Category talk:Military architecture
There are two category names used:
- category:military architecture
- category:military buildings (i just created the parent cat, unaware of the first category; but all is child categories "Military buildings in country xxx" were already there for a while...., that's way I came up with the parent cat in the first place)
I'm not really decisive which way the move should go: all to the "buildings" cat. or all to the "architecture" cat. When I look around at other category trees on commons, and what seems most appropriate to me; then I'd say moving all to the "buildings" category, though.
Reason: "architecture" mostly makes me think of architectural styles and architectural elements related to e.g. military functions. Buildings seems more generic and appropriate for, well, buildings. Many pics in the categories are actually rather usual buildings, not looking like a military bunker or fortress or whatever (just normal looking buildings), but just happen to have a military function now (e.g. military base of offices).
E.g. the military government building on the right here (the first picture you known can find in category:Military architecture is definitely a military building, but it's architecture doesn't look very "military" to me, it just happens that it used by the military.
So "architecture" seems exaggerated for many buildings, as those aren't necessarily designed for military purposes. And splitting in two categories "buildings" vs "architecture" doesn't seem really helpful. That's why, at the moment, I'm more in favor of category:Military buildings. --LimoWreck (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)