Is there a reason for having two entirely separate French and Indian War top level categories?

Question

There seem to be two entirely separate top level categories for the French and Indian War: French and Indian War (which is what the profiles in the French and Indian War project get assigned to) and British America, French and Indian War. Each of the two top level categories has its own separate system of subcategories that only roll up into it and not the other top level category. For example, Samuel Knowles is in the Province of Massachusetts, French and Indian War category, which rolls up into the British America, French and Indian War category but is not in the French and Indian War category or any of its subcategories. As a result, there is no single top level category for the war that includes all the profiles that have been assigned to a French and Indian War subcategory. This seems confusing and undesirable. Can we merge these two categories or do we need to include both categories in all the relevant profiles?

Answer 1

[[Category:French_and_Indian_War]] is the top level for that war. It includes the categories for the countries involved, the Killed in Action, POW, and MIA categories, the conflicts, etc. So, it includes all of the topical categories related to the F&I war.  We form the structures this way because WikiTree uses the philosophy of using the narrowest category, called a landing level, for profiles. (See:https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Categorization#How_to_Categorize_a_Profile) 

Comments

But if [[Category:French_and_Indian_War]] is supposed to be the top level category for that war, why does [[Category: British America, French and Indian War]] and its various Indian War subcategories exist, none of which roll up into [[Category:French_and_Indian_War]]? It seems we currently have 2 separate top level categories for that war with separate systems of subcategories.

I revised my initial question to try to make my issue clearer.

---

Uh the [[Category:British_America,_French_and_Indian_War]] has as it's parent (Or roll up) categories as [[Category:British_America]] and [[Category:French_and_Indian_War]] . So any subcategories of [[Category:British_America,_French_and_Indian_War]] have the overall parent of [[Category:French and Indian War]]. 

---

Good point, Darren. I think my problems may relate to broader issues with respect to how categories work.

---

actually, both categories are labeled as mid-level, the one called British America, French and Indian War seems redundant, since the category French and Indian War (singular) exists.  The parent category is French and Indian Wars (plural) on the F&IW singular one.  Which is parent of BA, F&IW one.  Extra level there for no reason I can discern.

Oh, and the parent F&IW plural is not set as top level.  Definitely needs some review on the order of these things.

---

It isn't redundant as the British America category looks to be the holding category for the militas from British America and those based in British Americawho don't have a narrower category. There are contemporary categories for France, New France and Great Britain as well.

The plural French and Indian Wars has another conflict categorized with it, King George's war. That seems to be a result of someone seeing  a similar structure on Wikipedia as the blurb on French and Indian Wars looks the same. It does needs review. And the other conflicts listed together on Wikipedia are not connected to this category yet are on Wikitree.

---

and then of course the whole naming of these has had its own debate, French and Indian War is what it's called in the US, elsewhere known as Seven Year War, or the War of Conquest, at least in this neck of the woods.