Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Name

Why is this article still named Czech Republic not Czechia? 2001:8003:9003:1801:6DD3:9A44:C76:36F7 (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Because most English language sources don't use the term Czechia. --Khajidha (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ref? Bc the very opposite can be sourced Gem fr (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fun article! But not exactly rigorous or on-point:

• I'm pretty sure that English called what is now the Netherlands "the Nether Lands" for the same reason, say, Spanish and French call them "los Países Bajos" and "les Pays-Bas", "the Low Countries": because it was a generic description of the area. The Dutch name for the country, meanwhile, is just "Nederland", i.e. "Nether-land", in the singular and with no definite article. Why, then, would they instruct speakers of other languages to use either the plural or the definite article? In the absence of a clear reason for them to feel that way, I expect that the official Dutch designation of "The Netherlands" for use in English is based on that being ordinary English name for the country rather than the other way around.

I cannot read dutch, but I just used a translation tool to check Nederland : it appears that the dutch started by using the plural, then both singular and plural, and then mostly singular. Non-dutch did not follow, and kept previous habit of the plural. Dutch obviously do not mind we using the plural, and occasionally do themselves: For the political entity, the name is Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, that, Kingdom of the Netherlands (plural). BTW they have 2 different articles, one for Nederland, the other for Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Gem fr (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• By the time the author gets around to showing us that "Czechia" is "winning", he demonstrates this primarily be pointing to sources that we expressly don't treat as pertinent, as we say every time someone brings them up here. These are practices and formal guidelines by organizations that automatically follow countries' official self-designation.
• Google Trends displays search volume, not usage. So, of course, there was a spike in searches for "Czechia" when the pronouncement calling for its use came out. And now people are coming across it (perhaps largely in the sorts of sources we don't count) so they're searching for it. That doesn't mean they're using it. Also, even though I've just explained why Google Trends isn't a helpful guide for us, compare the trend for "Czechia" to the trend for "Czech Republic". Check out the comparison for "Burma" and "Myanmar" as well. In recent times, "Myanmar" > "Burma" but "Czech Republic" > "Czechia".

Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• That article doesn't say "most English sources use the term Czechia". It says usage of Czechia has increased since 2016 but not that it's the most common name. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR. We have a secondary source explicitly saying "Czechia" is "winning". You may be unhappy of the primary sources this secondary source use, you may call it wrong, whatever, we don't care, or at least, we don't care until you provide a secondary source explicitly saying the name "Czechia" is "losing" (or whatever wording of similar meaning); then, and only then, we will have to compare the value of the opposed sources (which is more recent, from a higher regarded authority, ...) and the merits of the 2 thesis. Unless you do that, we have to stick to the source. Gem fr (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. While Forbes is generally a reliable source, a personal opinion piece such as the one you have provided is not a good source for making statements about common English usage. A travel blogger like that does not have the necessary qualifications to make such pronouncements. --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Start by providing a contradicting source. Until then, nobody is supposed to even consider your opinion about this one, and it stands no matter how low you rank it. Something beats nothing every time, no matter how low quality the something is. If this really so low quality, finding something better saying the opposite should be easy, shouldn't it? Gem fr (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: 'Nobody calls it Czechia': Czech Republic's new name fails to catch on Czechia se po dvou letech příliš neujala. Kratší název ignorují úřady i sportovci, Prazdroj to vzdal | Aktuálně.cz Czechia je mrtvý pojem. Jednoslovný anglický název státu zůstal jen na papíře | Noviny. And for the record, I have argued for the removal of that Guardian source from this article as well, because a journalist commenting that linguistic change hasn't happened in 6 months is not remotely informative. The Czech articles are more informative, as they give specific examples of places where the short name has failed to catch on (e.g. Pilsner Urquell). As for your stance, you are making a leap of faith from one journalist writing an opinion piece saying "Czechia is winning" to interpreting that as "Czechia is the most commonly used name for the country by English sources", which is pure WP:OR. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Voila. Wasn't that difficult. I won't consider the first, either, but I think the others are enough to override the Forbes' (noticeably because more recent); some less than a year source would be better, of course, but still. Gem fr (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR has nothing to do with this. That's about article content, not about decisions made under the guidelines for the operation of this project based on consensus by people here. We aren't discussing the question of saying in the article that "Czechia has surpassed Czech Republic in usage".

Besides, the source you cited isn't a reliable source anyway. Further, if the author contributed those same arguments here, they'd be rejected. They don't gain weight by having been written somewhere else. Largoplazo (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course you gain weight by having been written somewhere else! The very same thing written in even the most obscure newspaper has weight it wouldn't if written directly here. The title is not just a pointer like "Article n° 235689" would, it IS part of the content of the article; a most important part of it, actually, as evidence by this whole argument. The consensus of people here (if any) is not supposed override what sources say, it is supposed to follow them; we cannot, as you suggest, disregard them, or dismiss them without providing better ones. Gem fr (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia procedures are carried out according to Wikipedia guidelines and involve consensus among participants here, where an assessment of consensus takes account the degree by which each person's contribution here conforms to the guidelines. We don't read writings by people elsewhere who aren't even aware that a discussion is going on here, who are aware of none of the context on which the discussion is being built, who probably have no idea what the applicable guidelines are, and pretend not only that those people are sitting here engaged in discussion with us, but that the guidelines don't apply to them and that any inane rationale they give is automatically golden. Again, you're confusing the principle that applies to article content with everything else. Largoplazo (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What you call "consensus" is a point of view of several administrators, who erase every valid mention about Czechia usage in the paragraph "Adoption of Czechia" Helveticus96 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless your point is that the decision should instead be made by a person who has no idea that this discussion is even taking place and whose own criteria are contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, your comment isn't responsive to what I wrote. Largoplazo (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The outcome of all the discussions held on this subject to date have been not to move it for now. See Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But, to the joy and... joy of all, it is now allowed to start a new such discussion (RFC). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not waste move request now, it means one year moratorium after unsuccessful try.Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an argument against. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have 2 separate article, one for the political entity, the other for the land. Gem fr (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

is Eswatini used by most English sources? North Macedonia? Helveticus96 (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No Wikipedia guideline suggests basing a decision on whether to change an article for one country to a newer name on the relative usage of some entirely different country's older and newer names, so this isn't pertinent to this discussion. If you're merely curious for the sake of context as to how similar discussions panned out for those countries, you'll find them the talk pages for those countries. Largoplazo (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a lack of consistency on Wikipedia then. First, you claimed that the name to be used in the title has to clearly be the name most people recognise. eSwatini is still more known as Swaziland nowadays and given the fact that North Macedonia only became official recently, it's probably not so well-recognized either. The next time you'll make up excuses why Czechia shouldn't be used here, do us a favour and exploit your potential on writing something wittier.Oasis98 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No, what we've said is that article titles have to meet WP guidelines. Wikipedia:Article titles says that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." There are virtually no English sources that refer to this country as Czechia. As far as name changes go, WP:NAMECHANGES states that "we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." In the cases of Eswatini and North Macedonia, it was the determination of WP editors that new sources were generally using the new name, so the moves were approved. Now, if you think those moves were premature, the place to argue that is at their talk pages as it would make no sense for us to improperly move this page to be consistent with improper moves of other pages. --Khajidha (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Eswatini and North Macedonia changed their name. Czech Republic did not, "old name" is still valid. So I don't think we have proper analogy here, Czechia does not have that advange "but the old one is not official anymore and we must speed change up" - this also helped in (rushed) Eswatini and North Macedonia cases. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you're new to this and looking for context given that you participated heavily in earlier discussion on this question. Please have the respect for everyone's time and ability to follow this discussion by not filling it up with arguments that have already been hashed over to death. Largoplazo (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed a "not" in your last sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha, quite right. Added, thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia decides to use the common name instead of the correct one, we could also rename the article about the US "America" and we could rename the article about the far side of the Moon "The dark side of the Moon". Czechia is the official name and the correct one. The day Wikipedia will start using it, the general public will switch to it too. Wikipedia is also there to educate people, not to repeat, accept and spread their common mistakes. Ericdec~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia reflects common usage (when there is one); its purpose is not to change public usage or to "educate people" to switch usage. Doremo (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked for new pieces of evidence. Officiality of Czechia is not challenged, it is just not considered, this "evidence" is 3 years old, it did not help in the past, why now. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeating that it's official isn't going to alter the outcome of a discussion that, under existing guidelines, doesn't hinge on whether it's official. If you wish to take issue with a guideline and propose that it be changed, then the place to do that is the talk page for the guideline, not the talk page of an arbitrary article to which the guideline applies. Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"It's official" helped Czechia into first sentence of the article, even though many objected anyway (it is not important if it's unkonown and blah blah blah). At least something ... Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There no point in revalidating old sources. It didn't help to win in last move request, it won't now. Let's talk new sources, July 2018 and newer, or wait until something big occurs. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason this article was under "Czech Republic" and not Czechia, was that the Czech government previously said the country couldn't be called Czechia. Now, that strange notion is lifted and people 'may' call the country Czechia even officially. But was it never actually called Czechia in English before? I find this hard to believe. When I talk to people about the country in English, we call it Czechia. So when the official ban on the common name now does not exist anymore, why not just use it? Bandy långe (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Bandy långe that is not useful information. The reason it was under this name is because WP:COMMONNAME is the policy for wikipedia, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what the government says. "When I talk to people about the country in English, we call it Czechia." is a great example of WP:OR, and is therefore completely irrelevant as well under that same policy. DMacks (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No, there was no governmental ban on Czechia which was later lifted. There was complete governmental lack of interest to find, codify and use any short name in English for CZ before 2015/2016. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"But was it never actually called Czechia in English before?" Pretty much, no, it wasn't. I don't remember ever hearing the term before I started editing Wikipedia about a decade ago. And I still don't come across the name in most English language sources. When the country comes up in the news it's always "the Czech Republic", when I look at maps and globes it's "Czech Republic", when people talk about going there it's "the Czech Republic". The only mainstream English sources I regularly come across the name in are articles specifically lobbying for its greater use. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You are using old "paper maps" and no "web maps", otherwise it is quite impossible to miss it. Too many "I"'s to be objective evaluation. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This was in response to Bandy's "I find it hard to believe" and "when I talk to people". My personal experience cancels his(?).--Khajidha (talk)

(Your or his) Personal experience and your favourite newspaper without Czechia and 20 year old globe without Czechia are hardly an argument for this debate. I find it hard to believe you can't see Czechia on maps :) That's all I'm saying. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've personally known several Czech immigrants to Canada, and never once heard the word "Czechia" until the Czech government's most recent announcement (didn't even catch wind of the 2016 one). It's simply not said in English, by Czechs or others. Moreover, the official English language name for the country remains "The Czech Republic". Some relevant links here...

-'Nobody calls it Czechia': Czech Republic's new name fails to catch on (from 2016)
-[1] Oh, and to Chrzwzcz, the above debate largely centres on historical usage of the word Czechia. This obviously completely negates your point about using "old maps", because they weren't old at the time in question. Grow up.
174.115.100.93 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

?!? Maps 2016 and older can't have Czechia, it is THAT obvious. Czechia known/unknown before 2016 is irrelevant. Your personal talks - irrelevant. Aricle written 3 months after adoption - very premature evaluation, before Google maps etc. "Nobody calls it" - wel now at least somebody, so this bloglike article is completely useless now. I asked for sources 2018+. Everything else was already considered pro/against. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Names of embassies were not expected to change, so what. And look closer to see! Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is using Czechia. , . I really do not know what else should happen to rename the article to "Czechia". Maybe it is time to rename the article about United Kindgom in Czech language to England, because the country is generally called like that. The Netherlands to Holland (Holandsko) and the USA to Amerika. Why? The wikipedia does not have to educate, but just repeat something what does society already use although it is obviously not correct. Now start to fight me, because I am for a short name, I have just explained how wikipedia works. Everyone knows that Czechia has no chance on WIKI.88.102.113.79 (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly still not enough for wiki. Sports. Make sports use it, it is an indicator that it actually is used. Sports are a quick way how to spread it very quickly. Turkish forum and airport standards not too much, check IATA, you'll see Russian Federation, United States of America, Korea (Rep.) - terms not used by wiki. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

And your point about the names of articles on the Czech wiki is completely irrelevant to the English wiki. If the Czech wiki decides to rename their articles as you suggest, I not only would not object but would not even consider myself to have the right to object as I am not a native Czech speaker (or even a non-native speaker, for that matter). It is, quite simply, none of my business what the Czech wiki calls its own articles. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What about rugby? I know it is not too much.88.102.113.79 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Basketball would be much better right now. Soccer, hockey, tennis... Olympic games. No progress there, why on Wikipedia then.Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Put it simply we should use the term that will lead our readers to the most academic publications Czech Republic vs Czechia. Its clear what we should direct our readers to .....the common names used for academic publications they can find. Also as per Wikipedia:Advocacy its not our place to help advocate a language term at the expense of our readers and editors ability to located information.--Moxy 🍁 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Watching the recent blockbuster movie Spiderman: Far From Home, I see that part of the action is set in Prague, Czech Republic. That pretty much ends any discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, forget anything else, Wikipedia follows popcorn blockbuster movies. OMG. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but it is generally a good signal of popular usage. Again, quit looking for "standards to follow" and start looking for "what is actually used". --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We knew that already. Spiderman changed nothing. It's like "I read an article in XYZ newspaper and I saw Czech Republic. Discussion ended." What the what? :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a weird thing for you to write, Khajidha. No source singlehandedly ends any discussion unless it's around a contention rooted in an absolute word like "all" or "none" or "every" or "no" or "everyone" or "nobody" or "always" or "never". Largoplazo (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The oldest use of the name Czechia is dated to 1569. Many of you refers to common use. In my opinion, you should reflect much longer period. Vasek7 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The houserule is WP:COMMONNAME. You may find something of interest in Name of the Czech Republic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I read it but nothing I wouldn’t already know. Vasek7 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

As that 1569 usage was in a Latin text, it is completely irrelevant to English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The first historical record of using the word Czechia in English comes from 1795. It is relevant because it is a loanword. Vasek7 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Even as a loanword, it isn't relevant how long the word has been used in the source language. Latin usage is not English usage, even if English later borrows the word. As for that 1795 usage, when was the second? And how many were there over the 200+ years between then and the Czech government's decision in 2016? If it wasn't used (or was used only rarely) in between, then the age of that first usage isn't really important. --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The 2016 Czech government's decision is not much relevant. The official authority for geographical names by law is the State Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre. UNGEGN World Geographical Names reflect its declaration. It depends what is the article about. When the topic is the Czech Republic as a form of government then the history should start in 1st January 1969. When the topic is a history of Czech states, then the republic is only a short period of the last 101 years. Vasek7 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The UN does not control English usage. In English, an article on a country covers all of its history, regardless of the name it went by at the time. --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The name on the map in the country article is Czechia. Vasek7 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it's taken verbatim from a source (one that has already been mentioned here on this talkpage), and cited as such, rather than being written by and subject to the editorial policies of wikipedia itself. You should probably stop with this, as you have not produced strong new evidence that has not been considered and rejected by WP:CONSENSUS previously. The more times editors bring it up without strong new support, the more times it gets rejected. The more times it gets rejected, the harder it will be to get editors to even bother considering the N+1th attempt even if there does become such evidence. Play the long game, don't waste your time here now. DMacks (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...or strong new counter-evidence - like new Spiderman movie (facepalm) :) No, it makes no sense now to do move request now, Vsek7, but we can write here something new, just FYI, now and then. We don't have to save it till we end. And I got nothing. The calm before the storm :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Same reason why the UK's article is at United Kingdom and not Britain. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Czechia: For the same reason why the UK's article is at United Kingdom and not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The UK article is under "United Kingdom" because reliable sources very, very rarely spell out "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in their coverage of it. This is the opposite of the circumstances pertaining to the Czech Republic, so what same reason are you talking about, assuming you've come to understand that the shorter name is not what the guidelines say to use? Largoplazo (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you Illegitimate_Barrister or how to you know what s/he meant? Same reason is officially recognized short name. Is there any other state, where officially recognized short name IS available and Wiki choose to ignore it? Yeah yeah yeah official is not important blah blah blah, but anyway. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"The last five winners of presidential elections, all of whom got the largest number of votes, also happen to have had names that came before the names of the other candidates in alphabetical order. Therefore, in the coming election, we should declare the candidate whose name comes first in alphabetical order the winner instead of counting the votes. And I'll repeat this no matter how many times it's pointed out to me that we go by votes." Largoplazo (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm, very deep. Very strong analogy as Illegitimate_Barrister's. IS there such state? It is not. That is what blind following of the commonname rule causes. It is OK, or are there exceptions embedded into the rule to solve such unforseen outcomes? Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) There is no analogy with presidents or UK. Czech Republic is unique case on its own, never happended (correct me if I am wrong) something similar - Wikipedia uses here the official long name even though short informal name is available (and fairly used too as a bonus). Never. Either you can acknowledge it as a special case worthy of an exception (rule accepts exceptions) ... or you can (as you always do) take it as straightforward case of searching for commonname with no specialt treatment allowed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We use the long, formal name because that is what the country is commonly called in English usage. Most other countries are called by their short, informal names because that is what they are generally called in English usage. So what? --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So either Wikipedia has exception in naming of states (short which happen to be mostly common) or we can make exception from the rule and have it regular. I already know your answer: Wikipedia has it regular, every time common name. ... Common name is wikipedia construct, so it's little bit alibistic. Like changing name in list of states from "short" to "common" just to push Czechia out. Very fair indeed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No, common name is Wikipedia recognizing and accepting the reality of English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh, Wikipedia is recognizing no reality, IMHO Wikipedia has its own unique list of countries, no source has the same combination of "common" names as Wikipedia does. Wikipedia measures each individually which means no source is completelly same as Wikipedia. So Wikipedia brings its own unique look which I see as problematic. BTW: Quite similar case are Federated States of Micronesia, but in that case the reason is to eliminate confusion with the region, not because of "BBC and NYT don't use it so bummer". Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So if we renamed the article "Czechia" because that's the shorter name and somehow that overwhelmingly compels an exception, then your counterpart would come along complaining bitterly that in every other case the shorter name chosen is also the more common one, so why shouldn't we make an exception for the country whose capital is Prague and also list it under the more commonly used name instead of following your guideline that we should go by the shortest name? Hey, I have an idea: why don't we just stick to the guideline and stop talking about it constantly? Your relentless insistence is exactly why we've had a moratorium in the past, and why we're just about to have another one. Largoplazo (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Also:

• Philly is shorter than Philadelphia.
• Frisco is shorter than San Francisco.
• Ell-lay is shorter than Los Angeles.
• Oz is shorter than Australia.

So obviously we should make exceptions for all those places and list them under their short names. I anticipate you objecting that those are different because those names have no official standing. I'd just respond, "Oh, but obviously being shorter means that they also deserve a special exception. Because you've convinced me that brevity is the be-all and end-all of everything regardless of every other consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is all my fault, otherwise we would have Czechia on Wikipedia long time ago have I not started all 0 RMs. Your examples is completelly inaccurate with no similaroty to this one, it only shows what I fight about... States, towns, official names, nicknames, let's mix it all up together and make Chrzwzcz a fool. Do you really think I was talking about shorter?! Then I would fight for "Czech". It is shorter and maybe even more used. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Short = without useless words like Commonwealth and Republic and Kingdom, which does not describe it more and are only general words not really a name-name. None of your example shows this. As official - I am pretty OK with North Korea and it is not official, but it is used a lot and again, just plain geography, no politics. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's absolutely similar. Commonness of name is commonness of name, brevity is brevity, official status is official status. Nothing about the Czech Republic/Czechia magically exempts it from having the same weight given to each of those factors in its case as they're given when considering the naming for every other place in all of creation. That includes making magical exemptions for "Republic" and so forth. Should we start naming the United Kingdom "United" because "Kingdom" doesn't "describe it" (not sure what you even mean by not describing)? Largoplazo (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not. Nicknames and short names are different sets of names, maybe with some intersection, but not equivalency. Also to name a meadow or a continent - totally different weight, although both a place under the same rule or what. :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC) United Kingdom or United States - nice try to derail it with this examples of states of very general names. Is it my fault they did not come up with more appealing name-name? At least they are shorter than the full official names if nothing else. Also "United" - which one? "Kingdom" - which one? "Republic" - which one? Czech(ia) - already clear, no other words needed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We could call it "Unitedia". After all, what does "-ia" mean? It's just another way of saying "place", "country", whatever. It's no more informative than "Republic", no more important a part of a name than "Republic". It's just extra. What does "-ia" add to Tunisia (which, in Arabic, has the same name as its capital, Tounes, which the Spanish are happy to go along with, naming it Túnez)? How about Alger, Ethiop, and Somal? Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Derailing with nonsense names and mocking, hm. Fine, so you know what -ia is so don't tell me like your colleague that Czechia is not understandable and noone would figure it out that Czechia and Czech Republic have little something in common. Algorithm: United - not clear. Unitedia - never heard of that, does not exist. United States - aha, clear, understandable, used (! this one is important!), end of algorithm, no further (and moreover general) words needed. Like you said, "ia" is a country, but contry does not equal Republic. You are mixing up geography and politics, don't :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to consider attempts to point out the flaws in your reasoning and to illustrate the arbitrariness of your reasons "mocking", then there's nothing more to be said. Likewise when you keep coming up with ways in which my examples differ from the case of the Czech Republic but with no clear indication why those differences are relevant as opposed to convenient. 23:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I will not repeat myself, I already told you why your "examples" are totally off. Or last try? Towns, non neutral cool nicknames of cities, mixing up countries with republics and kingdoms, "funny" examples like new made-up words like Unitedia, I can't see serious core in those. Find the best possible analogy, that is my point. And you bring naming of different type of places in different language with made-up words and totally misunderstood take on "short name" (hahaha Somal). There are nice ways to reject Czechia, this was hardly it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why you are arguing for Czechia. What naming policy do you think we should be following? Or what problem you see with the current one. Or what you mean by "mixing up countries with republics and kingdoms". --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've figured out part of it. You said earlier "Wikipedia has its own unique list of countries, no source has the same combination of "common" names as Wikipedia does. Wikipedia measures each individually which means no source is completelly same as Wikipedia." Well, yeah. Wikipedia does not base its names for countries on any one "definitive list". It DOES look at each one individually. And it DOES sometimes decide one way for one country and one way for another. Because the actual usage for one country may be completely different from the actual usage for another country. Wikipedia does not present what "should" be according to some prescriptivist rule, it shows what is. It is descriptivist. If you come into Wikipedia expecting it to be some normative, prescriptivist, lay-down-the-law source then you are destined to be unhappy with how it actually is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What naming policy. The one which allows to use less common name in case of good reasons and I am trying to present them... to people who made up their minds ages ago? Czechia is shorter and does not contain unnecessary general words (it is roughly one of criteria mentioned in naming policy, ha!) and at least with some level of recognition and usage, it is not completely made up like those extra haha funny examples above. I can see only one remotely similar case - Micronesia. There's the issue there are two Micronesias, so not an issue for Czechia. Well Wikipedia follows all sources and simultaneously none of them - if it produces list nowhere else to be seen. Little bit odd, that's all, result of individual approach without look at the bigger picture. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It's no odder than the fact that we have articles on Will Rogers, Bill Clinton, Billy Graham, Willie Mitchell, and William Shakespeare even though all of them are officially "William". Let's assume that there are only three lists of countries that are in use: one list has Czechia, Taiwan, and East Timor; a second has Czech Republic, Taiwan, and Timor-Leste; and the third has Czech Republic, Republic of China, and East Timor (in all cases amongst all the other country names). Should we not use Czech Republic, Taiwan, and East Timor in our list? Each of those is the most common form in those sources, but that exact list does not exist in the sources. --Khajidha (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's assume that Wikipedia differs from 10, 20, 100 other superimportant sourced lists in just one or two names (of approx. 200 countries on Earth). I say confidently: Yes, it would be better to match all of those, skew it a little in favour of those 2 which were individually named differently. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who says it would be in their favor to have their names matched with the other countries? Why are you assuming that that is better? The same as with your "science to the rescue" comment below. What is it rescuing from? --Khajidha (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Matched meaning to have exactly the same lists as 10 20 100 other respectable sources, not Wikipedia's own combo because of individualistic approach without looking at the bigger picture. Better? Because 100 respectable sources with the same list and Wikipedia with totally unique list. To the rescue - science is totally irrelevent unless popular culture is divided. Otherwise science/geography/institutions totally useless for Wikipedia, hm. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

My point was that we aren't dealing with a bunch of identical sources and making our own list, we are dealing with sources that vary amongst themselves. Some use Czechia, some use Czech Republic. Some may use Taiwan, some Republic of China. Some may use East Timor, some Timor-Leste. You keep coming at this from the wrong direction. You keep looking for what "should be". But Wikipedia (and English in general) works from the question of "what is".--Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't fight agains "what is". Look. Let's say 100 sources have the same list, maybe we should copy it to the letter then. Or take it more into consideration - evaluate individually BUT also keep in the full list of countries mentioned in those 100 sources. But it does not matter, apparently Wikipedia will make its own unique list, unique combination of names, unique lists. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"mixing up countries with republics and kingdoms" - to say republic is a synonym to country. Which was implied here - why am I fighting for Czechia-Czech land-Czech country, when Czech Republic means exactly the same in every occasion and time and era... Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 22 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move and one year moratorium on any future move requests. El_C 17:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Czech Republic → Czechia – Not sure why this hasn't been acted on yet. I do see a long debate here about it, but it seems those opposing the move are simply reacting to change rather than arguing based on policy. Some of them seem to be under the impression that WP content ought to reflect editors' consensus. It doesn't. It ought to reflect RSs. Here are a few:

• Czechia
• Czechia
• Czechia
• Czechia
• Guide to Law Online: Czechia | Law Library of Congress
• [2]

Guarapiranga (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Usage still seems overwhelmingly in favor of Czech Republic: Google Trends --Khajidha (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• As always, there are a lot of reliable sources that this country calls itself Czechia, but WP:COMMONNAME is policy here on wiki (essentially, what native-English speakers call it). It's interesting to note that even the europa.eu site uses both names in that very page you linked. DMacks (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Not the common name at all. Secondary sources have barely used it since the news cycle in 2016 when they mentioned that the Czech Republic wanted to change its name. Here is a comparison of the usage in two major English language news sources in the last month:

Publication	"Czech Republic"	"Czechia"
New York Times	[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]	None
BBC	[15][16][17][18][19][20]	[21]

– Thjarkur (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

None hm? Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, no idea how I missed that one – Thjarkur (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Your research does not make sense. Newspaper usually use their styleguide: so it uses either this OR that, not both randomly. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment "Not sure why" implies that you know of no reason. In fact, if you read and understood the discussions, you know all the reasons, you're just dismissing them. When you posted this, what did you expect the result to be? That everyone who contributed to the previous discussion would suddenly abandon all their old objections or come up with an entire batch of new ones that would meet your satisfaction?

As for "I do see a long debate here about it, but it seems those opposing the move are simply reacting to change rather than arguing based on policy": Then either you didn't read them or you didn't understand them. They deal explicitly, at great length, with policy and guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wasted attempt. As we learned this week, you won't even see Czechia at Olympic Games 2020. Close it quickly and maybe noone will think about moratorium. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and re-impose a moratorium. Nobody contests that some sources use "Czechia", so citing a few of those means nothing. For this RM to succeed, the proposer needs to show that overall usage has shifted. If another RM is opened, it needs to be responsive to this point - not "here are some sources using Czechia", but something closer to Thjarkur's analysis, except showing things in favor of Czechia. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. OP does not argue - let alone demonstrate - that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. No objection to reimposing the moratorium. Kahastok talk 19:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence has been presented to show that the WP:COMMONNAME usage has change. Thjarkur's analysis seems to show the opposite.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move. While it's been a while since the last RM (relatively speaking for this topic), it doesn't appear as if sources will change. And with them competing as "Czech Republic" in the Olympics, it seems unlikely "Czechia" will become the common name in the near future, so I'd also favor a moratorium here. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not the common name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Is eSwatini a common name? Nope. Oasis98 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support move: With the same arguments against Czechia I read above there should not be Eswatini and North Macedonia on Wikipedia, as none of those terms are "common names".Helveticus96 (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your reasoning is that if a discussion about one country determines that its new name has become the common name, then another country's new name automatically becomes its common name without regard to its own circumstances? Largoplazo (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per opposers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support move Exceptions are possible, do not act like rules can't be broken without clear cause, we have examples from the past! Is it a common name? No. Is it a dealbreaker? Also no! News sources reasearch "analysis" is not valid, newspaper use styleguides, you can't expect it will use both names (except occasional slip-ups). I can also pick 2 sources which support my cause and it would be similarly onesided. For examples map servers - Czechia dominates there. Official bodies - Czechia dominates. Sports and newspaper - not so much :) so I choose to ignore it like everyone else chose to ignore fields where Czechia wins :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a consensus that any extenuating circumstances that might call for an exception pertain to the country. Largoplazo (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support The usage of Czechia has clearly been increasing: all Google applications, Apple maps, TomTom, ESRI, all European Union publications since 2018, Eurostat (5517 results as of November 23, 2019), The Oxford Atlas of the World, among others, has been exclusively using Czechia since its 24th edition in 2017. Other examples: 2019 Global Peace Index; 2018 and 2019 World Population Data Sheet ; 2019 World Population Prospects: Data Booklet; 2018 and 2019 Human Development Index; 2018 and 2019 European Demographic Data Sheet and there are many more examples that could be listed but are ignored here by those who oppose and request moratorium even before the voting is done. Geog25 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

— Geog25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose. While it may be the formal official name, I still don't see strong evidence that it is the way most English speakers call it. That is, WP:COMMONNAME, which is a universal policy here on the English Wikipedia. We're not an anarchy where WP:ILIKEIT has weight and we are equally allowed to pick anyone's personal favorite. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Czechia matches all 5 characteristics, in Conciseness it wins over Czech Republic. Then there are words like "usually" and "prefers" that gives possibilities for some exceptions if needed/wanted. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" - well both Czechia and Czech Republic are official, one informal one formal. Czechia is like that Bill Clinton in example ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Czechia fails in the criterion of recognizability. --Khajidha (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your call. "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" - Czech Republic has the problem that it can't be used on Wikipedia for articles before 1993 and needs other bypasses like Czech lands, Bohemia, state currently known as Czech Republic etc. So that precious universal policy of yours gives plenty of opportunities not to pick the name "the way most English speakers call it"... "the most" is not required. I don't think RM can be won now, but arguments against are not so bullet-proof as you think. Most of ythe oppose comments are just "the most frequently used nema MUST be used per WP:COMMONNAME" when the policy says no such thing. Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering that those "bypasses" are what are used in outside sources when referring to this place before 1993, I fail to see how that is a "problem". --Khajidha (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Categorization, similar treatment as most states have. NameOfState - History of NameOfState. But: Czech Republic - History of the Czech lands -Yes, for now Czechia can win it only by appealing to exceptions in the policy, but policy allows them... so what. Do not act it does not. Correct oppose comment should be: "Not common enough and I don't see a reason for an exception although WP:COMMONNAME allows some", then I would be "happy". Chrzwzcz (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not necessary to say that there are no reasons for an exception, that is implied in the reference to the rule. It is up to those wanting to make an exception to prove that there are grounds for it. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Everyone acts like "Rule says the most common name, Czechia is not, decision made". Such straightforward reasons are best and quickest way to rename an article, but not the only one. But here we saw discussion about moratorium after 4 comments and less than 24 hours passed! Hardly a snowball reasons. Chrzwzcz (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC) But good to know and to remember: Czechia does not need to be the most common name to win Wikipedia's heart. It just needs to be recognizable (by Khajidha's standards), then it is perfectly OK name for Wikipedia, what it lacks in usage it makes up for in conciseness (Republic is hardly distinguishing "name" among states) and systematic approach (umbrella word for all all those Czech lands etc.). Chrzwzcz (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Staunchly oppose in the strongest possible terms. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reason? None, but 1000 times the opposition like it does count. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose again per WP:COMMONNAME. English-language sources still overwhelmingly use Czech Republic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support move: The usage of Czechia has clearly been increasing as evidenced by others (Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, SpringerLink). GoogleTrends should not be a decisive criterion since it is not used by Wikipedia in other similar cases. Wikipedia is blocking the usage of Czechia, which is the official and internationally recognized short name of the Czech Republic, while at the same moving to the names Eswatini or North Macedonia the next day these were announced. The selective application of the argument about WP:COMMONNAME and the insufficient usage of Czechia in everyday speech, which is only applied to Czechia, is simply unsustainable. It represents double standards and actually indicates anarchy on Wikipedia. 62.168.13.101 (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the adoption of North Macedonia, the usage of Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia was ended when the new name was adopted. The Czech Republic did not withdraw its usage of that term in favor of Czechia. In the case of Eswatini, a country with English as an official language which is used in daily life is obviously going to be more influential in English language usage. --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that the majority of native-English speakers stopped using Macedonia and Swaziland and switched to North Macedonia and Eswatini over night? There is no evidence for this and it is extremely unlikely given the fact that the majority of native-English speakers still call Myanmar Burma 30 years after its name was changed.Geog25 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." Let's see in order: Czechia, Czech Republic (mostly), Czechia (or both if older), Czechia, Czechia, Czechia. Can just newspaper outweight all other? Here we can see a paradox. More formal sources use informal name and vice versa. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" Which do you think has the majority of usages, the popular media (newspapers, television, movies, general audience books, etc) or the other things you mentioned? --Khajidha (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I cited the rule of course, not my wording. Everyone can pick from the rule what he wants and make it the most important sentence from it :^) Of course 1 article from NYT has more readers than encyclopedia or scientific journals, but if my evaluation is correct, "popular" media outweights all the science and politics and I am not sure it is the best approach. Why bother write that sentence into the rule when all it takes is the popular media. Go ignorance! :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is for when popular usage isn't so clearcut. It's basically the rules for tie breakers.--Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm, science to the rescue when everything else fails :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Changing it to Czechia is inevitable. Let's get this over with and change it now. Swaziland was changed to eSwatini right away despite this not reflecting English usage. Other factors must be considered, such as consistency with other Wikipedia country articles using short geographic names. Moreover, English usage of Czechia is constantly increasing. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• The guidelines don't speak of going with anyone's impression of what's inevitable but by what the evidence tells us the situation is now. There's no hurry to reflect tomorrow's conditions today. In the case of Eswatini, it was judged that that name had come to reflect English usage. Where we should be consistent with other country articles in in following the criteria provided under the pertinent guidelines and not arbitrary criteria that aren't what the guidelines provide. Largoplazo (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

FTR, the article Eswatini was renamed more than six months after the king announced the name change. And note that that was for a wholescale rename of an English-speaking country, a country with a low profile at the best of times, where the new name was rapidly adopted by English-language media. None of these things has happened in the case of Czech Republic - it isn't a wholesale rename, nor an English-speaking country, nor a country that has a notably low profile, nor a case where the newly-adopted form has been adopted by English-language media. Kahastok talk 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

And you forgot to mention that the 6 months delay was also caused by unclear eSwatini-Eswatini problem - what to choose, it would be even quicker without this. Anyway Eswatini or other cases surely did not match all the criteria you want Czechia to fullfil. In some cases there were some kind of shortcuts, excuses, to make it possible sooner than straightfoward applying of the rule would suggest. And there's little to none will to find similar shortcut for Czechia, I am trying to find such loop in rule but everybody is so surprised that rule contains more than just "most frequently used name must be name of the article". Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mention the eSwatini vs. Eswatini point as a factor because it wasn't a factor. Earlier requests were opposed based on WP:COMMONNAME, but those objections fell away as it became clear that the WP:COMMONNAME had changed according to our rules. The problem with making that argument here is that the WP:COMMONNAME hasn't changed.

And we shouldn't be in the business of looking for loopholes or shortcuts. We should be applying our rules, WP:AT and particularly WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes, the situation changes such that the name implied by those rules changes. That's what happened with Swaziland and Republic of Macedonia and Burma. It has clearly not happened with Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 20:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I read that discussion and there was the confusion which variant to use anyway, in the early days more so. COMMONNAME is a nice rule, read it in its entirety, not just common=most frequent. Clearly did not happen, but this time we have more supporters here than in the last RM, nevertheless talks about another moratorium were more hasty than before, quick quick shut it down, we may loose. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment for all who cherry-pick countries where the consensus has been to adopt the newer name, which may be simpler, or which may be official, and then want us to be "consistent"; or who say the change is inevitable so we should make it now: And, yet, there's Cape Verde (not Cabo Verde) and Ivory Coast, even though it's been, what 20, 30 years since they declared the French name official for English as well? Not so inevitable as these things may seem. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

None of those were the same case like Czechia here. Not Eswatini, not Ivory Coast. Czechia is unique case by its own. Yeah, the same naimg rule can be used, but rule does not have special case like this mentioned, nobody anticipated this particular case of "renaming", so general rule is applied and it maybe suffices but also maybe does not.Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense, as we've got Slovakia, instead of Slovak Republic. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested-move moratorium

Forking from the previous section because it's not solely a subtopic of that RM...I concur with User:SnowFire in re-imposing a moratorium on requests to rename this article. It avoided an ongoing time-sink last time, and here we see that there still isn't sufficient RS-COMMONNAME to change it (validating that discussions that were inhibited by the moratorium would not have succeeded). I propose it for a length of one year (SnowFire did not specify). DMacks (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• One year sounds fine to me, with a proviso that if an editor has new evidence concerning overall usage, and a neutral third party editor experienced with the RM process endorses this evidence as significant enough to possibly lead to a change in result, then that RM can be filed anyway (even before the year is up). Basically, less drive-by editors seeing an injustice and firing off a RM, and more thought put into the RM pre-filing. (This is probably good advice in general, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No objection to the proviso. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why a year why not 6 months ? it seems like all you all ever do is just put a block on discussing moving the page. Why does the word Czechia bother some of you so much?

The repetetive discussion about it annoys people since it's a time-sink. Like you indicated, it seems like that the only thing this page is about. It shouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. The original discussion extended over months without any participant raising a new argument, and it's silly to check in every week and ask for yet another reckoning. It's a real nuisance for those who keep the article on their watchlist to keep track of changes to the article and non-repetitive discussion. It becomes really disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• One year is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's time for another one-year moratorium the instant the discussion immediately above this one closes. Largoplazo (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Make it 6-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-year moratorium. Doremo (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-year moratorium. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Who closed it? Did anyone count the votes? It has not been this close ever! "Clear consensus" in your dreams. Close it this quickly in such close voting is very unfair!!! What to expect when talks about moratorium started less than 24 hours after start! You expected quick ride, snowball, but you nearly lost this one, if lasted longer. So quick quick and let's ban discussion for a year, meh! Unbelievable. 8 for, 9 against, and out of a blue end of voting when it still has desired outcome, right. So unfair. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

These things are not votes. They are discussions of how a situation fits into Wikipedia's rules and whether exceptions are warranted. None of the supporters presented policy based reasons for the change and none of them presented compelling cases for exceptions to be made. --Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

And it showed opposers were ready to listen more supporters' arguments... aaaah except they weren't. They just maybe read the intital proposal (ah, Czechia again), made their minds for good and quickly started talks about moratorium. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrzwzcz, consider this a formal warning about your behavior towards other editors in violation of WP:NPA. Any further comment, here or anywhere, about other editors' motives, and you may find yourself blocked altogether and/or topic-banned from discussing article naming anywhere on Wikipedia. Go find something else to do. DMacks (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I at least address the fact that talks about moratorium long-long before outcome of RM is obvious are strange? And that there are much longer RMs, this lasted just a week with danger of long long moratorium, so it would manage a week more. Because oppose:support ratio was not so definitive and the initial opposers had not enough time to maybe reconsider their vote after more supporting evidence was brought (or maybe wasn't, but the time....). Or maybe some people did not even notice the RM, there are occasional visitors too, not just everyday editors. Loger moratorium is in play, longer the time should be given to supporters to try to avoid it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, the number of supports or opposes is not what is really important. One vote backed by policy is weighted higher than hundreds that aren't. --Khajidha (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I am unable to read it from "The result of the move request was: no consensus to move". What was really judged. What was not taken into account. What was. Was "Staunchly oppose in the strongest possible terms" the most convincing reason consensus cannot be made? It just seems that votes were counted based on "discussion just seems against" or "the anti vibe feels stronger". Why just one week? Was it already that clear? Wasn't the best Czechia advocate just on vacation and now it is lost for the whole year? :D Even the initiator did not manage to come back and defend it more. Dmacks started prompt moratorium talks and if I challenge it I am in danger of beeing blocked from him. Is this fair trial or what? Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering that none of the Czechia supporters gave policy based reasons, yes, it was that clear. "It's official" and "because other countries use short names" are not in line with policy. Common name is policy and the fact that Czech Republic is the common name is well demonstrated by sources. Yes, there are exceptions, but there are no compelling reasons to make an exception here. EVERYTHING the pro-Czechia side mentioned had been considered (and rejected) numerous times before. Repeating it doesn't make it more effective. --Khajidha (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This was the best comment yet, really. Informed, citing whole extent of WP:COMMONNAME, not just "not most frequent, shut up, moratorium 10 years". I can challenge who's to say that compelling reasons for an exception were not brought. The whole voting should have been just about that. I think I tackled even more reasons for an exeption, all of them straight from the WP rule (eg. I don't think the "five characteristics" from the rule have been mentioned ever before and Czechia stands very well there)... however two weeks would have been basic decency, considering how long ordered silence is now in place. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

From ]]Wikipedia:Article titles]]: "For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice." Given the degree of usage of "Czech Republic" in sources it more than meets this standard. As for the individual points: 1) recognizability and 2) naturalness are both met by being what the average English speaker thinks of first when referring to this country as shown by its prevalence in sources, 3) precision: the confusion about the Chechen perpetrator of the Boston Marathon bomber showed that (at that time) Czechia was not unambiguous, has that changed?, 4) conciseness - if Czechia is not precise enough to specify this country, then the fact that it is shorter than Czech Republic is irrelevant, 5) consistency - this is the only thing Czechia could be said to have a lead in, and it isn't usually held to be the controlling factor. Notice that William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor are not consistent. But they are the most used names for those individuals in English language sources. The former Japanese Emperor Hirohito would be more consistently titled Emperor Showa, but English usage is decidedly in favor of Hirohito. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

3) No, confusion was that bombers are from the Czech Republic, not the other way round. So it was hurting for Czech Republic :) Austria Australia, Slovakia Slovenia. Not an issue. Czechia is just """newer""", that's all. 4) It is precise the correct amount. Czechia does not mean anything else. Other points can be also inspected, I was going to dig deeper the next week, challenge all the loopholes presented in the rule, but what's the point now, after it was already promptly shut for a whole year. Was it a right time for RM now? It was not, I did not open it. No new breathtaking evidence (there was some, but not good enough for fierce standards here). Only new - just another angles how to pass it though a rule giving such possibilities. Excuse me for trying now when the next opportunity will be in a year. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW IMHO Answer for Q1 deserves clarification/rewrite: The "Czech Republic" is the official name of the country and the term is much more widely used and recognized in English than "Czechia". - Now it looks like Czech Republic is official and that's why it is better than Czechia which is not official. Not true. Why to stress out the officiality of CR when it does not matter in this answer. Both, the "Czech Republic" and "Czechia" are the official names of the country, but the "CZech Republic" is a term much more widely used and recognized in English than "Czechia".Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in the Czech Republic. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The section: The history of efforts to rename the Czech Republic between 2013-2020

The prime minister of the Czech Republic was interviewed by the journalists of The Wall Street Journal in March 2019 when he was told somebody had officially changed the name of his country to Czechia. Andrej Babis said to his aides: "You changed it? Or you changed it?". One of them stepped forward and quietly explained to Andrej Babis that the UN accepted the Czech proposal for official recognition of the new name. Babis said: “I didn't know about that. I don't like it at all”, fearing not to confuse the new name of the Czech Republic abroad for Chechnya. Later, Andrej Babis said to that interview for iDNES.cz this: “I do not understand why the editors of The Wall Street Journal are dealing with this after nearly one year? I wonder if they even know where the Czech Republic lies. In the interview, I was surprised that someone was using Czechia. I am always talking about Czech Republic, so their claim is not accurate.” and “We are the Czech Republic. We are Czechs. I don't know who came up with this stupid idea. Insanely", "I am fundamentally against". For web portal Novinky.cz Andrej Babis said: “I was surprised someone was using it. I am fundamentally talking about Czech Republic. I don't know when it was approved and I don't know why”. In response to Andrej Babis' question, The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Answer: 75-year-old President of the country, Milos Zeman." Zeman has been promoting the name Czechia for a long time. "I use the word Czechia because it sounds more beautiful and shorter than the cold name Czech Republic" he said shortly after his election as president in 2013 in Israel. He then praised Israeli President Shimon Peres for using the name. According to an unnamed Western diplomat quoted by The Wall Street Journal, the president Milos Zeman is using the transfer of credentials as an opportunity to ask the new ambassadors to use the term Czechia: "Promise me you will call her (Czech Republic) Czechia" Zeman was supposed to tell the diplomat while shaking hands. In 2016, Zeman unanimously agreed with the Prime Minister, the President of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies on a new term adopted by the UN as the official foreign name for the Czech Republic. The new name, however, caused considerable stir. Some ministers, including Andrej Babis, who was Minister of Finance at the time, were not satisfied with him. Demonstrations were held against the new name. According to a spokesman for President Jiri Ovcacek, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the Prime Minister and the President have different opinions on different topics. “The Prime Minister has a different opinion than the President. This is freedom and democracy” said a spokesman for iDNES.cz. The Wall Street Journal points out that the new name does not appear on UN social networks, although the organization had four years to update it. The change did not even affect the official website of the Prague Castle, although the president pushed for change. Zeman is listed as "President of the CR" and visitors to the site can learn about the position or constitution of "Czech Republic". Among ordinary Czechs, the name Czechia did not catch much. "It's a little confusing, nobody tells us Czechia, I don't know why" engineer Lukas Hasik told the Guardian. He himself prefers the name Czech Republic, and so it should remain. The results of the Google search engine show that the name Czechia is not very popular. From 17 February 2019 to 14 February 2020, the number of searches for the name Czech Republic was an order of magnitude higher than the number of searches for Czechia. Some diplomatic institutions do not know how to deal with the new name. US Ambassador to the Czech Republic Stephen King admitted that he rarely uses the shorter term and uses the name Czech Republic on all official level "as most Czechs". British Ambassador to the Czech Republic Nick Archer said the discussion on whether to use the name Czechia did not take place. On the other hand, the Czech Embassy in Australia adopted a diplomatic approach. She called “The Year of Czechia in Australia” on her website, hoping to “bring joy to friends and lovers of the Czech Republic in Australia. The head of Czech diplomacy Tomas Petricek asked the iDNES.cz portal what name he used in foreign negotiations and said that both terms are official. According to Petricek, the situation is the same as when both Slovakia and Slovak Republic are used in the case of “our Slovak friends”. Andrej Babis said to the interview for Blesk Zprávy: "I said in an interview that I don't like the name Czechia, that I don't use it and that I use Czech Republic. And no matter whether the government approved it or not." In his words, he had a negative relationship to the name from the beginning. "I don't want to give anything back - someone put it on the government - Sobotka's government approved it, maybe I was sitting there, saying I didn't like it. It was accepted and everyone enjoys what they want. I do not use Czechia and I will not. That's all." said the Prime Minister. Against the abbreviated version of the name, when in 2016 the Government of the Czech Republic voted on the name of Czechia, was Minister for Regional Development Karla Slechtova (ANO). Karla Slechtová, Member of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, said: "In 2016 I was the only one against the name Czechia. All other members of the government were in favor of the abbreviated name". She added that she opposed the name Czechia even later, when it was recognized internationally: "I did not agree with the short title for unofficial use, for example in the UN. I don't agree with him now.".

References

If you (User:Pavel Fric) wanted a comment, mine is that the above text is WP:UNDUE/out of WP:PROPORTION for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It would be more directly relevant at Name of the Czech Republic, but, really, Wikipedia isn't a place for amusing anecdotes to make us chuckle. As Pavel Fric wrote in an edit summary, "Quite short, but funny." Well, it isn't quite short. It is somewhat funny—in the manner of, say, pieces in the "Talk of the Town" section of The New Yorker, not appropriate for here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

In the Video games section, the Kingdom Come: Deliverance text is not linked to the wikipedia page for this game. Suggestion is to add the following link to the text "Kingdom Come: Deliverance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come:_Deliverance 80.229.196.209 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not convinced that a country article should have a "video games" section, but given that it exists, this request is correct. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Moratorium

Is there a fitting template to put on this talkpage as a reminder of the moratorium now at Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 8? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting is, that many inhabitants of the Czech Republic either from Moravia, or from Silesia or from Bohemia are using the following wordings (according to the meaning), when speaking/talking about the Czech Republic: "... in/to/about/from (...) the Republic" - As if they used the Republic as a short name; and more narrowly: "in/to/about/from (...) Bohemia", "in/to/about/from (...) Moravia", "in/to/about/from (...) Silesia"--Pavel Fric (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC).

So what? How is this relevant to this page? Your obsession is hard to believe. Turn on the Czech news on your TV and the reporters almost exclusively use Česko, that is Czechia. The Czech Wikipedia is also using Česko (Czechia) and not Česká republika (the Czech Republic). No one is writing about it here because it is irrelevant for the English speaking Wikipedia. So please save your activism for the Czech Wikipedia or, even better, for a more appropriate venue.Geog25 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Move request: Move Czech Republic to Czechia

Enforcing moratorium. El_C 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed that all UN agencies have now used the term Czechia to describe the Czech Republic. One example is the World Heritage Centre (Website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/cz). I don't know why some people just refuse to accept this universal change, especially considering that we have accepted North Macedonia, Eswatini, and Nur-Sultan recently, as well as Myanmar over Burma, Taiwan over the Republic of China, and China over the People's Republic of China a few years ago. In my opinion, it is time to accept this change. It is not a hard job to do, we can always include the official name of a country next to its simple name (we have always followed this format anyway). I am afraid that if we don't do this now, we will probably never do it. We might still stubbornly use the term Czech Republic after 30 years from now. What do your guys think? 2001:8003:9008:1301:6C01:1150:219E:8B0F (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Please refer to the FAQ at the top of this page. El_C 05:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Royal Summer Palace

Royal Summer Palace is Queen Anne's Summer Palace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.214.60 (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, I've edited the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and the Powder Tower is Powder Tower, Prague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.214.60 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, my hotel was not very far from there. I've seen the one in Riga, too.

You know, you can do these yours... no you can't. You can register an account, hang around for a while, then you can do them yourself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The name of the publishers of the OED is the University of Oxford

Consider changing the link from Oxford University to University of Oxford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.86.231 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! I instead changed it to Oxford University Press, since OED published by the publishing division not the university as a whole (parallels what Oxford English Dictionary says). DMacks (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

- The Czech Republic is a political name, Czechia is a geographic (short form) name. The same as the French Republic and France, the Slovak Republic and Slovakia. - The Czech Republic should be known for short as Czechia to English speakers, according to Government advisors on the proper naming of geographical places. - In April, Czechia leaders released a statement saying “it is recommended to use a one-word name in foreign languages if it is not necessary to use the formal name of the country”. - The name has existed in Latin form for centuries and was commonly used in the American press during the early twentieth century. - The name has now been included in the United Nations terminology and is here to stay. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/czechia-czech-republic-new-name-english-speakers-a7323596.html Doron B (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doron B, and welcome to Wikipedia. See the discussion here Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_8#Requested_move_22_November_2019 and Q1 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage, and if you like, you can try again in early December or so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed to Czechia. The article about Austria is not called "Austrian Republic", neither is the one about Slovakia called "Slovakian Republic". Muxamilian (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

For answers to yours and many, many other arguments that have already been discussed abundantly on this page, see above and in the archives. And note, again, as it says just above, the moratorium on further discussions until later in the year, at which time it will be reasonable to evaluate whether the usage of Czechia has become sufficiently common to justify the change. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Muxamilian, see the list of discussions under "This page has previously been nominated to be moved." above on this talkpage. You're welcome to start a new WP:RMCM in December. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please change "other major cities are Brno, Ostrava, Olomouc and Pilsen." to "other major cities include Brno, Ostrava, Olomouc and Pilsen", because there are generally more major cites in the Czech Republic than that. 2A00:1028:8390:121A:7472:1643:FE16:11F8 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

ForAlliance, you have to understand in our community you have to follow our guidelines, you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS if soem of your edits contested (I did not so many, given the massive changes you executed so far). Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Alright then, what do you think is wrong with the edit to omit the information about the 30 years' war from the lead? Why must it be retained anyway, this is a minor edit, don't get so upset. You see in the version if you remove that information, the overall phrased paragraphs looks more equal and even, the lead looks nicer. The problem is that the lead of the article talks too much about history. We don't have to talk that much about history in the lead but only mention the main points and make it as short as possible. ForAlliance (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I will tag major problems and then start working on them. We have huge amount of sources needed WP:BURDEN- the order of sections is a bit off Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Structure and guidelines. We have image spam problems WP:Sandwich -WP:GALLERY . Lets see what can be fixed this week here.--Moxy 🍁 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy, the minium use of sources, in other words, using only a few reliable sources to convey a large amount of information is advisable. Just try to avoid using too many sources. Thanks in advance.ForAlliance (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Short about 100 or so...will take time to read all this.--Moxy 🍁 14:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, some content doesn't really need sources because it's in the detailed articles or just mentioned in a general referenced article, as i have said. ForAlliance (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Providing sources for research and educational value is one of our main goals here. WP:PROVEIT "providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports"....This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations. We dont make our readers run around looking for sources that may or may not be in other places.--Moxy 🍁 15:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it's just good that if you can use the same source for a range of information. For example, the pre-history sub-section have a good chance to require only one source for that whole sub-section's information, on other words, mabe you can find a single article that provide all the information, it will minimise the number of sources. ForAlliance (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved and more researchable information is available. Compiling bibliographies and as many sources as possible is a major activity of historians and scholars here. --Moxy 🍁 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as the source provided the information that is also comfirmed by other sources, one source is sufficient. It doesn't really matter if the source is "bias", as long as it provide the information universally recognized. According to your thesis, we will just add whatever number of sources we want, right? Well it will go too long. In this case, choosing the one most reliable source is preferable. Over-sourcing isn't necessarily bolstering the statement, it just isn't really necessary.ForAlliance (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ForAllienace, you already trimmed very hasrhly he article, and i have already told it's a significant event of history, so there is no WP:CONSENSUS for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR, significant or not, it is already provided in the history section, this isn't necessarily put in the lead, the lead is as fine as it is. Furthermore, this event is mentioned in only two lines even in just the history section, why should it be shown more in the lead? Please see Wikipedia:Keep it concise. ForAlliance (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I already answered this question above, the lead should properly summarize the events, and it is significant, anyway the lead is very concise comparing to other articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR, "Following the Battle of Mohács in 1526, the whole Crown of Bohemia was gradually integrated into the Habsburg Monarchy..." This line tell us that it is already intergrated into the Habsburg Monarchy and since then, it still part of the Habsburgs, the 30 Years War does not affected that, the main event here is Bohemia is part of Habsburgs from 1526 to 18xx, the 30 years war is not a main event, in other words, the war does not really affect anything, why should it be put in the lead?ForAlliance (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it says gradually, not already. It has been an significant and important event regarding the gradual integration.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, ok, gradually then, not already, and the 30 years war is just a part of that gradually intergrated process, then we better just mention this progress, nothing more detailed about it, because it's basically about the same thing, the gradual intergration of Bohemia into Habsburg, with the 30 Years War is just a part of it. Significant or not, according to who, you? In Wikipedia, we don't bring in personal evaluation from anyone, if it's the same event, it should mention the basis of that event only, without going too much into details. "Significant" and "important" is not a valid arguement' here, because it is bias, everyone have their own view of "significance" and "importance" regarding an event.

The main thing I want to point out is, the lead of the article has already talked too much about history, a country is not just about history, so we must write thing about the history shorter, especially in the lead. In this case, the info about the 30 Years War is just a part of the big picture about the intergration of Bohemia into Habsburgs, so it is a smaller detail that can be abolished, "important" and "significant" or not, it's a part of the same thing, they (the details, including the 30 Years War) should be treated the same. ForAlliance (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ForAlliance, unfortunately you dont have any real arguments, just repeating the same and you just don't like it, and unfortunately continued edit warring. Stop it please. I has nothing to do with my personal opinion of mine, it is history as well considered significant in other pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

I noticed the third opinion request for this page, but I will not reply it, because more than two editors are involved in the discussion. I have to decline the request and remove this dispute from the list. I see that an editor requested for comments below. I think it is the proper way to reach a consensus on the debated issue. Borsoka (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that the Thirty Years' War should be mentioned in the lead. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Whether the 30 years war belongs in the heading or not 09:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Include, the 30 year war, not only lasted 30 years, but was important for the history of the region.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Include, Battle of White Mountain was highly significant event, considered as "one of the most famous events in Czech history" (Source). Jklamo (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jklamo, @Borsoka "significant" and "important" is not the relevant or persuasive arguement to put this piece of information in the lead. You don't understand the issue raised here, it is that we only talk about existence of events that is about establishment/ablishment of a state, events like the Battle you mentioned does not affect the status of any state, therefore is not considered a major event that should be in the lead, especially it should not be in the lead. The thing here is the lead of this article already talk much about history, we don't want to bring in further un-necessary details. ForAlliance (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Include, per arguments above, per the article's status quo ante.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the "arguement" you provided above is not really an arguement, I wrote in 5 lines proving the points and you wrote back in one line? That is called an arguement? Your stance being shown is a violation of NPOV, considering the use the words "significant" and "important" to further your agenda. Because of that, the edit you did is not protected by consensus, right then, let an admin intervene then we shall see who is legit. I didn't "misinterprete" our rules, I did what suits what is written in this article: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. [[ ForAlliance (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Content matters, not the number of sentences. Yes you did, and frivolous attitudes are not really professional.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR Let's make it clearer. First question, why do you believe this piece of information should be put in the lead? Answer in detailed why, at least 4 sentences, not just saying it is important without saying why. ForAlliance (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I already answered this question above, and you cannot determine how many sentences should the other party answered. That was the point when any kind of hope/form of autonomy lost and the integration and later incorporation to Austria were marked.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OMG

OMG, why the total destruction of this article?????--46.13.13.142 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarify, please. --Khajidha (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Czechia

There is a moratorium on article-title discussions (through 29 November 2020). And (unsurprisingly) no consensus to have article-text be different from article-title. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/francistapon/2017/05/22/czechia-has-won-the-czech-republic-name-debate/#2abb785c7d66 Article 2: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36048186 Should we finally accept the fact and move the title to Czechia? 2001:8003:9008:1301:18B5:6B38:6E3F:846C (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Based on 1) a low-quality 2017 blog and 2) a 2016 article that pokes fun at the name? Doremo (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Fun fact: Everybody loves "ia" as the suffix for their country name. One day, we might see Kazakhstan change their name to Kazakia too：https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26082740 2001:8003:9008:1301:A07C:1994:2222:F102 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Google maps also uses 'Czechia'. Ljgua124 (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Same for Apple maps they use czechia too. Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC) This was not a formal move request, but please keep in mind that a requested move moratorium is in place. If you have an argument to move the page, feel free to present it once the moratorium expires. O.N.R. (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Apart from moving the page, however, is it not time to start using Czechia within the page? Prases like "the Czech Republic and Slovakia" are inconsistent and absurd - it should either be "Czechia and Slovakia" or "the Czech and Slovak Republics". Have a look at France and see how often "the French Republic" is used. I think it is about 10% of references, with "France" for the other 90%, which feels about right. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC) If people are mostly calling one country "The Czech Republic" and the other country "Slovakia", then you can say they're being illogical, but that doesn't alter the fact that those are the names by which people, apparently, mostly know each of those countries. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to fix real-world illogic by shielding its readers from it, or to impose terminology to which people are less accustomed. If someone refers to the country as "Czechia" within an article, I'm not going to "correct" it because it's fine. But where an article already refers to "Czech Republic", in my opinion "WP:IFITAINTBROKE don't fix it" is good advice: it should be left alone, at least until such time in the far future where almost nobody is calling it that and the youngest generation of readers is likely to be nonplussed by it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "I think it is about 10% of references, with "France" for the other 90%," And if real world usage for this country was like that (90% Czechia vs 10% Czech Republic), we would be using Czechia. But it isn't. So we aren't. It isn't even close. It probably isn't even as favorable as the reverse of that (90% Czech Republic vs 10% Czechia). We follow English usage. English usage is often illogical and inconsistent. --Khajidha (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Hm, so Largoplazo thinks that alternating the name Czechia here and there within the article should only be done if we reach the stage where "almost nobody is calling it [the Czech Republic] and the youngest generation of readers is likely to be nonplussed by it." That is NOT following English usage. That is an argument for someone who is emotionally attached to something. Can any of you tell me what the real source of your opposition is? --Doric Loon (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC) You assume that the "real source" of editors' opposition to your proposal is something different to what they told you it is. I suggest that this does not meet the standard of WP:AGF. I'd add that the convention in the MOS is that we refer to geographical locations "by the same name as in the title of their article". According to the MOS we should actually be changing instances of Czechia on other articles to Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Oh I'm certainly not suspecting bad faith. But I am a linguist, and what interests me here is the attachments or aversions that people have to words. There is an elephant in the room here that nobody is admitting to, and I would really like to understand it. I'm sorry, but you do not write like someone who is weighing and considering alternatives. You write like someone who is defending a corner. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Frankly, it sounds like you are insinuating that people are lying about their motivations. I'd say that's an WP:AGF issue. If you want to know the background to this discussion, there are eight pages of archives that you are welcome to read. In the meantime, unless there's some reason not to, I suggest we close this per the moratorium. Kahastok talk 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC) @Doric Loon: Two things. (1) I realize I'd read too quickly the comment I was responding to, which asked "is it not time to start using Czechia within the page"? I'd read it as "within other pages" and my answer was directed to that. Within this article, in my opinion "Czech Republic" should be used throughout as long as that remains the title, consistent with what I consider to be a best practice for all articles: When a multiplicity of terms exist for an article's topic, choose one and stick with it. When the title itself is suitable for use after first reference (e.g., not a person's full name, which isn't suitable for use after the first reference), use that. And spell it consistently too. I've gotten confused before when I didn't realize an unfamiliar term that had just popped up in an article I was reading referred to the article's topic instead of something else. Think of the reader. (2) What you claim I "think" isn't what I think at all. You've skipped right over the differentiation I made between additions to an article and replacing what's already there. Largoplazo (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC) @Doric Loon: In response to "That is an argument for someone who is emotionally attached to something. Can any of you tell me what the real source of your opposition is?": Good grief. Sorry, Dr. Freud, you're mistaken. Regarding your response above to Kahostok, there is no need to "weigh and consider alternatives" from scratch at this level when a guideline already exists that was written based on weighing and consideration of alternatives at a higher level. That's what the guidelines are for. And you're giving elephants a bad name. Largoplazo (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC) @Largoplazo: Well we all like elephants, so I wouldn't want to do that. @Kahastok: No, I emphatically did not imply anyone was lying. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was making assumptions about you personally - that was not my point. I stand by my impression that this whole argument is deeply embued with emotional antipathy, possibly subconsciously, who knows? You're right that I haven't read all of the archives, but I've now read enough to see that it gets quite vitriolic. I'm backing off now, because I am not interested in being involved in that, but those of you who plan to continue working here might do well to think hard about why it has become such a sensitive issue for you. Peace.--Doric Loon (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC) My major emotional response to this is confusion. Why does it keep coming up? Why does anyone care what a different language calls their country? Not only do I not care what my country is called in Czech, I don't even consider myself to have the right to care. It is none of my business and to attempt to impose my will upon the Czech language would seem to me to be the height of arrogance. --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC) @Doric Loon: You should think about why you're so sure it's such a sensitive issue for arbitrary other people. For heaven's sake, when Czechoslovakia dissolved, I assumed the western half would adopt the name "Czechia", and I found it kind of annoying that they went with the haughty and burdensome "Czech Republic". When they finally did put "Czechia" out there, I thought it was about time. I don't mean to say it rankled me at all; I just thought it was peculiar not to have adopted the short form. So your intuition, at least in my case, is terribly misguided when you see someone applying Wikipedia's guidelines in exactly the sort of situation where they're meant to be applied, combined with obvious editorial best practices (i.e., consistency), and ascribe it to antipathy. Is your disbelief that people follow established practices because they're the established practices and your sense that there must be a psychological element to it when they do so really that strong? @Khajidha: I agree. When I found out the Esperanto name for my country, the United States, was "Usono", rather than being upset that they had elided the name of my home nation, I thought it was amusing. Finns, Germans, Hungarians, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, Georgians, Japanese, and Chinese aren't hung up on what their countries are called in English. And look at the Czechs, for heaven's sake: they insist on calling Germany "Německo" and Austria "Rakousko". As far as I know, Germans and Austrians don't raise bloody hell over that. Largoplazo (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Well, if Czechs insist to call it just and only "Spolková republika Německo" and "Rakouská republika", situations would be maybe different for Austrians and Germans in a sense: "Czechs, why do you use our political name everywhere, it is not designed for that. You do also have short and practical short name whithout republics for us, use that, whatever it is! You use short names for other countries, what have we done wrong that you need that republic in name for us." Of course I know what did Czechia wrong - asked 23 years too long. Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC) "what have we done wrong that you need that republic in name for us." This assumes that using a long-form name is somehow bad. Why do you assume that? Why does it matter so much? Yes, it is different from most other countries. But, so what? --Khajidha (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Strange, inconvenient, not common to use eg. in sport, history, marketing, in comparison with other countries in same language (150 republics and these two Czechs need to stress out, why? - in this Austria/Germany scenario). Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Why would it stress them out? Why would Austria and Germany care what Czechs call their country? Why do Czechs care what the English language calls their country? I don't care what the word in Czech for my country is. Or even if they have a word. They could use a simple number if they wish. Is is no concern of mine unless and until I want to say something in Czech, at which point knowing it would be of no more importance than knowing any other word in that language. I would simply find out what the Czech term was and use it. --Khajidha (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, we understand, you don't get it and you don't care. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC) @Khajidha:@Chrzwzcz:Because it is a matter of faith. The Czech Republic is a unitary state. He (Chrzwzcz) (and some/many other involved parties - people in the Czech Republic) now believes (believe) in the Czechia, which is a historically Latin name of Bohemia used for centuries: territorially it's only Bohemia (in Czech: "Čechy"), not Bohemia (former Czech Kingdom: until 1918) and Moravia (former Moravian Margraviate: until 1918) together, as can be seen (designation Bohemia) in English-speaking countries; and which is interpreted as a translation of the word Česko - deployed as a one-word expression "because who would ever do without a one-word labeled anything, right?"), and I now believe in the Czech Republic. In Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, the countries from which the Czech Republic is formed, each of us wants to win this language war, or at least not to lose, because it is considered as important for our integrity, an expression of success. This is the basis for monitoring (or for some even influencing - if allowed) the use of both terms not only in Czech and English. Just look at the French version of the site for the Czech Republic, and you will see who took the opportunity and is currently leading the dispute.--Pavel Fric (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC) "because who would ever do without a one-word labeled anything, right?" - It is not a matter of one-word, two words, but "with republic/kingdoms/whatever unimportant" - "without those". "Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia" - 4 words but it would be geographical name. "Czech Republic" is not, can't be. Czech Republic means 1993+ (maybe 1969+), Czechia CAN mean more, THOUSAND years more. Thus Czechia is better :) "Czech lands" somehow substituted this need for unifying term for the whole history of Czech state, but it will change in time. For now, wait... Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC) The geographical name is a matter of political claim. The question of what you want and what you take in your head from what others consider theirs.--Pavel Fric (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Why are we explicitly using "Republic" when we don't for German or Austria—is that your question? Because that was the name the country itself issued to us when it was founded; so the English-speaking world used it for years, becoming accustomed to it, and they didn't turn around and switch usage instantaneously when the country announced the availability of the name "Czechia" many years later. (Side note: they made it available. From the urgency behind the insistence by some editors that the name be changed here to "Czechia", one might infer that the government had not only made it available but had announced "We just decided we really, really, really want you to use this alternative name even though until now we didn't want you to use it at all." There was no such announcement and, as far as I know, the Czech government itself has carried out no promotional campaign to promote the use of the shorter name.) If you wish to debate this with the English-speaking world, or promote the use of "Czechia" among them, you're welcome to pursue that elsewhere, but this isn't the venue for that. Here, we only observe what the English-speaking world is doing and edit accordingly. This feels like a good time to reiterate, before someone suggests again that I have an agenda: when Czechoslovakia dissolved, I expected the western portion of that country would be named "Czechia" and found the sole designation of "Czech Republic" for our use annoying. I'm totally in favor of "Czechia". Just not here until the criteria for doing so have been met. Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Yes, I did write: "Of course I know what did Czechia wrong - asked 23 years too long." Chrzwzcz (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) As the question here was about alternating the naming of the country within the article's body rather than about the article's title, it may deemed to fall outside the scope of the moratorium. But, having established that naming of a topic within an article about it should remain consistent, we may appear to have returned to discussing the title. Having participated in this section, I'm not in a position to close it and box it up on account of the moratorium, but it wouldn't bother me if someone else did. The current moratorium, in any event, has just one monthly left to run from today. Come November 29, it will be entirely appropriate to reevaluate the relative prevalence of "Czechia" in applicable English sources. I'm hoping that this time people will avoid bogging the discussion down in rehashes of old and irrelevant arguments, the answers to which won't have changed since all the previous occasions on which they were addressed. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Reevaluation is possible, sources grew, but not so significantly to convince even the less opposing opposers, I guess. Better to save the next move request for later. If unsuccessful, some people would suggest longer moratorium for the next one... so... let's save it :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC) I think there's an idea around that 1 year is a reasonable max moratorium, but I can't quote chapter and verse on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Actual name

It's actually named Czechia in the 14th October of 2016 the Czech republic officially changed it's name to make the name shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PushPlush (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see all the previous discussions of this. The summary is:

• They made the short name available.
• It didn't replace the long official name.
• We follow the guidance in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGE in determining the title for an article. The number one take-away is that the official name isn't really relevant (besides which, see my previous point).
• Every once in a while a new discussion is initiated to review whether the use of the new name has proliferated sufficiently that the new title has become the appropriate one for the article under that guidance. Because people kept discussing the matter ad nauseam, a moratorium was finally enacted, and later renewed once or twice after further discussions. I believe the latest one has expired.

Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's good that the moratorium on discussing this has expired because the change still needs to take place. We don't call the articles "Slovak Republic" or "French Republic". Nor should this one be called "Czech Republic". Elcalebo (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So? Usage outside Wikipedia is overwhelmingly in favor of the Czech Republic for this country and Slovakia for the other. That's just reality. Whether it SHOULD be "_________ Republic" for both or "__________ia" for both is a question that we don't care about. English doesn't do "should be". Usage is usage. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of short-form name in article (separate issue from title)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An edit I made earlier today to the article per WP:BOLD that edited the article for conciseness, changing several phrasings and using the "short-form name, Czechia" (quoting the first line of the article) was reverted with no other reason listed by the reverter, Gråbergs Gråa Sång than that they disagreed (while seemingly mocking my minor typo in the edit summary, thank you for following Wikipedia:Civility). I made this change in order to, as mentioned in the edit summary, make some of the sentences a bit more concise and clear, as continually using the long-form name (especially when juxtapositioned with the short-form names of other states) ends up being unnecessarily wordy. As per the WP:BRD cycle, what do others feel that could be improved about this edit, such that I might iterate an improved version of it? To be clear, this has nothing to do with the issue of the name of the article which I see has been heavily discussed above - only the using of a short-form name in the article itself. Hentheden (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Actual, real-world, off Wikipedia usage is overwhelmingly in favor of Czech Republic in all cases. Including "when juxtapositioned with the short-form names of other states". Far from this usage seeming odd, it is absolutely normal for this country and using the short form instead is what stands out as odd. --Khajidha (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome. Two three editors guard it, Czechia won't pass through them, we should consider lucky that it was mercifully allowed in the first sentence... but boy, the struggle it was! Usage is usage but Wikipedia (or these two three) will allow only one form, be it 51%:49% real-world ratio, Wikipedia MUST be 100%:0%. So do not tell me about usage. And mocking - yes, typical. Chrz (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:GEO, this is not in fact a separate issue from the title. The name in the title is the name we should be using in prose (both here and elsewhere). The fact that you prefer a different form is not a good reason not to follow the MOS. Kahastok talk 22:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case Wikipedia does not follow usage, all the synonyms and all. It chooses the most used form and pushes it everywhere. Chrz (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Show me any significant coverage of this country in other sources that switches between "Czech Republic" and "Czechia". Everything I've seen has been one or the other. With (as said before) "Czech Republic" as the overwhelmingly most common usage. Not to mention the fact that we don't switch between synonyms for other articles either. --Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not just about this article. There, so do not tell me about usage. It is just Wikipedia policy (or your interpretation of it) - one name, no synonyms, ever. Such policy is understandable in case of "spelling-twins", it would look strange to swicth between them randomly in one article. Czechia is not the case. And "overwhelmingly" is so 2016 :) Chrz (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's Wikipedia policy to use the same name for a country as that used for its article when talking about that country in articles (its own and all others). From the previously linked MOS:GEO: "Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article". The exceptions noted further on already apply. We talk about Bohemia and Moravia or Czechoslovakia or whatever in articles as relevant to the time being discussed. We DON'T, however, switch between "France" and the "French Republic", which is the equivalent of what you are proposing. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am proposing you don't speak about "usage". Wikipedia clearly does not follow real life distribution of usage of several synonyms. It simply picks the winning one, no matter what - In case of two names, 49.99 % of sources can be ommited, in case of three names, up to 66.66 %. It seems OK, to be consistent and all, but by choosing sides it further deepens the gap. And further influences the real life sources itself. (51 % sources uses it -> Wikipedia uses it -> sources see what Wikipedia uses as "standard" and start/switch to use it as well -> 52 % sources uses it... 53 %..) Or I give Wikipedia too much credit and noone sees it as (one of) English language standard givers. Chrz (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1) I don't know why you are confused, but "following usage" has always meant the predominant usage. That's why it's called "common name". 2) No, Wikipedia is not a major standard giver for English.--Khajidha (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not confused, but Wikipedia is certainly not mirroring the real world when it is capable to ignore up to 49.99 % sources (usage). "Fun" fact: Some Czech wise guys (even the ones designated to promote the short name) say that they won't use Czechia, because English Wikipedia does not either. Closed loop reasoning. Bad people in charge. Not Wikipedia problem. But hey, here we talked about throwing a synonym here and there, not changing the name of the article... Chrz (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Khajidha's argumentation is correct, I don't see why other do not get the point really. Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Oh wow. Chrz (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of people/places/things that are (in the real world) referred to by multiple names. We don't write articles about them using a mixture of those names to "follow real life distribution of usage of several synonyms". Why would you expect us to do that here? --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but these are "United States - United States of America" or "Peter Smith - Mr. Smith - Peter" kind of synonyms, perfectly OK to use this or that several times in an article. Chrz (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly which countries do we do this for? The article is at France. We don't generally write about the French Republic. The article is at Greece. We don't generally write about the Hellenic Republic. But both short and long names are mentioned in the lead. Even the one that you mention (the US) is generally referred to only as the "United States", not the "United States of America". We treat the Czech Republic just like we do any other country, save that the pattern is reversed. Most countries the short name is more common than the long one. That isn't true here. In the case of this country the long form is much more common. Why? Doesn't matter. It just is. --Khajidha (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case Czechia is special case without any direct analogy (because of that "strange" reversed pattern). So nothing unusual that it is discussed more.Chrz (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's nothing unusual about this case, other than that an unusually large group of editors are here trying to argue for special status to be given to a government mandated English name that isn't yet the common name. Until and unless there is consensus that the common name has changed, the article should stick to using the current title, with the only mention of Czechia being as an alt title in the lead. We don't flip flop between names in the prose, that would just be confusing for readers.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources do "flip flop" occasionally. Readers are not confused bacause the names are logically similar (eg. Czech Republic versus Bohemia would be much more confusing), do not underestimate readers. Wikipedia does not want to flip flop, it wants to declare only one victor, what can we do. Try to make a special case or surrender. Chrz (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, the notion that following the sources means matching precisely the proportion of usages in reliable sources is absurd. It's also not what was proposed by the OP, so it's really just a straw man.

This is not about having a "victor" or a "surrender". The fact that you see it that way is part of the problem. What we do is start from the relevant policies and guidelines, and reach a conclusion based on what they say. We have done this several times now and the result is Czech Republic. Policy and guidelines then tell us to refer to the Czech Republic when discussing the country. So that is what we do.

It's not about personal preference, and it's not about winning and losing. It's about doing what's best for our readers based on our policies and our guidelines. Kahastok talk 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It was about this: Throw in a few Czechias there (eg. where it makes more sence than bulky constructions like "Music of the Czech Republic comprises the musical traditions of that state or the historical entities of which it is compound, i.e. the Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia).") It won't be confusing at all, these are not spelling twins, just shorter and longer names which are perfectly OK to use and spice an article with (some sources do that). You say it is not OK, just one name, everywhere, no exception, deadly sin. I was not proposing to match proportion of the sources. I was clarifying your "usage", that it does not mean usage-usage, just plain "most used". Nothing more. We will all laugh one day how this was possible, several wikipedians protecting wikipedia not to include the term one day too soon excusing it like higeest policy of Wikipedia. Let's stall a bit more then. Chrz (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Czech Republic before 1993

Delusion of naming consistency leads to this and [this]. You cannot use Czech Republic for past, it brings jewels like kings of the Czech Republic and other "surprises". There are two sulutions

1. keep two names: Czech lands (or Bohemia here and there) for past, Czech Republic for present - stable solution on Wikipedia, no need to push it forwards to crazy new places
2. use one unifying geographical name: Czechia - will not pass, but at least you can see the benefits...

This is not move request or new round of it. Chrz (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be a guideline somewhere to use or at least mention name at the time, like Miloš Zeman was born in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. 2 names may not be enough. In your first link, Czech lands may be ok, or perhaps something like "present day CR"/"the area". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Or solution #3 - slowly start to use Czechia for past instead of Czech lands :) It was declined too, so... Chrz (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You all make good points, and I think you're right - Czech Republic doesn't really seem like the right solution for historical use. With that said, Czech lands just sounds wrong and anachronistic and not something we use for other countries. We don't talk about "Swedish lands" to make clear that we're also talking about Finland and Åland but not Scania or Jämtland, because that would be ridiculous. Why not use Czechia as a replacement for Czech Lands in this very limited and specific way? I'll edit the article with this suggestion, as per WP:BRD, and then I'm sure someone will revert and we can continue the discussion. Hentheden (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If Czech lands and Czech Republic are inappropriate then, per WP:MPN, use the word that is used for the area in modern English-language sources discussing the time period. Chrz mocks the idea of kings of the Czech Republic - well then call them kings of Bohemia. That's what our guidelines tell us to do.

And in some cases before 1993 that will mean "Czech Republic".

In several places the text seems to actively try to shoehorn a noun phrase into the text where an adjective would be more natural. Almost as though the people who wrote the article actually wanted us to be continually discussing naming. Why say The musical tradition of the Czech lands when you can say Czech musical tradition? One of these sentences - In the Czech lands mainly expressionist and cubist: Josef Čapek, Emil Filla, Bohumil Kubišta, Jan Zrzavý. - doesn't even have a verb.

I would add that this continual low-level and entirely circular name discussion is the reason why we imposed the moratoriums on this point before. The fact that the same people are starting the same discussion less than two weeks after the last one makes the case for another moratorium now. Kahastok talk 10:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You're entirely right Kahastok, the wording around the phrases Czech Lands is often really really odd. What about my current edit - which does not use the word Czechia anywhere - that fixes some of these issues? Hentheden (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's an improvement. I'm sure that further improvement is possible - over time the writing should improve. I think the important point is that it is possible to avoid these issues naturally if we want to. Kahastok talk 11:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Czechia is only permanent "consistency" solution. In the meantime, before Czechia recognized on Wikipedia, you have to stick with two names. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And yes, if you want to stop using "Czech lands", adjective form is a way. Replacing Czech lands with Czech Republic is anachronistic nonsense. Chrz (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Czechia is some kind of panacea that will resolve all inconsistencies is very wide of the mark. Even if English-language usage were to switch to Czechia for the modern state, it is far from clear that it would also make sense to use it before the modern state existed. The kings of Bohemia were kings of Bohemia, not of Czechia. Kahastok talk 11:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Third para of lede

Sorry User:Oliszydlowski for my dumb revert summary. What I meant was the third paragraph of the lede currently seems to focus on the territorial development of the modern Czech state. We could perhaps benefit from expanding it to include more political developments, but we need to be accurate. Something like this:

In the 19th century, the Czech lands became more industrialized, and in 1918 became part of the First Czechoslovak Republic following the collapse of Austria-Hungary after World War I. After the Munich Agreement in 1938, Nazi Germany systematically took control over the Czech lands. Czechoslovakia was restored in 1945 and became an Eastern Bloc communist state following a coup d'état in 1948. In November 1989, the Velvet Revolution ended communist rule in the country, and on 1 January 1993 Czechoslovakia dissolved with its constituent states becoming the independent states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

References

thoughts? Bear in mind a lot of this stuff is covered in more detail at Czechoslovakia. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe: - So sorry, I didn't see you put this in talk and I imposed the edit too early. I think the above paragraph is great; brief and informative. Best regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)