Talk:Chinese era name

Time Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthroponymy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yuan (元)

The most relevant meaning of Yuan here is probably "the first", as in Yuan Year (元年). It seems to have taken on the metonymous and secondary meaning of "the era name", but literally, I think yuan isn't a synomyn of "era name" or "nian hao".

For example, Romance of the Three Kingdoms says "All civil and martial officials hail "Long live!". And after the ceremonial dance ended, it was 改元ed into the first tear of Zhangwu period." (文武各官，皆呼萬歲。拜舞禮畢，改元章武元年。) (chapter 80). The quote definitions shows that 改元 was not used literally anymore by the 14th century (2 Yuans), but since we're revealing the literal, original meanings, I think "the first" may be more appropriate here (its real meaning was very clearly stated in the article already).

--Menchi 00:25 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good oberveation. According to dictionary entries, yuan did literally mean the first and, in some instances, isn't a synonym of "era name" as in yuanshi tianzun "元始天尊". But when it comes to gaiyuan or jianyuan, the secondary meaning of era name is also applicable. :) kt2 22:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I happened on this article and just couldn't help making some changes in the English. In my minor edits I decided, for consistency, to italicize every occurrence of "nian hao", and to leave it unchanged for the plural.

JerryFriedman 20:55, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Japanese emperor?

The article's second paragraph states:

When an emperor ascended to the throne, he would adopt a throne name (for example, the throne name for Akihito, current Emperor of Japan, is Heisei).

Why, may I ask, is a Japanese example being used on the page about Chinese era names? This is by no means my area of expertise, but perhaps someone who knows more about this subject could replace the reference to Akihito with an equivalent Chinese example.

Alkari 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I picked Zhu Yuanzhang mainly because he was the one who started the system of a single era name for the whole reign. - Roo

Well, the era name thing is actually shared by few of the nations. Just that the title here is abit incline to the Chinese. I guess it is more accurate to title this topic as "Era name", without the "Chinese". Regards ChowHui 10:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled era names?

The text reads: When more than one monarch used the same motto, the name of the specific monarch or dynasty has to be mentioned.... In traditional literature, one can therefore find references like "the first month of the thirteenth year of Jianyuan" (建元十三年元月).

However, the dynasty is not mentioned here. How is it expressed? (Furthermore, I have never come across 元月. Is that correct, or is it a mistake for 正月?)Stone-turner (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese era name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402230053/http://homepage1.nifty.com/history/history.html to http://homepage1.nifty.com/history/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Era? Wrong transaltion ?

In English era means a very long period of time — tens or hunderds of years. But so called Chinese eras (年號) are quite short periods of time — from several days to several years. How can one call them eras, when they do not corespond with meaning and usage of the word era? These periods are barely any eras at all. There should be better naming for 年號. --126.148.144.250 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysian Era?

I've never heard it called that; and not even the article it links to uses that term. Yes, Dionysius Exiguus originated the Anno Domini system of reckoning; but he still managed to get Jesus' year of birth wrong, or at least inexact. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]