Category talk:American militiamen in the American Revolution

message: * Who should be included in this category?  Specifically, if someone served both in the Continental Army and in the militia (presumably at different points in time), should they be included both in this category and in the Continental Army category?  I think this is a good idea, to reflect the multiple roles that these people played and to help find people by relating them together in appropriate categories.   A similar situation exists for people who were both Continental Army people and Continental Congress people: they exist in both categories.  What do you think?  Thanks Hmains 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions. I agree that people who served in both the militia and the Continental Army (and Congress) could be put into both categories. Now, perhaps if someone's miltia service was too insignificant to mention compared to their other accomplishments (e.g. James Madison), it may be overkill to put them into this category. As for the question about do we have subcategories by state -- I don't know, since I'm not sure how many people will find their way into this category. If it's dozens, sure, but if less, maybe not. My approach would be to keep an eye on it and see if it starts to fill up; you may decide to do otherwise. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have more than 100 people in this category, I'd say we can sub-categorize by state. This helps with the category interlocking with other state categories and whatnot. —Kevin Myers 16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created some of the state militia categories. I've also created a category for militia generals in the Revolution, because I thought people might be interested in seeing those names gathered, but I don't know if we really need to further subcategorize by rank. —Kevin Myers 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I (or we) sort these American militiamen into by-state categories, some other opinions would be nice. Browse around the few state subcategories I've created and see if you think it's a good idea, or if we should just keep one master category of American militimen without sorting by state. —Kevin Myers 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having them sorted by states. I'll be glad to help sort them out. Marc29th 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. A question: should militiamen also be placed in the parent category of people of the American Revolution by state? For example, should Enoch Hale be in both :Category:New Hampshire militiamen in the American Revolution and :Category:People of New Hampshire in the American Revolution? By definition, militiamen are also in the parent category, so is it overcategorization to list them in both, or is it useful to have a category with all of New Hampshire people of the Revolution listed? —Kevin Myers 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably overcategorization so they should be taken out of the parent category. What do you think?Marc29th 19:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An option that occurred to me is that individuals who are only notable for their militia service should only be in the militia category. But individuals who achieved notability in the state for additional reasons during the war, such as being a politician or writer or a figure of folklore, would also be in the parent category because they're not exclusively known for being in the militia. Daniel Boone, for example, was in the Kentucky militia, but he's better known for being a person of Kentucky. How's that sound? —Kevin Myers 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled