Talk:SS Imperator

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)

No, it shouldn’t. See below (and belower). Xyl 54 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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:

1. 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?
2. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131020025/http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp to http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131020025/http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp to http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225114404/http://www.atlanticliners.com/atlantic_liners_book.htm to http://www.atlanticliners.com/atlantic_liners_book.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131020025/http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp to http://www.ocean-liners.com/ships/imperator.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry for being late. Let's just stick to MOS:GENDER. Firestar464 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Same in a quick look I did. What I did find is that the application of the German language's masculine/feminine structure to English ship pronouns may be misapplication. One discussion indicated the gender may be situational in German. As for the Kaiser wanting warships and this ship in particular masculine nothing that is a reliable source has turned up in my quick searches yet. As far as I am concerned the article is "fixed" with "she" used throughout — though I'd prfer fewer of them — and the whole "he" thing can be settled by a footnote without reference to the effect "there is some indication the Kaiser directed 'he' be used." Palmeira (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

He or she, again

To follow up on the discussion above: As this is the English language wikipaedia we follow English language usage, which is to refer to ships as 'she' (or, increasingly, 'it'). The relevant guideline is at WP:SHE4SHIPS (and WP:SHE), and says "Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neutral pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be needlessly changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason". So it really doesn’t matter what the Kaiser thought about it (if he ever really did) except maybe as a footnote. I have added an edit notice referring editors to these discussions. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For sake of uniformity and clarity, I feel "she" would be the best choice for this article.TH1980 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename?

As this ships spent just seven years as Imperator (half of them rusting at anchor), and twenty years as Berengaria (and is arguably better known under that name), is there any reason not to move to RMS Berengaria? That would also be consistent with her sister ships, which are at SS Leviathan (not Vaterland) and RMS Majestic (not Bismarck) Thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: Also, I see from the history that this was originally at RMS Berengaria; then the Imperator stuff was split out, then a merge was proposed to put it back, then (as a result oi this discussion, merged to here instead. So, questionable… Xyl 54 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My personal view is use original name unless, as is very often the case, the notability clearly attaches to a later name or the "time in service as"is clearly dominant under another name. This ship clearly could fall into that last condition. Many ships, even well known ones, had dizzying name changes. That was clearly the case with much U.S. WW I construction during a time when shipping lines were obtaining government owned hulls and swapping them around due to bankruptcy or being absorbed by other lines. This ship does not have such a confusing history but also does not seem subject to a compelling argument for either name. A bit of notoriety due to the nationalistic/length race in the first days, then longer service under another name but without some notable disaster or fame to make that argument compelling. My inclination here would be to avoid the trail of clean up, redirects, and edits in referring pages by moving now. As for the "RMS" in case of move? The discussions regarding Titanic apply. Lose the "RMS" as part of a name. It is not! None of the prefixes are part of the name. RMS was a state of license to carry Royal Mail — not even something more or less integral (until perhaps major refit) such as SS for steam and MS/MV for motor propulsion. Technically that prefix should be covered only in text as in "Between (date1) and (date2) the ship was licensed to carry Royal Mail and bore the RMS designation" (and of course the PR flacks at the shipping lines hyped that to the hilt as "you can trust us to be safe and on schedule" so corporate reference are rife with it). Palmeira (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Firestar464 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

---

SS Imperator → RMS Berengaria – WP:COMMONNAME. Data from Ngram Viewer consistently shows the name "RMS Berengaria" being used more. Firestar464 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, historically significant at its present page name. The namesake class is known as the Imperator-class ocean liner. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (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.

He or She, yet again

After extensive talks with some Germans and some English people who are ship nerds, even though the original German pronoun "sie" translates as "she", Kaiser Wilhelm II insisted the SS Imperator be referred to by male pronouns. However, after the ship was renamed the RMS Berengaria by Cunard, the pronouns were changed permanently to "she" (as is convention with English ships). I've corrected the article to reflect this, in the sections referring to the ship as Imperator, the pronouns remain he (as everyone seems to be pretty unsure about this), but in the sections referring to the ship as the Berengaria, I have corrected the pronouns to "she". BigBoiiLeem (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This again! And no, that isn’t really a good idea.

In the first place, there hasn’t been any evidence presented that Kaiser Bill ever said any such thing, or that even if he did, it was ever done (sailors being a pretty conservative lot). Also, this isn’t the first time this suggestion has surfaced; on the Bismarck talk page a similar claim was made regarding Adolph and his favourite ship; which makes the whole thing sound a bit apocryphal. I’ve asked for a citation to verify this claim, but even if one exists, the matter is still dubious.

Secondly, our guideline on the subject is pretty clear; the practice in English is to refer to ships as 'she' or 'it', so that (this being the the English language WP) is what we should do, the Bill’s opinion notwithstanding. Also, even if the claim is verified, the most we need to do is mention it as a footnote; it certainly isn’t a licence to change the pronouns wholesale.

Because, (thirdly) the guideline also states that usage has to be internally consistent; so using 'he' for some parts and 'she' for others is also not acceptable.

I’ve reverted the changes to 'he' that have accumulated over the past few months; if anyone has a citation to verify this claim, I suggest it be brought here and we can decide what to do from then. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)