Talk:HMS Warspite

Origin of the Name

What is a warspite? Where does the name come from? Lordjim13 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I’d thought the name was just an amalgam of “war” and “spite”; I know “spite” occurs in “ A Midsummer Night’s Dream” as a mild expletive, so maybe the name had more meaning in Elizabethan times than it does today. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that "spite" is another name for the green woodpecker. If so, then that form of the word may have a different and distinct origin than "spite" in its meaning of "malicious or petty desire to do harm". "Spite" in that meaning is a form of "despite", which comes to English from Latin via Old French. But "spite" as a name for a woodpecker is likely solely of Germanic origin; I suspect it is a cognate with the German, "Specht". a woodpecker.

Best regards, TheBaron0530 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

I've been looking into this myself and have found a more complete version of the explanation for the origin of the name from this website about HMS Warspite (1913)'s ship's badge:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30004483

To wit:

"First World War period tampion badge from HMS Warspite; one of a pair in the collection (see also MAR 639). Unusually HMS Warspite (1913) had two designs of ship's badge - a cannon and a woodpecker. The cannon design was the one adopted when a sealed pattern was first agreed in 1919 and so became the ship's 'official' badge, but the woodpecker continued in use on the gun tampions and on the bows of the ship's small boats. The ship's dance band was called 'The Woodpeckers'. The reason for having two badges links to an early pun - the Elizabethan word 'spight' not only meant 'defiance' (or 'contempt'), but was also a colloquial term for a green woodpecker."

As we can see the clear relation to the original Warspight's name -- a "War Woodpecker", punching holes in wooden enemy ships in 1596 -- can we have this page updated to reflect this please?

Respectfully,

Scottish Andy (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sixth, not seventh? And more spiting...

Unless there is an earlier Warspite missing from the list, it is Warspite (03), the sixth, that has the most battle honours, not the seventh as stated in the sentence beginning the Battle Honours section.

On the subject of woodpeckers, spight is certainly an old word for a woodpecker, but I don't know why wiki is specifying that it refers to a Green woodpecker. Neither wiki's own page on Green Woodpeckers gives that as an alternative name (it could have been, but fallen out of use long ago), nor does Wiktionary specify a green woodpecker (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speight).

From the pedia GW page, "'Yaffle' was among many English folk names for the European green woodpecker relating to its laughing call; others include laughing Betsey, yaffingale, yappingale and Jack Eikle. Other names, including rain-bird, weather cock and wet bird, suggest its supposed ability to bring on rain.[17] Other names include nickle, and nicker pecker."

Definitely a woodpecker reference, but a Green one? Nitpicking, I know, but isn't what Talk pages exist for? ;-)

Regards,

86.172.29.215 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Rædwulf (non-member)

Sixth not seventh - a relic of an earlier version of this page which included another ship (not HMS) called Warspite.

I don't know anything about woodpeckers, but one version of the ship's badge displayed a green woodpecker and most of the sources we've used (esp. Ballantyne and IWM) specify this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Honours earned by individual ships

Should the honours awarded to this ship name be divided by which one of the individual ships earned that honour (I appreciate currently the numbers given in brackets are wrong- I , II and III)? I say no as the honours belong to the ship name and this page is for that ship name. Readers can look at the launch date in the table and work out for themselves which individual ship earned it. Similarly the separate ship articles would mention any honours won by that ship. Lyndaship (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No - to quote from the Naval battle honours page, "The battle honours awarded to a ship are inherited by all subsequent warships of the same name". The battle honour is awarded to the name of the ship, and is carried by each subsequent ship to hold the name. As an example, the most recent HMS Ark Royal not only carried the honour "Al Faw 2003", which was awarded to that ship, but also "Armada 1588", "Dardanelles 1915" and "Bismarck 1941" (see honours board from Ark Royal from her final commission). The honours should therefore be retained on the disambiguation page for the ship, and not differentiated between individual ships of the same name. Hammersfan (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit - actually the first point is that this article is not about a name - it is about "seven ships of the Royal Navy".

First, these sub-headings were inserted ten months ago by another editor. It is not a new inclusion and no-one has quibbled about it until now, so we treat this as the consensus version of the text. The onus is on those who want to change the text to justify new insertions/deletions;

Secondly, the reason given by the first new editor for removing the March 2018 insertion is that "honours aren't differentiated by ship" and justified by a strawman argument that honours are cumulative. This isn't disputed. The point is that different ships accrued those awards. The first ship of this name had one battle honour, the seventh had twenty five. They weren't all earned in one go, or by one ship, or even in one war. Showing the historical evolution helps the reader understand this accumulation. And the distinctions are particularly important given overlaps/renaming;

Thirdly, the individual bits of information could be set out in individual ship articles or in battle articles, but they are not. And in any case, it is inconceivable that any one of those articles would explain this particular sequence of awards over time. This is where it should belong if anywhere. Wikipedia is intended to make information easy to find, not to force readers to hunt through multiple articles to reconstruct a story.

I accept that the March 2018 edit is factually incorrect - not just the numbers but the placement. This can be corrected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should make similar amendments to every other Royal Navy (and indeed Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, Indian Navy, Pakistan Navy and any other Commonwealth Navy) disambiguation page for ship names, because they all follow the format that it is the name of the ship that accrues the battle honour, not the individual ship itself - the format that you insist on implementing makes it appear that honours do not pass onward, and is therefore incorrect. It is exactly the same as regimental battle honours being passed from one incarnation of a regiment to another. No one debates that the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment did not fight at Namur in 1695, given it was formed in 2006, but it is not questioned that the honour "Namur 1695" is included amongst its battle honours (unless of course you want to start making changes to that as well). The fact is, you are incorrect, what was on this page was incorrect, and it should have been altered some time ago. That it wasn't doesn't make it correct, or indeed a consensus. It just means it wasn't noticed until now. Hammersfan (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff exists; don't pretend that disambiguation pages are consistent or correct. And most don't carry the same level of detail as this. The edit was certainly noticed ten months ago; what you mean is that you were the first editor who sought to change it because you read the information in a way that was not intended by the original author.

Your comparison with an army regiment doesn't work for a number of reasons - not least because regiments are persistent - growing/shrinking/merging etc. - whereas warships are time limited.

No one is disputing that the name carries battle honours from one generation to the next, nor that honours are cumulative. However, the name doesn't win the award, it is the physical object - the warship involved - that does that. Some were successful and some were not. Showing the differentiation between the objects helps the reader understand that. If this article were about a name then your edit might be valid, but it is not, it is about seven ships, all of which were different. Your edit confuses the picture. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose any breakup of honours list with dates. That is stuff for individual ship pages. Any semi-intelligent person can see by the dates of each ship's operational date, which honour was acquired by which ship. Adding dates is just repetitive and unnecessary. Llammakey (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Support breakup by individual ships. The honours are not listed in the part on the top, you would to match each ship commission dates on the top with the year of the battle on the table. That is a pain in the ass, who's going to do it? If the list was broken down by ship (commission year?) you could easily see how many (1913) earned, not just "the most battle honours". "the most" means nothing without adding up the table. Sammy D III (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything you complained about is in the list. Their launch dates and service completion. Technically, the whole "most thing" should be situated on the individual ship's page and is really only trivia here. Reader laziness is not a reason to do things. Llammakey (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Reader laziness is not a reason to do things"? Isn't that the entire point of an encyclopedia? If the reader isn't "lazy" they will read the sources themselves. The entire point is to serve the reader, isn't it? "Any semi-intelligent person" might not want to figure out what the article is telling them, they may just want to just read it.

Could you please explain how "Everything you complained about is in the list"? If I have to check the list against the top to find out which ship fought in which battle then everything is not in the list. EDIT: Looking back at a previous version I can quickly see that one ship earned more honours than two others combined, and out of seven ships only three had any honour at all. I feel that is interesting, and I didn't see it in the current version.

A ship with the name "Warspite" has been in many/most battles since 1596, correct? So you are not connecting anything other than a name. Sammy D III (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Making information accessible is indeed the point of the encyclopedia; slightly surprising to see a contrary attitude expressed so openly here. Incidentally I think you were wrong to delete your objection to the indirect personal attacks - it's not the first time that's happened with this editor in the last few days. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently you missed my suggestion that semi-intelligent readers can connect the dots. There are even blue links here for easy access to your trivia. I guess maybe semi-intelligent might be too high for some. Llammakey (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

With that condescending attitude you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia and if you keep making veiled personal attacks you probably won't be for much longer. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What a piss-ant. You sit on this scrap like it is a troll's treasure and then insult me and say I am too stupid to read it? Do you really think this is military historian grade work? This is middle-school stuff, deny it.

I don't give a rat's ass about this article, play all you want. I gave an opinion on readability. Instead of actually talking all you have is cheap insults? Really?

I was bored and I came across a pompous asshole who thinks that the readers don't deserve to read its article. And it's a simple article, too. Nothing like a huge ego from a small space. Then it has to elevate itself by insulting others.

"Always a pleasure doing business with you" (chuckle). Sammy D III (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you guys for proving my point. It's always nice to see my initial judgement is correct. Llammakey (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (include full list here) per Lyndaship. It seems that while Wikipedia notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, per naval tradition ship honours are inherited - so are relevant to subsequent ships as well.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. No one is disputing that. The article is not about a name which carries awards; it's about a number of ships which earned awards and/or carried the awards earned by predecessors. Given the length of this particular 'story' adding 'chapters' enables the reader to quickly see which events corresponded to which ship. It does not say that the last ship in the line does not carry all the awards of its predecessors. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Or you know, they can see the date, look at the ship, and then go to the link about the ship instead of rehashing entire articles, which is the point of having links in the first place. If this were a book that would make sense. But this is an online encyclopedia, with links. Llammakey (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons already stated. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. That entails making information easy to process. And if reliable sources choose to carry this information alongside their account of these ships it is not "trivia". Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: The rationale has already been given, and it is incorrect to split honours up. It has been stated that the point of an encyclopedia is to educate and inform, and to have information on there that is incorrect, even if it is through how it is presented, negates that. Hammersfan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but if your opposition is to splitting the list, as opposed to providing useful information (as certain other editors seem to want to do), would you accept a compromise whereby for each item on the list we add explanatory text, as per MOS rules on lists? So, for example, "Marbella (1705), for action off Gibraltar by HMS Warspite (1666)". This preserves the name-based continuity you think is being disrupted whilst making it easy for the casual reader to identify the ship involved. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Would a table be of any use? Just a thought. Sammy D III (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The guidance for ship index pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Index pages seems to even go against that but as long as it is simply something like "She earned the battle honours of xxxx and xxxx" I wouldn't object Lyndaship (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the "Honour" decoration being respected as opposed to the battles the ship was in? Is it some form of respect that the "Honour" names need to be in an un-broken row?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Index pages doesn't actually say anything about Honours, does it? I couldn't find it, but I didn't go everywhere. I see "the single most significant event". Warspite (1913) has some significance in the blurb, but the other two don't mention any combat or Honours at all. One other was "on harbour service". If you have harbour service, should you have "the Battle of Somewhere" or how many Honours the hero ships earned? Would that work? Sammy D III (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it the honours are inherited by every subsequent ship of the same name (for British ships), the previous honours doe not lapse if some ships of that name are never given an honour. Not every action or campaign will be result in an honour being available for award and it's always possible by error or intent that a ship is not granted that honour despite its participation. The index page guidance do not mention honours but do detail how a ship index page should be formatted. To follow that guidance honours should not be mentioned at all on a SI page and in a case like Warspite I think could be split off into a separate article, however despite the guidance I do favour including them in this page and I can see the merit of mentioning in the entries for the individual ships which ship gained which honour for the name. This can be justified under the guidance as most significant event. This whole disagreement started as one editor (who has not responded to my notification of this discussion) added erroneous detail to the list of honours as to which individual ship gained it, this was reverted when noticed sometime later (presumably on the grounds it was both wrong information and against guidance - no point in correcting the info if it shouldn't be there anyway) and subsequently we all got into an edit war over it. Hopefully now we can achieve resolution Lyndaship (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to turn 180 degrees here. As an outsider I had no idea how important this heraldry stuff is to you. Probably other "sailors", too. "Honours" didn't mean much by itself. You say "are inherited by" and I think "so what?" I was thinking of the list as history. And since the drive-by column change the section looks too good anyway, breaks would ugly it up?

I'm going to suggest something like "was in X battles (and earned Y Honours) in the Z war" in each ship's blurb. Bring the rest up to (1913)'s level? Especially the other two that earned Honors. All of them at least patrolled something, correct?

Or not. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They all carried out the usual naval activities, but some had quiet careers and some were very active in wartime. Arguably the US Navy takes honours more importantly and awards a lot more (check out any USN ship article and there's a whole bunch of them at the end), but they're just for that ship, not successors. The Royal Navy awards fewer, but they stick to the name. Just a different tradition.

However, for the British tradition when several successive ships carry the same name - and their service periods partially overlap due to historical peculiarities (e.g. razees or renaming) - it can be more difficult to establish which version of the ship earned which honour to that shared name. We've clarified some of this on Wikipedia - see the article history and the removal of extra Warspites from the list - but reliable sources paint a confusing picture. This would be a final stage of clarification.

Your suggestion isn't dissimilar to mine, but we'd have to be careful not to add too much detail. I was deliberately frugal with the form of words I suggested above. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"different tradition" (grin). More history and more reserve. I still think (1913) looks like a good size, but it's your (plural) call. I looked at (1596), good luck with that one. That boat moved around. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)