Category talk:Military personnel

Usage note
I know I am probably the only one who requested this category. Nevertheless, when I saw the "people who have served in the military of a state" criterion, it made me think it might need to be refined. A lot of states have mandatory service which means everybody served. In the US, for example, almost every politician had some kind of service record pre-Bill Clinton, or else they were unelectable. Can we say the military service needs to be relevant to their news coverage or do we just say "well, it's factually true but not really useful" and let it pass if someone adds it. For example, I wouldn't put John McCain in military personnel, but if someone did I couldn't really object and I guess it was mentioned enough during his political career. And he was in active combat unlike Donald Rumsfeld who I learned today, to my shock, kept himself in "Ready Reserve" until the age of 57. He was a naval aviator but never went overseas. ... Sorry for complicating everything again. --SVTCobra 00:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been pretty evident for some time we'd various military types floating around with no occupation. You're the one who had the guts to say so out loud.  I'm the spoilsport who expressed concerns about the inclusion criterion, and I s'pose now I get to say "I told you so".  Okay, good; said it, got it out of my system. I agree, the criterion isn't perfect.  It took a week and a half to get this close to coherence.  I was concerned we'd never resolve the criterion as vaporware, and decided it might be a good moment to "be bold".  Still feels like it was the right moment; now we can improve from here with the category already in place. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK ... well, let's hope anyone who feels tempted to do a mass-inclusion in Category:Military personnel reads this and has second thoughts. Unless that happens, we don't really have a problem on our hands. And a big thank you very much for the categories you added today. Getting rid of "Theologians" must be a burden lifted. I, for one, think they are useful. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems more about when to put people in occupation categories generally, than about inclusion criteria for this occupation category specifically. We wouldn't categorize someone as an actor because they'd appeared in a school play.  Ultimately it follows from the basic principle that article categorization, and thus, indirectly, people-by-occupation categorization, is based on what would be helpful to a researcher in our archives. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)