User blog comment:Wildoneshelper/My proposed category tree (revised)/@comment-127769-20140211171100/@comment-3225604-20140213141854

1.- by the in-game definition Buildings are not units. it is even clear for all the games, buillldings does not move or does not resemble any kind of troop

2.-If we have "heavy infantry" or " Heavy cavalry" classifications "shielded units" category becomes pointless.

3.- actually there are more slingers ( you only know macehualtiun because probably you are mostly an age of empires III player)

4.- "throwers" is better to rename this as "ranged units" ( units that in a combat have range vs other units) remember this is an enciclopedia, and by this term you can make archers, artillery, gunpowder units, subcategories of this and include directly the slingers the carib blowgunner, and others. this is not complicated to understand.

5.- yo say " the problem with your categorization is that you still uphold too many articles in one category" man thats why i am trying to reform the categories, you don't know how they were before yo came to the wiki, please be patient an wait, Categories as "Units" and others were overwhelmingly filled because of year of bad categorization.

6.- the problem you are adressing with Infantry category could solve perfectly by using the actual definition of an infantry and make archers and other foot troops subcategories of infantry. and it is not necessary to empty the category ( please try to understand)

7.- please wait  until I finally finish my proyect an then comment.

Replying to all your points:

1. Does in-game definition mention what is "units"? If the in-game definition is referring to movable units, we can consider removing this category.

2. OK, you misunderstand "shielded units". Perhaps "shield units" could be better. I'm mentioning the users who are holding a shield, like the Mantlet, Huron Mantlet, Macehualtin etc.

3. Yeah I never play other games before but I may re-add "slingers".

4. By the way, if you replace "throwers" by "ranged units", you are also including "gunners" (gunpowder infantry seems to be grammatically wrong). As long as the unit attacks units in a SPECIFIED RANGE, it is considered as a "ranged unit", which disobeys what I demand for (soldiers who throw weapons to kill enemies).

5. I may want to take back my words. I mean by categorizing units in a logical, easier and understandable way without any misleading content. Having part of infantry in the "infantry" category is already a kind of misleading readers, either we empty the category or categorize ALL infantry into "infantry".

6. You have a contradiction with your counterargument of no. 1. So what are you trying to talk about? Do you refer to in-game definition or real-life definition? I'm confused actually. It's better if you use "in-game definition". Imagine if you use real linguistic definition to define Physics things, I'm sure some Physicians will have a hard time dealing with. It's better to use "in-game definition". The problem with "siege units" now is that some "siege units" are artillery, and some are infantry. If the category is "Siege units (Infantry)", it can cause confusion, which is overcategorization.

7. Actually the present form is not satisfactory in my opinion, especially when you have HALF of the units categorized in a main category, while some not, which REALLY misleads readers. I'm also misled when I first came here to make a collection of all infantry, cavalry and artillery. It turned out that the "infantry" category does NOT contain ALL infantry I suppose to see.