Talk:SS Imperator: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:02, 23 November 2020

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships B‑class

	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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Imperator was male

Against marine tradition, the ship was considered male in German (maybe since the word Imperator in the German language is an explicitly male noun, the female version would be Imperatorin). In better researched German text about this vessel you will always read der Imperator. But I don't know if this should be carried over to English. - Alureiter 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Top heavy"

I don't think it's right to classify the Imperator as "top heavy" - implying the ship was heaviest towards the top, because if this were the case the ship would capsize. Rather, it had a higher center of gravity than normal, which caused the uncomfortable sea handling. Dpaanlka 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a higher center of gravity than normal" is commonly known as "top heavy" in the English language! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging USS Imperator (ID-4080) into SS Imperator. The ship was much more notable under the name SS Imperator (and, frankly, as RMS Berengia, too) than as USS Imperator. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the two different articles on the ship lists different lengths. I don't think the giant eagle ornament had anything to do with it, in this case. (I agree, they ought to be merged. Less confusion. But not as 'USS', since most people think of he ship as SS.) --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two measures may be length overall vs. length between perpendiculars, two different measures for ship length. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Brad (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As author of USS Imperator (ID-4080) I have no objection to the merge.Wikited (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By the way, was Imperator evern meant to be a auxiliary cruiser? The Land (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in 1912?

The lede now states:

At the time of her launch in May 1912, she was the largest passenger ship in the world superseding the sunken RMS Titanic.

Two issues:

When Imperator was launched, Titanic had been sunk (and, we now know, in pieces) for over a month. The largest ship thereafter (at least until Imperator was completed) was Olympic, was it not?
When Imperator was launched she lacked much of her upperworks, which is included in the measurement of gross tonnage. It is likely she did not become the largest until later in the construction process.

I suggest removing or rewording the claim. Kablammo (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR IN ARTICLE

The article says that due to electrical fires, Cunard-White Star "opted to retire" Berengaria. The truth is, after a serious fire in New York, American authorities revoked her passenger certificate,which made it illegal for Berengaria to carry passengers or use a U.S port because she was considered a fire hazard.Since the ship was old and repairs would have been too costly,she was sold for scrap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a citation for your claim. Otherwise, this information cannot be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden voyage

I'm confused: was the maiden voyage on June 20, as the box says, or on June 10, as the text says? --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if it was 11 June. New York Illustrated caption agrees with 1913 Marine Engineer & Architect report of the ship anchoring "off Ryde on the 12th June on her maiden voyage" about right for a departure on 11 June. Palmeira (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SS Imperator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He or She?

I know there have been debates in the past about referring to ships as he in she. I guess Imperator is even more of a special case. I can see that in the article, it mentions the Kaiser wanted the ship be referred to as he. However, the article itself is totally jumbled up between the masculine and feminine. There seems to be jumps between one and the other. I was about to edit all the he's to a she but thought it would be better to ask others first. I think the article, as it stands just leads to confusion.

On first reading the article, it appears the masculine reference is attempted to be kept. Mostly when describing the ship as Imperator and in German hands. But the feminine still appears in some parts When describing the ship being handed to Cunard and becoming Berengaria, the feminine appears more.

If a consensus can't be reached then maybe a suggestion. Only masculine references while describing the ship as Imperator. And feminine references when the ship becomes Berengaria. No mixing at all.

Either way, I think this needs to be cleared up. Have I just opened up another can of worms?? --DarkLight753 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just loaded this talk page to ask this exact question. There's no excuse for multiple instances of swapping gender back and forth in the same sentence ("On her official trials, he suffered..."). Honestly the concept of applying a genders to inanimate objects is mostly arbitrary in the first place, so if they wanted this one to be "male" I really don't see a particular reason why we should argue. I vote for three things: make the he/she explanation the second sentence of the article to help ward off further confusion, make all "Imperator"-era pronouns male, and make all "Berengaria"-era pronouns female (unless there's evidence Cunard continued to use male, which I don't think is the case).72.74.34.144 (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VERY confused about the "World War I and U.S. Navy service" section. When Imperator was recommissioned, did it get a sex change? The pronouns are all over the place.Pisomojado (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article's use of pronouns is deeply weird and confusing. Would anybody object to going for "it", as a compromise? --The Huhsz (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've neutralised the heady mixture of "he" and "she" (and "it"!) the article used to have, and gone for "it" throughout. I know there are those who live and die for this stuff; I don't much care, but it was too weird using three different ones on the same article. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone made the decision and decided to change the pronoun to "she". I was about to revert the changes until I saw this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leo (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current He/She, even within a sentence and with no introductory reason is unacceptable confusion for readers. First, the German dictate with cite that the ship be "He" needs explanation at the top. Then one or the other or neither within the text of the applicable German/not German sections. As currently written this is a "cluster" for any reader with such things as:

"At the time of her completion in June 1913, he was the largest passenger ship in the world by gross tonnage . . ."
"he was fitted with an imposing bronze eagle figurehead, created by Professor Bruno Kruse of Berlin, which adorned her forepeak"

This is just idiocy. Palmeira (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources talking about historical usage of masculine pronouns for the Imperator. Just blogs and social media posts. All the existing citations use feminine pronouns. Can anyone else find a source? In the absence of a reliable source, we should stick to general marine tradition.—Laoris (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

"which earned she the jocular nickname "Bargain-area".[9] " - surely it should be which earned HER the jocular nickname "Bargain-area". 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 *"'''he''' was fitted with an imposing bronze eagle figurehead, created by Professor Bruno Kruse of Berlin, which adorned '''her''' forepeak"
 This is just idiocy. [[User:Palmeira|Palmeira]] ([[User talk:Palmeira|talk]]) 12:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
+:I can't find any reliable sources talking about historical usage of masculine pronouns for the Imperator.  Just blogs and social media posts.  All the existing citations use feminine pronouns.  Can anyone else find a source?  In the absence of a reliable source, we should stick to general marine tradition.—Laoris&nbsp;([[User_talk:Laoris|talk]]) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 == Grammar ==