The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Military occupations → Military careers – It has been pointed out, most recently at the Talk:Soviet occupations#Requested move that "occupations" can refer to career paths or military operations, so it's especially confusing to discuss the former in a military context. We currently have articles Military occupation and Military occupations, along with the categories Category:Military occupation and Category:Military occupations (the former, at least, is against category naming conventions). I'd like to come up with a new name for this article which can be passed along to the corresponding category. I think Military careers is the best concise way of referring to the topic, but I'm not against a bit more wordiness for the sake of accuracy, such as Military careers and trades, Military careers and specializations, or even Military careers and occupations. I would support any reasonable alternative, for that matter.

Either way, my intent is that Military occupations will redirect to Military occupation, and the category now called Category:Military occupation will become Category:Military occupations. BDD ( talk) 21:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Support. The term "occupations" has to go away from any military career-related topic. The terms "occupation" and "occupations" should be reserved for the operations.-- MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Support Given the double meaning of military occupation this is a prudent move that removes any potential for ambiguity.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 01:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Support: As the one who originally started the Soviet occupations RM, I believe that we should make things clearer for the reader, and avoid using phrasing which carry ambiguous meanings as much as possible. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 03:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Support move, for reasons clearly explained in the nomination. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Withdrawing my relist and closing, per request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. After full listing period, there are two valid oppose votes, and the nominator has also requested it be close as no move ( non-admin closure)  —  Amakuru ( talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Military careers → Military service occupation – More satisfactory title, matching existing categories Category:Military service occupations by country and Category:Military supporting service occupations. The current title "Military careers" conflicts with Category:Military careers which is in all other respects a good name for that category. The requested move would break the logjam at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_7#Category:Military_occupation. --Relisted.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 22:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC) – Fayenatic L ondon 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) – Fayenatic L ondon 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose same problem as why it was renamed in Requested Move 1. Occupation of territory by a particular military service. (Such as Marines occupying a beach, while the Army holds a hill, so each service is holding specific territory) Though the current title is not without its own problems (this is about jobs, not biographic careers of individuals) -- 70.50.148.122 ( talk) 06:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, reasoning from the previous discussion applies just as well to this proposal. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.