Talk:Japanese Eras

My way of thinking was that "muromachi" and "rest of muromachi" should end up on the same row in the list at the top, which is why I had it like this

Rest of Muromachi Period

Not sure what looks better.

There was a discussion about periods on the S-A forum [1]

Maybe someone could fill in the article with information for pre-Nara periods.--Bethetsu 20:53, 20 June 2007 (PDT)

Sengoku?

Why is Sengoku described as not included? I understand that much of it overlaps with the Muromachi period, but as far as I am aware it is on equal footing with the Azuchi-Momoyama Period in terms of being an "official" period; as far as I am concerned, Azuchi-Momoyama is even less official, being merely a part of Sengoku.

I have also seen chronologies that list 1467 as the end of the Muromachi period (though not, of course, of the Ashikaga shogunate) in order to allow for Sengoku to be a full period extending from 1467- 1600/1603/1615.

What do you all think? I really don't see why Sengoku should be singled out like this as not quite official enough or whatever, particularly when Azuchi-Momoyama is included. LordAmeth 01:48, 21 June 2007 (PDT)