Talk:France under the Third Republic

Should this not be merged with French Third Republic? --Deepsix 14:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No there is a definite difference between a constitution and an historical period. - SimonP 21:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

merge to French Third Republic

This article is an orphan among the articles on French history: it's not linked from almost anywhere, most particularly not from {{History of France}}, History of France, France in the nineteenth century, or France in modern times. Nor do there exist corresponding articles France under the First Republic, France under the Second Republic, etc. Rather, the whole organization of French history articles expects to find the history of a period under the name of its government, and links all over the wiki expect the same.

If someone (SimonP?) wants to reorganize the treatment of French history and make everything well-linked, I won't object; but if this is to remain an orphan I'm going to merge it into French Third Republic in the next few days.

Greg Price 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. Definitely. Furthermore, there is already France in the Modern Times (1920-today) and France in the Modern Times (1789-1920) which also overlap (if we're not careful, the French Third Republic is going to overlap with both - the dates aren't good, they don't fit. I think somebody created the two France I and II following a textbook, not necessarily a bad idea, but not really logic either (why does 1920 breaks the two articles? It would be lot more logical to make the history articles according to the regimes

(French Third Republic, Vichy regime, French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic). Tazmaniacs 05:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]