User talk:TomTheHand/Ship category proposal

Not sure where you'd like me to comment, as we may not reach consensus here, but here goes. I can be convinced on the "Ships of Foo" construct. What I do not like is having the era cat above the class cat. I'm fine with a parellel structure, one where I would find "Fooclass destroyer" in both "WWII destroyers" and "Destroyers of Foo". Limiting to era seems an unnecessary construct which only adds to confusion rather than eliminates it. Particularly since the era categories are arbitrary outside of a named conflict. That's it. Jinian 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was having trouble showing what I wanted, but I actually don't want the class cat under the era cat. Rather, I want the era cats, the class cats, and the ship articles all at the same level directly underneath (Ship type) of (country). I would probably list the era cats under "*" at the top of the cat, then all of the class cats, and then you could also scroll down and see all the individual ships. From (Ship type) of (country) you'd have three options: continue down to a specific era, look up ships by their class name, or look up individual ships alphabetically.

To be clear, you're fine with doing things by country instead of by navy in cases where there is no need to make a distinction (Aircraft carriers of the United States)? Where a distinction is necessary, such as with Ironclads of the United States, a separation by navy would occur under that category, with Ironclads of the USN and Ironclads of the CSN.

I'm fine with doing it by navy as well if we can come up with a good, consistent plan for what to do when a navy changes name. TomTheHand 14:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]