Talk:List of ships called HMS Hood

This article 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 articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European SIA‑class

This article 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 articles

SIA

This article has been rated as SIA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Spelling changes

I don't understand why someone changed "armour" to "armor". If it's a technical point about how it is spelt in this particular usage, then fine. If on the other hand it is just that you prefer the US spelling, I don't think that is correct in an article about a UK subject. Minor I know but diversity of spelling is interesting and should be preserved. I would not try to make articles on US subjects compliant with UK spelling either! :) Nevilley 11:46 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

They are just spelling variants. Nobody should change one to the other, and I don't think it matters whether "UK subjects" use "UK spelling" or not.

I don't really think they should change things either, though we still don't know why someone did. The wikipedia manual of style vaguely agrees with the idea that "armour" was appropriate here, however. It says this:

"It is in no way a requirement, but it probably reads better to use American spellings in articles on American subjects and English spelling in articles on English subjects. A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring."

- which, some might feel, is the same as "armor" is an article about a British boat. Though to be fair I would never expect an American to write "armour" in original material on any subject, that seems silly. But to change it away from an alreayd correct spelling also seems weird. 194.117.133.118 22:54 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Disambig?

Given that most references to "HMS Hood" will be to the battlecruiser sunk by the Bismarck, should this page be moved to HMS Hood (disambiguation) and the current title redirect to HMS Hood (51)? MartinMcCann 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved. MartinMcCann 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't fancy cleaning up those pages that do link to HMS Hood in general, eg from Admiral Hood himself, do you?GraemeLeggett 09:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab versus Set Index

A user has recently changed this article, tagging it as a disambiguation page, and asking that it conform to those guidelines. Consensus arrived at at WP:SHIPS indicates that these ship list pages are WP:SETINDEX pages, and not WP:DAB pages. As explained on the page - 'A set index article is not considered a disambiguation page, and need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages. A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry. It may contain redlinks to help editors create articles on notable entries.' There are thousands of these articles, only three to my knowledge contain the heading 'disambiguation' because a particular ship of this name is considered to be the primary usage (HMS Victory, HMS Beagle). Perhaps a change to the title may be helpful in clearing this up, but as a shiplist page it does not follow disambiguation guidelines, but the guidelines expressly drawn up for these lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Please obtain a new consensus for this if you want to override the set index guidelines, rather than reverting again. Benea (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fine, and I have no objection to this page being a "list-of" page, rather than a dab.

However it really won't do for it to have "disambiguation" in the title while not actually being a dab. WP:SETINDEX is actually quite clear about this: an index page should be called by, in this case, HMS Hood, or if that is not possible, something like List of ships called HMS Hood. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that the entries on the page should be plain rather than piped. patsw (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved as noted, since it really doesn't do for this page to have disambiguation in the title while not being a dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle honours

Some uniformed editors think that battle honours only apply the ship it was awarded to. This is utterly wrong. Even on the battle honours page it states that Commonwealth ships inherit battle honours. So this will apply to all HMS Hoods going forward. Not unnecessary level of detail considering it literally applies to the HMS Hood name. Llammakey (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the above editor has been repeatedly informed. The information is appropriate to the ships articles. The purpose of a list page is to list the relevant articles only, not provide redundant details. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read the Naval battle honours section did you? Didn't think so. It's fully cited, but here is a link explaining how Commonwealth naval battle honours work. Here is the one for Canada section 6 in the Historical Background section if you don't want to read all the way. Here is how it works for Australia. You know what they all have in common, they all inherit battle honours. So this is detail that should be on the HMS Hood page, considering that all new HMS Hoods will carry that honour, not just the one that fought in the battle. Llammakey (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All that is fascinating, and irrelevant. The question being asked here is why does this information need to be included in the list article at all? Mediatech492 (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it applies to all ships named HMS Hood. Not one. All of them! It is inherited. So the next HMS Hood will get this battle honour. This is a list article about the ship name, not the ships. It is detail that goes with the name, not the ship! You could have found that out if you read the links I gave you. Llammakey (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please see List of battleships of Japan before spouting off again about what list articles should look like. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:SETINDEX, where it states that set indices should follow the rules of any other stand-alone list. Llammakey (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that states any requirement or preference for battle honours to be included on a list page. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about now? It's a relevant detail about the ship name HMS HOOD (not the ships, the name). List articles include relevant details, and are not limited to a couple of links listing the ships. This is a set index article and follows stand alone list article MOS, which means this is not just a collection of links, but can be expanded into an article, like the List of battleships of Japan. All of things I stated allow for inclusion of the battle honours. Nothing you have said other than I don't like it supports your position. Llammakey (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]