Talk:Nara period

RFD discussion: February–December 2020
There's the ; but as a English Wiktionary entry, this appears to be a sum of parts. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * On one hand, nothing currently in the entry Nara allows one to work out the timeframe of the Nara period; OTOH, there are a lot of such "periods" and "eras", all of which have numerous collocations: not just "Nara" but also e.g. "Edo" and "Showa" can be attested together with "period", "era" and "epoch". This suggests that the information about timeframe could be noted on "Nara", "Edo", "Showa" etc if we wanted to note it somewhere in the dictionary, and/or maybe we consider it encyclopedic. We do seem to note the timeframes of e.g. the "Regency period" and "Victorian era" in Regency and Victorian. Btw, we also have a number of Chinese dynasties like the Tang dynasty, even though it could be worked out from Tang + dynasty (and we have non-Chinese dynasty, the Slave Dynasty). I'm on the fence and will wait for more comments before casting a !vote. - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Even noting when Nara was a capital at wouldn't tell you that its namesake period matches the time it was a capital without some knowledge of Japanese historiography. Spans of time seem potentially lexical to me, and this one is useful. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I figured if we wanted to move the timeframe content to Nara, it wouldn't (just) be by mentioning when Nara was the capital, but perhaps by "...capital, which lent its name to the (710-794)". Do we want, say, the ? ? Then again, both of those are more SOP than this, since Camelot/Watergate already conveys a particular time. What about "Hellenistic period" or "Post-exilic period" ? We do have Gilded Age, Dust Bowl ("the period of time when..."), and Roaring Twenties. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's already an entry Jomon, from . Might as well add Asuka, Heian and Azuchi-Momoyama for the sake of argument? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that we do have e.g. Bronze Age, Iron Age and the like. But the array of collocations (one speaks not just of the Nara, Edo, Showa, Meiji, etc "period", but also of the "~ era", "~ epoch", etc) still makes me hesitate to consider this idiomatic. We could close this as "no consensus => not deleted" since there's only one "delete" (OP), one "keep" (Meta), and one on the fence (me), but it'd be better if more people would weigh in... - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept &mdash; Dentonius 08:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Late keep. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Meiji period
Same as above. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Also . ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I lean toward keep. Although, as -sche notes of Nara period, other collocations exist, this one seems pretty well lexicalized. A search of en.wikisource using Google site search, for example, shows 22 tokens of Meiji period, 80 of Meiji era, and none of Meiji epoch, Meiji time, Meiji times, or Meiji generation. (My subjective sense is that Meiji period is common in scholarship, but intuitions about frequency are often not very accurate.) Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)