Talk:French Republican calendar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Time (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where does this “Continuous” rule come from?[edit]

I get that deciding when leap years occur in the “real” French Republican calendar is not easy.

As I understand the history:

The decree of Saturday 5 October 1793 establishing the French Republican calender contradicts itself on the issue of the occurrence of leap days.

  • The first articles describe how the first day of the year is the day on which the autumnal equinox falls at the Paris Observatory.
  • But articles X and XVI describe a leap day, called Day of the Revolution, every 4 years. A period of 4 years ending in a leap day is called a Franciade.

A controversy ensued. Yet a general consensus formed at the time, with the equinox rule prevailing over the a-leap-day-once-every-4-years rule.

But this consensus led to another issue. Mr. Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre, an astronomer, pointed out after the introduction of the French Republican calendar that according to his calculations the equinox of Monday 23 September 1935 was to take place about 20 seconds before midnight, with an uncertainty of several minutes. So it wasn’t yet clear to him, an astronomer, whether year CXLIV would start on that day or the next. (It turned out that autumnal equinox took place on Monday night 23 September 1935 at 23:48 in Paris, local time. So Mr. Delambre was about 11 minutes off, but his calculations had the day right nonetheless.) Clearly, an arithmetical rule would be preferable for the calendar to be more predictable.

Hence Mr. Charles-Gilbert Romme, the head of the commission that introduced the French Revolutionary calendar in the first place, proposed already in year III a new rule: French Republican years would be leap years if they are divisible by 4, except not if they are divisible by 100, except too if they are divisible by 400, except not if they are divisible by 4000. According to this proposal, the first leap year would be year IV. His project of decree was discussed in committee on 19 Floréal III (Friday 8 May 1795) (less than 5 months before the end of year III which would change from leap year into common year, if the proposal were enacted).

But Mr. Romme supported the demands the Montagnard uprise of 1 Prairial III (Wednesday 20 May 1795). The revolt failed, and Mr. Romme was among those sentenced to death. Before the sentence could be executed, he committed suicide on 29 Prairial III (Wednesday 17 June 1795). His project of decree amending the leap year rule died with him: it never got enacted into law.

Without the enactment of Mr. Romme's project of decree, year III was the first leap year, because of the equinox rule. With some creative thinking, this decision could still be explained in accordance to the once-every-4-years rule: the first Franciade simply started one year before the epoch. Thereafter, years VII and XI were leap years: neatly and orderly 4-year Franciades apart.

The Bureau des Longitudes held on to the consensus that the equinox rule prevails over the every-4-years rule, and published official guidance that years XIX and XXIII would be common years, and years XX and XXIV would be sextile years.

But on 22 Fructidor XIII (Monday 9 September 1805), emperor Napoleon Bonaparte sings the senatory consultary that abroges the Republican calendar on 11 Nivôse XIV (Wednesday 1 January 1806), and restores the Gregorian calendar that day.

In Paris, the French Republican calendar was briefly reinstated for a short period in 1871 (year LXXIX).

So, how to decide which years are leap years from XIV onwards?

  • Since the equinox rule was in force immediately prior to the abrogation of the French Republican calendar, this rule is the most obvious.
  • Or: one could follow Mr. Romme’s rule, even though it wasn’t followed during the time that the French Republican calendar was in actual use (at least from the Day of the Revolution in year III onwards).
  • Or: one could follow the late-19th-century proposal of Mr. Johann Heinrich von Mädler, another astronomer, in which years from year XX onwards are leap years if they are divisible by 4 but not by 128. Prior to year XX, years III, VII, XI and XV are leap years (and year XIX is a common year).
  • Several concordance tables did not agree with the equinox rule prevalence over the once-every-4-years rule, and predicted years XIX, XXIII, XXVII, etc. to be leap years. Especially lawyers and notaries with a preference for ease and predictability used such concordance in contracts, usually mentioning explicitly that future dates in their documents are to interpreted according to the once-every-4-years rule, even if this does not agree with the common or legal calendar interpretation in that future time.
  • Added 7 November: I came across an approximation to the equinox rule by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre with vernal equinoxes that occur every 365,2420463 days exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhemar (talkcontribs) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article describes another possibility: the “Continuous” rule. What this rule comes down to is: the leap years according to the Continuous rule are the years prior to the leap years according to Mr. Romme’s rule.

I can’t see where that rule comes from. I find absolutely no reference to such a rule in the cited sources (either Renouard (1822) or the archived project of decree of Romme at — Adhemar (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As one can see in the references, the so-called “Continuous” rule was followed in some concordances, and by various modern-day users, which is what you call the "once-every-4-year" rule, even though Romme also added a leapday once every 4 years. Unlike Romme, this rule is continuous with historical leapyears. --Nike (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC) ( Septidi 17 Vendémiaire an CCXXIX à 1 heure 25 minutes décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Nike. I appreciate your reply. I’m afraid I did not express myself clearly enough. I do not dispute that there are concordances such as this one (upto year XXV) and this one (upto year XLII) printed before or shortly after the abrogation of the French Republican calendar that followed the continued “once-every-4-year” rule, with leap years in years where (French Republican year number) mod 4 = 3. But using that rule, year CCXXIX would start on Thursday 24 September 2020, not on Tuesday 22 September 2020 as the table in the article states. The difference of two days is explained by the exceptions for years XCIX and CXCIX. Under Romme’s rules, years C and CC would not have been leap years. What I can’t find is a reference to a concordance that follows or a document that describes the “Continuous” rule with the every 4-but-not-100-but-too-400-but-not-4000 exception — or some other form of “most century years” exception, as it is described and applied in the article. (Other than the ones that describe Mr. Charles-Gilbert Romme’s project of decree, which provided leap years in the most years with year numbers divisible by 4, rather than the years preceeding them, that is). — Adhemar (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rule you are referring to is not a rule de jure, but de facto. It is, in point of fact, the rule most often used by modern users of this calendar. I am not aware of any concordances or annuaires for years after IC, but this method has been used by software applications since at least the early third century. You might try searching software manuals. I only know of one example of the 128-year method. --Nike (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC) (Sextidi 16 Brumaire an CCXXIX à 3 heures 17 minutes décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I must use different softwares than you do, because the different softwares I know do not support this rule — nor the 128-year von Mädler rule, for that matter. The only ones I have come across to are: (1) the astronomical rule; (2) the Romme rule; (3) the every-4-year rule without century year exception (which is only exactly as accurate as the Julian calendar); and (4) approximations for (1) such as the one by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre. Formulas for only (1) and (2) are included in Calendrical Calculations by Edward M. Reingold and Nachum Deshowitz, which is one of the standard works for calendar studies.
But thank you for confirming that the “Continuous” rule with the 4-but-not-100-but-too-400-but-not-4000 exception has no basis in historical decisions or documents, but something that somehow only found its way in modern software (that I do not know of). After all, “since the early third century” is since the mid-1990s or even the 21st century, Gregorian. If this is truly a rule used by modern users of this calendar, can references to modern software be provided? — Adhemar (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see an example of description of rule (3), without century exceptions. Software I have seen uses the "continuous" method with Romme's modifications. I have not seen any historical sources which describe how future century years are to be dealt with in this scheme. I have also not seen any modern examples, which would differ from "continuous" dates by two days. Since the topic is converting contemporary dates, methods which are nowhere used now are irrelevant. Further, "continuous" dates are the only ones I have observed which are consistent with historical dates continuing after the Revolution, which were all in the First Century. If you have historical sources which say otherwise, please let me know, but the "continuous" method seems be one in use today.
BTW, the term "continuous" is original to this article, and may not be the best one. Perhaps "consistent" would be better, since it is consistent with historical dates given both before and after 1805. --Nike (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC) (Nonidi 19 Brumaire an CCXXIX à 1 heure 86 minutes décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
An example of software using this method may be found at Brumaire. It has been online over 20 years, I think. From the Brumaire manual:

Le logiciel respecte parfaitement la période historique (an 2 à an 14, pour les généalogistes), et applique le projet de Romme décalé d'un an, sans plus tenir compte de l'équinoxe vrai, ce qui provoque d'éventuelles différences d'un jour à partir de l'an 19, pour certaines années... Les années bissextiles ne sont pas les années multiples de 4 (comme prévu dans le projet de Romme), puisque dans la période historique, c'étaient les ans 3, 7 et 11. Les années bissextiles correspondent donc aux années précédant un multiple de 4.

The method is also used in their iOS app. --Nike (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (Decadi 20 Brumaire an CCXXIX à 1 heure 1 minute décimale t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
If you are talking about the intercalary rules, the only valid rules for this calendar was the astronomical rule (The year starts on the autumn equinox.). In 1795, Romme was finally convinced to change to an intecalary rule. Delambre was tasked with presenting options, and in the end Romme chose to use the Gregorian rules with an extension where years divisible by 4,000 would be common years. He wrote up report and a draft decree for the convention to approve, but before any action was taken he was caught up in an uprising and got sentenced to death. The report was scheduled to go to the convention the day he was sentenced to death and took his own life with a smuggled knife rather than face the guillotine. The matter was dropped. Delambre had computed the time of autumn equinoxes for 400 years, so there was really no need. And, there doesn't ever seem to have been any desire to re-examine the issue.
Delambre was the person set to come up with all the intercalation options. His own preference for an idea was originally devised by Barbara Oriani in 1785. In that scheme, one divided century years by 900, and if the remainder was either 0 or 400, it was a leap year, otherwise century years would be common years. The "128 year" rule mentioned in the Wiki article was his second choice choice, but he didn't like it. It was too difficult for the layman to do the math by hand. He mentioned a possible extension where years divisible by 28800 would be a leap year to improve accuracy, but that made it just that much more difficult. The "Persian" intercalation of 8 leap years in 33 years was mentioned but not presented as an actual option. Romme apparently didn't like any of these ideas, so Delambre suggested using the Gregorian rules but extending them so that every 3600 years leap year would be skipped. Romme like this a lot better, but he and Delambre made the math easier by changing the 3600 years to 4000 years. It cost some accuracy though.
Note: References Are Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre - Astronomie théorique et pratique, Volume 3, Michel Froeschlé - À propos du calendrier républicain : Romme et l'astronomie, James Guillaume - Procès-verbaux du Comité d'instruction publique de la Convention, Volume 6, and the French Wikipedia article ( for the chart (It is masked and must be expanded to show all predicted Gregorian dates for the equinox.) Terr1959 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, the so called Romme - 1 scheme is purely a modern idea to reconcile the concordances written assuming leap year was every 4 years, with the first at year 3. Terr1959 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you want to duplicate Delambre's calculations, start with year 1 equinox at 09:19:24 (24 hour time) and add 5h 48m 32s to the next year to get that equinox. Do this for each successive year, subtracting 24 hours if it reaches or exceeds 24:00:00. The year BEFORE the one you have to subtract 24 hours from the time is the sextile year. Delambre would have done it by hand in hours minutes and seconds, but with calculators it is probably easier to convert the units to Seconds. 5h 48m 32s = 20912s; 9h 19m 24s =33564s; 24h = 86400s
Note: 365d 5h 48m 32s is the value determined for the autumnal equinox year at that time, and Delambre was well aware that the equinox and solstice years were all different from each other and the tropical year. I have not been able to retrace my steps and find the document that gave me that particular figure. It might just be buried in his Astronomie Théorique et Pratique someplace. Using these figures you will come up with the same dates and sextiles as Delambre (see chart in the French Wikipedia article). If you use Lalande's tropical year (365d 5h 48m 48s) or Romme's (365d 5h 48m 49s) or other "tropical years", it will start to deviate by year 15. Per Delambre's math, Year 15 is a sextile. Using the tropical year Year 16 is the sextile. Terr1959 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Méthodes pour trouver les sextiles du calendrier français Bureau des longitudes; Joseph Delambre (1797), Dupont (ed.), Connaissance des temps à l'usage des astronomes et des navigateurs pour l'année sextile VIIe de la République, Paris, pp. 318–347 [1]
I removed the references to ahistorical calendars. Since the Julian and Gregorian calendars are considered to be two distinct calendars, despite differing mainly in the calculation of leap years and the beginning of the year, the two versions of the Republican Calendar can be considered as two distinct calendars. I have encountered both in current use. Some call the revised calendar after Romme, but the original calendar could just as well be attributed to Romme, and it was Delambre who first proposed the revision. -- Décade III Quartidi Nivôse an CCXXXI à 9 h. 38 m. decimal t.m.P. Nike (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“It turned out that autumnal equinox took place on Monday night 23 September 1935 at 23:48 in Paris, local time. So Mr. Delambre was about 11 minutes off, but his calculations had the day right nonetheless.”

I think you forgot to take into account the equation of time. The law clearly states true time be used, as was usual back then, not mean time. At the equinox, that is about 7.5 minutes. Delambre gave the decimal time as 0.9972390, which was 23:56:02 Paris true time. 23:48 + 7.5 minutes is between 23:55 and 23:56. —Nike (talk) (Décade III Quintidi 25 Nivôse an CCXXXI à 6 h. 37 m. decimal t.m.P.)

1800 not a Gregorian leap year[edit]

Does that cause something to be knocked a day off? The French Revolurionary calendar started in 1792, and Gregorian wasn't officially restored until 1806. Carlm0404 (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has gone unanswered for over a year, and likely won’t be read, but the answer is that the Republican Calendar is independent of the Georgian, so the leap years, or lack thereof, in one calendar have no effect on the other. —Nike (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 5h 26m t.m.P.)Reply[reply]


Is it worth mentioning, under "cultural references", that most of the Elvish month names given by Tolkien in Appendix B are translations of the Republican names? But perhaps it's coincidental. —Tamfang (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess not, that's OR/synthesis. —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d say not OR/synthesis, it has been described and discussed in Jim Allan (ed.) (1978), An Introduction to Elvish, p. 151. — Mithrennaith (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead mentions religious reasons, source, discussion in body?[edit]

Doug Weller talk 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what this talk section is for/ about. It would seem to be suggesting that the reasons for the new calendar replacing a religious one are not present in the body of the article, but the Rural calender section in the article specifically talks of the calendar in a religious context:

The Catholic Church used a calendar of saints, which named each day of the year after an associated saint. To reduce the influence of the Church, Fabre d'Églantine introduced a Rural Calendar in which each day of the year had a unique name associated with the rural economy, stated to correspond to the time of year

does this answer your point??? Scarabocchio (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scarabocchio that happened but the section doesn’t say it was a reason for the change. It was something done after the new calendar so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section seems quite clear to me .. the principle that informed and guided the design, as stated by one of the key persons to implement it, was to reduce the influence of the Church.

The priests assigned the commemoration of a so-called saint to each day of the year: this catalogue exhibited neither utility nor method; it was a collection of lies, of deceit or of charlatanism.
We thought that the nation, after having kicked out this canonised mob from its calendar, must replace it with the objects that make up the true riches of the nation.
So we have arranged in the column of each month, the names of the real treasures of the rural economy.

I'm not sure how this could be any clearer. If you still see a problem with this being described as 'partly for religous reasons' please expand on your argument, please spell it out because I really do not see what possible objection you can have here!! Scarabocchio (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller Please keep your replies in this section so we can have a dialogue. My comment above explains clearly why there was a religious component to the decision of how the new calendar was implemented. Whether other predecessor concepts didn't have the religious component that the FRC did is irrelevent. The actual FRC did, and we have the actual words of one of the primary creators of the calendar explictly stating this. I have not, yet, seen anything at all from you to explain why you think that this can be set aside. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does nobody know about Google? (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 4h 16m t.m.P.)Reply[reply]

@Nike Have you read my posts below? They're the result of Google searches. Thanks though, that's interesting. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using Google to find sources. The tool used is irrelevant, so long as the sourced are valid. I linked to original sources. I posted links to Gallica. There’s another at JSTOR. What is wrong with these? The French Wikipedia also gives some sources. To keep deleting sourced material is vandalism, and will be treated as such. —Nike (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 5h 12m 73s t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
@Nike Not a good idea to call a content dispute vandalism. It's not. I use Google all the time for sources. You still haven't read what I've said. We need sources explicitly linking a religious motivation and have none. But if you'd read what I wrote below you'd know I seem to have found one. using Google. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you’d look at the sources given, you will clearly see that they explicitly state what is disputed. It was not hard to find. There is no good reason to delete it. —-Nike (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 5h 49m t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
@Nike ok, show me a source you've read that makes that link. Recall I'm no longer disputing this but suggesting additions and a clear source. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just read the sources I provided.

« Il fut imaginé dans la vue de donner aux Français un calendrier purement civil, et qui, n'étant subordonné aux pratiques d'aucun culte, convînt également à tous. »

« Cette distribution qui, ne concordant avec les cultes d’aucune secte, déroute les gens superstitieux, écarte les préjugés, est la plus convenable à une nation qui veut tolérer toutes les religions, sans permettre pour aucune des pratiques extérieures. »

« Cette opération faite, les moyens de la consolider seront de tenir strictement la main à ce que la superstition rusée n’abuse point, par leur application trop étendue, des principes consacrés par la dernière loi sur la liberté des cultes, et pour cela il faut avoir grand soin d’établir des fêtes décadaires, et de faire concorder les jours de foires et de marchés avec le nouveau calendrier. »

«La loi sur la liberté des cultes n’en tolère l’exercice que dans des lieux particuliers 3. Si on laissait la faculté de louer les anciens temples pour les employer à cet usage 4, le culte reprendrait inévitablement un caractère de publicité qu’il ne faut pas permettre, et cette attention est trop importante, pour fermer les yeux sur les suites dangereuse de l’apathie ou de l’excessive tolérance. »

Nike (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 6h 28m décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]

I found a good source, albeit not contemporary.
--Nike (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Sextidi 26 Pluviôse an CCXXXI à 6h 84m t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
How about my sources? Doug Weller talk 16:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as I said, it’s not enough to add it to the lead, we should have a section on the motivations to comply with WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don’t need a new section, just something in an existing section, such as “History.” But do as you wish. You might want to mention the intent of décadis and revolutionary holidays to replace Sundays and Catholic holidays. They even tried to make a new religion around décadis. In the years VII and VIII, marriages could only be conducted on décadis .People were supposed to name their children after calendar days, instead of saints. E.g., a girl born on this day might be named Hazel. Of course, under Napoleon all this reversed so as to reinstall the Church. —Nike (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Septidi 27 Pluviôse l’an CCXXXI à 14m t.m.P., jour du noisetier.)Reply[reply]
I'm not doing anything - as I'm dying too soon I'm working on articles of more interest. And I do believe that we need to use English sources where possible as most of our readers won't read French (you know I imagine how bad English speaking countries are with other languages). And I've provided those sources below. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it is the French calendar. Most of my sources go back to the Revolution. But they’re ready to read in Google translate. I would, of course, use English translations in the text of the article.
"The law on freedom of worship tolerates its exercise only in particular places. If we left the faculty of renting the old temples to use them for this purpose, worship would inevitably regain a public character that should not be allowed, and this attention is too important, to close our eyes to the dangerous consequences of apathy or excessive tolerance.”
Nike (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Septidi 27 Pluviôse l‘an CCXXXI à 8h 91m décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
How about
Nike (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Septidi 27 Pluviôse l‘an CCXXXI à 9h 1m décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
- Secularization: its goal is to eradicate Christian references in French society. This process takes several forms: substitution of the republican calendar with the Gregorian calendar, establishment of a new civil status held by mayors and no longer the parish priests, change of place names with the main purpose of removing Christian and feudal references, use of revolutionary first names without reference to the saints of the Gregorian calendar, secular education removed from the hands of the clergy.
(Décade III Septidi 27 Pluviôse l‘an CCXXXI à 9h 7m 69s décimales t.m.P.) Nike (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Alphonse Aulard, the establishment of the Republican calendar in October 1793 was "the most anti-Christian measure" of the Convention [13]. Richard Cobb outbids by seeing the new calendar as a "sensational innovation" that constitutes an attack on the customs and habits of the French and an attempt to destroy Catholicism [14]. It is true that if the presentation of the republican calendar is part of the effort to rationalize the weights and measures inherited from the Ancien Régime - such as the implementation of the meter, kilogram and liter - also using a decimal system, the abolition of the week (and therefore Sunday) as well as the replacement of saints with names of "objects that make up true national wealth [15]", have the effect of removing any Christian reference in the measure of time.
Nike (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC) (Décade III Septidi 27 Pluviôse l‘an CCXXXI à 9h 20m 87s décimales t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
The body of the article describes not only the abolition of saints days, which should have been sufficient, but also of the Christian era, Sundays and religious holidays. Is that not enough?
(Décade III Octidi 28 Pluviôse l‘an CCXXXI à 3h 32m 86s décimales t.m.P.)
Nike (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, taking this off my watch list. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about this source? Revolutionary first names in Dordogne
19 Ventôse year CCXXXI, chervil day @ 4h 88m 22s PMT Nike (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored unsourced material[edit]

As my finger slipped for my edit summary. Here it is. There is a discussion about a an almanac but that was not the reason for decimalising the calendar and the article doesn’t say it was. I think the reasons given when I deleted the text we’re sufficient. Anyone wanting to revert me again must show sources saying that the change was partially for religious reasons and add a section to the body of the article to justify it being in the lead. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please put your replies in the main thread above (which fully, even extravagently, answers this point) Scarabocchio (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also see this about Sylvain Marechal's Almanach des Honnetes Gens which the government rejected as anti-religious[edit]

"Among these almanacs the most significant was Sylvain Marechal's Almanach des Honnetes Gens, published in I788.4 It contained the real germ of the Republican Calendar. Here appeared the year of twelve equal months with five or six complementary days (scattered through the year, however, instead of all coming together at the end), and each month divided into three decades. But the most startling innovation, at least to contemporaries, was the substitution of " hon- netes gens" for the saints of the Gregorian Calendar. The work was roundly denounced by the government, which ordered it " torn up and burned . . . as impious, sacrilegious, blasphemous, and tending to destroy religion". Such drastic action may have been some- what responsible for later almanacs being less radical, but it did not stop their publication. Since their propagandic value was soon rceognized by the Revolutionary leaders, the number increased.

In I79I the Jacobin Club offered a prize of twenty-five louis for the best patriotic almanac. Forty-two works were submitted to the judges and the prize was won by Collot d'Herbois with his Almanach du Pe're Gerard.6 The award to Collot, however, revealed the note- worthy fact that even among the Jacobins of I79I, anti-religious sentiment was not yet predominant, for his almanac retained the saints' days of the old calendar."

@Scarabocchio: let's discuss, not just revert. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've found a source which should make you happy but have no time to do it today. If you have JSTOR access it is Making the Revolutionary Calendar Author(s): George Gordon Andrews Source: The American Historical Review , Apr., 1931, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Apr., 1931), pp. 515- 532. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep your replies in the main thread Scarabocchio (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scarabocchio that ship has sailed, it wouldn't make sense for me to comment on material in this thread by posting in another thread. Do you agree that the material I've quoted here needs to be in someway in the article? Doug Weller talk 16:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I can quote more due to copyright issues, but the article basically concludes by saying that the majority of the people didn't want a change but a "group" of zealots motivated by a desire for a more logical system and wanting to at least reduce the influence of Christianity got it adopted. Your problem seems to be an attempt to use logic to connect the dots but we don't work that way, we need sources explicitly stating that. And this should be in the body of the text with sources, summarised in the lead without sources. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOS: Present[edit]

Is there guidance that explains why this article uses the past tense? Since this calendar can still be calculated and expressed, so never really ceases to be, doesn't MOS: Present mean this article (and related ones) should reflect that? I know there are carve-outs from MOS: Present for certain subjects, so I'm wondering if there is one for calendars that I missed. (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Napoleon declared it abolished" in 1805. Sounds pretty past tense to me. It's not in actual use today. Sure, one could calculate dates as though it were still in use, just like one can calculate Gregorian dates before 1583, or Numa Roman dates after 45 BCE, and some Trekkies use stardates. But there isn't even agreement on how Republican dates should be calculated. Originally, dates were counted from the September equinox, but some would prefer the proposed reform of year 3. I have seen at least 3 other proposed methods.
--Nike (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC) (L'an deux cent trente un de la République française une et indivisible le premier tridi le jour trois du mois de Pluviôse à trois heures cinquante six minutes quarante trois secondes décimales du t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
du le mois? —Tamfang (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pardon moi, I don’t speak French, and I was trying to imitate civil actes from the Revolution. —Nike (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC) (L'an deux cent trente un de la République française une et indivisible le premier tridi le jour trois du mois de Pluviôse à neuf heures huitante trois minutes cinquante un secondes décimales du t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
I liked your previous format, eg Septidi 17 Vendémiaire an CCXXIX à 1 heure 25 minutes décimales t.m.P but miss the plants. Today is le jour de la perce-niege (literally, the plant that breaks through the snow), the day of the snowdrop. Climate change apart, how poetic and indicative that is of this time of year! Scarabocchio (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can see the different formats at Calendars — Decimal Time. There are Twitter bots that post the daily flowers. Nike (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC) (L'an deux cent trente un de la République française une et indivisible le premier quartidi le jour quatre du mois de Pluviôse à sept heures douze minutes cinquante deux secondes décimales du t.m.P.)Reply[reply]
I added rural plant days. You can check it any day at Republican Date Happy Spinach Day.
L 'an deux cent trente un de la République française une et indivisible le second sextidi le jour seize du mois de Ventôse, le jour de l’Épinard à une heure soixante dix minutes sept secondes décimales du t.m.P. Nike (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are quite mad :-) but you are not alone. See also the Spinach entry, 16 Ventôse, here: User:Scarabocchio/calendar#Winter/3:_Ventôse Scarabocchio (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should post daily tweets about them, like 8th other revolutionaries.
Trois heures quatre vingt sept minutes cinquante deux secondes décimales du t.m.P. Nike (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are, alas, too many days without quirky articles. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) / 17 Ventôse CCXXXI (FRC)Reply[reply]
You should see all the tweets the other revolutionaries post every day. 16 Ventôse year CCXXXI, spinach day @ 7h 18m 91s PMT Nike (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Je vous pardonne puisque – ahem. I forgive you because you did not write "d'l'mois" as many ignorant people might do. —Tamfang (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]