Talk:RMS Republic (1903)

message: I had to removed server paragraphs that were copied verbatim from http://rms-republic.com/the_ship.html. and http://rms-republic.com/index1.html Seano1 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed copyrighted materiel 

message: I am proposing moving this page to RMS Republic (1903) to distinguish it from the two other ships that carried the same name. Akradecki 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Akradecki 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: See the article and sources for it, it appears that the Everett offered assistance (and was spurned as it would have cost money) per contemporary accounts, including an NY Times article of the time. This may be worth adding... ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SS City of Everett]] rescue efforts 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The lead section contains some claims that are simply inaccurate. The ship was never anywhere near the largest. Nor did she attract millionaires as a rule. She was an intermediate liner that served much of her career on the less prestigious routes. Comfortable by the standards of the time, for those in the First Cabin, but nothing exceptional. Her only real claim to fame was her loss and the famous first use of wireless telegraphy for a distress call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: RMS-Republic.com is not a reliable source. All of the ships sailing from Boston were intermediate liners. The Republic spent much of her time on the less prestigious Mediterranean route. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: No, she was not even close. The source you are citing does not support the claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on RMS Republic (1903). 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/20060615105304/http://home.att.net/~rstinchcomb/newreck/republic.html to http://home.att.net/~rstinchcomb/newreck/republic.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515085658/http://earlyradiohistory.us/CQD.htm to http://earlyradiohistory.us/CQD.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618112145/http://www.jackbinns.org/jack_binns to http://www.jackbinns.org/jack_binns
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ", "The White Star Liner Republic, lost off Nantucket Shoals in 1909, carried $3,000,000 in gold eagles. However, the Republic rests in 185 [270] feet of water." [15]"  - What does this mean?  270 is not 185.  Is this supposed to be a meters/feet indication?  That doesn't work out mathematically.  Is it supposed to be a correction?  If so, on whose authority?  Or is it a range, with the ship perhaps tilted?  If so, then it should be made clear.  I don't have access to the original article, so I can't check it out. Kdammers (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  brackets 

message: I am very uncomfortable with much of the sourcing for the claims that the ship was carrying bullion or any other form of treasure. Most of these claims seem to be coming from sources linked to entities promoting the idea, possibly for commercial reasons. There is very little reliable source support for the existence of any treasure and the sections dealing with it do not reflect this lack of evidence. This looks like a maritime urban legend and we should not be using Wikipedia to promote unverified claims, no matter how sensational, absent in depth coverage from independent reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very reliable sources, the New York Times and Washington Post among others, are cited. Imagixx (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treasure? 

message: Are the figures for "depth of hold" and "draft" (draught) transposed? See this schematic for a typical hull. Kablammo (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Infobox usage guide, "depth of hold" is related to Builder's Old Measurement and should not be used for modern ships. Therefore I believe the field is used incorrectly. However, I don't have a source to verify the main dimensions. Obviously draught should be smaller than depth. Tupsumato (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hull metrics