Talk:Yamato-class: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (What is the point to this argument?) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Please show me three examples of "naval literature" using it and I will say no more. Otherwise I will Move the article -- grammatically, it is not correct to have the hyphen. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | ::Please show me three examples of "naval literature" using it and I will say no more. Otherwise I will Move the article -- grammatically, it is not correct to have the hyphen. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Since many of such things are books, I can't readily send them. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with grammar, and, as a Military Editor, make an interim ruling that it is the style of the Military Workgroup for ship class names. Are you proposing to move every other class name? [[Battle-class]], [[Burke-class]], [[County-class]], [[H-class]], [[Fletcher-class]], [[Iowa-class]], [[Kongo-class]], [[Ticonderoga-class]], [[Sovremenny-class]], [[Type 42-class]]... | :::Since many of such things are books, I can't readily send them. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with grammar, and, as a Military Editor, make an interim ruling that it is the style of the Military Workgroup for ship class names. Are you proposing to move every other class name? [[Battle-class]], [[Burke-class]], [[County-class]], [[H-class (U.K. destroyer)|H-class]], [[Fletcher-class]], [[Iowa-class]], [[Kongo-class]], [[Ticonderoga-class]], [[Sovremenny-class]], [[Type 42-class]]... | ||
:::I see no point to having this argument. Take it to the Editorial Council when it's ready; otherwise, you will be acting as a Citizen in violation of an Editor Ruling. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | :::I see no point to having this argument. Take it to the Editorial Council when it's ready; otherwise, you will be acting as a Citizen in violation of an Editor Ruling. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:04, 15 July 2010
hyphen not needed
We have the "Iowa class battleships" all over the Internet without the hyphen, plus, as far as I can see, "Yamato class battleships" also all over the Internet with no hyphen. Just a slip of your computer finger? Hayford Peirce 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's no standard. I see it with a hyphen more frequently than not, in naval literature. It's useful, I think, to help make it clear that one is talking about IJN Yamato versus Yamato-class. I really don't want to get into arguments about "all over the Internet". Howard C. Berkowitz 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please show me three examples of "naval literature" using it and I will say no more. Otherwise I will Move the article -- grammatically, it is not correct to have the hyphen. Hayford Peirce 01:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since many of such things are books, I can't readily send them. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with grammar, and, as a Military Editor, make an interim ruling that it is the style of the Military Workgroup for ship class names. Are you proposing to move every other class name? Battle-class, Burke-class, County-class, H-class, Fletcher-class, Iowa-class, Kongo-class, Ticonderoga-class, Sovremenny-class, Type 42-class...
- I see no point to having this argument. Take it to the Editorial Council when it's ready; otherwise, you will be acting as a Citizen in violation of an Editor Ruling. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)