Talk:RMS Ivernia (1899)

Requested move 30 September 2024

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• 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)

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)

Agreed, and yes fortunately there is ample evidence that RMS was more commonly used, certainly equivalent to the evidence supporting the use of RMS for RMS Saxonia (1899), which makes sense for nearly identical ships serving identical routes on identical contracts.

For reliability, Library of Congress (Cunard Ivernia Letter head), UK National Archives (30+ Passenger lists), Lloyd's Register (memos relating to a repair), pretty heavyweight sources. Contemporary postcards that use RMS and contemporary hand-colourised postcards depicting the Blue Ensign indicate RMS also.

SS is also accurate for any other Royal Mail Ship (RMS Titanic, RMS Olympic, RMS Mauretania, RMS Lusitania, RMS Lucania, etc.) but there seems to be a preference on Wikipedia to use RMS where the evidence I describe above exists that the ship was entitled to and used the prefix, so under these circumstances I'd argue either they're all broke except Ivernia, or Ivernia is, as per Wikipedia:TITLECON. Tobin Dax (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Use of the Blue Ensign is probably irrelevant. I have never found an authority linking this with mail contracts. It was commonly seen on British merchant ships where the master was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve. - Davidships (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps more of a correlation than causation thing, then, if more prestigious transatlantic steamers are more likely to have a RNR master and, separately, more likely to hold a Royal Mail contract, but not necessarily both even if it often is both. Good point! Tobin Dax (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

After more research I've got a pretty conclusive answer on this from the Navy Lists of the era. The qualification is specifically that EITHER the ship itself is qualified by being 'In Receipt of Subvention' (subsidy) by the government for the purposes of being used in war (which only applied to Campania, Lucania, briefly Umbria, and later Mauretania and Lusitania) OR the master qualifies by being an officer of the RNR holding a warrant, the ship itself must be on the qualifying list (which just seems to be all 'British Merchant Ships', and there must be at least ten crewmen holding any rank in the RNR.

For Ivernia, this would have applied from about 1910 when W R D Irvine was in command, then H M Benison was in command, and theoretically when W T Turner returned to command after his time on Lusitania (but not for his initial command) and when A H Rostron was in command, both during the war, although all warrants were suspended during that time.

Quite a few liners on the wiki with the Blue Ensign in their infobox were without a RNR master for large parts of their careers, so I assume the flag is applied where at some point a merchant vessel and its master were entitled to the flag for a non-negligible amount of time during regular service. Tobin Dax (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2024 (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.

Pronouns

Please see guidance at WP:SHE4SHIPS, which reflects consensus that both feminine and neuter pronouns are acceptable, they should not be mixed in the same article, and should not be changed without good reason and consensus. This article has been stable with she/her since the beginning in 2008 until the last few days. Davidships (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance! Hadn't found that naming conventions guide yet. I'll do a sweep and bring the pronouns in line with the feminine precedent this week. Tobin Dax (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Staysails

Two sets of plans (Plan for Proposed Twin-Screw Steamer, Tyne and Wear Archives Catalogue, from 1897 and Engineering: An Illustrated Weekly Journal Vol 70), depict Ivernia with staysails, and are primary sources.

I also note that the image in the infobox (here) actually depicts these sails after launch and near the end of fitting out, around February/March 1900 at Wallsend, furled against the backs of the masts, and the two jibs hanging furled at the bow. Is there a way of referencing this image as a primary source in the article? So it can be explained that the staysails were not only designed but implemented.

I've found no primary sources that actually mention the staysails in text at all, although they're unmissable in the plans and on the image. I've also found no primary sources that confirm their purpose, although it is stated in some secondary sources to be stabilisation of the ship in rough weather. There also aren't any sources stating whether the sails were ever used, and not many photographs of Ivernia later in her life that would allow us to determine if they were subsequently removed to save weight.

I've added the verifiable info from the plans to the article, but I do worry that stating she had sails with no context about why may leave a reader with more questions than answers.

Any thoughts? Tobin Dax (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)