Howard, how about breaking this into related subsections? I noted you did that on one related articles page, I forget which now. More thinking aloud, is this masterlist too far up the hierarchy to be useful as a transcluded item on other articles? Maybe it should be broken up and live in other places where the smaller lists will be more widely transcluded? It's hard for me to tell since I know next to nothing about this topic (that would be 'next', as in the minus side of nothing). Chris Day 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. The challenge is how to break them up, or, alternatively, to accept that they inherently are broken up if one knows the code. For example, things starting with A are aircraft and G/T/P are ground, but is that a good distinction when an ALx is an electronics warfare unit and an APx is a radar, or is it better that yPx all are radars? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The one I recollect seeing, but don't remember where, was broken up by function. That seemed to make a lot of sense. Chris Day 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect you are thinking of one that was already broken up by the article itself. Electronic warfare, or possibly airborne electronics warfare, has subsections for radar warning receivers, jammers, infrared countermeasures, electronics countermeasures suite controllers, electronic warfare expendables dispensers, etc.
- That about sums it up. In fact the idea was resurrected by discussing the concept of catalogs with Aleta. It originated in topic glossary discussion with Nick Gardner. In the end, it should probably just be viewed as a subroutine-like option for the Related Articles subpages. Chris Day 06:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)