I know Trib has already 'retracted' his wish to have this category, but I thought I would chime in to the discussion as I still believe it was/is a good idea even if we have to compromise on some parts of the vision, to accomodate technical considerations, ease of use, etc.
Limiting the size of a returned dataset is a technical neccesity; World War I, by itself, had over 9 million military deaths; to put that in perspective the entire Wikitree site currently has only 6.2 million profiles - there is no way around it, KIA and the other categories need to be sub-categorized somehow, whether that is alphabetically as Terri suggested; by date; by operation, by unit, or in some other way.
Diverting on my first tangent, in Canada, at the capital there are seven books of Remembrance in honour of all the nation's fallen soldiers. The books are for WWI, WWII, Korea, South Africa (Boer War), Merchant Navy, Newfoundland (this book is seperate because the province of Newfoundland did not join Canada until after WWII), and "in Service of Canada" which covers peacekeepers, UN Observers, soldiers in Afghanistan, disaster relief, domestic operations, and even those that died of natural causes while serving. These 7 books are then divided by year. This is categorization, but I would be hard pressed to say it cheapens their service.
I would also point out that 'war memorial' is often used in connection to any memorial that remembers fallen soldiers, although the definition you gave of a war memorial (taken from wikipedia?) is certainly correct as well. As an example the Government of Canada's Virtual War Memorial includes soldiers who died on peace keeping missions, UN observer missions, and those who died domestically (for example those that were killed in a train crash at Canoe River, British Columbia), it is not just a list of those who died in war. Anyways, this is picking fly poop out of the pepper.
As I mentioned in my previous answer, I do see merit in Erin's idea of following geographic divisions - for example the ability to post information on cenotaphs/memorials in the local area so that people could visit these sites (in the real world). Deviating onto another tangent for a moment - imagine a school/scout/community group visits the local memorial as part of memorial/remembrance day and can then come to wikitree and easily find out about the lives of all (or many) of the people from their community whose names they saw. Rather than just an abstraction (a name on a list), they could use Wikitree to get a sense of the actual person the name on that memorial represents, and the totality of their sacrifice; the family, friends, and life they left behind. I think it is much more of a tribute to be remembered as a person not just as a name on a list.
Anyway, I fully agree that their should also be a template; in a seperate non-G2G discussion I suggested it could include the national flag of the country the soldier served, the appropriate symbol of rememberance for that country or person (such as a poppy, yellow ribbon, POW*MIA symbol, etc.) and perhaps the soldiers highest rank attained, decorations, last unit, and the date they were declared KIA/MIA if applicable. Even though these details should already be included in the bio, I think it is appropriate to add those to a template to emphasize them.
On to the issue of the "Medal of Honor" et al. I think an overarching category of "Military Decorations" would be appropriate. 'Decoration' is usually used to encompass the higher precedent medals for Bravery, Heroism, Valour, and Meritorious or Distinguished service. The names of the decorations should include the issuing country allowing all nations medals to appear in the top level under "Military Decorations" even if the name is used in multiple countries For example: "Distinguished Service Medal (AUS)", "Distinguished Service Medal (UK)", and the similarly named "Distinguished Service Medal (Army) (US)". A total unresearched guess here, but I imagine these lists are only a couple thousand names long, so they might be ok to leave without further sub-categorization.
As for the spelling - let's just put everything in Esperanto - then everyone can dislike it equally :D (p.s. according to Google translate that would make it 'honoro') (p.p.s. just joking around)
