This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
removed this text: This marked the first occasion in many centuries where a major European state moved from monarchical to republican mode, and presaged a new era of republican government(s) in Europe.
and replaced it thus: This presaged a new era of republican government(s) in Europe.
the term "many centuries" is ambiguous first of all. second of all, the Dutch Republic was established in the early 17th century, less than two centuries before 1795, certainly not "many centuries." I don't know if there were any other European republics established between the establishment of the Dutch Republic and establishment of the first French republic, so i just removed the questionable line entirely.
oppose scholars, editors & publishers prefer "French Third Republic" not "Third French Republic" [and likewise for the others], according to Google Scholar and Google Books search. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think First French Republic sounds a little more proper than "French First Republic" and anyway, I believe it is a more precise translation of Première République française. In addition, it is a different naming convention than we use for First French Empire. That makes no sense. We should stick to one convention; it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to keep things as they are. Funnyhat 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion unfragmented, since we will either make all these name changes or none of them. Could everyone please respond on Talk:French Fourth Republic? Phaunt 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The French article about the flag of France (fr:Drapeau de la France) says explicitely that the de facto national flag of the Kingdom of France was a simple white flag - the lily banner was only used in presence of members of the royal family except the King: When he was present, the white flag had been hoised. To cut a long story short: Please do not insert the lily banner (Pavillon royale de France.svg) anymore, it's the wrong flag here. Louis88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that this article is a stub, and I would like to clean it up and add to it. I have some good published sources to draw on. If anyone has any suggestions for changes I could incorporate besides those listed above, keep me posted. Tkbd2009 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009(UTC)
Sounds good. Which sources will you use? ClioFR (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
suspension of all ordinary legality 10 October 1793
Would someone with authority on the subject please write something about the "suspension of all ordinary legality 10 October 1793" mentioned in the Constitution of France article? Thank you SaaHc2B (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this is B-class. It is a disguised history article, not very well sectioned nor very well referenced at that. The name implies this to be an article about state, for which the article is grossly incomplete (where is the information on leaders, organizations, politics...)? Not B class, C class at best if we are being generous, I'd say start class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible inclusion of the "History of France" template
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Although alternative proposals have been made, none seems to have gained traction, and new comments made after those proposals disagree with any move. bd2412T 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's standard to write of the "Third Republic" and add "French" to the start when necessary to clariy the country. There's no reason to move to a made-up order. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. I think the proposed word order is more natural. Britannica uses "First Republic", "Second Republic", and so forth. So France is implied and "French" doesn't need to be in the title at all. Various countries have first and second republics, but when you hear about a third, fourth, or fifth republic, you can assume its France. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC) !vote by sockpuppet of community banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – The current name isn't ideal but this would be no improvement. Qualified terms like "First French Republic" or "Fourth Republic of South Korea" are only employed for introductory or comparative usage – assuming context, historians use unqualified terms like "First (Second, et al) Republic" much more frequently. It's important for Wikipedia to keep in harmony with the established conventions of historical writing. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I would support a proposal to change all article titles to the style of First Republic (country name). This is already in use for Fifth Republic (France), and seems to be the preferred form in several foreign language wikis. It has clarity, retains the common form, and offers order and applicability across the range of disambiguation. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a better idea. Both "Fifth French Republic" and "French Fifth Republic" and rarely used terms. See this ngram. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Would one of you like to take charge of making a new proposal? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we'd have to. As long as we show that there is a consensus for an alternative title (and this thread shows that there is), we can ask an admin to close the discussion according to the alternative proposal after the initial seven days. --Article editor (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with that proposal. It seems artificial, more so than the present constructions. Sure, what one has isn't perfect. However, in spoken language, I was always taught "Fifth French Republic", as in the fifth entity named "French Republic", and so on. Hence, I agree with original proposal. There is no need to introduce parenthetical disambiguation unless it is absolutely needed, and furthermore, what about other entities with multiple republics? Would we change them to this new form as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong support of proposed move as better titles in English. Natural disambiguation is generally preferred and works better here, I think. RedSlash 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. While I have sympathy with both of the proposals mooted, neither is clearly superior to the status quo, the advantages of which are (a) avoiding parentheses and (b) the word order "Nth Republic" is the normal one. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.