Talk:MV RMS Mulheim

Name

The ship's name is Mülheim, not Mulheim. It should be listed accordingly. While a Google search delivers some 14800 or 25000 hits, .de or .com, respectively, I do not think these results legitimate establishing "Mulheim" as common english usage for "Mülheim". Not based on a single wreck, and the city is listed correctly as Mülheim. More at WT:SHIPS#Names of foreign ships. --G-41614 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion linked above has been moved into Archive 21.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

MV RMS Mulheim → RMS Mülheim – Sources refer to this ship as "RMS Mülheim". No source calls it "MV RMS Mulheim"; the double prefix is wrong. bobrayner (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As an aside, I'm not really concerned about the umlaut; I believe the spelling with umlaut is more accurate than the spelling without, but if the community feels otherwise I'll go along with that. This article isn't really part of the diacritics wars; the problem here is the prefixes. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Rhein-, Maas- und See-Schiffahrtskontor GmbH is a subsidiary of Rhenus AG & Co. KG. rheinmaas.de maps to rhenus.com/rms/das-unternehmen/. There, the Shiffsflotte link gets you to a list of the RMS fleet (mapped to fleet-online.de/Fleet.html).

Clicking the linked ship names, for example RMS Baerl, gets you a photograph of her and links to other documents about her, including Details which shows her name as MS RMS Baerl. Other ships in the fleet are similarly named. One might surmise then that the correct name is MV RMS Mülheim—I know, synthesis.

And just asking the obvious question because sometimes the obvious is overlooked: RMS, in this instance isn't the Royal Mail Service initialism prefix, right? It is however an initialism for Rhein-, Maas- und See-Schiffahrtskontor or for Rhenus Maritime Services. If that is true then there is only one prefix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose move: Trappist is correct. Although it may not seem so at first glance, there is only one ship prefix in use here - MV. As for the umlaut, this was originally in use, but was later dropped, as the photographs show. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As has been stated, there is no double prefix in use. The RMS is part of the name. It is fairly common practice in shipping companies now to use an acronym of the company's name in the name of their ships as a way of introducing a common element. Similar to Maersk's practice of naming its ships Ebba Mærsk, Emma Mærsk, etc. China Shipping Container Lines uses CSCL, Nippon Yusen Kaisha NYK, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines MOL and Mediterranean Shipping Company MSC, to give a few examples. CMA CGM (Compagnie Maritime d'Affrètement Compagnie Générale Maritime) goes even further, using both acronyms for ships with names like CMA CGM Columba and CMA CGM Don Giovanni. Benea (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support move. Not because it is a double prefix (it isn't), but because it is directly contrary to WP:NC-S which begins, "If a ship is BEST KNOWN in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name". RMS Mulheim is best known without it - not one of the sources cited in the article uses MV, nor can I find any; the vast majority, if not all, Google hits are without MV, after eliminating those which are references to WP. Davidships (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MV RMS Mulheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091225080327/http://www.landsend-landmark.co.uk:80/history.php to http://www.landsend-landmark.co.uk/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)