Jump to content

Talk:French Republican calendar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Note: Emacs M-x calendar groks the French Revolutionary Calendar. In case you needed to consult French Revolutionary dates while using the one true text editor (sorry vi folks).

The calendar also put them out of step with everyone else in Europe.

Though of course they would have said that the rest of Europe was out of step with France. (If I used smilies I'd add one here.)-- Jmabel 14:30, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have some questions: It what way was this calendar incompatible with having an Emperor and nobility?

I don't see how it was incompatible with setting dates for fairs and markets. (anonymously asked in July 2004)

It would be good if someone who knows more than me about the Napoleonic era could address this. -- Jmabel 15:17, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Employing my unfortunately modest powers of mind-reading, I think the person who wrote that was thinking along these lines: The architects of the calendar were trying to abolish everything that was not in keeping with Reason and Liberty, so the introduction of the new calendar came to symbolize the entire Jacobin remodelling of revolutionary society. Napoleon's coronation represented a very sharp turn away from that remodelling. However, I really think we could fairly cut the words "but mainly because he had crowned himself Emperor of the French in December 1804 and had created the new Empire's Nobility during the year 1805. These were both concepts that were incompatible with the fundamental tenets of the calendar", not just because it's unclear what they're supposed to mean, but because they're based on conjecture about Napoleon's motives. The Concordat with Rome was the immediate impetus for abolishing the calendar. QuartierLatin1968 06:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Sniff sniff. Such a lovely calendar.)

I'm with you about the proposed deletion. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most famous" : then what about 9 thermidor ? Starting of a year : isn't it supposed to be on the day of the proclamation of the First Republic ?

Yes, article now says that. It was one day after the abolition of the monarchy. -- Jmabel 15:17, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading somewhere that this calendar was first proposed almost immediately upon the establishment of the Republic. Does anyone have a citation for this? -- Jmabel 14:30, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the passive-voiced, unattributed statement "It was argued that the calendar was scientifically flawed." It was not backed up by any further explanation, not even by a time period in which this was argued. I'd love to see this expanded upon, explained, and back in the article, but as a sentence standing along it's useless. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Move to "Republican"?

Oh, I thought of something else. Would it be possible to move this article to "French Republican Calendar"? Both names are in use, but it seems to me that Republican is used more -- at least in real, published books (and in French) if not in cyberspace. Also, it is a technically better name, as the Revolution begins in 1789, while a Republic is only declared in 1792, and it's from the proclamation of the Republic that the calendar starts counting. QuartierLatin1968 06:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with either, as long as the redirect is maintained. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

suggestions

I suggest that

  • the 'days' section be changed by moving the lists to sub-articles or separate articles (each month to get its own article, allowing the Month's name to be referenced by a search, and 360 redirects or disambiguation page entries, as appropriate for the individual names of the months) (whew, I know that's asking a lot, but if you want some help with the grunt work of doing that, I Pedant would be happy to assist, drop me a message) -- replace the lists with some examples of day names, and how they got their name/what they mean?
  • move article to French Republican Calendar or similar as mentioned above
  • there seem to be a lot of lists, suggest converting to prose where possible or create sub-articles from them as suggested for the 'days' section... anything to make this more easily readable while preserving the information.Pedant 16:59, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
I would be happy to help move the lists of days' names into the pages that already exist for the individual months, as I agree that those lists clutter up the page a little bit. The other lists, however, I think are appropriate. I would not like to read through a prose paragraph just to find the name of the sixth day of the French Republican week.

If anyone has any suggestions as to the format of the current "Days of the year" section after the lists have been moved, please let me know. I'm not sure whether I would be breaking Wikipedia convention to include something like, "Lists of the days in each month can be found on the individual months pages." --Anakolouthon 19:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aaron's rod???

The link to Aaron's rod (Baton d'Or) was almost certainly wrong. I moved it to point to Aaron's rod (disambiguation) because I don't know which of the several plants by that name would be the right one. If anybody knows for sure, could you please fix the link to point to the right place? --RoySmith 15:06, 1 July 2005 (UTC)

Leap years

The years III, VII, and XI were observed as leap years, and the years XV and XX were also planned as such.

I've seen this statement more ofter - I've also seen a website claim that they had already decided to switch to the 4000-year rule after XX. Just curious: what is the historical basis for this assertion? Had the French already printed calendars in advance, or is there some other document that legislated this? squell 21:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In the year III, a report by Romme was submitted with a proposal for a decree to change leap years to be observed in years divisible by 4, except secular (century) years not divisible by 400 and years divisible by 4000: ART. 4. Il en sera ainsi de quatre en quatre siècles, jusqu’au quarantième, qui se terminera par une année commune.
In the original decree, leap years occurred whenever 366 days passed between successive autumnal equinoxes, which happened in the years III, VII, XI, and would have happened in the year XV and five years later in XX. Since XX would have been a leap year also in Romme's revised plan, supposedly the new rule would take effect after that, although I don't know where this was actually stated. The problems with the original rule was that sometimes five years would pass between leap years, and that in some years it was not possible to predict with certainty whether the equinox would occur before or after midnight. --Nike 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This makes sense, but as I read the report (through Babelfish), I think he was advocating making an IV the first leap year: ARTICLE PREMIER. La quatrième année de l’ère de la République sera la première sextile. Since the report is dated 19 Floreal an III (8th May 1795), however, this appears to have left little time to implement this proposal. It's also notable that Romme was sentenced to death 1 month after the date of this report, which might be a good indication of political support for it. squell 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the historical basis for the 4000-year rule. I do not know what the source is for changing the leap-year rules after year XX, or if it is even true, although it is reasonable, given that both methods would coincide for several decades, so that would be a good time to do it. I, also, would like more information about it. --Nike 04:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Gregorian correspondence

I deleted the following (added by Caerwine);

Year CCXIV = September 22, 2005 to September 22, 2006 (leap year) Year CCXV = September 23, 2006 to September 22, 2007 Year CCXVI = September 23, 2007 to September 21, 2008 Year CCXVII = September 22, 2008 to September 21, 2009 Year CCXVIII = September 22, 2009 to September 22, 2010 (leap year)

Adding a correspondence section is tempting, but... some date convertors use the '4000' leap year rule after the year 20; one convertor used some other adaptation of that rule and made the year 19 a leap year; one convertor strictly keeps to the 1 day in 4 years rule; Even if you (reasonably) assume the autumnal equinox rule would have prevailed, there is bound to be some discrepancy depending on the astronomical algorithms chosen. To illustrate this; Calendrica says the year -14 was a leap year. John Walker's Calendar Convertor considers it an ordinary year. I have tried looking at the dates used by the 1848 Paris commune, but they were inconclusive (could have been either rule). If a correspondence is added here I'd like to see someone with an astronomical background having analysed this, like Borkowski did for the Persian calendar. squell 08:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What we could do is, in this section, explain the different methods used extend the calendar to the present day, and provide a table showing when several years start in each method. For instance:
  • Equinoctal: Original observational leap-year rule of 1793, all years begin on day of autumnal equinox observed in Paris.
  • Romme's Reform: Modified arithmetic rules proposed by Romme in 1795 but never implemented, similar to the Gregorian calendar, with most years divisible by four being leap years.
  • Continuous Reform: Romme's rules shifted forward by one year so as to be continuous with leap years observed while the calendar was in force, with most years divisible by four minus one being leap years, e.g. 3, 7, 11, 15, etc.
Year Equinoctal Romme's Reform Continuous Reform

CCXIV (214)

September 22 2005 S

September 22 2005

September 22 2005

CCXV (215)

September 23 2006

September 22 2006

September 22 2006 S

CCXVI (216)

September 23 2007

September 22 2007 S

September 23 2007

CCXVII (217)

September 22 2008

September 22 2008

September 22 2008

S = Sextile (leap) year, extra day added at end of year

The method I labelled "continuous reform" is used on a number of French-language web sites, which make every four years from III, VII, XI, leap years, except years preceding century (secular) years, that is, one year before leap years in Romme's modified rules. (See Brumaire - Calendrier Républicain) I recently raised the subject of leap years on the CALNDR-L list, and also on the decimal time board. --Nike 05:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The major objection I have to this is that I believe "continuous reform" is just a modern invention by a programmer of calendar software (does any other software than Salut et Fraternite use it?). It contradicts the article claiming the year 20 would be a leap year, and it doesn't agree with any of the 18th century sources. Second, if we cite equinoctial dates, we need a source for them. squell 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of much software for the FRC, period. However, a number of people in France must be using the same software. The calendars at Décadi are based on this, so An 211 was sextile, and 212 started on September 23 2003. I am not saying that I agree with this use, just that people are using it. Since it's already on the web, this article could provide a reference to explain what surfers are encountering, if only to say that it is a modern invention.
If it's a significant use, then yes. Is there a way to determine this? squell 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
As for equinoctial dates, there are many sources. Tables with dates and times for equinoxes have been published numerous places many years in advance, such as the US Naval Observatory, and the algorithms are widely available for one to do the calculations oneself. Just add 9.35 minutes for Paris. H.M. Nautical Almanac Office displays equinoxes with hour/minute offsets, so -0009 would produce equinoxes in Paris for any year, such as "September Equinox 2100 Sept. 22 22:09...(GMT + 0.15 hours)". (Click "I accept" and "Eqnx_Sol" to access.) --Nike 06:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

One issue was raised that I had not thought of, of whether time was reckoned according to apparent or mean time. I had assumed that the hours were temps moyen de Paris, but I could be wrong. This would only affect dates on which the equinox occurs near midnight. The last time was 1997, the next won't be until at least 2026. --Nike 06:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's logical to assume apparent time. The links you came up will do fine as sources, and I also like your table layout. squell 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do you define "significant use"? The number of sites using it? The number of hits those sites receive? Maybe there are thousands of French reinacting the Revolution, just like Civil War reinactors in the US, but I don't speak French. Perhaps none of the methods are correct since the calendar was officially abolished, so we can consider any method merely an academic exercise. Personally, I find Romme's proposed rules to be convenient, since they make every year start on September 22 for the entire current century, since the extra day is added a few months after every February 29. As for the equinoxes, whether we use LAT or LMT won't matter for a least a couple of decades, since the difference is about 7 or 8 minutes, with LAT about 17 minutes ahead of UTC. (I think) --Nike 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is significant that the French-language Wikipedia article, fr:Calendrier républicain, gives three alternate assumptions for leap years:

  • Continuing every four years from historical leap years, i.e. years divisible by 4, minus 1
  • All years divisible by four, starting with year 20
  • Using the equinox

No mention is made of any century rule, although the reference cited does mention it. The article fr:Concordance des dates des calendriers républicain et grégorien, seems to describe the "4th year minus 1" rule, although apparently only for historical years, i.e. before 1806. "Le Jour bissextile était donné en fin d'années républicaines précédant les années multiple de quatre."

It's interesting that nobody seems to have suggested simply making the years always start on September 22. --Nike 03:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, that is a little too conformant for people interested in an alternative calendar? :) The every-4-years rule is, by the way, what is implemented by CDAY. squell 03:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I know that program. It says that October 12, AD 2005 is Ventose 13, 205, which is obviously horribly wrong. My own web site uses Romme's rules, which give the date as CCXIV/1/21. See also Javascript utile et agréable - Calendrier républicain. --Nike 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of French leaves much to be desired. About the only thing I can make out of that page is that the names of the months are Occitan, not French, in origin. squell 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to understand French to read the date, "Primidi 21 vendémiaire 214", or the JavaScript code, but you can always used Google's language tools to translate the page. --Nike 20:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I read French fluently; if I can be of some assistance, don't hesitate to leave me a note of ma talk page. Rama 22:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have found an historical reference, Manuel pour la concordance des calendriers républicain et grégorien by Antoine Augustin Renouard (1822) which includes an "abbreviated concordance" for the years XV to XLII, that states:

(ANNÉES SEXTILES, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXVII, XXXI.)

In addition, the pages for XXXV and XXXIX show that they were also considered leap (sextile) years. That means that the years before years divisible by four were leap years, that is, continuing every four years from year III, at least during this period. There may be more information in the scanned text, if someone wants to translate it. --Nike 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hats off

I want to compliment the author of this article on the French Republican Calendar. It is accurate and incredibly detailed. There has since the eighteenth century been controversy about the way to establish the first day of the year. I have always said that I need to figure out exactly what the problem is, but I've always put it off. Now I won't have to take the trouble as it is fully and clearly discussed in the Wikipedia article. Hats off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.206.216 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fiction

The removal of the Exalted calendar, while leaving the Liavek calendar, is debatable. If one has naught to do with the French Republican Calendar, neither does the other. - Arasaka, February 27, 2006

The Liavek calendar shares the structure (12 30-day months + extra days), and the names of the months are simple translations of the French ones. There are no striking similarities to the Exalted one. squell 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought a number of fixed-length months, made so that there is no week overlap, with extra days, was similar enough. My appologies - Arasaka, 01:16 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, only the month names are really important; other than those, the French calendar is a near clone of the Egyptian calendar. The calendar of the Exalted RPG might have been inspired by the Positivist calendar instead. Note that the Exalted article doesn't at present mention it; I suggest adding it there. — squell 04:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dibble

30 Ventose is given as Plantoir (Dibble). That link goes to a city in Oklahoma. What SHOULD it be linking to? 68.226.21.89 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary says, "A pointed gardening implement used to make holes in soil, especially for planting bulbs or seedlings." --Nike 08:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Dibble=Dibber. I changed the link. --Coemgenus 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

In the paragraph called "Criticism" all other dates are converted except 9 Thermidor. Any reason? Dunnhaupt 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Better? --Nike 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Year XX as sextile

Steinbach wrote:

correct me if I'm wrong, but XX seems very unlikely (probably a mistake)

You are wrong. Squell is right. "XX was really intended to be a leap year, historically." As the edited paragraph states, there were rules "requiring the year to start at the autumnal equinox". (More precisely, the year started on the day that the true equinox was observed at the Paris Observatory.) Since there would have been 365 days between the first day of XIX and XX, XIX was not a leap year. (sextile) Since there would have been 366 days between the first days of XX and XXI, XX was sextile. The fact that there would have been more than four years between the sextile years XV and XX was the problem which this paragraph was talking about. This could be made more clear. --Nike 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you came up with a verifiable source that puts the leap year in XIX (exactly the sort of thing I asked for previously), I think this section should definately be rewritten in more careful language and stop claiming that XX was intended to be a leap year. squell

The only reference I found for which XIX was sextile was the concordance of 1822, written long after the calendar was abolished, from which I gather that every four years from XI were counted as sextile for sake of convenience, rather than law, since all the legal texts cited in the same source make clear that XX was definitely intended to be a leap year, and not XIX.

On pages 224-227 in the same source is a report by Laplace from 22 Fructidor an XIII, referring to the imminent end, which describes the equinoctial rule as one of the calendar's defects:

En fixant le commencement de l'année au minuit qui précède à l'Observatoire de Paris l'équinoxe vrai d'automne, il remplit, à la vérité, de la manière la plus rigoureuse, la condition d'attacher constamment à la même saison l'origine des années ; mais alors elles cessent d'être des périodes du temps régulières et faciles à décomposer en jours, ce qui doit répandre de la confusion sut la chronologie, déjà trop embarrassée par la multitude des ères. Les astronomes, pour qui ce défaut est très sensible, en ont plusieurs fois sollicité la reforme. Avant que la première année bissextile s'introduisit dans le , nouveau Calendrier, ils proposèrent au comité d'instruction publique de la Convention nationale d'adopter une intercalation régulière, et leur demande fut accueillie favorablement. A cette époque la Convention revenue à de bons principes, et s'occupant de l'instruction et du progrès des lumières, montrait aux savans une considération et une déférence dont ils conservent le souvenir. Ils se rappelleront toujours avec une vive reconnaissance que plusieurs de ses membres par un noble dévouement au milieu des orages de la révolution, ont préservé d'une destruction totale les monumens des sciences et de arts. Romme, principal auteur du nouveau Calendrier, convoqua plusieurs savans ; il rédigea, de concert avec eux, le projet d'une loi par laquelle on substituait un mode régulier d'intercalation, au mode précédemment établi ; mais enveloppé peu de jours après dans un événement affreux, il périt, et son projet de loi fut abandonné. Il faudrait cependant y revenir, si l'on conservait le Calendrier actuel qui, changé par là dans un de ses élémens les plus essentiels, offrirait toujours l'irrégularité d'une première bissextile placée dans la troisième année.

Page 220 shows that there was a suggestion for switching to Romme's rules "to begin from (which I presume means exclusive of) the year 16" which would make every fourth year from XX a leap year (except for century years):

Ce défaut, peu sensible pour les contemporains, a les conséquences les plus graves pour la chronologie : il pourrait toutefois se corriger avec facilité ; il suffirait de supprimer l'art. III de la loi qui a réglé ce Calendrier, et d'ordonner qu'à commencer de l'an XVI les sextiles se succédassent de quatre ans en quatre ans ; les années séculaires de quatre cents ans en quatre cents ans.
Cette correction, réclamée par les géomètres et les astronomes, avait été accueillie par Romme, l'un des principaux auteurs du Calendrier ; il en avait fait la matière d'un rapport et d'un projet de loi, imprimé et distribué le jour même de la de la mort de son auteur, et que cette raison seule a empêché d'être présenté à la Convention.

But, alas, this never happened. --Nike 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Nonidi 29 Thermidor, an CCXV à 10 heures décimale TMP)

"Azerole" translation is not "Acerola"

Acerola is a tropical fruit unknowed in french revolutionary times. Azerole is in fact Crataegus azarolus (in english "Azarole Hawthorn" ?) a pomaceous fruittree very common in France and Spain in old times but now became rare. It is not strange that in the french wikipedia version there is not an article for this item and in the english the link is not correct. The spanish name "acerola" (from aragonese language) was given to a only morphological related tropical specie of plant.--Victor M. Vicente Selvas 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Revolution of 1848

Are there any sources for use during the Revolution of 1848? What were the exact dates? And who was using the calendar? --Nike 09:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC) (Decadi 30 Thermidor, an CCXV à 6 hd 76 TMP)

Month (mis)spellings

The French Wikipedia introduces the winter months (Nivose, Pluviose, and Ventose), "Mois d'hiver (terminaison en 'ose', abusivement orthographiée ôse)", which translates, "Months of winter (ending in ose, mispelled ôse)". No explanation is provided. The English articles for Nivôse, Pluviôse, and Ventôse note,

The corresponding French articles use the circumflex in their titles, and Nivôse's page says,

  • Le décret du 4 frimaire an II (24 novembre 1793) « sur l'ère, le commencement et l'organisation de l'année, et sur les noms des jours et des mois » orthographiait le nom du mois nivose, sans accent circonflexe. L'ajout généralisé de cet accent s'est installé progressivement, à une époque ultérieure indéterminée. On rencontre d'ailleurs des milliers d'actes ou documents officiels de l'époque ne faisant pas encore usage de cet accent.

Not actually speaking French, I'd say that the first part is consistent with the English: the circumflex was not used when the names were officially accepted on November 24, 1793. But apparently people began using the accent again some time later. But the last sentence seems to say that there are thousands of official documents that don't use it. Perhaps those documents were written before the gradual shift occured. So, should there at least be some mention of the "correct" spellings? The remark about ôse being an error was made by a single user whose history consists of a great number of minor edits to calendar-related articles. The de facto spelling seems to be with the circumflex, but on Wikipedia, where we say "opium of the people" instead of "opiate of the masses" and Oleksandr instead of Alexander, I think some mention of the official, original spelling should be made. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

You may be right. My French is not exactly fluent, but I recall hearing that the circumflex represents a place where an 's' used to follow the vowel, i.e., hospital --> hôpital and estre --> être. So '-ôse' makes no sense for two reasons: the 's' is still there, and since it was a new word, there's no archaic antecedent at all, let alone one with an extra 's'. Hopefully, some editor who knows more French can help us figure this out. Coemgenus 11:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Use in 1871

The section on "converting from the Gregorian calendar" gives four different ways of determining the date. Which was used during the Paris Commune? Opera hat (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The only method that was actually officially was the original one, in which years began on the autumnal equinox, so that was probably the method used. I don't have any sources. May 6, 1871, was called 16 Floréal, which meant that An LXXIX started on September 23, 1870, which is the equinox, but it is also consistent with the sextile day added every four years from An III. --Nike (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"accent circonflexe" & "Azerole"

(1) For whoever is interested in the history of the use of the accent circonflexe in French, please go to: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:IkodKdYZzlUJ:fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_circonflexe_en_fran%C3%A7ais+accent+circonflexe&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

(2) As for Azerole vs Acerola, Victor M. Vicente Selvas, who left a comment (above) in December 2006, was right. I have put the correct name for Azerole (Crataegus azarolus), and since it has no article in en:wikipedia, it is red-linked. I am going thru the article & correcting the names of plants, some of them not corresponding with those in French wiki article, which is correct on (most) botanical names. Frania W. (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a bunch of the links, and some may be wrong. Coemgenus 14:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Fini! Here are some links in case questions asked:

In Brumaire Crataegus azarolus: http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Crataegus+azarolus. Article does not exist in en:wiki, but here is a photograph found in Wikimedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crataegus_azarolus_HRM.jpg

In Fructidor, changed sucrion from melon to winter barley: http://books.google.com/books?id=qeNBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=winter+barley++sucrion&source=web&ots=f3wZ5Uakms&sig=EDQ_l3QahkWkVznBZEAuxMAex20&hl=fr&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

In Fructidor: hotte (de vendageur)=grape harvester's back basket. I am pretty sure that it is what was meant by hotte in calendar. Here is an illustration of a hotte de vendangeur: http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/15337264.htm

As for Nivôse, Pluviôse, and Ventôse, they were created without the accent circonflexe which came upon them from no one seems to know where. An explanation could be the way the *o* was prounounced, specially by Parisians, which would definitely call for the accent circonflexe. But that's my theory and, this concerning an article related to the French Revolution, I would not bet my head on it! Frania W. (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The beginning year

Is the first year of this calender zero or one?58.188.34.78 (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The first year actually implemented was « an II », (Year 2), which technically began on 22 September 1793. However, the first day of the French Republican Calendar's use by decree was 14 October 1793. So, although the French Republican Calendar counts from 22 September 1792, « Year 1 » was never used. - - - On a related subject: During the transition from 1789 to 1793, coins in France were minted with dates bearing « Years of Liberty » along with the Gregorian years. They both used the same 12 month calendar, with month and weekday names the same. (« Year 1 of Liberty » (1789), like « Year 1 » of the French Republican Calendar, was never actually in use beyond rhetoric.) Many denominations of coins, such as the 1793 deux sols, par example, were minted bearing the words, « L'An 5 de la Liberté » (« Year 5 of Liberty ») on the verso, and the Gregorian date « 1793 » and the face of Louis XVI on the recto. (Coinage and period souvenirs from France bearing the double Gregorian-Liberty Year dates, « 1790, An II » - to - « 1793, An 5 », can be found for offer from coin dealers and on eBay.) Charvex (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in 218

According to this calendar converter, and according to the chart at the beginning of this section, 22 September 2010 is Jour de la révolution 218, making 23 September 2010 the 1 Vendémiaire 219. However, this page does not say so. I assume that this is either a simple error or a conflict based on the confusing leap year system. Is the calendar we have up for 218 correct, or are the other sources? --N-k 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a technical problem with the calendars, but they may cause confusion. As I write this in February 2009, it is An 217. When the year changes at 22 September 2009, it will be An 218. The first calendar your identify - for this article - correctly shows the current year, An 217. The second article - that has the calendar with the illustrations of the women - starts with the first month of the French Republican Calendar that occurs in 2009, which is vendémiaire - starting in Gregorian September, which begins An 218. So, both are correct. This is confusing only if you mistakenly think the Gregorian year and the Republican Year both begin simultaneously, which they do not. Got it? Amicalement, Charvex (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that 22 September, 2010 is Jour de la Revolution, 218. I think this page is wrong. --N-k, 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
An 217 is not a Leap-Year (année bissextile) so it does not have a sixth complementary day (« Jour de la Révolution »), which is only for those years. Tchao. Charvex (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I know! What I'm trying to say is that 218 is a leap year, but that this Wikipedia page about the year 218 does not reflect that. n-k, 13:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand. But An 218 also is not a Leap-Year. The next one is An 219. Please read this from the article: (« Continuous Method ») « The leap years would have continued in a fixed rule every four years from the last one (thus years 15, 19, 23, 27…) with the leap day added before, rather than after, each year divisible by four, except most century years. This rule has the advantage that it is both simple to calculate and is continuous with every year in which the calendar was in official use during the First Republic. Concordances were printed in France, after the Republican Calendar was abandoned, using this rule to determine dates for long-term contracts ». (Please see footnotes for good links.) This is the method approved issued by Bonaparte (I think, in 1805), and it is the only method in France that appears in concordances (for legal matters used by notaries) to match dates with the Gregorian Calendar. -- The first method (« Equinox Method »), which would make An 218 a Leap-Year, reflects what was stated in the original proposal, but is was revised by law, and it has not used in any legal context for at least 204 years; it make for interesting reading only. I hope this helps you. -- The page is OK. -- With my best regards, Charvex (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. You may be right, and you clearly know more about it than I do, but isn't your method just one of several? Who decided which method Wikipedia would endorse? Is there some sort of outside consensus, or did you decide unilaterally? I know that there is no one "official" way, and since this calendar converter does not agree with your assessment, this topic might merit further discussion. n-k, 03:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the complement by calling it « your method », however, it is not « my method » (smile); it is the method of French law used by notaries today. I should have read the text first at Brumaire : Calendrier républicain (English), which is cited as a source for this article. What this French website states is generally correct (roughly, « forget the equinox method ») and the sources it identifies are accurate (however minimal) to my knowledge. If you can read French, I think I can find a copy of the original law and send it to you. (I can leave it on your Talk page.) --- If you prefer to believe that the results from the commercial website CalendarHome.com, owned by Greater Online Marketing, LLC, an American company, that also markets baby pictures by Anne Geddes, an Astrology and Zodiac website, Female model photos, "Monday's Child" poems, and fills your computer with tracking cookies (please see the botton of CalendarHome.com's contacts page here) is more credible, this is your choice. With sincere best wishes, Charvex (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then the article should probably state that it uses that method to convert the dates. It doesn't currently, it just lists the different methods. n-k, 12:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition done on 12 April 2009 RE dechristianisation & religious intolerance

Long description of massacres & religious intolerance do not belong here as massacres were not the goal in the creation of the Republican calendar; if needed to be mentioned, it should be in a footnote or by blue-linking to respective articles. Aside from dechristianisation, one of the main reasons to change the week from seven to ten days was to keep in sync with adoption of metric system, and also with the return to Nature fashionable in that epoch (see Rousseau). Nothing in the RC is sanguinaire! The calendar is based on season/weather/harvest & saints' name days are replaced by names of plants & animals. Frania W. (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The new material makes some assertions that need references. Except for the first three sentences, this material has been copied from the Dechristianisation of France article, including one of the image captions (perhaps accidentally). The wording and intent could be more neutral. I propose that the new material be removed and a link to the Dechristianisation article added at the end (I'll do that shortly), so that the changes can be discussed here by editor who are familiar with the topic. ✤ JonHarder talk 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
JH: I agree with your change. Thank you. FW
Frania W. (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dog and Christmas Day

Christmas Day (25th of December) usually corresponded to 5 Nivôse, dedicated to Chien (Dog). In a virtual planetarium (e.g. Stellarium) you could see that Sirius, brightest star after Sun, in constellation Canis Major ("Greater Dog") is very close to meridian line (due south) at midnight on Christmas Eve.

Edward Carpenter wrote a book Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning (could be found in e-form on Globusz.com), in which chapter II "Solar Myths and Christian Festivals" he claims there is an association of Sirius on meridian line (symbolizing Saviour in many religions, even before Christianity), three stars of Orion's belt ("Three Kings") to the west, and rising Virgo constellation on eastern horizon (virgin mother of the Saviour).

So I wonder, are there explanations, whether association of Dog with Christmas Day was astronomically/mythologically motivated (if there were theories like Carpenter's back in 1792), malicious attack on Christianity, or just a coincidence (day being 5 Nivôse, it had to be named after some animal, but why dog?). Olovni (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Basque names

In eu:Errepublikar egutegia I find that

Mauleko udal kontseiluko kide batek egutegia euskaratu zuen, Konbentzio Nazionalaren garaiko beste hainbat agirirekin egin zen bezala. Hola, Çaspigerren ourtheko Qhoundaderra izenarekin, zazpigarren urteko (1799) Errepublikar egutegia euskaraz eman zen argitara.
One member of the Mauléon-Licharre town council translated the calendar in [ Souletin ] Basque with other documents of the Convention. So, under the name Çaspigerren ourtheko Qhoundaderra [? of the Seventh Year] the Republican Calendar of year VII (1799) was published in Basque.

I find the translations an interesting exercise in neologism:

  • hamarte (décade)
  • Legun (Primidi)
  • Bigun (Duodi)
  • Higun (Triodi)
  • Logun (Quartidi)
  • Bogun (Qintidi)
  • Segun (Sextidi)
  • Pegun (Septidi)
  • Zogun (Octidi)
  • Bedegun (Nonidi)
  • Margun (Décadi)
  • Mahaxte (Vendémiaire)
  • Lainote (Brumaire)
  • Izozte (Frimaire)
  • Elurkor (Nivôse)
  • Eurikor (Pluviôse)
  • Haizekor (Ventôse)
  • Sapadun (Germinal)
  • Lilidun (Floréal)
  • Belardun (Prairial)
  • Bihilis (Messidor)
  • Berolis (Thermidor)
  • Frutilis (Fructidor)
  • bethagail egunak (jours complémentaires)
  • Betagail legun (Fête de la Vertu)
  • Betagail bigun (Fête du Génie)
  • Betagail higun (Fête du Travail)
  • Betagail lagun (Fête de l'Opinion )
  • Betagail bogun (Fête des Récompenses)
  • Betagail arrasgun (Fête de la Révolution)

As a reference, the article has

Joseba Sarrionandia (1997), Hitzen Ondoeza, "Kalendario Errepublikanoa" 530. sarrera. Tafalla: Txalaparta.

Since I haven't read Sarrionandia, could somebody check the Mauleon or the Sarrionandia references and add it to the article? Are there other "official" translations in the languages of France? --Error (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I found Auñamendi but the words are slightly different. --Error (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate to include names for the months and days of the French Republican calendar in other languages to this article. (After all, Article 2 of the French Constitution states the (only) official language of France is French.) However, if editors feel otherwise, I will add those names in Alsatian, Flemish, and German - which were all used within the territory that comprises modern France. I can also add those in Italian, Catalan, and Spanish which were used within Napoléon's French Empire, outside of the territory that comprises modern France. (I have sources.) -- More simply said, if the Basque translations remain in the article, I will happily add those for three (or six) others used inside the Empire. Charvex (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I also think the article should not include translations. As you say, the official language was French, and most everyone who used the calendar spoke French. I'd say keep the Basque terms to the Basque Wikipedia. Coemgenus 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is the point of having Basque names for French months? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.220.245 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone feels the names of the months the French Republican calendar should be given in all regional languages of France and Navarre, and in Basque, then that someone should create a separate article listing all the names in all regional languages of France and Papousie. However, the names, which have a very poetical sound to them, were created in French by a French poet, Fabre d'Églantine, and should be left alone in this article - no translation, no tampering. Would you, for instance, rewrite a sonata of Mozart with a Spanish flamenco style because there was once a relationship between the Spanish monarchy & the Habsburg? Ridicule! --Frania W. (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Names in other languages

During the First French Empire, the names of the months and days of the French Republican Calendar were translated and published on calendars in German, Dutch, Alsatian, Italian, Basque, and probably other languages in regions under the Empire's control. Publishing those names in this English article is irrelevant. -- I have removed all translations in Basque from the text. Please do not re-add them, or translations in other languages, to it again. Thank you. Charvex (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How would pre-Revolutionary years be indicated?

Was there a B.C. equivalent, like B.R.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.91.245 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

French Republican Calendar/Y pages

I'm removing pages in the article namespace from template categories and noticed the French Republican Calendar/Y pages. They are categorized as templates (in Category:French Republican Calendar templates), but they are neither articles nor templates. I was wondering whether they should be re-categorized or moved to the Template namespace. But then I realized why don't they fit – they are probably not appropriate to be in Wikipedia at all. Because I can see some utility in having them, maybe some sister project would be more suitable to have them? But I'm not sure which one. What do you think? Svick (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In the process of dealing with all this FRC cruft, I've nominated them all for deletion along with the template which links to them all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Current time and date"

This is utter trivia: the FRC is not a current calendar, so this is not of general interest any more than, say, what the present stardate is. This edit should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how the templates for deletion discussion pans out before we do anything too hasty. I'm inclined to keep it, but I don't care to edit-war about it. Coemgenus 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that the comparison of the French Republican Calendar to Stardate makes much sense because the FRC was a reality.
I do not believe that we should remove it, at least before others give their thoughts on the matter. The idea of its deletion had never entered my mind until brought up, and I personally would like to give it more thoughts.
As to considering it as "trivia": quite a few in France are interested in what its current date would be, should that calendar still be used now.
Edit-warring over it would be silly.
--Frania W. (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I perceive this calendar as the primary Calendar of Modernity. Recalling that it was re-instituted by the Paris Commune in 1871 C.E. That it was rejected by Napoeleon, who became Sovereign through the coup d'etat if 18 Brumaire year VIII, do indicate that the Revolution backclashed, at least in the perspectives of Syndicalists and Marxists. In effect the Ancient Regime is still the subtler power of the 1% undermining the real democracy pertaining to the 99%. Perhaps the Revolutionary Calendar is a mere trivia seen from within the American illusion, as merely herein are communism also dead. Communism, in this context, is nothing but the idea of the natural state of a classless communeity. From an anarcho-syndicalist point of view the state-communisms of Maoism and Stalinism are as hypocritical to the original idea as the institution of the Pope in regard of apostolic poverty, the abandonment of property by Christ Jesus. To what extent revolutionaries of today will embrace the idea of a modern calendar and build upon this, when and wherever syndicates, General Assemblies will gain sovereign power is of course an open issue. --Xact (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There's already a small "calendar page" near the top of the article showing the current Republican date. I see no benefit in an ENORMOUS section showing the whole current month. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The size of the calendar is a matter of style and design, but the question is whether showing a "month" adds value to the article. I can't speak for others in this regard, but I can see how the simple calendar presents important content in an easy-to-understand way - a feat not accomplished by other content in the article. If you want to rebuild the calendar to a more compact horizontal format, I would have no problem, but complete elimination would seem counterproductive to me. VanIsaacWScontribs 08:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Vanisaac. It may not be strictly necessary, but it does help illustrate the nature of the calendar. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Files nominated for deletion

Several images useable in this article,

have been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a User --JOHNDOE (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe under the Current Date and Time under the line

Click on a year number for a calendar sheet for the whole year.

there used to be a line of links to year calendars when the calendar was in effect. However, now they are gone, apparently even in the history.

Was this deliberate? Can they be restored?

--67.107.11.52 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that several templates along these lines were nominated for deletion. Follow the links at the missing page (there should be a pink box with links to the deletion discussion) to see what exactly happened. If you want to resurrect the contents, you can make a request at WP:REFUND to get them in user space, although you'll need to sign up - IPs don't get to use their user space. VanIsaacWScontribs 18:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Calendar needs to be fixed

As this calendar of the modern revolution is fixed on the autumnal equinox, and that the main ideal was for it to be based on rational and natural orders, with a poetic rather than religious heart, the current representation of the Calendar is erroneous by one day. It is one day ahead of what it should be. The discussion of how to intercalate leap days where never finnished. This year (2011) the Sun crossed the line of the autumnal equinox on 23 September 10:04 a.m. Paris Time (C.E.T.). I don't think I need to cite anything since all the necessary information is already included in the article. Please act on the matter of consistency. --Xact (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, but the error is in the template, not the article. I left a note there. I suspect that Romme's leap day rule is used, instead of the equinox. it's easier to program, but was never adopted. --Nike (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Current date and time

What convention is used to extend the calender into the present, and why? In other words, why is this convention considered correct / standard / most likely / most authoritative / ??? rather than one of the others, and fit to be included in Wikipedia as the current date and time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The leap year rule

Can we not infer anything about projection of the leap year rule from the Paris Commune's readeption of the FRC in 1871? Do the dates used then confirm or eliminate any of the possible leap year rules? Jess Cully (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the dates work out the same that year. There were concordances printed in France after 1806 which used different methods, none of which had official standing. The only legally recognized method was the equinox rule. It is just that some today don't like that rule because it's hard to predict. --Nike (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The same piece of trivia four times in one article via three different templates?!?

While the previous moves to remove the FRC templates were not successful, I do think there is no need to have today's date in the French revolutionary calendar right up at the start of the article so I have removed {{RepDate}}. It is at best a piece of trivia, and in any case is duplicated by the huge {{RepublicanCalendar}} section. I have also moved the latter under "Converting from the Gregorian Calendar" to which it relates, and removed {{FrenchRepublicanCalendar}} from that section. This also highlights a problem with all three templates: which of the 4 different models for continuing the calendar does it implement? If it is worth having in the article at all, that at least should be stated. jnestorius(talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just answered this above. It can only be the Romme model, but it should still be documented, especially since most other sites give a different date. --Nike (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If most other sites give a different date then why is Wikipedia out of line? I do hope there is a damn good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Different sites give different dates from each other. There is no consensus. --Nike (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*Why* was this calendar abolished?

Does anybody know why the calendar was abolished in 1806? The article doesn't explain this. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, although there is a section on "Criticism and shortcomings" which relates to that. In fact, it says, "The calendar was abolished because having a ten-day working week gave workers less rest (one day off every ten instead of one day off every seven); because the Southward equinox was a mobile date to start every new year (a fantastic source of confusion for almost everybody); and because it was incompatible with the secular rhythms of trade fairs and agricultural markets."
However, this is not entirely accurate. The 10-day week was abolished years before the rest of the calendar, and it was because of a deal between Napoleon and the Pope. It is not stated how the equinox is confusing, but it did make conversions with the Gregorian calendar difficult. It was not used outside of the Empire, and both calendars were being used within it. After the Emperor and Pope came to power, the main reasons for making it no longer existed. But you can read the reasons the French, themselves, gave for abolishing it here and here. --Nike (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sylvain Maréchal's calendar

Sylvain Maréchal first published his calendar in 1788. His calendar had 30-day months with both the usual and numeric names, 10-day weeks, and days to honor noted secular achievers. Surely it was an inspiration? Choor monster (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, so why don't you add the information to the article? --Nike (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it's interesting and would add to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I added a short paragraph. I was incorrect above, it did not have 30-day months, but it did have the other stuff. Choor monster (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate picture/description

Pocket watch with duodecimal-based hours, and days of the month and of the week in French Republican Calendar. On display at Neuchâtel Beaux-Arts museum.

Um, this is not duodecimal. Duodecimal means that 12=10, 11=E, and 10=T (or some other symbols). This looks like an ordinary pocket watch. LutherVinci (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Try reading a dictionary. However, it is otherwise poorly worded, and I don't know why we need three timepieces in this article. --Nike (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting the season tables

A lot of the systematic naming and structure of the table is hidden when displaying the associated plants, animals and agricultural tools as plain lists. For example, it is very hard to see any of the following structured naming in the current state: Vendémiaire is the month of the grape harvest, and the associated objects are the Vat on 10 Vendémiaire, Wine-Press on the 20th and Barrel on the 30th. The tools of Brumaire are all heavy-duty agricultural ones: Plough, Harrow and Roller, while those of Frimaire are the hand tools: Pickaxe, Grub-hoe and Shovel. The animals of Vendémiaire are the beast of burden: Horse, Donkey and Ox. There are lots of patterns.

I've set up three templates {{FrRepCalHead}}, {{FrRepCalLine}} and {{FrRepCalFoot}} to display the months in a richer, more formatted way. The main differences are:

  • the days associated with animals (the 5th, 15th and 25th) and with tools (the 10th, 20th and 30th) have tinted backgrounds so that they can easily be found visually.
  • The purpose of the calendar was to make its users more aware of the natural world around them in any given season, so I've added the Gregorian date to each line (using the pre-existing date range given in the table header) so it's now easy to see what plant/ animal/ tool was associated with a given date. (22 February is the Day of Privet).
  • I've changed the links to come from the English names rather than the French ones. To get to the article named Privet, it seemed more logical to link from the word 'Privet' rather than 'Troène'
  • I've added the beautiful allegorical figures of Louis Lafitte at the top of each column. I wasn't sure if the images should appear in a separate gallery, or inline in the calendar, but the images do connect with the associated objects in most months. (Vendémiaire (named for the grape harvest) carries a trug of grapes; Frimaire (Diana the hunter) has the Roe Deer on the 15th Frimaire, Nivôse ("when it's bare outside, how nice to sit in front of the fire") has Peat and Coal as its first two minerals).

As everything is now in templates, it can be manipulated very easily by changing single lines in the template code, eg amending colours or removing the allegorical pictures. If you are not happy with editing template code, leave a note here, and I can do it for you. [edited] Scarabocchio (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! Much better than before. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Philibert-Louis Debucourt's illustration for the table of the days

I am intrigued by a detail of the illustration at the the top of the article. If you look at the lower left-hand corner of the highest resolution image, you will see three frogs. One is in the corner, just entering. A second is either jumping or falling (though the position of the legs would seem to suggest falling), and a third is lying on its back with its legs in the air. It's all very curious. Perhaps M. Debucourt was a (not-very-secret) royalist? Scarabocchio (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why the capital C in the article title? Pretty much every other calendar article uses a small c - look at template {{Year in other calendars}} for example. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on French Republican Calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French Republican Calendar. 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:

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) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on French Republican Calendar. 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:

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) 14:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Metrology

I'd like to comment on the metric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClioFR (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_Republican_calendar/Archive_1&oldid=1136741319"