User talk:Rlandmann
Please don't move via cut and paste
as you just did on C-17 Globemaster. I am going to correct the mess. —Morven 07:12, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Fixed. If you're not an admin and need to move a page that won't move because the target has a history, ask for help. —Morven 07:18, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Recategorizing bombers
Why are you recategorizing the bombers? Right now they're grouped very coherently in a hierarichal nature. I've added Category:World War II bombers to the Bombers category, that includes all of them. Oberiko 00:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Adding the B17 to "Bombers" is making a redundant entry in the category pyramid. If the B17 went under everything it qualified for it would be under:
- World War II American heavy bombers
- World War II American bombers
- World War II American planes
- World War II heavy bombers
- World War II bombers
- World War II planes
- American heavy bombers
- American bombers
- American planes
- heavy bombers
- bombers
- military planes
- planes
- vehicles
etc, etc. (there are about 3 more permutations I can think of, but I think the point is made)
This would clearly crowd it and make a mess of the system, that's why we generally prefer to use sub-categories as much as possible. By Adding World War II bombers to the bombers category, it gives access to everything underneath, and those articles are considered part of that parent category.
Now, I do agree with you that a strict one-category rule is impossible and impractical, but it should be limited for articles with distinguished, seperate categories (ex: the MP40 falls under both Category:World War II German infantry weapons and Category:World War II submachine guns, Winston Churchill is both a British Prime Minister and a Category:World War II people (I'll probably update that last one to Category:World War II leaders when I get the chance). See the categorization on the notoriously versatile De_Havilland_Mosquito for another good example.Oberiko 01:34, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The Korean War categorization is a good one. If a plane was in both World War II and the Korean War then by all means it should be categorized as such. It would also allow users, at a quick glance, to see the evolving tech as weapons were phased in and out over the course of time.
- I intended to start work on a sub-category of prototypes for each major category, but I've been busy with both work and administration here. I think it'd be great if you wanted to start on something like that. Oberiko 01:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Problem is, when you start to place it under higher tiers, where would you put it? It's quite valid for each of the above as mentioned. If someone decides they want a category with all American planes (quite plausible), that's another higher-level category stuck on. This multi-tier categorization clutters everything, making both the article category and most of the higher categories lose comprehensibility. It also starts a very slippery slope where if we do X we have to allow Y and so on. Oberiko 01:48, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Re:foriegn-use: IIRC, a loose consensous was reached about keeping it listed under the main designer/manufacturer nation and discussing foriegn use in the article (I think this was the Valentine tank where this came about, on one of the List pages).
- I have no problem with categorizing articles that have no current category to group them together and make it easier to re-slot them later, I consider that quite prudent and hence left the other-wise parentless articles in the bomber category alone. My only concern was in having multi-tier categorization. Oberiko 02:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Categories and Interwiki links
Can you please leave the categories and interwiki links at the bottom of articles? This is the standard and, for among other reasons, it's adding a lot of unnecessary space at the top of each article where you move them to the top. RADICALBENDER★ 02:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)