Category talk:Military organization

This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Organizations

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles

Sub-Categories

After I saw requests in several military article talk sections for anyone to do a better job of organizing the massive collection of articles not in any sub-category, and also a huge volume of somewhat related sub-categories, I moved some stuff to try to add a little bit more organization.

Looks to me like the content of Category:Types of forces and Category:Types of military are so similar that perhaps they should be combined into a new sub-category:Types of military forces, which might go into the Category:Military organization, which is in turn in Category Military in Category:War. AlMac|^(talk) 20:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories host organizations from army, navy, air, marine, SOF, etc. It would be more clear to do away with Category:Types of military and Category:Types of forces, and instead creat Category:Navy Organization , Category:Army Organization , and Category:Navy Organization. All of these belong inside Category:Military organization MCG|^(talk) 27 Aug 06

Most of the contents are not organizations but true types (e.g. artillery, infantry, etc.); holding them in Category:Types of forces is more sensible than trying to split them out along the (modern!) branch lines. Kirill Lokshin 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a more clear descriptor than "types"? I would think "military organization" would sugest describing the break-down of military to army/navy/air to infantry/cavalry/armour etc. When talking of specific units & formations, I tend to think of "military organizations." MCG|^(talk) 27 Aug 06

These will eventually get pulled into Category:Military units and formations by type, once that's created; I've also created a Category:Military branches to hold the modern army/navy/air view. Kirill Lokshin 08:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. I like it. MCG|^(talk) 27 Aug 06

Actually, the Military history WikiProject is about to undertake a comprehensive review and restructuring of this entire category tree; I'll make sure that your concerns here find their way into the discussion. Kirill Lokshin 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

organization versus non-military, military-related organizations

Hi -- I set up the category Category:Military organizations (emphasis on plural) to gather together the widely dispersed organizations relating to the military, and used the simplest available category name, modeled after other names in Category:Organizations by subject and in convention with plural for categories of things. However, I recognize that there may be some possibility of confusion with Category:Military organization -- organizations within the military, the military organization itself, which is itself a topic as well as this category. I've put up notes to try to distinguish, but open up the floor here for other suggestions. Maybe there are other category names that would work better? "Military-related organizations" is another strong possibility; the "*-related organizations" gets used in some subject areas. --Lquilter 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]