This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This disambiguation page 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
And? It's "occupations", plural and says nothing about "United States." It's not the phrase used in the two examples first given, and in the title of the article. Anmccaff (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover a simple google search shows that the majority the articles that pop up for "United States military occupation" also include MOS, AFSC, etc. this isn't here as a political statement, but rather for ease of navigation. Garuda28 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, based on a current Google search here, that would be The Thing That is Not, as the Houyhnhnms would say. First page of google hits gives wiki-circular crap, mostly -seven out of 10. The only examples of the phrase as a whole refer to military occupation by the United States, such as post Civil War, or use the phrase "United States military occupation codes". Anmccaff (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be referred to as "United States military occupation codes" (e.g. like here), then it meets the requirements at WP:PTM since the operative part of the phrase is "United States military occupation" not "codes". In any case, the proper discussion for this is at the RFD until it's closed. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The operative part is "occupation code", or in the parallel form, "occupational specialty", as almost all usage will show. Anmccaff (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if the United States military was the only organization in the world to use occupation codes. It's not the only organization, [1][2] or even the only military organization to do so.[3] The codes differentiate different military occupations. Again, the place to discuss this is at the RFD, where everyone except you endorsed having it there.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which might suggest that someone add a "see also", but not that they equate two different phrases with radically different meanings. Anmccaff (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a. Consensus is in agreement that this is a nessesary feature of this page. B. How would you use a see also on a disambiguation page.? Garuda28 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there was consensus at the RFD to include the entry. "See also" sections can be used on a DAB page to add a relevant entry (e.g. a relevant partial title match, a link to a similarly spelled DAB page). But in this case, this would put it into WP:2DAB territory, and at risk of getting deleted, which would go against the consensus that was reached at the RFD to have a DAB page here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you explain what you mean by "equate two different phrases with radically different meanings"? The very purpose of DAB pages is to list different which can reasonably be referred to by the same name. No one is say, saying that if you work for the united states military, you're occupying other countries or something. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
except in ignorant usage, or telegraphic speach, this -can't- be widely used in this meaning. Anmccaff (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true (which given the above conversation is doubtful), those reasons would be ample justification for it to appear on a disambiguation page such as this one as people may hear the term being used ignorantly or in telegraphic speech and search for it on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A brief tussle has fired up again, so I'm commenting here. @Anmccaff: would you be alright if we noted that the standalone phrase "United States military occupation" was an inaccurate reference to a MOS? As I said at GMG's talk: I've been asked what my "Military occupation" was quite often when people learn of my background, and I only rarely replied with something sarcastic about where I'd been posted and deployed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it. 00:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
