Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

Talk:Yamato-class

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Largest (71,000 ton) battleship class of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the largest but not necessarily most combat-effective ever built; all sunk in combat by U.S. forces (including IJN Shinano, a Yamato-class hull converted to an aircraft carrier) [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Military [Please add or review categories]
 Subgroup category:  Pacific War
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

hyphen not needed

For more information, see: CZ: Military Workgroup/Style Guide.

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)

(unindent) If Howard wants to argue that "Yamata-class" is a COMPOUND MODIFIER he would certainly be on stronger grounds. Ie, if he wrote: "a Yamata-class battleship was a big boat." He is, however, absolutely and 100% WRONG if he writes a sentence like "Yamata-class is a description for large, Yamata-class battleships." It should be "Yamata class is a description for large, Yamata-class battleships." And that, of course, is only if we accept the proposition that it can be a compound modifier in the first place. Howard, I will repeat: You are wrong about this. I don't care if you are a Military Editor or not -- I, and I would say, Ro, are more expert in the correct use of the English language than any other two members of Citizenium. Why you take pride in being WRONG about something is beyond me -- except for the fact that you absolutely in the three years you have been here have *never* ever, even once, admitted that you might be wrong about even the tiniest detail. Well, this is indeed a tiny detail, but it doesn't mean that it isn't an important one. Suppose we had a Food Science Editor who wrote an article called "Ice-Cream"? Does that mean because he/she is a lordly editor that none of us peasants are permitted to tell him/her that she is wrong about this? How does Yamata-class differ in any way at all from Ice-cream? Believe me, the first thing I will do if we ever get an EC in place is to bring up the question: "Can we permit Editors to make grammatical errors in the articles they oversee without ever being overruled?" And, of course, I will use this example. Hayford Peirce 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - as you say, this is a tiny detail, it's really not worth getting irate about it. At the start of this exchange you said Please show me three examples of "naval literature" using it and I will say no more., but now you are saying that it is just wrong - there may be an inconsistency in that, as a thing can't be 'possibly proveable' and at the same time impossible to prove. Sometimes the common name for something might look like a grammatical error but that is just it's name, and it isn't always the job of an encyclopedia to favour grammar over common use. That is also important when dealing with historical subjects where the use of the term may have been well defined in the past yet not so rigidly applied today.
I am not passing judgment on either approach, but I can understand both and I would really like to see something more conclusive about the whole thing. Remember, this is not an article about the English language, it is about a specific thing that was named by people 60 years ago - how they chose to name it is important, and that naming process may trump any notions of grammar. I don't know that yet, but I can certainly try to find out through sources.
In the meantime, I and probably every reader who comes to the article about Yamato-class ships wants to read about ships - not about Citizens opinions about other Citizens, even on the talkpage. Maybe we would all benefit from taking a step back to consider how we might approach this collaboratively, and I will try to find some sources that show a precedent either way. David Finn 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I can point to a great number of examples where I agreed I was wrong, or became convinced by someone else's argument about an ambiguous situation. By all means, take it to the Editorial Council when one is in place.
I don't have the time to have this argument now. Since there are many, many more ship article classes than Yamato-class, this isn't the place to have the discussion -- see CZ Talk: Military Workgroup/Style Guide. This is not unique to Yamato-class; see, for example, articles on battleship, cruiser, destroyer, aircraft carrier, submarine and their subpages.
For information, I'll say that Roger, Russell and I have been discussing the challenges of style in an online encyclopedia. There are going to be times where the Editorial Council will have to rule. For example, disciplines have their own bibliographic conventions and style guides, but what happens when an article is overseen by two workgroups, and the discipline styles are in conflict? Does the Chicago Manual of Style,National Library of Medicine, American Psychological Association, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, etc., deal with an article on hormonal modifiers of personality? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)