Talk:Calendar era

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Korean eras

Korean eras, called Dangi, began with the formation of first Korean state in 2333 BC.

I moved the above entry here because the stated year of 2333 BC disagrees with 536 in the cited article. What is the correct year? I suspect that the editor may be confusing the beginning of the Korean state with the first era used by it. Without proof for eras beginning in 2333 BC, I'll replace the entry with 536. — Joe Kress 02:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Added revised Korean eras to article. — Joe Kress 03:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Era of Martyrs

Isn't Era of Martyrs and A.M. essentially the same? Should they not be unified? --RScheiber 07:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. squell 15:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not if A.M. = Anno Mundi. —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge from Anno Domini

There's a lot of duplication between the two articles. Anno Domini has information about many calendar eras other than AD itself. Anno Domini goes into more depth than calendar era, so its material should form the basis of the merged version. However, it jumps back and forth between information about AD and about other calendar eras, so the organisation of the merged article should be based on the clearer arrangement of calendar era. 81.168.80.170 11:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am against this. First, Anno domini is a featured article and should be preserved. Second, the two articles deal with different matters, one is a list of eras and one is a detailed explanation of one of them.--Panairjdde 09:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Item against. No expedient proposal. -- Paul Martin 10:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against merge. Merge is dead, removing notices. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed this again below. --Aervanath 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked all over for the discussion... could you link to it? squell 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of this talk page. I was a little premature in my comment, there, sorry. --Aervanath 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AC

I have removed AC as a synonym for BC. While the article may have intended AC only as a latin abreviation, the overall structure and context of the article implied it is an acceptable English language abbreviation, and it is not. I have searched the Chigago Manual of Style (14th ed.), the American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed.), and P. Kenneth Seidelmann's Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac (1992, University Science Books). I cannot find AC mentioned anywhere as a synonym for BC. If someone wants to put it back, please do so in a way that indicates it should not be used in English language texts. --Gerry Ashton 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you edit Ante Christum Natum to indicate this. Gimmetrow 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I did. --Gerry Ashton 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

Please discuss at Talk:Korean calendar. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Anno Domini#Other eras in official use, Anno Domini#Earlier Calendar Epochs and Common Era#Other calendar eras

Basically, the two Anno Domini sections and the one Common Era section are all material which should be listed in Calendar era. As far as I can tell, Anno Domini#Other eras in official use has absolutely no relation to Anno Domini in and of itself, and looks to just be a duplication of material that either should be or already is in the Calendar era article. Anno Domini#Earlier Calendar Epochs is material which should be included in the Calendar Era article, but might also be included in Anno Domini if that article is re-worked to more explicitly show how those earlier epochs developed into the Anno Domini system. Common Era#Other calendar eras already has a hatlink to Calendar Era, but I think that the material in that section should either be greatly trimmed, or just completely eliminated with a See Also link at the bottom of the article to Calendar Era. I realize that a merge of Anno Domini and Calendar era has been proposed before (see above), but I am not proposing that the full articles be merged, only that those specific sections merged to the appropriate place. --Aervanath 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As long as all good bits are kept, presenting all that information in a single spot seems like a very good idea. I would keep Anno Domini#Earlier calendar epochs alone, though. — squell 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about copying Anno Domini#Earlier calendar epochs into Calendar era and re-organizing Anno Domini, as I suggested above?--Aervanath 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gerry Ashton 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Red King 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The information in the Common Era article should be retained in that article, as it prevents giving the (false) impression of a dichotomy between the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE. WLD^talk|edits 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES--72.66.102.89 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

I've merged year numbering, and sorted the calendar era by their date of introduction (not by actual era, which would be ridiculous, putting the modern "Holocene calendar" in front of all historical eras). Systems based on regnal years I have exported to that article, we should only treat "universal" eras here, and refer to regnal year for monarch-dependent reckoning. dab (𒁳) 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

native American calendars

Shouldn't there be a mention of Indigenous American calendar(s)? ~~Adam (12 May 45) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.60.11 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Maya, is anything known about them? Did (do) they number the years? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiction cycle

Do we want to include relatively short cycles in an article about calendar eras. Is 15 years to short to be an era?

If we do want to include it, shouldn't we include informaton on how to compute the indiction? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not, because the indiction cycle is rarely numbered, only the years within it. Thus you can't tell one cycle from another without more information. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New World

what about calendars used in the new world such as the Maya, Aztec and Inca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.129.196 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ab Urbe Condita

Here's what the article says, "Another method of dating, rarely used, was to indicate the year anno urbis conditae (Latin: "in the year of the founded city" (abbreviated AUC), where "city" meant Rome). (It is often incorrectly given that AUC stands for ab urbe condita, which is the title of T. Livy's history of Rome.)" I have never heard this before (even after taking Latin) and since there is no reference, I think that it should be removed. If someone can provide a reference, though, I may be inclined to believe it. However, in every Latin textbook I have read, and even the Wikipedia article, this cannot be found. --75.36.37.11 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that any form of AUC exists, or are you disputing that one of the specific phrases "anno urbis conditae" or "ab urbe condita" exits? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysian

Text states, "However, while AD precedes the year, CE follows the year (AD 1 = 1 CE)." I've always seen A.D. references follow the year, e.g. 2011 A.D. What is the authority for the statement that A.D. references precede the year? Should the quoted sentence be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marainlaw (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation from the Associated Press Stylebook to support the claim in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It may be worth pointing out that there is a de facto usage of putting "AD" before the number. At least I keep running into this format in (poorly maintained) Wikipedia articles all the time. This usage will, however, put you at risk of being perceived as uneducated, and it cannot be considered good form or be "recommended", we would do a disservice to the reader by implying that both variants are equally valid. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dionysian" again

Refer to: User_talk:Dbachmann#Dionysian_Era

Jc3s5h, topical debates should take place on article talkpages, not user talkpages.

I understand your rejection of "Dionysian era" and I fully agree it is an awkward term. I accept your revert on this point, even though you assumed motives for the change which I do not hold.

We can call the era "Christian era" if you like. It even seems that this is what "C.E." as used in the 19th century was at first intended for. I am just concerned that this violates NPOV because it uses "Christian" of a tradition that is entirely limited to Latin Christianity, it was never current in any of the eastern churches.

Be that as it may, there is no reason to revert additions of relevant, referenced information alongside this terminological quibble, so I have restored that.

--dab (𒁳) 10:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we start counting the dates ?

Js 43.243.82.43 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each era can have slightly different rules. Sometimes an era can have several conventions over the centuries. For example, see Julian calendar#New Year's Day. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]