Talk:HMS Hornet (1794 sloop-of-war)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on HMS Hornet (1794). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816121349/http://www.1812privateers.org/GB/marque1793-1815.htm to http://www.1812privateers.org/GB/marque1793-1815.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to HMS Hornet (1794 sloop-of-war), and the HMS Hornet (1794 gunvessel) page remains unmoved. There seems to be broad consensus to go with Necrothesp's plan below.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

• HMS Hornet (1794) → HMS Hornet (1794 British ship)
• HMS Hornet (1794 gunvessel) → HMS Hornet (1794 Dutch ship)

– For disambiguation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. HMS Hornet (1794) represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the HMS Hornet dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: the proposed move is senseless. Because the vessel is named HMS Hornet, the HMS already signals that the vessel is British. and so the renaming is redundant. Furthermore, having HMS Hornet (1794) redirect to the disambiguation page HMS Hornet puts in an unnecessary step. A more sensible solution to the non-problem would be simply to move HMS Hornet (1794) to HMS Hornet (1794 sloop). That would bring the name in line with the naming of HMS Hornet (1794 gunvessel), and obviate any reason to misname that vessel. (The 1794 refers to the year of commissioning in the Royal Navy, and not to the launch year. We do not know when the Dutch hoy was launched, and we do not know that she was in 1794 a Dutch vessel prior to her commissioning in the Royal Navy; she could well have already been a British merchant vessel.) Acad Ronin (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no objection to finding some better method of disambiguation if there is one, but I insist there is a problem, because both ships have articles identifying them as 1794 things named "HMS Hornet". Also, both of them were fitted with guns and thus seem arguably characterized as gunvessels (and in fact the one that is not described as a gunvessel was fitted with four times as many guns as the one that is). As for the suggestion to rename the British ship to HMS Hornet (1794 sloop), I would like to point out that the article about the originally Dutch ship says it was a hoy, and the article about hoys says that hoys are sloops, so both ships appear to have been sloops. I claim no expertise on the subject matter – I'm just reading what I'm finding – so I would welcome some other solution to the problem, but I insist there is a problem. How about HMS Hornet (1794 16-gun ship) and HMS Hornet (1794 4-gun ship)? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support some method of disambiguation. Don't like any of the ones proposed though - "1794 British ship" is still ambiguous with the Dutch ship, the the number of guns is an awkward disambiguation method, and you don't need "ship" in the disambiguator since "S" in "HMS" stands for ship. How about HMS Hornet (Cormorant-class) and HMS Hornet (1794 hoy)? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  The "gunvessel" is described as a "a former Dutch hoy". I think it may have become a non-hoy when it was an HMS in the (British) Royal Navy, but I'm not sure. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's a "former Dutch hoy" because the ship no longer exists at all, not because it ceased to be a hoy. It's in Category:Hoys of the Royal Navy, implying that at one point it was a hoy in the Royal Navy.

  The more we struggle to disambiguate here, the more I'm inclined to wonder whether both of these ships are really notable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the "former" is there for that reason; I think it's there because it was a Dutch hoy before it became part of the British navy. We wouldn't need to insert "former" to say it "was a Dutch hoy". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support the British one has 38 views compared with 5[[1]] for the Dutch one which probably isn't enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Acad Ronin and support his alternative suggestion - move HMS Hornet (1794) to HMS Hornet (1794 sloop) Lyndaship (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wasn't the other one a sloop too? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

College in his definitive book Ships of the Royal Navy describes the British built ship as a sloop and the Dutch built one as a gunvessel Lyndaship (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, but can't something be both? I assume he would not feel the need to exhaustively supply all applicable descriptions. I would also suspect he might have a specialized definition of terms that is not applicable to general readership. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Move 1st to HMS Hornet (1794 sloop-of-war), Oppose 2nd. They were both British. The only reason the Dutch vessel is notable is because she was taken into the Royal Navy. They were both sloop-rigged, but the latter vessel wasn't a sloop-of-war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and to complete the story gunvessel redirects to gunboat, which says A gunboat is a naval watercraft designed for the express purpose of carrying one or more guns to bombard coastal targets, as opposed to those military craft designed for naval warfare [...], so despite first appearances from this user unfamiliar with ship classifications the sloop of war is not a gunvessel. So I guess this works for me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There's consensus to move to somewhere, but there needs to be some discussion about exactly where the pages should be moved to. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been no objection to Necrothesp's suggestion for 6 days. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Necrothesp & BarrelProof. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.