Talk:RMS Empress of Canada (1928)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains?[edit]

Shem1805 -- Responding to your 26 June 2009 edit which removed WP:WikiProject Trains-template from top of talk page with this explanatory edit summary: WikiProject trains removed - am I missing something? ... here:

In the 1920s, Canadian Pacific Steamships was a wholly owned subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). It's a bit of a stretch, but this conglomerate can be construed as somewhat akin to the pre-war Japanese zaibatsu in the apples and oranges sense that the trans-Pacific fleet (and trans-Atlantic fleet) were construed as adjuncts to the primary trans-Canada railroad business interests. The conflation of ships in a rolling-stock context of WikiProjectTrains may appears counter-intuitive; but the the 21st-century rationale which informs the judgment of those who have worked with this tag (NE2, Traveler100 and Slambo) is justifiable -- see Canadian Pacific Railway#Steamships; compare Talk:RMS Empress of China (1891). The term of art is "intermodal" -- see Intermodal passenger transport and Intermodal freight transport.

CPR was an intermodal pioneer, making it possible to travel from Britain to Hong Kong using only the CPR's ships, trains and hotels -- see Canadian Pacific hotels.

The CPR president in this period, Edward Wentworth Beatty also presided over the genesis of Canadian Pacific Airlines, which is also tagged as part of WikiProjectTrains. His predecessor at CP, William Cornelius Van Horne, considered the railway an integrated communications and transportation system and convinced the directors and shareholders to create a telegraph service as a complement to the railway. Van Horne's legacy is reflected in the RMS prefix which distinguished the fleet CP Ships --Tenmei (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation -- 1928 launch date? 1929 service entry date?[edit]

Shem1805 -- Responding to your 23 June 2009 edit which moved RMS Empress of Canada (1929) to RMS Empress of Canada (1928) with this explanatory edit summary: Disambiguated by year of launch in accordance with WP:Ships -- here and here:

See discussion at WikiProject Ships/Archive 9#Commercial Ship disambiguation.

All the ships in this non-military fleet are distinguished where necessary by a non-launch date disambiguation ... except this one. In other words, all ships (other than this one) in the CP Ships fleet are distinguished by dates of maiden voyage or by date the ship entered service. Whether or not that is something which needs to be re-visited remains an open question. As you know, the issue is treated generally at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ship names and with specificity at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Disambiguating ships with the same name --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tenmei, Are you saying that the use of maiden voyage for disambiguation is currently used only for CP ships or for all ocean liners? If the answer is "only CP ships", then I think it obvious that they should come into line; if the question were asked at WP:Ships, the consensus, I imagine, would be overwhelming. If you're talking about all ocean liners, then I can see a more protracted discussion, but I think the same result is likely to prevail; the guidance says "launch date", and I can't see it being amended to "launch date, except for ocean liners, which should be maiden voyage (if known)"! Oh, and isn't it madness that this page would be entitled "RMS Empress of Canada (1929)" when Empress of Canada made her maiden voyage in 1947, and was built as Duchess of Richmond in 1928, under which name she made her maiden voyage in 1929? (!) Yours, Shem (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Shem1805 -- This is one of those instances in which reductio ad absurdem is a helpful and persuasive rhetorical argument. I get it. I understand your point-of-view, and I'm sympathetic. I'm not even disagreeing. I only explain that disambiguation for the ships of the CP fleet is informed by a consensus:
  • (a) I understand that this consensus is not one which you unquestioningly accept.
  • (b) You clarify the ambit of this "consensus" by pointing to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships).
You announce that your background has to do with articles about military ships, and this informs my measured and somewhat cautious response. In the period in which I was more engaged in developing the articles about this relatively small fleet. I was not inattentive to the consequences of lexicographical order, but the process of working with Wikipedia articles has convinced me that I have much to learn -- see Taxonomy#Military taxonomy and Military taxonomy.
Bottom line: I have not reverted nor disputed your recent move; but I'm disinclined to move too quickly in moving each article about a ship in this fleet again -- see here and here; see also
I don't quite understand the point-of-view which appears to argue that the distinction between military and non-military vessels should reasonably extend to this minor issue of disambiguation. Application of the phrase "consensus reality" in our Wikipedia context is one of those lessons learned the hard way. I'm still investigating the nuance of unintended consequences.
For example, RMS Empress of Australia (1919) was moved by Anthony Appleyard to RMS Empress of Australia, and the disambiguation date was simply deemed unnecessary at this point. This edit is entirely justified, of course; but the modification fails to take into account an article which has yet to be created about RMS Empress of Australia (1953). As you know, this trivial misjudgment doesn't matter, if indeed the term "misjudgment" can be applied at all -- which perhaps makes it an excellent illustration of a grey area. --Tenmei (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the naming convention for these liners has been happening in some degree of isolation. If Anthony Appleyard had moved a military ship in the same way he moved RMS Empress of Australia (1919), he would have been reverted straightaway, and his attention drawn to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Civilian_ships, which states clearly that "when the name is ambiguous, append disambiguation information in parentheses as usual. The date of launching can be used if there are several ships with the same name".
I'd be very interested to see a discussion where some sort of consensus was reached on naming conventions for these ships, rather than just examples of previous moves that are not in accordance with the (consensus-led) guidelines.
This conversation should really be happening at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), which is where I propose you place any reply, referencing back to this talk page. In the meantime, I'm going to sort out the Empress of Australia page with a ShipList article!
I'm grateful for the very positive and helpful tone - if only all Wikipedians could be quite so clear and thoughtful. Yours, Shem (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
By the way, doing the shiplist page for Empress of Australia (1953) proved the point - she was actually De Grasse of 1924. By using the launch date, it becomes far more quickly apparent when a ship has changed name. Strictly, unless Empress of Australia from 1953 to 1956 is more notable than De Grasse of 1924 to 1953, then the article should sit at something like SS De Grasse (1924) with a redirect from RMS Empress of Australia (1924) (and probably RMS Empress of Australia (1953) as well to take care of some of the old links.) Yours, Shem (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Shem1805 -- I am unwilling to proceed further with this in the near future, but I was willing to search for plausibly relevant threads.

Perhaps it's best to conform the CP Ships fleet with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ship names; and each article can encompass a crisply-drafted, in-line comment note which mentions a plausibly alternate option -- compare n. 1 at Emperor Ninmyō, Tamba Province, etc. A pivotal factor which seems relevant is that RMS Empress of Japan (1891) (which could be moved to RMS Empress of Japan (1890) was launched in December 1890 by Lady Alice Stanley, who doubtless viewed the event as noteworthy. If a new consensus about non-military ships does develop, these articles can be adjusted accordingly. When or if someone feels strongly enough to pursue this topic further, I will voluntier to modify the disambiguation dates yet again. After a period of pondering, I plan to revisit this subject in late-July or August.
A. Discussion threads at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships):

B. Discussion thread at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships

In future, there may be better places for posting these captured links; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)