Talk:RMS Campania

message: Why we have both RMS Campania and HMS Campania (1914) is beyond me.  It's the same ship.  I nominate the RMS Campania title to be the final title, as that was the ship's original designation, designed use, and under which it served longest.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge, and support RMS Campania as the name - there will be a redirect from HM Campania anyway Viv Hamilton 08:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge.  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships).  Specifically ...if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles...  This can be seen as two navies, the merchant navy and the Royal Navy.  Commissioned warships are notable in their own right, and HMS Campania had a notable career.  RMS Campania is also notable and justifies her own article. The significance of the transformation, from merchant ship to warship also justifies this.  We have a number of articles about what is technically the same ship under a different name, such as USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano, or HMS Decoy (H75) and HMCS Kootenay (H75).  This article should follow these established conventions.  Benea (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to be confusing two separate ships.  Campania's sister, RMS Luciana made her last voyage on July 7, 1901, was damaged by fire and then sold for scrapping. Campania too was withdrawn from service shortly afterwards, but returned in 1914, before being withdrawn again, and was then acquired by the Navy. Benea (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: From the text: "In height, the engines reached from the double-bottom floor of the engine room to the top of the superstructure - almost three stories."
Is this correct?  If so, Campania must have had a low hull and a low superstructure, with a lot of superstructure space sacrificed to the engines. --Badger151 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine height 

message: Were there any injuries or deaths caused by her colllisons and sinking? --Badger151 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties at the sinking? 

message: From the text, I note this paragraph was recently appended: "This was due to the committe being misinformed by some over enthuisiastics who seemed to be unaware thst the wreck was blown to pieces twice for scrap purposes and only a rusted bit of a shell of what was once a great liner remained. The last person to own the rights to the wreck was myself who owned it for eleven years. I had purchased them as I was informed there was several RR armoured cars aboard, they to had long since disintergrated from rust as the ship and contents lies to close to the surface" -- This needs substantiating with references and re-writing more objectively, if it is to be included at all. Also, it is not appropriate in an article to use 1st person.--Jason210 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wreck Rights Paragraph in First Person!?

message: This is still at C class because the section on HMS Campania is still missing many in-line citations. --Jason210 (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve HMS Campania

message: A reference is made to a book titled “Merchant Steamships.” (And Greenhill, Basil)  I find no reference to this book anywhere.  I suspect it’s a mistitle of one of his many books. 192.225.121.101 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reference.