Talk:Era

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality 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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] Cleanup

  1. Geological era must not be buried in the next to last 'graph of the main secn.
  2. 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.)
  3. 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)

I'll try some simpleton restructurings against the mess you pinpoint (for starters):
  1. Add headings for regnal, geology and other eras,
  2. add one sentence or subordinate clause in the intro for "regnal", "geology" and other as fit.
Said: Rursus ☻ 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)