Talk:Titanic II/Archive 1

Archive 1

'Raised' bridge

There have been a couple of edits regarding the raised bridge, one of which I had to undo per WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I thought I should start a section laying out what I know. In two television interviews, Palmer has discussed that the ship will have a 'higher bridge'. This is not shown on the plans which have been published so far. It can not be explained by the extra 'safety deck' - this does not raise the decks above it, but rather displaces the lower decks in to the space vacated by the boilers and engines. I agree with User:Tupsumato that the duties of the lookout are largely covered by radar, and I don't believe there is a legal requirement for any specific bridge height. There is a requirement under IRPCS, however, for a lookout to be kept at all times, which means that the bridge has to provide a good viewpoint. The present situation is that there is a citation tag on the section, and I'm happy for it to stay that way until more concrete details are published. MatthewHaywood (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There are requirements for minimum forward visibility, but not for specific bridge height. As long as you can see close enough in front of the bow, it doesn't matter where your bridge is. Anyway, the reason I inserted the {{citation needed}} tag in the section is simply because there was no inline citation and I don't recall reading anything about it anywhere. Even if the bridge is higher, it does not necessarily mean that the design was changed to eliminate the need for a lookout post. Tupsumato (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what the final designs show - apparently we're not too far away from finding out. MatthewHaywood (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a further look at the plans, and it turns out that although the safety deck mainly displaces the lower decks downwards, the centre section is higher and does raise the superstructure somewhat. Combined with the straight sheerline, the angle of the bow below the horizon from the bridge is substantially greater. I've changed the article accordingly. MatthewHaywood (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, but keep in mind that analysis based on personal observations may be considered original research. Based on the GA, you may say that the bridge is higher than in the original ship and say it improves visibility ahead, but saying that it is made higher in order to improve the visibility or that it removes the need for the lookout may call for a separate citation from a reliable source. Tupsumato (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking that from what Palmer said in a video interview. Not the sort of thing I would want to cite. I agree with you, it's not great practice to put it there without a citation. You can see the video here, the quote is at about 7:40. I realise you have much more experience on ship articles than I do! Watch the video and you can decide whether or not to take it out. MatthewHaywood (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Start of construction

"Construction is scheduled to begin in 2012 ..." Palmer did say this back in April, but with only a few days left of the year, this one is starting to look really dubious, isn't it? Or will they perhaps stage a publicity stunt on Monday and weld together a few pieces of metal that will somehow go into the finished ship, so that they can claim that construction has symbolically "begun"? Fauskanger (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are at the basic design stage yet, let alone production design... Tupsumato (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They appear to have completed the preliminary design, but I would be very surprised if they have got very far in to the contract design yet, let alone the detailed design. Things may become a little clearer in February. MatthewHaywood (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I see "2012" has now been changed to "2013", but the newspaper article listed as a source says nothing whatsoever about when construction is to BEGIN, only when it is to be completed: "If it is given the go-ahead, construction will begin at the CSC Jinling Shipyard in China, according to Mr Palmer, with a view to completion in 2016." Fauskanger (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible Merger with Replica Titanic

A discussion is taking place that would possibly merge this article into Replica Titanic. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Replica Titanic Mariepr (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think any further discussions about the fate of Replica Titanic and Titanic II should be put on ice until we have more details about the Titanic II project. I'm not keen to see the article I have put a lot of work in to be merged, and the recent deletion discussion has shown a consensus to retain Replica Titanic. Both articles can hold their own for the present, so we can decide their fate in a few months when more details are known. MatthewHaywood (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say "Replica Titanic" should be the overview article covering various proposals that have been made over the years, most notably the abortive Sarel Gous project. If Palmer's plans actually get off the ground, the "Titanic II" article should be exclusively about his project, and eventually about his finished ship. The "Replica Titanic" article can then treat Palmer's project very briefly, with a cross reference: "Main Article: Titanic II".

If Palmer's project fizzles out, the article "Titanic II" can on the other hand be deleted and merged with "Replica Titanic": just another proposed project with only academic interest. Indeed, perhaps the article should rather be titled "Replica Titanic Proposals". Fauskanger (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Olympic-class ocean liners

I see no reason to invoke WP:SUBJECTIVE. Based on the definition of ship class and sister ship as well as published technical details, Titanic II has hardly any relation to the Olympic-class liners. Yeah, it looks somewhat like them (could use WP:SUBJECTIVE on this one...) and is more or less based on them, but it's not a ship of the same class. This is hardly a subjective issue.

Also, according to WP:Categorization "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Also, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define..."

Has anyone actually said that Titanic II would be an Olympic-class liner?

Tupsumato (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair points. When I oroginally restored it to the Olympic category, I just felt that membership of the category didn't necessarily have to mean that it is an Olympic-class, just sufficiently related to the class to be relevant to the category. I will bow to your superior experience on this one! I've removed two other pages from the category as well - Cultural legacy of RMS Titanic (which shouldn't have been there in the first place) and Replica Titanic.

Speaking of Replica Titanic, what's your opinion on merging with Titanic II? I've always felt that RT was an odd article of dubious encyclopaedic value, and had it not been for Palmer it would probably have been appropriate to merge it with the main Titanic article. I don't feel that having a stub article covering both the Gous and Palmer replicas is of much value now we have a well developed article devoted to the Palmer replica, which also covers previous projects. It's worthy of note that T2 is peaking at 57,000 views per day while RT is only reaching 4,000. Would you support this? MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A hoax

Everyone in Australia knows that Palmer is a fantasist and Titanic II is a hoax. And he's not a billionaire. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Intelligent Mr Toad... Please refrain from posting attacks on persons, especially living persons. This is a no no on Wikipedia. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be proved right. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I too am highly skeptical about this project. But on Wikipedia we need to be careful when making comments about other people, especially if they are alive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A hoax? Palmer spent some 'real' money on the project by employing the respected naval architects 'Deltamarin' to design the ship. Deltamarin have designed many mega-ships operating today. A model of the proposed hull was also tank tested in Germany. I suspect at least a years development work was carried out and detailed drawings prepared etc. It was said by Palmer that cabin mock-ups were also being built for approval. It is not fair to say the project was a 'hoax' as such. I believe Palmer was originally very serious. However the project does appear to have stalled. Malcolm O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.18.241 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit War: "is" or "was"?

Several new users and ISPs have kept reverting the article page to present tense (..IS a proposed ocean liner...) within the last 48 hours. None have provided any citations to support claims that it is under construction. In the editor consensus above the project is to be referred to in the past given Palmer's track record and the financial state of his main revenue-generating businesses. In the past I have asked for temporary page protection but was denied. There's an ISP edit now that needs reverting but I personally cannot do it due to the 3Rs. Any suggestions from more experienced editors? Right now I cannot tell if its the same person using socks and hotspots or if multiple editors are involved. Blue Riband► 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The ship can be considered to be "under construction" when the first steel is cut. This is an important milestone in shipbuilding and a special ceremony is often arranged particularly for high-profile projects such as large passenger ships (e.g. here. I have yet to see reports of such ceremony taking place for Titanic II, so I would classify this project as "under development" or something like that until a reliable source states that the actual construction of the vessel has started. I don't think the vessel has even been assigned an IMO number.

It seems that Titanic II was in the media last week (I saw two articles in Finnish tabloid newspapers), but I'd rather trust more reliable sources when it comes to the actual status of the project. Perhaps it's not abandoned, but I doubt there's a firm order for the shipyard. I can try to look it up from IHS Sea-web on Sunday.

I'll refrain from engaging in the edit war, but I'd vote for temporary protection for the time being, until reliable sources can be provided for the article and the exact wording agreed through discussion on the talk page. Tupsumato (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is a credible report that Titanic II even has even a signed shipyard contract I'd love to see somebody cite it. The recent reports quoted Palmer's spokesman as stating the project is delayed and not abandoned. Thus far all talk and no action since the 2013 model basin testing. If QM2's timeline is to be used as a construction guide it was 23 months from first steel cutting to handing her keys to Cunard. Things would have to start moving quickly for the claimed 2018 completion to be met. I've tried again to request temporary semi-protection so at least the vandals will have to go through the trouble of registering and not just make a mobile edit from a hotspot. Blue Riband► 21:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of POV pushing in the last few sections and in recent edits. It matters not a jot whether editors think that it is alive/dead/doomed/ludicrous or whatever - just follow the RS. I don't understand why the need to try to impose anything. We can just let the story of this project unfold as it is reported. It is clear that it IS a "proposed ship", and will be until it is either built or definitively abandoned - and the proposer is reliably reported as saying recently that it is still a live project. That would then sit alongside those RS that take the view that it will not proceed. I don't see any RS that states that the proposed vessel IS under construction, so we cannot say so. I do think that the article has become over-long for its real content, as if every word that gets written in sources of varying reliability about it has to be added at least once. I'll try to find time to address that in a few days, but in the meantime will just make a few obvious adjustments. Tupsumato - confirm not in SeaWeb database nor IMO number allocated, as is usual for vessels proposed but not contracted. Davidships (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no trace of Titanic II in the Sea-web database. Tupsumato (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Then that confirms that there isn't even a signed contract yet at this point. If there were it certainly would have been well publicized. Perhaps some editors who changed the status to "under construction" confused this with a full scale 1912 replica that is intended to be only a static display in China. Blue Riband► 01:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Project Abandoned?

I've just updated the last section to note that the Blue Star Line web page, as well as their official social media sites, have had no official updates in now over a year. While Palmer's own site claims that he is "building Titanic II" there is no evidence that work continues on this project. At what point should it be declared abandoned along with the previous rebuild attempts?Blue Riband► 23:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When a reliable source makes that claim it can be repeated on here. Clearly the whole thing was at best a pipe dream and at worst a hoax. But we can't unilaterally put that into the article, even if it's as obvious as the sun rising in the east. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• At this point I believe there is enough RS evidence to state that the project appears to have been abandoned. I have edited the article to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although there is no official statement from Palmer or the Blue Star Line - odd! Has no one asked him? Malcolm O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.18.241 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A quote from 'BBC East' online June 2015:

Blue Star Line, the firm behind the project, has denied the project has come to a halt. A spokesman for the Brisbane-based firm, who contacted the BBC earlier, said the project had “just been pushed back with a planned launch date of late 2018.” (submitted by Malcolm O)

I said last year this was a hoax and I was right. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I would rather say "failed project" than "hoax" as the ship design process was underway. Tupsumato (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote: Claire McNeilly, Belfast Telegraph 03/09/2015:

Earlier this week Australian billionaire Clive Palmer said that 'Titanic II', a fully functioning, faithful remake of the world's most famous ship, would sail the world's oceans in 2018.

Palmer's ambitious plan was to have his Titanic in the water by next summer but his company, Blue Star Line, said the project had been delayed by two years. (Posted by Malcolm Oliver) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.18.241 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we really believe that?109.149.137.78 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks about as believable as RMS Queen Mary 2 and SS United States making a tandem crossing in 2018. The 2018 completion date is however coming from an official spokesperson for the project sponsor. I suggest we maintain the current approach for now: refer to the project in the past tense unless and until actual construction starts. We can also continue to mention the claims from the Palmer camp while also noting that there has been no real activity since the 2013 model basin testing. Blue Riband► 00:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The correct approach is to follow what is in reliable sources without prejudice to WP:COMMONSENSE. This means that we can and should report statements from Mr. Palmer and his associates, but given the track record, I would not change the title of the section until/unless credible sources report actual movement in the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

When I made the statement about SSUS joining QM2 on a tandem crossing, I was being sarcastic. Well, it might turn out just so as indicated here and maybe Palmer will indeed get is corporate finances back in order for Titanic II to become a reality. Blue Riband► 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been some stories on this project in Australia in the last couple of days, and I've updated the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Courier Mail 7th May 2016

"This week Mr Palmer said at a press conference he would have to ask his wife if he could pursue the project (Titanic 2) in retirement." Malcolm O

(The Courier Mail 7th May 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.169.252 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just updated the article with three references regarding Queensland Nickel liquidation and the possible freezing of other Palmer assets. Deltamarin hasn't done any work on the ship in 18 months. Oh, and Palmer's not running for re-election to his House of Representatives seat. (Given recent developments one can speculate which one has a better chance of happening - the ship getting built or him getting re-elected.) Blue Riband► 21:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Delayed" vs. "Abandoned"

Earlier we had the "is" vs. "was" a proposed ocean liner disagreement and now there's a disagreement over the project being "delayed" vs. "abandoned". There are RS that state no work has been done in 18 months. Yet earlier this year the project sponsors still claimed it to be "delayed" and to launch in 2018. The latest quote attributed to Palmer states that he "might" work on it in this retirement. At what point can we conclude any intention to build Titanic II is all talk and no action? Is it in the interest of the encyclopedia to accept it as "delayed" if he next says it will launch in 2020? Blue Riband► 22:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming weight of reliably sourced evidence indicates the project has been abandoned in all but name. I have not been able to find any evidence suggesting any intention to proceed other than very dubious claims by Palmer's representatives. All of the actual evidence as opposed to PR claims point to the project's abandonement. It's one thing to take note of Palmer's claims that the project is delayed, it is quite a different matter to accept the word of his representatives over the mountain of well sourced evidence that contradicts his claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree - the overwhelming evidence of financial collapse clearly contradicts the Palmer verbal statements. Even without Queensland Nickel bankrupt, Coolum Resort closed, and his political party down to one other parlimentary member there was always the question of the Jinling shipyard's ability to build it that since they would have needed to expand their facilities to do so. I think we can confidently say the project is abandoned unless somebody provides solid evidence that work is being done. But I would be very, very, surprised if a contract is ever signed. Blue Riband► 01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Liverpool Echo reported on 17 August 2016 that Titanic II is to sail in 2018 - but it was same old, same old. Nothing that had not been released by the Blue Star Line previously. No project status, no construction update, no notice that there is a signed shipyard contract. At this point it looks like some are confusing the Palmer project with the static replica to be assembled in the Qi River in Sichuan province, China.Blue Riband► 21:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This adds nothing substantive to the article. We don't need to mention every press/media reference in the article. If it doesn't add anything, then I'd ignore it. That appears to be the case here. I am not going to revert the edit, but I'd suggest taking it out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have thus condensed the entire section to just summarize the delays and current status. It was becoming a transcript of who said what and when.Blue Riband► 23:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Construction has begun?

Rather to my surprise, and contrary to all references on this page, construction is apparently well underway: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-look-inside-titanic-2-7348759 http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/titanic-replica-ship-clive-palmer-10903118 Royalcourtier (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say "construction is well underway" in this article which is from February 2016? Also, I still couldn't find anything resembling a Titanic replica from IHS Sea-web when querying for "Passenger ships" scheduled to be delivered between 2017-2025... Tupsumato (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I read the two news citations and it looks like sloppy journalism. The reporters confused Palmer's fully functional ocean going ship with the Romandisea Seven Stars Titanic which will be moored within a reservoir at least 750 miles from sea. It won't be sailing anywhere but that one is under active construction. Or, somebody picked up his November 2016 video where he claims it is to be built. The images shown in both news articles were re-cycled from his 2013 announcements. While it may be noteworthy to mention his intentions RS indicate that no work has been done since Deltamarin finished their contracted work in 2014. RS also suggest that Palmer is dealing with a variety of legal and financial problems and it is unlikely he has the finances to proceed until they are settled. And the Blue Star Line official web site has had no updates since May of 2014. Had a shipyard contract been signed there surely would have been a lot of publicity. To date the editorial consensus is to treat the project as "abandoned" unless and until RS indicate that further development has resumed.Blue Riband► 03:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Consistently with the consensus, except that I don't think we can yet say "abandoned", I've changed "Status" in the infobox from "Under construction" to "Planned". Wikiain (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that RS indicate that the project "all talk and no action" I'm not sure how you arrived that the project is not abandoned. Trademark abandoned, no web site updates in three years (how hard is it to get somebody to do that?), no evidence of any work even being done by Deltamarin. And no announcement of a shipyard contract. That, and I've added a Guardian citation which claims that he appeared to be in poor health and suffering memory lapses in recent weeks. Whether that is his real physical state or a convenient act is not something for me to judge. But he certainly does not give the public appearance of being a man with the resources and drive to push through such an ambitious project. It looks more like he's broke and broken but into this too deeply to admit it won't happen. Blue Riband► 04:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right, though I think only probably. Possibly he has handed it over, or will hand it over, to someone else. Maybe "Apparently abandoned"? Wikiain (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A look at the timeline for QM2, another one-off ship, has project announcement June 1998, Letter of intent in March of 2000 with the formal contract signed that November, and first steel cut in 2002. So the Palmer project has had three years pass between that letter of intent and still no signed contract. We're half way into 2017 so this would have to be on a rocket docket to have any construction begin by 2018. (RS also indicate that the shipyard has to expand its facilities to build a ship of this size.) Do you have any sources to suggest that he could deputize this project? Or that there has been any progress in the past three years? At best it's stalled. We have to use RS regarding the project status and not base it on speculation or what we would like to see. Blue Riband► 17:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "at best its stalled". Seems the half-full/half-empty to "apparently abandoned". Shall we go with "apparently abandoned"? Wikiain (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Titanic-ii.com link

This link now directs to a "Digital Signage and China Import Blog", rather than anything to do with Palmer's replica Titanic. The link should probably be deleted.Voodude (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's been removed. Blue Riband► 01:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

First sentence tense

Perhaps it should be changed to past tense, to read "...was a planned ocean liner..."? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but please see the "is vs. was" edit war section above. However it's been more than another year now and RS indicate the project is all but officially abandoned. With no signed shipyard contract it's almost an impossibility that steel could be cut in 2018. Palmer could say it's again delayed to 2020 but we see no action other than his say-so. Blue Riband► 12:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, no new projects in IHS Sea-web from anyone but the usual suspects. Tupsumato (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

September 2018 Palmer Announcement

The latest revision of the project status from "abandoned" to "proposed" does indeed have a source - a media release on the Blue Star Line official web site. http://bluestarline.com.au (The first update since May of 2014.) In it Palmer claims that the project is revived and he had suspended it while the Queensland Nickel litigation was ongoing. How do we handle this given the past history of missed construction starts? Earlier this year he claimed that the keel was to be laid "later this year". Do we wait for further project development, like a signed shipyard contract? The past history of all bluster and no action has me questioning if he is still in denial. Blue Riband► 11:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's keep an eye on it. I think it's worth mentioning in the article that there was a "failed start" and quite a long hiatus during which we didn't hear anything from him. However, a query to IHS Sea-web for passenger ships over 200 m in length didn't turn up anything that could be the Titanic II project; all ships on order are from the usual suspects (Fincantieri, Meyer etc.). Thus, I wouldn't go further than "proposed" as project stage until we see a firm shipbuilding contract, assigned IMO number etc. Tupsumato (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think think this is enough to change the current status which is based on reliable secondary sources. The statement does not announce anything concrete. That said, I think it should be mentioned in the article. But the project status should either stay the same or at most be changed to "uncertain." -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated the article per the above comments. Mention of the Palmer press release was made but I left the project status unchanged until we see some real progress reported in RS. Blue Riband► 17:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

An ISP editor has added Palmer's press release of the appointment of a European project director. It's clearly a good-faith edit but does this add anything substantive to the article? We've had several "announcements", "appointments" and "alliances" since the project was first announced but still no concrete construction progress. Blue Riband► 15:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JC7V7DC5768's reversion. Although done in good faith, this hasn't gotten a lot of attention from the mainstream press/media. Until that changes, or better that we have a contract signed and can report that a ship has actually been laid down, I think this needs to be treated as PR. And we don't do PR on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with the "no PR" remark, I'd say we should probably include a word or two about the program showing some "weak signs of life" if Palmer's announcement generates a lot of talk in the media. The article is still mainly about the project as the ship has yet to be built, and we can't just freeze it to 2016 or whenever we think the work stopped. Tupsumato (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Found an industry source, Logistics Middle East, that reported Palmer's announcement of a 2022 service date. However I left the project status blank. While the project can no longer be classified as "abandoned" at best it's status is still unclear. Steel cutting cannot start unless there is a formal shipyard contract and we know that has not yet happened. Such an event would have had considerable publicity. Blue Riband► 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Latest item of interest: the blog for Palmer's company states that Deltamarin has resumed work on the project here. I'd wait for some report from industry RS or an announcement from Deltamarin before making a mention. If they are back on board it would be some sign of serious intent. But CAD designs and basin tests can go on for years while only a ship yard contract will mean the project is really going ahead. Blue Riband► 02:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Deltamarin says, "Still working on it."

With no announcements from Blue Star now for over a year, I thought it might be time to consider the project abandoned yet again. However a check of Deltamarin's site here(scroll to bottom) shows that they are still doing design work on Titanic II as of last month. But they defer all questions about the start of construction to Blue Star. Last September a reply to a question about the shipyard stated that were looking at "different alternatives". So it's unlikely to be Jinling as all mention of that yard has been scrubbed from the Blue Star site. In a nutshell I think we can say that the project has not fallen dormant again because an RS - Deltamarin - has reported that active work continues. Blue Riband► 05:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Titanic II.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned project

They said in 2018 that the ship will do his first voyage the 10 April of 2022. Its February 2022 and they didn't started to build the ship yet.

Im sure they abandoned this proyect. Ricardo.Pazos.2009.4509 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Still needs to be sourced, but probably. Britmax (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Is vs. was? (edition 2)

@Oherman: Should the lead of the article, which currently states "Titanic II is a planned ocean liner intended to be a functional modern-day replica of the Olympic-class RMS Titanic" remain in the present tense or be changed to the past tense? I believe it previously was the latter though I myself might have changed it after the project seemed to receive some new activity in late 2018. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As it is confirmed there is still activity and intent to push through, it should remain as it is until formal news of the contrary appears. Oherman (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of us here have strong opinions regarding this project, but I think we have to follow RSs. At the moment the most recent RS that we have comes from Deltamarin who in 2020 stated that the conceptual design had advanced to the point where it could be presented to shipyards for pricing. At some point however the lack of RSs will have to suggest that the project is all but officially abandoned. It was first proposed in 2012 and now nine years later it exists only as a design. QM2, another one-off ship, only took six years between design proposal and actually entering service. Blue Riband► 20:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits have been warring over whether the Titanic II project "is" or "was". I did some searching to see if anything more recent could be found for "Titanic II" but came up empty. Searching for "Clive Palmer" in the Australian press no longer even mentions his involvement with it.

Personally, I think that after ten years of bluster and nothing concrete to show for it, Palmer has all but officially abandoned the project. While we can think or speculate whatever we want Wikipedia requires us to follow reliable sources. The only reliable source we had this year was from the Belfast paper reporting that Palmer has doubts about the long-term financial viability of the ship. So we can say that because the source says that. Anything else is speculation and logical deduction - which Wikipedia policy says is original research. We have to hold off on declaring the project dead until a RS says that. Blue Riband► 03:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And even that is vague as it is. It doesn't qualify for Palmer throwing the towel on the entire thing. At least not officially, as it still leaves a possibility of a comeback. Oherman (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Must we cite that the sky is blue?

I've been one of the more obnoxious editors at reverting unsourced speculation on the status of the Titanic II project. However we should consider that:

• 1) 10 years have past since the project announcement and there is still no shipyard contract,
• 2) it's almost 4 years since the official website has been updated, and
• 3) the Australian press doesn't even mention Titanic II in their reporting of Palmer's activities.

I just tried a search to see if anything recent was mentioned online and a report dated today in appeared in the UK Daily Star. It's a sensationalist tabloid and it just regurgitated same plans reported years earlier. We may never get a specific source that quotes Palmer stating that he's killed the project yet accumulated evidence indicates it has been abandoned by default. Blue Riband► 04:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)