Talk:SS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

Untitled
Currently the article claims that she was both a military vessel and a passenger ship. How could this be? Halibutt 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of her career was spent as a passenger ship, some of it as a warship. Jll (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wreck site?
Was the ship sunk in shallow water and dismantled? Is it still there? Where's the wreck site? Anyone know? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First passenger ship sunk during World War I
I have removed the sentence which said "In any case, she earned the dubious distinction of being the first passenger ship sunk during World War I". A passenger ship is "a ship whose primary function is to carry passengers". The ship had been built as a passenger ship, but had been converted to a warship, which is what she was when she was sunk.

The sentence was misleading with its implication that she was carrying passengers; perhaps conjuring images of RMS Lusitania or SS Persia. It would be equally misleading to describe, say Atlantis as a freighter, or HMS Ben My Chree as a passenger ship, at the time of their sinkings.

Incidently, SMS Königin Luise was a passenger ferry converted to a minelayer which was sunk on 5 August 1914, three weeks before Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse. Jll (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1900 and 1906 incidents in lead section
I have corrected the lead section to better correspond to what is said in the "Career" section of the article, and a related article in Wikipedia. The 1900 fire, as it is mentioned in the lead section, refers to "several deaths." That wording struck me as possibly misleading. That fire involved more than "several deaths" -- "at least 326" in all -- but the fire also involved docks and 3 more ships. The other 3 ships were burned far worse than the KWdG. I can't tell whether "several deaths" is accurate for the KWdG, as opposed to the other parts of the disaster. So I have rewritten the sentence to: In 1900, she was damaged in a massive and lethal multi-ship fire in the port of New York. If someone can clarify further, please do so. The lead section has described the 1906 accident as a "naval ram." "Naval ram" describes a part of a warship designed to damage an opposing ship, or the act of using this ship's part to do so. It does not normally indicate an accident. Later in the article, in the "Career" section, the incident is described as a "collision" which is usually an accident; and from context, it is clearly an accident, rather than an act of war. So I changed "naval ram" to "collision." While I was there, I deleted the words "victim of" because the word "victim" is unnecessary detail for a lead section. Oaklandguy (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

do any photos (or drawings) survive as warship?
I'd like to see her rendered with guns to give an idea of her appearance before she was destroyed. I haven't found any. It would seem that a major refit would have had to have been done? 50.111.9.62 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)