not always be easy to verify. Take a look at e.g. cruise ships under construction - some of these ships should would have to be removed from the list using the "steel cut" --Baerentp (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.