Talk:RMS Ivernia (1899): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:28, 30 September 2024

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Requested move 30 September 2024

The request to rename this article to RMS Ivernia (1899) has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

SS Ivernia → RMS Ivernia (1899)
RMS Ivernia → RMS Ivernia (1955)

– I've been performing significant research on Ivernia at the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and with other primary sources including ship's passenger lists and correspondence. These all indicate the ship was in fact issued a Royal Mail contract like its sisters, Saxonia and Carpathia . As such, like its sister, the article should be named RMS Ivernia (1899) in line with its sister, using its launch date for disambiguation. This probably means that RMS Ivernia should be also disambiguated to RMS Ivernia (1955). An example of evidence of this prefix that is publicly accessible can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/magbell.04100128/?sp=1&st=image Where Alexander Graham Bell is writing to his wife using official Cunard Letterhead on the Ivernia, stating the RMS prefix, which would have been a highly controversial thing to do less than six months after its maiden voyage if it had not in fact been given contract for the prefix. Other examples include the ship's crew writing RMS on passenger lists, articles in contemporary engineering journals using the RMS prefix, and more, although many of these are not in the public domain. Conversely, all evidence the ship was named SS Ivernia come from secondary sources, possibly influenced in part by the wikipedia title, with hobbyist indexes of ships, wreck sites, and other such content. Tobin Dax (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SS was the standard abbreviation for all steam powered ships. As such it is perfectly correct. If there is evidence that the ship was classified as a Royal Mail Ship we can use RMS, though it is not required. Either prefix would be acceptable and correct. I have no strong opinion on the matter, but unless there is ample evidence in reliable sources that the RMS prefix was more commonly used, I'd just play it safe and stick with SS which we know is accurate. If it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 * [[:RMS Ivernia]] → {{no redirect|RMS Ivernia (1955)}}
 – I've been performing significant research on ''Ivernia'' at the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and with other primary sources including ship's passenger lists and correspondence. These all indicate the ship was in fact issued a Royal Mail contract like its sisters, [[RMS Saxonia (1899)|''Saxonia'']] and [[RMS Carpathia | ''Carpathia'' ]]. As such, like its sister, the article should be named [[RMS Ivernia (1899)]] in line with its sister, using its launch date for disambiguation. This probably means that [[RMS Ivernia]] should be also disambiguated to RMS Ivernia (1955). An example of evidence of this prefix that is publicly accessible can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/magbell.04100128/?sp=1&st=image    Where Alexander Graham Bell is writing to his wife using official Cunard Letterhead on the ''Ivernia'', stating the RMS prefix, which would have been a highly controversial thing to do less than six months after its maiden voyage if it had not in fact been given contract for the prefix. Other examples include the ship's crew writing RMS on passenger lists, articles in contemporary engineering journals using the RMS prefix, and more, although many of these are not in the public domain. Conversely, all evidence the ship was named ''SS Ivernia'' come from secondary sources, possibly influenced in part by the wikipedia title, with hobbyist indexes of ships, wreck sites, and other such content. [[User:Tobin Dax|Tobin Dax]] ([[User talk:Tobin Dax|talk]]) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
+:SS was the standard abbreviation for all steam powered ships. As such it is perfectly correct. If there is evidence that the ship was classified as a Royal Mail Ship we can use RMS, though it is not required. Either prefix would be acceptable and correct. I have no strong opinion on the matter, but unless there is ample evidence in reliable sources that the RMS prefix was more commonly used, I'd just play it safe and stick with SS which we know is accurate. If it aint broke, don't fix it. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
 .