contributor
27,125
edits
Changes
→Sengoku period category
It isn't apparent (at all), but the sengoku period category is sort of a special case - since there is no solid start or end time, and there is a lot of overlap, the general method for using the sengoku period category is to use only the sengoku period category when the major events/contributions of a person's life falls between roughly 1495-1615, even if they live beyond, or were born before it. We just consider them a "sengoku period figure". There are very few that had events/contributions that really spanned from pre to post-1495 or 1615. It's a little subjective and arbitrary, but the best way to keep the sengoku period useful, and also to not overpopulate the edo and muromachi periods. --[[User:Shogun|Kitsuno]] 10:36, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
It isn't apparent (at all), but the sengoku period category is sort of a special case - since there is no solid start or end time, and there is a lot of overlap, the general method for using the sengoku period category is to use only the sengoku period category when the major events/contributions of a person's life falls between roughly 1495-1615, even if they live beyond, or were born before it. We just consider them a "sengoku period figure". There are very few that had events/contributions that really spanned from pre to post-1495 or 1615. It's a little subjective and arbitrary, but the best way to keep the sengoku period useful, and also to not overpopulate the edo and muromachi periods. --[[User:Shogun|Kitsuno]] 10:36, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
::That's fine; I get your logic. I just haven't seen before a source that considers Azuchi-Momoyama on the same par as Muromachi and Edo as the period which comes between them; I've always thought of it as sort of a sub-section of Sengoku, which itself would be on the par of the other periods in the chronology of Nara-Heian-Kamakura-Muromachi-Sengoku-Edo-Meiji ... No big deal. :) [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 11:30, 21 June 2007 (PDT)