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 
Maybe someone could fill in the article with information for pre-Nara periods.--Bethetsu 20:53, 20 June 2007 (PDT)
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)
Did you read the link above? The footnotes in the article are a direct result of that discussion. Kitsuno and ltdomer talk about why the Sengoku Jidai is not an official period. Also, of the chronological schemes of 5 scholars given in Nelson's Dictionary, all have Azuchi-Momoyama, but only one gives "Sengoku," and he includes it within Muromachi.
Aside from that, this is an outline, and it cannot deal very well with a "period" that is 40 years broad both in the beginning and end. I am hardly a Sengoku denier--in the page I wrote on the Osaka Campaign I put it in the Sengoku category, though I would certainly call 1615 Edo. But the issue and many of the people were Sengoku. That is the advantage of categories. But for an outline you have to make a choice and stick with it.--Bethetsu 07:49, 21 June 2007 (PDT)