Jump to content

Talk:HMS Defender (H07)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHMS Defender (H07) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHMS Defender (H07) is part of the C and D class destroyers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Repeated use (overuse) of HMS

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Referring_to_ships says "You may give the ship's prefix the first time you introduce the ship, but you should not repeat it on future mentions. You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS" each time)" (my emphasis). I think it's pretty clear here that ship names are all "HMS" - and when we're talking about Australian ships, that's already made clear too. I removed them because it's such a burden to read the text with them in, and I don't think our guidelines say anything that prohibits that - in particular, they don't say that every ship must be referred to as "HMS" at first use. Shem (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a personal style guide.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after considerable thought, I would suggest that it makes for easier reading, and that's my driver here. Good work, by the way, both here and at Diana, Sturmvogel. Shem (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I'm reconsidering my general policy, BTW, based on your comments, because the ship names are rather liberally splattered all over this article. My habit may well be better suited for more occasional use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]