Category talk:World War I veterans

"Veterans"

I think this category, and the WW2 one, should be renamed, as not all those who fought in World War I could be described as "veterans". To be a veteran, by definition you have to have survived the war. Harry (The Weeping Angels of Mons), one example on hand, fought in WW1 but died while it was still going on, and he didn't even die in combat. We know Tommy Brockless was shot by a firing squad for cowardice, but he's added to the veterans category. Might I suggest World War I soldiers?
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 23:45, December 2, 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the DWU defines veterans the way the real world does, I think changing it to "soldiers" is a good idea. Shambala108 ☎ 00:27, December 3, 2016 (UTC)

Any other thoughts, anyone? I think we should do this. I did think, though, that because of category:War veterans, we might have to either add that category manually to all applicable pages here, or in fact keep this category and make category:World War I soldiers as a parent cat for all those who didn't survive.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 02:39, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

This conversation really should have been at the forum level because it affects so many pages.

But I'll say here that I wholly disagree with what's been said above. "Veteran", in the real world, is a catchall term for anyone who has served in uniform, whether they survived a war, or not. Whether they served a day in combat, or not. Whether they've been honorably discharged, or not. Whether they're still serving or not. You can be a veteran on many different levels, and it's probably the best overall term possible.

On a side note, "soldiers" isn't a catchall term, and should not be employed. Seamen aren't soldiers. Airwomen aren't soldiers. "Soldier" applies to the army only.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:30: Fri 29 Dec 2017

I agree with CzechOut that "veteran" is the best catchall term as "soldier" is too imprecise. GusF ☎ 20:15, December 30, 2017 (UTC)