Talk:SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War I

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

Merge proposal

I oppose this merge for now, but I'm not sure that my reasons are likely to be persuasive.

It seems to me that the German-language research tree for the 1906-1919 Hamburg America Line ocean liner stands on an entirely different footing than the post-war English-language research trees for

the 1919-1919 US Navy troop ship;
the 1920-1920 Cunard ocean liner; and
the 1921-1930 Canadian Pacific Steamships ocean liner.

For this reason, the stand-alone SS Kaiserin Auguste Victoria would be a better flag to catch the attention of someone willing to invest time in developing what can be learned from sources not conventionally accessed in the edits of articles on the English language Wikipedia.

I would propose we see what happens with this untested, but plausible hypothesis until early 2009; and then the subject of merging articles could be revisited? --Tenmei (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I don't have a problem with it so long as her Hapag years before the war are documented well in the article. Since she changed hands often inside a twenty year period that's important. I might change my mind later but Im ok with it as of now. Koplimek (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size

The listed size and dimensions must be wrong, if she was indeed largest in the world, she would have to be larger than the former two record holders. Perhaps someone has confused her with another ship of the same name. Does anyone know the true dimensions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearman (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]