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
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Inasmuch as there was only one ship built in this class, it's not surprising that most of the information in this article seems to duplicate information in the article about HMS Hood. Should the two be combined?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Other way round surely? There were plans to build 4 ships, but only one got built. Hood diverted in design and building from the other three so she is unique ajnd should be treated as such. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Antwort
No, the Hood article will focus on the differences between her and the rest of the Admirals, but there's no need to duplicate the basics that she shares with her unbuilt sisters. I expect that the construction section will get quite large with all the changes made then. Oh, and thanks for the catch on the torpedo size in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply