Talk:Japanese era name

Opposition
I think it might be good to include that there is significant opposition to the use of nengo in Japan, as it is seen as a symbol of the imperial system. For example, the Japan Communist Party has always opposed the use of nengo. Those opposed to the Japanese imperial system (kimigayo, hinomaru, etc), also tend to oppose the use of nengo. It is frequently tied in with feelings that Hirohito bears responsibility for WWII. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Conversion table
I suggest removing the entire conversation table from the article for the following reasons: Regards, Bendono (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It reads like an instruction manual, contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO
 * 2) The kanji column is unnecessary and redundant as it is given on the relevant article for the period. Contrary to WP:MOS-JA
 * 3) The fourth column is full of pronunciation notes and emperor reigns. The relevance to conversion is unclear. Also, it is unnecessary and redundant as it belongs on the relevant article for the period.
 * 4) While conversion details are necessary, they belong on each of the relevant era articles. In fact, they are already there. See for example Taika (era) where it lists the corresponding Gregorian year for each era year. Hence, unnecessary and redundant here.
 * 5) The list takes up the majority of the page while adding very little to it. We already have an extensive template at the bottom of the page again listing generally the same information.
 * Well, I'm not really sure about the "how-to" complaint, since this is only a 'conversion table' by virtue of the little formula at the top. If you removed that, then it would just become a list of eras.  But I tend to agree.  Now that there is a template, there may be  no need for the list here. At any rate, removing the list will at least remove some of the bloat in the article, w.r.t. all of those "Notes" at the bottom. So long as the alternate readings are eventually transferred over to the individual pages then I have no complaint about deleting the table.
 * But one thing to consider is the fact that if the actual list of REAL nengo is removed, it doesn't seem to make much sense to retain the list of imperial reigns either, and AFAIK this is the only place where you can find them. It would certainly seem odd to have a page called "Japanese era names" that doesn't actually list the era names, but instead contains a list of things that AREN'T era names. So if one goes, they should probably both go. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content discussed above (and placed it in this box so we don't have to go digging through the page history to find it for future reference) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC):

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f90;" | List of Eras
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |

Conversion table from Gregorian calendar years to nengō
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:


 * ILLUSTRATION: 1926 − 1 = 1925 ..., and then 1925 + 23 = 1948 ... or Showa 23.

Non-nengo periods
The following is an example of such an extension of the nengō system to include the post-Taika years not covered by a proper era name:


 * Reign of Emperor Jimmu, 660–581 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Suizei, 581–548 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Annei, 548–510 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Itoku, 510–475 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōshō, 475–392 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōan, 392–290 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōrei, 290–214 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kōgen, 214–157 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Kaika, 157–97 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Sujin, 97–29 BC
 * Reign of Emperor Suinin, 29 BC – AD 71
 * Reign of Emperor Keikō, AD 71–131
 * Reign of Emperor Seimu, 131–192
 * Reign of Emperor Chūai, 192–201
 * Regency of Empress Jingū, 201–270
 * Reign of Emperor Ōjin, 270–313
 * Reign of Emperor Nintoku, 313–400
 * Reign of Emperor Richū, 400–406
 * Reign of Emperor Hanzei, 406–412
 * Reign of Emperor Ingyō, 412–454
 * Reign of Emperor Ankō, 454–457
 * Reign of Emperor Yūryaku, 457–480
 * Reign of Emperor Seinei, 480–485
 * Reign of Emperor Kenzō, 485–488
 * Reign of Emperor Ninken, 488–499
 * Reign of Emperor Buretsu, 499–507
 * Reign of Emperor Keitai, 507–534
 * Reign of Emperor Ankan, 534–536
 * Reign of Emperor Senka, 536–540
 * Reign of Emperor Kinmei, 540–572
 * Reign of Emperor Bidatsu, 572–586
 * Reign of Emperor Yōmei, 586–588
 * Reign of Emperor Sushun, 588–593
 * Reign of Emperor Suiko, 593–629
 * Reign of Emperor Jomei, 629–645
 * Taika era, 645–650
 * Hakuchi era, 650–654
 * Discontinuation of the nengō system, 654–686
 * Reign of Empress Saimei, 655–662
 * Reign of Emperor Tenji, 662–672
 * Reign of Emperor Kōbun, 672–673
 * Reign of Emperor Temmu, 673–686
 * Shuchō era, 686
 * Discontinuation of the nengō system, 686–701
 * Reign of Empress Jitō, 686–697
 * Reign of Emperor Mommu, 697–701
 * Taihō era, 701–704
 * }

Imperial year section
Because this section has nothing to do with the era names as such, I think it should be split into a new article. There's no sense in conflating these two concepts of the Japanese calendar. (Either they should be split or the article should be renamed "Japanese year-labelling systems", etc.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support an expand; alternatively, merge section into Japanese calendar. 75.154.117.75 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; I came here to read about Japanese Imperial year. Era name does NOT explain it. Needs an expansion, too. -210.174.17.173 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

About splitting article and hiding List Of Eras table
Splitting in few article makes user to multiply windows if he or she needs all of their types. There is some king of logic in the action but it cause inconvenience in use.

Also I asking to show List Of Eras table. It's very convenient for use in many fields/ I use it to translate dates and inscriptions in old books or prints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsuore04078 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point one: "convenience" shouldn't be a consideration. The fact of the matter is that they are two different, unrelated numbering schemes. I can see no reason to put them together.
 * Point two: I somewhat agree that it is nice to have a list of all the era names (with their kanji, etc.) in one place. Creating a new article called "List of Japanese era names" might not be a bad idea. But I think putting them on this article just leads to bloat. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So... what happened to the table? Is there a separate article that's not linked to, or has the table been deleted entirely? I rather liked that table... the list currently found at the bottom of the page looks more cluttered, more chaotic; I think it'd look better as a table, no? LordAmeth (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The table is saved above. (Or in the history of the article, of course.) It can be used as the basis for a new "List of Japanese era names" article, if you like.  However, beware that I corrected a number of factual errors in Tenmei's template, and I believe that most of those errors derive directly from the original table (which was his basis for creating the template).  So a number of things in the original table (e.g., which era names properly belong in the Kamakura period, a couple of years for era start/end dates, a proper explanation of what happened to era names when the Northern & Southern courts split, etc.) will need to be updated/corrected. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Future years?
I know this subject probably doesn't come up often, but what is the practice concerning writing future dates with the year in nengō format? Just keep adding (e.g. 平成５０年)? 71.161.42.209 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we just keep adding. See this estimate of future population. Oda Mari (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?
Nengo also is the planet's largest neural brain sim at the University of Waterloo in Canada. It stands for Neural ENgineering Objects in that context. I'd be happy to write an article on it as I use it all the time in my robotics work, but need more experienced editors to opine before disconnecting redirects, etc. What thinkest thou? -- Pdecalculus (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Two small steps have been taken.
 * The Nengo redirect page has been converted into a disambiguation page; and
 * A stub article about a Neural Engineering Object has been drafted.
 * It is possible that the notability of this subject may be challenged? --Enkyo2 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Retro dates
The Heisei period started on January 8, 1989. So 1989 = Heisei 1. How are dates described right before the start of the era, for example January 7 1989? -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the event that there's an era change, dates before the changeover use the old era name and dates after use the new one. So for 1989, it would have gone from January 7, Shouwa 64 to January 8, Heisei 1. Similarly, when the Emperor abdicates this year the date will go from April 30, Heisei 31 to May 1, [new era] 1. Sonictrey (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

One time abdication
This is a rather confusing statement. Abdications were very common in older days. I think that should be rephrased and checked since when it's considered not done to abdicate. Otherwise the sentence is actually rather wrong and "the one time" should be omitted. Kennin (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the phrase "one-time" because that's what I was going to ask. "Emperor Akihito received special one-time permission to abdicate" suggests that with a broader permission, he might have abdicated more than once, which is obviously impossible since he could never become emperor again after abdicating. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)