Template talk:People of the Sengoku period

[edit] "Other notable individuals" vs. "Others"

Okay, what is the purpose of the separation here? Are we saying that the "others" are not notable (in which case they shouldn't have been in the listing at all much less have their own Wikipedia pages) or are we trying to partition lesser combatants from noncombatants (in which case "Other notable individuals" is a very misleading term).

I vote we either put them all together under the ONI heading or rename them as "Other notable samurai" (combatants, whatever) and "Other notables". Either way, this needs to be fixed.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction is unclear. Fg2 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need for criteria for inclusion

We should have criteria for inclusion. What makes one person eligible for the list, while the 30 million others living during the period are not on the list? Why does the template include 20 daimyo and exclude the rest? Why are this princess, priest, swordsman in the template while hundreds of princesses, thousands of priests, and millions of swordsmen are not? Lists (which are single articles) are supposed to have criteria for inclusion, and templates, which appear in dozens of articles, should too. Fg2 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. This should be addressed and soon. It could very well be that the template needs to be completely redone.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)