This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ěŏö — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC8C:3480:512A:FEE4:75C3:E2D1 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Era. 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/20050418090602/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html to http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027181013/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/

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) 06:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any Ancient Roman or Greek related pages in particular ought to use the Common Era CE/BCE format. Since they were not Christian regions, yet have lots of articles written about them, the more neutral and academically accepted style is CE/BCE. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted. I don't know if you've got around to reading WP:ERA, but when you do you will see an article by article approach is needed. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]