Category talk:American military personnel

Category structure and included categories

Looking for comments on this usage of this category in an effort to streamline this category system and provide good structure. Please comment below.

If the Category:American army personnel of the Korean War is used, than the included Category:American military personnel of the Korean War should not also be used as it is included in the higher level cat.

This example above would also hold true for the other services, for other conflicts, and for other countries, i.e., if the Category:American naval personnel of the Vietnam War is used, than the included Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War would not also be included in the article.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously agree. All personnel that can be clearly sorted into the respective sub-category/-categories should be there and there alone. Just manual work to do so which means it is a never-ending task. Also, to make things more clear, I added the template {{category diffuse}} to the category. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Of course. In fact, this is already in the categorization guidelines. WP:SUBCAT says: "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." Biblio (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Exactly; this is already covered and consensus. Unfortunatly there's a lot of categories in a lot of trees that have parent categories blindly added to pages when a subcat is already on it, but that only needs cleanup under existing procedures. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Aw, nuts. Now I have to go and undo several days worth of edits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur with the undoing.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)