Talk:Era

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Time Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This could stand a good disambiguation? Are there any votes in favor or against? Emperorbma

Is this a disambiguation page?

This seems to be an article to me, not a disambiguation page. Should we liberate the page and remove the {{disambig}} tag?--Commander Keane 17:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The page lost its disambiguation characteristic on 10 October 2005 when Fastifex greatly expanded it. I'm removing the tag. — Joe Kress 06:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against: there's some common ground shared by all meanings: time, interval etc., and ERA exists now. What would be acceptable however, would be moving this page to Era (time), and moving ERA to Era. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Geological era must not be buried in the next to last 'graph of the main secn.
Check the Manual of Style, and see if the Dab ERA (for both "era" and "ERA")isn't a terrible mistake in violation of guidelines. At the very least, the ToP Dab should read more like "For other uses of this noun and abbreviations ER, see ERA, but my guess is that the smallest change that would bring it into conformance is renaming ERA to Era (disambiguation). (Not that i recommend that as part of the long-term configuation.)
My guess is that this is a lexicographer's etymology-and-usage article that has taken over the more encyclopedic material that is now buried in it. I'm not arguing for discarding that part of the content, but even tho i'm unsure what direction it should progress in, i'm pretty sure the focus is badly off.

--Jerzy•t 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try some simpleton restructurings against the mess you pinpoint (for starters):

Add headings for regnal, geology and other eras,
add one sentence or subordinate clause in the intro for "regnal", "geology" and other as fit.

Said: Rursus ☻ 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating level

Trying to rate this article. Candidate ratings are stub and start. Start means it contains some relevant info, but something's missing. Stub may mean that too, but that it is in a state of flux or mess. I rate this article being a stub, because it's still messy and lacking more on science/astronomy and a separation between social science and colloquial/medial use. Social science are kind of sciences. Said: Rursus ☻ 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bantogen era

WHAT? -- Infinitynerd (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use in other languages

I'm not sure I've got sources for this, but in English the word era is widely synonymous with the words epoch, period, time, etc, while in other languages this is much less so. In French, the word era is still associated with the religious term Christian era (Anno Domini), and so it is perhaps less used as a general term for any given moment of history. ADM (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC) uhh please tell me how long an era is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.127.191 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/Mantapoli/

Mantapoli

Kiaranda
Piagma
Bembaran
Maganding
Baratamay Lumna