Talk:SS Normandie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Angary[edit]

The article says the ship was seized under the right of Angary. Is there any information about when, after the war, the required payment was made to the owners? How much was it?

Fustbariclation (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HP[edit]

This page states that the max hp for the Normandie was 200,000 hp in this context the article states that she had the highest HP of any passenger liner. Should not have been been conditioned by the statement "... then built". The SS United States has 240,000 of installed HP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.244.57 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some more specifics on propulsion plant be added- how many boilers/ designer & manufacturer of boilers, Boiler operating pressure and Temperature. thanks Wfoj2 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External Link for additional Normandie research[edit]

Thank you to all for an excellent entry on Normandie's history. I would like to suggest an external link to appear at the bottom of the Normandie page. The link includes numerous images of museum items from Normandie that appeared in a museum exhibit "Hommage au Normandie" at the French Consulate in New York City (that later travelled to Miami at the Bass Museum of Art) that was regarded by the New Yorker Magazine (August 3, 1992, page 25, link to article below) as "the largest concentration of Normandie relics and memorabilia ever assembled." For the Ocean Liner Museum (now assimilated under South Street Seaport Museum) under John Maxtone Graham, marine historian and best-selling author, I served as the curator of this exhibit and culled these materials (nearly 200 artifacts) from museums and collectors internationally including the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The images were originally shot on large 3 x 5 transparencies and have now been transferred for the first time into digital format. Rare items from 1st Class service and furnishings on board Normandie are identified in these images along with manufacturers and leading artist and designers of the period also being noted. The site is stabile and secure and not linked to any advertising, etc. There are no copyright issues regarding the displayed items as all artifacts were photographed in a public location at the time with no restrictions on photography. Names of lenders do not appear and remain protected. I maintain the website and grant permission for a link to appear at Wikipedia under the SS Normandie (history) heading.

Please follow this link to see images of artifacts contained in the exhibition (click on individual images or press "slideshow" and use the forward button found in lower right of screen to advance):

SS Normandie exhibit - "Hommage au Normandie"

New Yorker Magazine reference to Normandie exhibit

I trust you will find this informative and enjoyable as a visual link to Normandie's great works. Best regards for continued development of this important page in Wikipedia. - CharlesLibrary

CharlesLibrary (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Lafayette Merger[edit]

These two articles should be merged. The best reason? Numerous ships go through names changes but does each name get its own article? No.They are the same exact ship. Not to mention The Lafayette is only notable for a fire. A fire that can easily be included in the Normandie article. Not to mention the articles are already so similar. Discuss. --Shadow (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO MERGE I don't think a merge is necessary as it is not just a name change. It is possible that US Navy personnel that served on this ship only know it by USS Lafayette. Sure ship never went anywhere, but it doesn't mean she didn't have a Navy Crew.--Subman758 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is just a name change. That's not a valid reason not to merge it. --Shadow (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against merging. Last discussion has been for awhile, let's just close shop on it and close the discussion on it. --Hourick (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion. Only two other people commented, and neither one of you gave a valid reason as to why they shouldn't be merged. --Shadow (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me give you a good reason. They are the same ship that played different roles after the name was changed. Each one served their own eras with distinction. --Hourick (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was renamed and caught on fire. That's not a good reason to keep them separated at all. The ship didn't even leave dock as the Lafayette until it went to be scrapped. It just sat there. That can easily go in the Normandie article. --Shadow (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. This seems to be a "duh" matter per ShadowRanger's logic. Realize also that if everything had gone to plan and had Normandie served in WWII and was then returned to French Line service, this wouldn't be an issue at all - it would all be on the Normandie title because it would have such a small part of the ship's entire life. But really, as Lafayette, Normandie never moved until scrapping time, and was a wreck longer than it was a functional ship. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge...SS Lafayette was the name used during attempted troopship conversion, and she never served as such. Somewhat akin to SS Ile de France and her brief final name as Furansu Maru prior to scrapping. SynergyStar (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Normandielipsett.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Normandielipsett.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normandie, or the Normandie?[edit]

Was there a particular reason why the definite article before the ship's name is omitted throughout the article? It is customary to refer to ships as the Titanic, the Queen Mary, the Santa Maria, and so on. That is also how she's referred to in the online sources, for example the Antiques Roadshow article The Normandie: A Legend Undiminished. Unless I hear to the contrary, I propose to add them one of these days. Awien (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the article:

In France, ship prefixes properly depend on the ship name's gender, but non-sailors mostly use the masculine form,[18] inherited from the French terms for ship, which can be "paquebot", "navire", "bateau", "bâtiment", but English speakers refer to ships as feminine ("she's a beauty"), and the French Line carried many rich American customers. French Line wrote that their ship was to be called simply "Normandie," preceded by neither "le" nor "la" (French masculine/feminine for "the") to avoid any confusion.

101.164.231.185 (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll buy that the company said so. But just for the record, Grevisse (Le bon usage, p. 770, para. 465) blames a couple of government ministers for trying to impose "le genre que ces noms ont dans leur emploi ordinaire" on ship names, but notes that the masculine has come to prevail, "des mots comme navire, bateau etc. imposent leur genre", which they call logical and clearly approve of. They compare the usage to un havane, un terre-neuve, du champagne, etc., and add that as far as aircraft are concerned "aucun ministre ne s'est ému, et tout le monde dit et écrit, par ex., le Concorde". If Grevisse isn't behind conserving the regular gender of the word, "properly" is too strong a term to use for the practice.
I also note that the French WP article refers throughout to le Normandie, as it does to le France, le Queen Mary, etc.
And thirdly, the English definite article shows no gender, so saying / writing "the Normandie" causes no confusion.
However . . . Awien (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is fair and likely. I vote to keep the article's current naming convention in hommage of the original Transat decision. The italic typeface helps to delimit. 101.164.231.185 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

italic lettering merging with normal (please fix!)[edit]

hi there.

the lettering for some of the pictures is overflowing into the main document. I don't know how and don't have the time to fix but presume its a simple fix? please fix this as it makes picture captions very hard to read!

thanks Jthekid15 (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normandie Memorabilia[edit]

I have some memorabilia which has been in my family for many years as my grandfather was a ticket agent for Cunard in New York City in the early 1900's and sailed frequently on the Normandie. 1. A 1935 commemorative bronze medallion 2. An ashtray 3. A sliding guidebook/cabin locator Are these items things you might wish to have pictured on the site? I'm not at all certain how one contacts the primary owner of the site.

Ed_in_NY 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Normandie depicted on a token
Greetings Ed_in_NY, it sounds like you have some fantastic memorabilia there. Is the medallion the same as... (image on the right)?
Apparently that medallion was a special item made specifically for the vessel's maiden voyage. Anyhow, for any images you would like to share with Wiki, please use WP:UPLOAD to provide it to the site. As to whether it will be used, well it depends on whether such a photo adds to the encyclopedic value of the article. Regards and thank you for offering to contribute! SynergyStar (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call Sign[edit]

The correct call sign is FNSK. The F was misread as P from the cited source. 84.148.1.119 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SS Normandie. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent subsidy inconsistency[edit]

The article does not seem entirely consistent, saying at various points:

  • she was not a commercial success and relied partly on government subsidy to operate.
  • her finances were such that she did not require government subsidies every year.
  • Normandie did not require government subsidies in service

Jontel (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's beam[edit]

The infobox says the ship is 35.9 m in beam, and references a Lloyd's report that no longer exists at the stated URL. I've seen the same figure elsewhere online, but I've also seen 36.4 m. This would be worth clearing up. Normandie was either wider than Queen Mary or it wasn't; it certainly *looks* beamier, but I know that isn't a reliable source. Sacxpert (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Normandie&oldid=1213157487"