Talk:List of ships called HMS Hood

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambig? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Battle honours