Talk:MV RMS Mulheim

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MV RMS Mulheim → RMS Mülheim – Sources refer to this ship as "RMS Mülheim". No source calls it "MV RMS Mulheim"; the double prefix is wrong. bobrayner (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an aside, I'm not really concerned about the umlaut; I believe the spelling with umlaut is more accurate than the spelling without, but if the community feels otherwise I'll go along with that. This article isn't really part of the diacritics wars; the problem here is the prefixes. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Rhein-, Maas- und See-Schiffahrtskontor GmbH is a subsidiary of Rhenus AG & Co. KG. rheinmaas.de maps to rhenus.com/rms/das-unternehmen/. There, the Shiffsflotte link gets you to a list of the RMS fleet (mapped to fleet-online.de/Fleet.html).

Clicking the linked ship names, for example RMS Baerl, gets you a photograph of her and links to other documents about her, including Details which shows her name as MS RMS Baerl. Other ships in the fleet are similarly named. One might surmise then that the correct name is MV RMS Mülheim—I know, synthesis.

And just asking the obvious question because sometimes the obvious is overlooked: RMS, in this instance isn't the Royal Mail Service initialism prefix, right? It is however an initialism for Rhein-, Maas- und See-Schiffahrtskontor or for Rhenus Maritime Services. If that is true then there is only one prefix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move: Trappist is correct. Although it may not seem so at first glance, there is only one ship prefix in use here - MV. As for the umlaut, this was originally in use, but was later dropped, as the photographs show. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As has been stated, there is no double prefix in use. The RMS is part of the name. It is fairly common practice in shipping companies now to use an acronym of the company's name in the name of their ships as a way of introducing a common element. Similar to
  Benea (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support move. Not because it is a double prefix (it isn't), but because it is directly contrary to
  WP:NC-S which begins, "If a ship is BEST KNOWN in combination with a ship prefix, use the prefix as part of the name". RMS Mulheim is best known without it - not one of the sources cited in the article uses MV, nor can I find any; the vast majority, if not all, Google hits are without MV, after eliminating those which are references to WP. Davidships (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]