Talk:Yamato-class

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)

Hey, let's not have any argument! This seems like a legitimate question from Hayford, because the article (so far) has no sources - that means that the reader, should they wish to know any more, are far more likely to use google before going to their local library. In that case they will see what Hayford did, that the internet is full of both versions.

Therefore this is a question that is going to keep cropping up until a more definite ruling is made! Maybe the discussion would be best held at CZ:Military Workgroup since, like Howard says, this idea affects many articles from that group. But I think it important to establish a precedent since there are still a lot more battleship classes to be created. David Finn 06:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Far more than battleships. There actually are many destroyer-classes with at least brief definitions, but reasonably extensive articles on the Burke-class and Ticonderoga-class. Do look at the "core" articles for battleship, cruiser, destroyer and ocean escort among many, including the crazy period of the "cruiser gap" and "what is a frigate this week?" Howard C. Berkowitz 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy enough with your solution. Since common use of the term is divided I don't see a reason to change the way that things have been done, but I think it important then to standardize the approach so as to aid new contributors. David Finn 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)