Jump to content

Talk:Japanese era name/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Eras and imperial system

At least the last four eras began when a new emperor ascended to the throne. Given that, on what basis does the article assert that the Japanese eras have nothing to do with the imperial system? And, at least as important, what are they based on? Vicki Rosenzweig 21:19 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

They are indeed the 'names' of each emperor's rule. I have no idea why it's being claimed otherwise.

They are not. Meiji or Showa is a name of era. Because the emperor from meiji to now are not called by their given name, they are usually called the name of era when they regine such as Showa. Basically Japanese emperors are simply called majesty or something but not by the name. -- Taku 22:55 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

The era and the emperor are referred to by the same name. This makes sense only because the era begins and ends when an emperor's reign does. So, again, on what basis does the article say there is no connection, and what are the eras based on?
This doesn't mean there's any necessary connection with Shinto. After all, historians writing about England talk about the Elizabethan era, without implying that Elizabeth I of England was divine. But the era is named for the queen. Vicki Rosenzweig

Though I am not so sure, in my understanding, the name of recent emperors is based on the name of his era but not vice versa. Emperor Showa is called so only because his regin. As you see, the term of last four eras corresponds to the regin term of each emperor. Simply saying there is no connection at all is rather misconception. Actually, there is an imperial calender which is totally different from this during World War II or the period the Japanese emperor is considered divine. I also wanted to distinguish this. It was a dirty work, hoping someone knowing more would fix it. The text in the article sure need more work (unfortunatelly currently I can't edit the article) for more clarification. -- Taku 23:29 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is a concrete basis for chosing the name of era. For example, Tenshou was a simply requested by then ruler Oda Nobunaga according to his preference. -- Taku 23:36 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot solve all the problems, but trying to help on some.

Emperors since Meiji (Meiji, Taisho, Showa, Heisei) are called as "(name of the Era) Tennou." But perhaps it is so only after they pass away. Mass media usually say "Tennou Heika" when they refer to the current emperor.

Hirohito is kind of like his first name (though the members of the emperial family does not have a "family name"), and it is probably too casual to address him as Hirohito. It may be kind of like saying "your majesty" in some cultures. (But I'm not sure.)

The name of the Heisei was announced after the passing away of Showa. Those thing has meanings. Showa meant something like bright& peaceful. It is an embodyment of hope that the era will become like that, as I recall.

And there is a law saying that gengou (name of an era) changes as emperors change. I don't know when it started, but my guess of course is from Meiji.

Taku, these sites may help?: [1] [2] [3]

Tomos 04:51 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know very much. I will look up sites you gave but I will appreciate anyone who rewrites the article. -- Taku 04:56 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Two emperors, two nengo

Taku, of some periods there were two Tennos, therefore two nengos! HuiHui

Yeah. Basically an era name is not associated to the name of emperor aside from recent ones. -- Taku 05:33 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Literary meaning

Simple question. Does anyone believe putting literary meaning to each era name is a good idea? Like flat peace to Heisei. -- Taku 05:58 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

no, rather, associate to Tenno to the nenkos. and attach the names of the shoguns, Kambyaku, prime ministers any way possible
As a reader I would prefer knowing more histories behind these names, not the literary meaning found in dictionaries. -- User:kt2

Good idea. I agree with that. It takes some time thought. -- Taku 23:26 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

When do they start

Do these eras start with the beginning of the year (whenever the Japanese put it) or on different dates? -- Error

An era starts on the next day the previous era became null and void and is counted when the first day of a year, January 1 starts. For example, Showa has the 64th year but it ends on January 7th. Had Showa ended eight days earlier, on December 31, there would only have been 63 years for Showa. In theory, three or more era can share a year but this has never happened. Revth 09:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
According to the relevant articles, the year 749 covered 3 eras, being Tenpyō 21, Tenpyō-kanpō 1 and Tenpyō-shōhō 1 Nik42 08:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Informations on Era

I'm currently dumping only the very basic era data from Japanese Wikipedia. After the list is completed, I'll go back and try to fill other informations like who the emperor was and where the era name was taken from. Revth 09:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Selection of names

Who choses the names today? The Emperor? If so, what would happen in the theoretical case that a child ascended the throne (say, the succession law is changed to allow female succession, and Princess Aiko ascends the throne, in 2007 after the untimely deaths of her father and grandfather). Surely a 6-year-old couldn't chose an era name, so who would choose it? The regent? Or would the era remain Heisei until she came of age? If the latter, what would her posthumous name be if, in another unlucky blow, she were to die in childhood? Nik42 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

New era name is chosen by the Japanese government and established by a cabinet order. --Kusunose 08:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any laws which limit the number of kanji usable in Japanese era names? --88.76.236.181 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Jitō (period)?

I've just created the article for the era of Shuchō. The list here, along with the information presented at ja:朱鳥 seem to indicate that the era spanned roughly 16 years, being followed by Taihō. However, my "Japan Encyclopedia" by Louis Frederic indicates that it instead lasted less than a year, being followed by the Jitō era which was in turn followed by Taihō. What's up here? LordAmeth 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

fr:Utilisateur:Sixsous from the French Wikipedia introduced me to an online nengō conversion website which is maintained as part of the Japanese studies program at the German University of Tübingen at http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm.
This "Nengōcalc" software proposes plausible subdivisions within the otherwise undifferentiated 38-year time-span of Hakuchi:
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi (era) ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
alternate era/period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
alternate era/period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
This suggests a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? Ooperhoofd 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the German Wikipedia includes the following additions to its list of pre-Taika nengō:
I wonder if there a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? At this point, I'm not personally eager to delve too much into pre-Jomei history; but the question implied by the German Wikipedia seems relevant nevertheless. Ooperhoofd 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In this context, maybe it's a good idea to mention a question about something missing in the 38-year span of years which the English Wikipedia now identifies as being with the Hakuchi era?
  • 645 大化 Taika 6-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi 37-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 686 朱鳥 Shuchō 16-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 701 大宝 Taihō 4-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
My curiosity has a context in Brown and Ishida's translation of Gukanshō:
"These era names fell in the Temmu reign: (1) Suzaku, which was one year long [672]. (It began in mizunoe-saru.) (2) Hakuhō, which was 13 years long [673-686]. (It began in Mizunoe-saru, the year Suzaku began. Did both begin in the same year?) And (3) Suchō, which was eight years long [686-694]. (One year of this era fell within the Temmu reign.)" -- Brown, Gukanshō, at p. 269.
At this point, my guess would be that the English Wikipedia would be best served by incorporating both the suggested additions from (a) the University of Tübingen's web site and (b) the current iteration of the German Wikipedia, but I think we can safely leave aside any other similar concerns for another day, perhaps in 2008? Ooperhoofd 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You've really done a lot of work with this. Please, go ahead and make whatever changes you think appropriate. LordAmeth 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: If anyone checks here, I did add the Tübingen-proposed eras today in the context of this exchange with User:LordAmeth. Also, I did remove the piping from every era name which would remain otherwise unchanged. These are quite enough changes for one day. Better to let this settle for a while, thus giving more people a change to comment or to suggest alternatives. In my view, any questions of further (pre-Taika) additions are best left for another day -- perhaps in September. Ooperhoofd 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Consulting the Japanese Wikipedia, we discover anomolies at the end of the 7th century -- that is to say (1) between the Hakuchi era and the Shuchō era, and also (2) between the Shuchō era and the Taihō era.
  • 開始年_________________________________
    • (西暦)__元号名___読み_______年数___改元事由
    • 645年____大化___たいか_______ 6___Taika (era)
    • 650年____白雉___はくち_______ 5___Hakuchi (era)
    • 654年____廃止___
    • 686年____朱鳥___しゅちょう____ 1___Shuchō
    • 686年____廃止___
    • 701年____大宝___たいほう______ 4___Taihō (era)
I wonder if this small tidbit of information might have some utility? Ooperhoofd 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Homonyms

The eras of Japan encompass 16 emamples of homonymns. It becomes a problem of finding the best way of differentiating amongst them. A number of attempts have been made, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end of our problems. I you have a useful idea, good -- the future of this Widipedia is yours. Be BOLD in proposing a better way to handle this small problem.

The French Wikipedia is handling the homonyms in a unique way, but the English Wikipedia is handling this same issue in a different way. I personally don't really like the French option, but it is clear and it is consistent. Unfortunately, I have no ideas about how to handle this in any better way. In this context, does it make any sense to propose re-visiting any of the decisions which have already been made in the context of our English-language Wikipedia? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eishō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Jōgen, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS

Jōō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Kōan, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Kōji, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS


Kōwa, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Shōwa, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Tenshō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Chronology of 16 homonym pairs

  • 976_ 貞元 |Jōgen (976 - 978)
  • 1046 永承 |Eishō (1046 - 1053)
  • 1099 康和 |Kōwa (1099 - 1104)
  • 1131 天承 |Tenshō (1131 - 1132)
  • 1142 康治 |Kōji (1142 - 1144)
  • 1207 承元 |Jōgen (1207 - 1211)
  • 1222 貞応 |Jōō (1222 - 1224)
  • 1278 弘安 |Kōan (1278 - 1288)
  • 1312 正和 |Shōwa (1312 - 1317)
  • 1361 康安 |Kōan (1361 - 1362)
  • 1504 永正 |Eishō (1504 - 1521)
  • 1555 弘治 |Kōji (1555 - 1558)
  • 1573 天正 |Tenshō (1573 - 1592)
  • 1652 承応 |Jōō (1652 - 1655)
  • 1926 昭和 |Shōwa (1926 - 1989)-- Emperor Shōwa

I guess the question becomes: What should be done? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current system of disambiguating by period (e.g. Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, etc.) seems just fine to me - none of the homonym pairs land within the same time period. Though, the French model does look a bit cleaner in the sense that it describes directly the years involved. I suppose that anyone looking for one or the other of a given homonym pair would know which period it's in - otherwise, if they are *that* unfamiliar with Japanese history, why would they be looking for it? ... Either system is fine with me, as long as we're consistent about it. It shouldn't really pose a big problem - we just need to decide upon a set standard form and then apply it. Thanks again for all your work. LordAmeth 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Personally, I have no preferences -- but it is a fact that our rational choice was not immediately obvious to the French. As yet, other non-English Wikipedias have not reached even tentative decisions about this kind of comparatively trivial issue. In those undefined contexts, this section of en:Talk:Japanese era name becomes practical and useful model, because it documents a process used by those interested in expressing a view. Equally important, we do something today to ensure that the current conventions of our English-language Wikipedia will continue to be open questions which may be re-visited in the future. Ooperhoofd 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with LordAmeth. They should just be differentiated using eras. But we should also keep in mind that era names are primarily going to be used by people who already understand enough Japanese to be able to differentiate them anyway, since they are primarily used in Japanese texts to begin with. I think most western historians will just use western years, and if they do use Japanese eras, the context in which they are used will make it clear when it is (i.e. nobody is going to rely on the era name alone without specifying what year they are talking about in western years). Therefore, this is really only a naming problem in Wikipedia, not a practical problem. And for that purpose, I think it is fine to adopt LordAmeth's suggestion, but perhaps useful to also create redirects too other systems as well.-Jefu 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nengō (copied from User talk:Ooperhoofd)

You've recently made some changes to the Japanese nengō pages, and added some new pages, such as:
Saimei (era)
Tenji (era)
Kōbun (era)
Temmu (era)
Jitō (era)
Mommu (era)

None of these are nengō. They refer to the imperial reigns, but they are not nengō. (That's why times that make references to the emperors that ruled during this period are properly written as, for example, 斉明天皇３年, not 斉明３年.) Nengō were abolished during these times.

The Nengō should be:

  • Taika: 645.6.19–650.2.15
  • Hakuchi: 650.2.15–654.10.?
  • GAP
  • Shuchō: 686.7.20–686.9.?
  • GAP
  • Taihō: 701.3.21–704.5.10

...

If you could please remove the new pages and all references that you have made to these "eras", it would be much appreciated, as there is now a great deal of inconsistency (and error) that has been introduced.


Thanks. Bueller 007 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please amplify the reasons for your deletions in the context of the discussion at Talk:Japanese era name/Jitō(era)?. These non-standard additions were not contributed thoughtlessly, nor without prior discussion. Yours may be the more persuasive argument, of course; but it would be easier to evaluate if you explained a bit further. My tentative inclination would be to consider restoring these anolmalies, but with a better notice to anyone else, like yourself, who would then think more carefully about reviewing the talk page before a too precipitous edit? Alternately, it may well be that any perceived benefit is plainly outweighed by the further information you can be able to provide about these pre-Taihō years. Ooperhoofd 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Exchange transferred from Talk:Suchō (era)
The speedy deletion tag was added just as the article was created, before I was even given much opportunity to add to it. Admittedly, I do not have a hell of a lot to be said about this period; still, it is one of a series in the nengō (imperial eras) of Japanese history, and is essential for completion of that series. I shall endeavor to add what I can to shore up the article's content. LordAmeth 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to what LordAmeth has already explained: There is an error in Japanese era names, which has been copied directly from the Japanese Wikipedia. Resolving that problem needs to be addressed simultaneously with the creation of this new article. Plausibly, Gukanshō, a 13th century text, will provide a way forward ... but in the meantime, the "fast delete" can be removed without further delay. I'm more than willing to take responsibility for this topic. Ooperhoofd 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Time span
The time span of this era is incorrect. Nearly all sources list it as a single year in duration: 686. After 686, the next nengō is Taihō beginning in 701.
References:
  • Hioki, Eigō (2007). Dai Ikkan: -1000. Shin Kokushi Dainenhyō (10 volumnes). Kokusho Kankōkai. ISBN 978-4-336-04826-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Sakamoto, Tarō (1965). Nihon Shoki. Iwanami Nihon Koten Bungaku Jiten. Iwanami Shoten. pp. 474, 480 etc. ISBN 4000600680. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten Henshū Iinkai (1986). Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten. Iwanami Shoten. ISBN 4-00-080067-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Nihon Kokugo Daijiten Dai Nihan Henshū Iinkai (2000–2002). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (15 volumes). Shōgakkan. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
Bendono 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that in the Japanese Wikipedia article, and in a number of other sources besides; the problem is that if Shucho only lasted one year, and Taiho did not begin until 701, what was the imperial era name (the nengo) for the intervening 15 years? Please see the discussion on Talk:Japanese era name, as User:Ooperhoofd is currently in the process of trying to reconcile the differing sources on the chronology. LordAmeth 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple: there was no nengō. The nengō article already deals with this:

Although the regular practice of proclaiming successive nengō was interrupted in the late seventh century, it was re-adopted in 701 during the reign of Emperor Mommu (697-707). Since that Taihō era (701-704), era names have been used continuously up through the present day.

It's late here, so I'll try to look at the discussion sometime tomorrow. Bendono 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, then. Simple enough. LordAmeth 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Shuchō (era) succession box
The succession box at the bottom of this page links to nengō which do not, at this time, have any counterpart in other Wikipedias. These become links to non-congruent pages; but in due course, there will be further edits.
Utilisateur:Sixsous from the French Wikipedia introduced me to an online nengō conversion website which is maintained as part of the Japanese studies program at the German University of Tübingen at http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm ...
This "Nengōcalc" software proposes plausible subdivisions within the 38-year time-span of Hakuchi:
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
alternate era chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
alternate era chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
Bibliographic foundation for the Nengo_calc software:
  • Tsuchihashi, Paul Yachita. (1952). Japanese Chronological Tables from 601 to 1872 (邦暦西暦対照表). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
  • Reinhard Zöllner, Reinhard. (2003). Japanische Zeitrechnung. München: Iudicium Verlag.
This now becomes a solicitation for further comments? suggestions? Ooperhoofd 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Pre-Taihō era names
There is an on-going discussion about re-visiting the largely settled issues arising from the subject of pre-Taihō era names. For more information, see Talk:Japanese era name. Ooperhoofd 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My intention here in Talk:Shuchō is to help move things along by ensuring that further comments or questions are better informed by plausibly useful citations:
  • Varley's 1980 translation of Jinnō Shōtōki:
    • p. 138/"Many Chinese practices were adopted during Mommu's reign, from styles of palace construction to the colors of robes for bbth civil and military officials (bunbukan). Moreover, beginning in Mommu's fifth year, 701, the Chinese custom of era names was inaugurated. Thus, 701 became known as the first year of Taihō. Before this there had been the Taika and Hakuchi eras of Emperor Kōtaku, the Hakuhō era of Temperor Tenji, and the Shajaku and Shuchō eras of Emperor Temmu.Ø But it was not until Taihō that the custom was adopted permanently. It is therefore proper to regard Taihō as marking the true beginning of era names."
      • ØThe era names Hakuhō and Shujaku do not appear in Nihon Shoki. For a discussion of their listing in other sources, see Hirata Toshiharu, "Jinnō Shōtōki kōshō shichi-ron," in Hiraizumi Kiyoshi, ed., Kitabatake Chikafusa-Kō no Kenkyū, pp. 228-232.
    • p. 139/The god of Kasuga, the tutelary deity (uji no kami) of the Fujiwara, also provided special protection for the Hossō sect. (The kami of Kasuga was originally manifested in the for m of the deity Ame-no-Koyane; its shrine, first built at Hiraoka, Kawachi Province, was moved to Kasuga during the Jinga-Keiun era, 767-769--that is, after [Fujiwara-no] Fubito's time ...." [emphasis added]
  • Brown and Ishida's 1979 translation of Gukanshō:
    • p. 32/"It was during Mommu's reign (697-707) that era names were first used. Beginning with the Taihō era (701-704), era names have been used until the present day."ф
      • ф In his Imperial chronology, Jien says that era names were first instituted in the reign of Kōtoku (645-655), and he even provides details about era names after the reign of Temmu (671-686). However his statement here is rather close to the position taken by modern scholars.
    • p. 267/"Era names were instituted during this reign. The Taika era was five years long [645-649] and the Hakuchi five [650-654]."
    • p. 269/"These era names fell in the Temmu reign: (1) Suzaku, which was one year long [672]. (It began in mizunoe-saru.) (2) Hakuhō, which was 13 years long [673-686]. (It began in Mizunoe-saru, the year Suzaku began. Did both begin in the same year?) And (3) Suchō, which was eight years long [686-694]. (One year of this era fell within the Temmu reign.)"
    • p. 270/"The eras that fell in this reign [Jitō-tennō] were (1) the remaining seven years of Shuchō; and (2) Taika, which was four years long [695-698]. (The first year of this era was kinoto-hitsuji [695].)"
    • p. 271/"One year of the Taika era fell in this reign [Mommu-tennō]. The following three years had no era name. The Taihō era (which was instituted on the 21st day of the 3rd month of kanoto-ushi [701]) was three years long [701-704]. After this there was no break in the continuity of era names." [emphasis added]
  • Ponsonby-Fane, in Kyoto: the Old Capital of Japan, 794-1869, mentions a remotely relevant 18th century era anomoly:
    • p. 321/Hōreki 1 (宝暦元年; October 27, 1751): The new era of Hōreki (meaning "Valuable Calendar" or "Valuable Almanac") was said to have been created to mark the death of the retired Emperor Sakuramachi and the death of the former Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune.
The previous era could be said to have ended and the new era is understood to have commenced in Kan'en 4, on the 27th day of the 10th month; however, this nengō was promulgated retroactively. The Keikō Kimon records that the calendar was amended by [Momozono-tennō's] Imperial command, and the era was re-named Hōreki on December 2, 1754, which then would have become 19th day of the 10th month of the 4th year of Hōreki. [emphasis added]
This now becomes a solicitation for further comments? suggestions? Ooperhoofd 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't know what information you expected me to add here, Ooperhoofd. The Japanese Wikipedia has the information exactly right.
   * Taika: 645.6.19–650.2.15
   * Hakuchi: 650.2.15–654.10.?
   * GAP
   * Shuchō: 686.7.20–686.9.?
   * GAP
   * Taihō: 701.3.21–704.5.10

The stuff from tuebingen refers to years in which the emperor changed, but the system was abandoned during that time, so the era names didn't get updated. So things like "Saimei" aren't Japanese eras. For example, to refer to the first year of Empress Saimei's rule (655 CE), I believe that strictly speaking you are supposed to say "斉明天皇元年" ("the first year of Empress Saimei's rule") instead of just "斉明元年" ("the first year of Saimei") as you would if it were a nengo, although it can be abbreviated to that form (or used that way by the ignorant).

All the Japanese nengo are found in Japanese dictionaries. The ones that have been added are nowhere in there. They are emperors and empresses, not eras. (Remember that the two were not the same until Meiji came on the scene.)

Some lists of nengo here:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)
http://homepage1.nifty.com/gyouseinet/history/gengouichiran.htm
http://www.sakai11.jp/rr_gengouitiran.htm
http://www.kumamotokokufu-h.ed.jp/kumamoto/bungaku/nengoui.html
http://www1.odn.ne.jp/haru/data-list/gengo.html

None of them mention any of the "eras" you are trying to add.


This is the kind of list that you are trying to create:
http://homepage1.nifty.com/gyouseinet/history/nengouichiran.htm
http://www.technogallery.com/rekishi/ichiran/nengo.htm

But again, notice that in the two links directly above, whenever there's not a *true era name* available, they've listed things in terms of ***emperor names***. i.e., 神武天皇元年, 欽明天皇元年, not 神武元年, 欽明元年, etc. That's because "Jimmu" and "Kimmei" are *not* eras. It just means "first year of emperor so-and-so's rule."

Stick with the way Japanese wiki and Japanese dictionaries have it. List the *true era names*, not the *imperial reigns*. Bueller 007 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Beuller, I wonder if you could be persuaded to delete one phrase only from what you've written? I'd like to see a small change in this one sentence:
For example, to refer to the first year of Empress Saimei's rule (655 CE), I believe that strictly speaking you are supposed to say "斉明天皇元年" ("the first year of Empress Saimei's rule") instead of just "斉明元年" ("the first year of Saimei") as you would if it were a nengo, although it can be abbreviated to that form (or used that way by the ignorant)."
What about removing that last bit -- "(or used that way by the ignorant)"? In the initial paragraph of its introduction to the history of Japanese calendars, the National Diet Library explains that "Japan organized its first calendar in the the 12th year of Suiko (604)." In a way, this trivial phrase was a kind of tipping point which convinced me to begin the inquiries which led us all to where we are today. Your amplified comments are compelling and clear. In fact, I like this specific sentence very much; but a lingering question remains in my mind about that one small part of that final clause.
I have added "under construction" templates to the relevant pages. It will take a little while to complete appropriate changes, but I'm pleased to take on that task.Ooperhoofd 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to delete part of a statement that's on a Wikipedia talk page. Besides, I use the term "ignorant" only as meaning "lacking information of a particular subject." In this case, the nengo system. Bueller 007 04:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Interregnum

See [Interregnum]. Ooperhoofd 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to "see" interregnum. I know what the word means, and it's not appropriate to use it here. It implies that from 654 to 686 and again from 686 to 701 THERE WAS NO PROPER RULING EMPEROR. This is not the case. We are merely talking about the temporary abandonment of the era-naming system. Why would you wilfully choose to use a misleading word?
Using a Japanese word ("廃止") in the place of the era name, as if it is supposed to officially represent the era, is also misleading. Bueller 007 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shinengō

Bueller_007: You added this comment to a recent edit: "this shinengo section desperately needs a rewrite." The text should look familiar -- these are your words and phrases.

In the most recent edit, I tried as much as possible to use your own words from the Talk page. My intention was to convert the edit into a gesture which encouraged a "come-let-us-work-together" approach to this topic. Certainly, I do expect you to feel free to re-write this text in any way that seems best to you. Maybe I would have hoped for some expression which confirmed that you recognized your own words ..., but perhaps this matters not at all. I've not been overwhelmed with waves of good will and charm during recent weeks, and this may had made me a bit touchy. Alternately, it could be that a degree of impatience and a tendency to be a bit "touchy" is exactly what this venue requires. We learn from experience. Ooperhoofd 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. And if you look at the parts of the article that I actually changed in that edit, I didn't TOUCH anything that you recently wrote. (I think it's somewhat useful information, although overly wordy, and I think it should be moved to its own page called "Japanese Imperial reigns". Don't forget, there are 30 odd Japanese imperial reigns prior to the introduction of the Nengo system). I changed an old (incorrect) section about Hakuhō, that is part of a rather nonsensical paragraph that does a totally shit job of explaining 私年号. As should be clear from the context of the actual edit that accompanied the edit summary you are dwelling on, my comment was about cleaning up that train wreck of a first paragraph. I would also remove the unreferenced section about renaming the Jomon. Bueller 007 05:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just rewritten the section that you wrote, to remove some of the fluff, and hopefully make it more clear. I've also removed the unreferenced Jomon thing. Bueller 007 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

what's the deal with BC -> BCE?

To quote WP:DATE#Longer_periods:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted and upper-case—to specify the era. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE or AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason.

So... what's up with the sudden change sometime in the past month? --moof 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Breaks the flow?

In the following section, Bueller 007 has deleted a two-sentence paragraph (emphasized below in italic/bold), but his reasoning seems thin:

  • (cur) (last) 20:51, 26 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (27,215 bytes) (→Nengō in modern Japan - yen coins bear nengō dating) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 02:01, 29 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (26,923 bytes) (Undid revision 180305016 -- this edit breaks the flow of the section, and is a minor gloss. these dates are used EVERYWHERE) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 17:41, 29 December 2007 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (27,215 bytes) (Undid revision 180724101 by Bueller 007 (talk)ubiquitous is an odd antonym for irrelevant) (undo)
...This practice, implemented successfully since the days of Meiji but never formalized, became law in 1979 with the passage of the Era Name Law (元号法, gengō-hō). Thus, since 1868, there have only been four era names assigned: Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa and Heisei, each corresponding with the rule of only one emperor. Upon death, the emperor is thereafter referred to by the era of his reign. For example, Mutsuhito is posthumously known as "Emperor Meiji" (明治天皇, Meiji Tennō).
Instead of displaying the A.D. year of mintage like most nations' coins, yen coins instead display the year of the current emperor's reign. For example, a coin minted in 2006 would bear the date Heisei 18 (the 18th year of Emperor Akihito's reign).
NB: It is protocol in Japan that the reigning emperor should be referred to as Tennō Heika (天皇陛下, "His Majesty the Emperor") or Kinjō Tennō (今上天皇, "current emperor"). To call the current emperor by the current era name, i.e. "Heisei", even in English, is a faux pas, as this is—and will be—his posthumous name. Use of the emperor's given name (i.e., "Akihito") is rare in Japanese.
--Conversion table from nengō to Gregorian calendar years---
To convert a Japanese year to a Western or Gregorian calendar year, find the first year of the nengō (the nengō = the era name, see list below). When found, subtract 1, and add the number of the Japanese year. For example, the 23rd year of the Showa Era (Showa 23) would be 1948:

Adding two short sentences at the end of a section -- before an appositive aside -- doesn't seem to represent plausible point for "breaking the flow" of anything. Rather, in this specific instance, the disputed this text becomes an appropriate and helpful transition. In fact, the reference to a specific, non-documentary use helps bring the subject of nengō out of the realm of abstract terminology and into the everyday world of modern Japan (and Japanese history).

No -- this paragraph does not merit summary deletion. I am persuaded that Bueller 007's problem has less to do with the substance of this minor edit and more to do with me -- with the simple fact that it was me who posted it. If so, that's a different matter entirely, isn't it? In that case, any further efforts invested in responding to criticism about "breaking the flow" of the prose become an evanescent exercise. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_era_name/Archive_1&oldid=851192281"