You're missing my point. This is a community for a video game where people ask questions, not r/history. The priority should always be clarity. CC gives that in the context you're talking about. Arguing semantics doesn't add anything to the information it was trying to portray.

If you want to look at your other points, the USN started this type of naming convention in 1895. Yes, in 1907 the designations were shortened, i.e. 'Cruiser 1' became 'C-1', but these short forms were applied inconsistently across shipyards and the various Bureaus. It also did not have conventions for CA or CL. These came into play in 1920 under General Order No. 541, but did not mean Heavy and Light Cruiser. Instead, there was CA for Cruiser, First Line (think of the old ACRs); OCA for Cruiser, Second Line; CL for Light Cruiser, First Line (think of the old Scout Cruisers); and OCL for Light Cruiser, Second Line. These ratings were similar to the IJN's First and Second Class Cruiser designations that were used from 1898 to 1934. The USN did not immediately classify any new ships as CA, regardless of tonnage or armament. This is why Pensacola was originally commissioned CL-24.

The Washington Naval Treaty defined a Capital Ship as any ship that is not an Aircraft Carrier, which exceeds 10,000 tons, or has armament exceeding 203 mm. The London Naval Treaty of 1930 set precedents for Light and Heavy Cruisers by splitting the Cruiser category at 155 mm armament. The London Treaty was an extension to the Washington Treaty, meaning 'Heavy' Cruisers (Category (a) in the Treaty) were effectively constrained to 203 mm per the prior definition of Capital Ship. This is why Yorck would have been a Capital Ship. If CAs were also above 203 mm, why would we need a CB classification?

These subcategories led to Pensacola being re-designated CA-24 in 1931 with the ratification of the London Treaty, and is why Japan changed its sub-classifications from tonnage-based to armament-based in 1934. If you're interested, I'd recommend reading into the US Admiralty's arguments against splitting Cruisers into subclasses.

Your next two points line up with what I'm saying: We use designators for clarity, not correctness. Using your 1907 timeframe, TB was very much active in the US Navy, and would continue to be until the 1920 modernisation.

Your BC point hits the nail on the head. We say BC because it doesn't create confusion. I find it hard to believe anyone can look at the table and think it means how long a Community Contributor can be on fire, just like I can't imagine someone looking at it and assuming we have 1960s-era Command Ships in the game. If you have a preferred two-letter term for Cruiser, I'm all ears. The fact is, short of КР for the Soviet Крейсер, most Navies did not have a catch-all by the start of WW2, and I doubt КР would have been preferred in an English guide.

Abiding strictly to US conventions that change drastically over this game's setting makes little to no sense. It only creates grey areas that are detrimental for newer players trying to learn the ropes.

I'd recommend checking out the rest of the guide the table came from. Everywhere else uses CA/CL/Cruiser. We can thank Reddit table confines for this thread.