Why, oh why, have we repeated levels of categories?

Question

A new category level was imposed on Australian military back in October and it makes no sense. It is [[Category: Australian Armed Forces]].  All it achieved was to push the top level [[Category: Australian Defence Force]] down a level.  If the purpose was consistency then it failed because there are other sub-categories of Military that do not read 'armed forces'.  The truth is 'armed forces' has never been used in Australia to my knowledge, but rather military forces and now defence force.  Can we remove it please and raise [[Category: Australian Defence Force]] to the top national level.

Answer 1

Armed Forces is the general term used by the Military and War project. I set this up when there was some cleanup going on in the Australian Military strucutre and never set it back.

Not a huge issue really, the rename is pending pending and will clear up in next BOT run.

Comments

You are the best, Steven. Don't know how you keep track of the categories but thank you.

---

Keep tons of notes and search, search, search!

Thanks for the star, Maggie!

---

Thanks, Steven.  Explains everything.  Am happy to leave that in your hands.  I'm still going through Australian military categories, standardising (almost done), and adding content (still a fair way to go).

Answer 2

That may be the current situation, but how does it work for the forces that played a part in the Boer and First World Wars?

Comments

Like I said, Martin, it was the Australian Military Forces, but never the Australian Armed Forces.  Of course, for a good part of the Second Boer War Australia did not even exist.  They were Colonial Military Forces until 1901.  Again, not armed forces.