Talk:RMS Mauretania (1906)

message: Q: The article states: “Designed so that the ships could plunge through a wave rather than crest it, the unforeseen consequence was that the Cunard liners would pitch forward alarmingly, even in calm weather, allowing huge waves to splash the bow and forward part of the superstructure.”
Does the article mean “ploughed forward” instead of plunged forward ? Plunged implied pitch, rather than uninterrupted progress. The straight bow was designed to go through waves , not pitch up, which reduces speed, but keeps the deck from being washed over green.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.8.8 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Straight bow - pitching in heavy weather 

message: In the book "How it is done or Victories of the engineer" By_Archibald Williams from pages 73-116 the design and construction of the RMS Mauretania is shown. The RMS Mauretania is being used as a very detailed example of what a, then, "Modern Ship" needed in order to be designed and built. Many photos are included of the building of the RMS Mauretania from the keel building to the building of its turbine engines.(CaptianNemo (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship design and construction

message: Question - what does "laid up" mean (technically) and what is a "breaker's yard"?  I think these terms should either be scrapped in favor of something more readily understood by novices or linked to the proper terminology. Istvan 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laid up means that it is taken out of service. In the meanwhile it may still be maintained on minor scale. BoH 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laid up

message: Why does it show the Blue Ensign and not the Red Ensign? BoH 21:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue Ensign

message: This article goes back and forth between referring to the ship as "the Mauretania" and just Mauretania. Is there a proper or preferred way to do refer to a ship? Should the article consistently use one or the other? Xous 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of books I've read use "the" and "she". Enigma3542002 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The'' Mauretania

message: Traditionally, when a ship was launched, it was also christened- that is blessed and given a name, with a bottle broken over her bow. So the Mauretania was launched and christened at the same moment.Gary Joseph 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, based on what I've read. Enigma3542002 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christening and Launching

message: The bar mentioned in the article, supposedly now called Bar III, where in Bristol is it? I can't find it. Does it still have that name? Does anybody know the longitude/latitude? Thanks --Ragemanchoo (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mauretania Bar in Bristol?

message: "The ship's name was taken from Mauretania a Roman Province on the North-East African Coast," 
*From the map it looks like North west Africa Tintin 09:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  It's fixed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:The full deck plans of the RMS Mauretania circa 1906.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I couldn't find a good article on the history of marine steam turbine propulsion. Mauretania and Lusitania must have been among the first transatlantic liners to employ it, no?
:PS: Caption refers to "Mauretania's original three-bladed propellors." Were they replaced with something else? Sca (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Turbines, props

message: What is the point of this section? I can't think of any other articles where we have this sort of comparison of ship classes (Lusitania has essentially the same section). Why not post a detailed comparison with the RMS Aquitania or the German Imperator class or the CGT's SS France (1912)? There is nothing comparable in the articles about the Queen Mary and the SS Normandie who really were very intense rivals. Further the section reads like an advertisement for the Olympic class to the point where it raises some serious WP:DUE concerns. Indeed if it had been written a hundred years ago my guess is that White Star would have paid the author handsomely. But my secret suspicion is that this is fan cruft from one or more Titanic enthusiasts who never stop looking for opportunities to insert some reference to the object of their unrequited love anywhere possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't consider myself to be an enthusiast  of any type, and have but one edit here, but have over 50 on the page for Lusitania and if memory serves, I did contribute to the comparison section there.  Both Lusitania and Titanic were lost, both losses were the subjects of similar inquiries, and those inquiries show how the designs of these vessels contribute to the manner of their sinking. On a less technical subject, these ships were rivals and competed at every level (as did trains in their heyday, and aircraft now).  None of these methods of conveyance existed in a vacuum, and differences between and among competitors are legitimate inquiries.  Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mauretania was powered by the then-new steam turbines - IIRC, the first large ship to be so powered - whereas the Olympic class were powered by the older reciprocating engines. As the two ships were otherwise built to broadly similar designs to the same purpose a comparison between the two is therefore useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.249 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Honestly Lusitania and Mauretania are the only two articles that have this strange section. It feels unnecessary as this isn’t an article about the Olympic Class. And conversely there is no similar comparison on any of the Olympic class ship articles. I’m going to be bold and delete. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with the Olympic class 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on RMS Mauretania (1906). 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/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/20100406074130/http://chriscunard.com/mauretania1.php to http://chriscunard.com/mauretania1.php
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) 19:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion