Hi FromCzech! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).
As per your recent revert, the intro is quite vague and doesn't explicitly exclude "partnership" agreements. It is my understanding that any association, if formalized by two local governments (as in the case of the Tuscan Region & Yerevan) would qualify Tuscany/Yerevan to be on the list. Would it not? Please explain. Thanks!
Archives908 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908: I didn't write the intro, however, the title of the page clearly says "twin towns and sister cities", so it is defined what should be on the page and what not. Twinning is much closer and more complex link between local governments than partnership. You can mention partnerships and friendships in the designated section on the Yerevan page.
All the twin towns lists and all the municipalities on the list (and on theirs individual pages) are made with same methodology so it would be unsystematic and confusing if there would be some random partnership. And the lists would be three times longer. I hope this explanation helped! FromCzech (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: Can you be more specific why do you think it is "a very poor choice"? As said in the edit summary, the list was unificated with other twin towns lists. It is confusing for readers to have one page in the same topic in different format. It is also very impractical to navigate for readers outside Ireland (or British Isles), who have no idea which town is located where. If you think it should be discussed, take it to Talk:Lists of twin towns and sister cities for further discussion, it would be illogical to deal with this particular list separately. FromCzech (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you obviously know countries are geographic places and an alphabetical list give readers no sense of where any of these towns are located. Most countries have some political, historical or administrative divisions, so using the 4 Irish provinces as the basis sections for this list seems the most sensible. These could be subdivided or not into the counties or towns within the provinces. So using that together with an Irish provinces map, like this one File:Provinces of Ireland location map.svg with the province names, provides readers with contextual information that an alphabetical list can NEVER do. Considering another country; France, for instance, has 96 departments which I think would be too many sections, but there are only 18 administrative regions which, if used as sections, makes such a list more meaningful to me and to the reader's understanding of the list. Was there ever a discussion as to the formatting of such lists? When and where did that take place? ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: Before I reformat the layout of the England list, there was this discussion, which shows why I lean towards this point of view. To orientate easily in every list, you need to know this divisions for every list. How could the average user quickly find information about what Sligo or Cork is twinned with? I have no idea in which administrative division they are, and so do every average user outside his home country. But I know that Cork is under "C" and Sligo under "S".
Why should any list of twin towns give contextual information based on location of individual municipalities? What is that contextual information you are writing about? It's just a list. If there are some informations to this topic, they should be listed for example here. It is natural that Czech and German municipalities near the Czech-German border are more often twinned with each other, but otherwise there is no need to sort it on the basis of their regions, especially at the cost of worse orientation for those who are not interested in the regional jurisdiction. Ireland is the same case. And who needs it, can take a map or list of municipalities in that particular region to hand while browsing the alphabetical list. So, as I wrote previously, if you want a discussion how to format these lists, feel free to move it into Talk:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. FromCzech (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for continuing the good work on English twin towns. Keep it up - I am sure it will all be totally finished soon! <g> Looking at this edit, I followed the Haringey link and was surprised to read that it is twinned with somewhere in Sweden in addition to the places we have listed. If the LBH link is our main source, should we also list the Swedish twin? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Hello! I use the principle of mirror comparison for veryfing as much as possible. So as this Swedish article says, the twinning was terminated and Alūksne and Kirkkonummi are the only Sundbyberg's twin towns. So despite what the LBH source says, Sundbyberg is not its twin town anymore. Thank you for your support, however the English list, similar to French or German lists, will probably never be totally finished. I have about 50 towns and cities in my personal database for potential addition, and there is plenty of English-French twinnings between small municipalities, but I think there shouldn't be every small village as the list is already long enough. But time to time I will add few more just for fun, especially twinnings with some less common countries. FromCzech (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you for the brilliant explanation and for your amazing thoroughness. I went and read the Swedish link in translation: it's interesting, and means I shall not be packing my bag for a nice trip to Sundyberg any time soon! Thanks again for all your hard work. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure know what exactly you want from me. The current source used for Pécs is also pretty official, list the same cities, and is in English so it is more preferred. If I'm looking right, there is nothing to update. FromCzech (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the source I have put are 14 cities listed as twinned, 6 are "Partnervárosok" meaning partner cities. Shkodra is also not listed, although Albanian sources give it as twins. Bes-ARTTalk20:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still no answer what you want from me, still no answer why your source is better than the current one in Pécs and Hungarian list; I'm confused. Shkodër is a new twin town from late 2018 so that's probably why it's missing, Lyon and Namur are on the websites but they disappeared with website updates of these cities, so the relationship most likely ended, and all the cities listed by Pécs as Partner cities list Pécs as their twin town, which cannot be coincidence, so I left them among the twin towns (probably losts in translation, for example partnerská města or miasta partnerskie are Czech resp. Polish terms for town twinning). FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bes-ART: Please, before adding any new twin town links, double check sources if any are available. It doesn't make me happy at all that I have to revert you edits. For example, if you add Eger and Krujë link, you have to see that the list on Eger's website from 2019 does not include Krujë and the source from 2015 you used mentions only review the possibilities of twinning, not the start of twinning. Btw. thank you for adding Përmet you just forgot to add it to the Kosovo list too, but I already fixed it. FromCzech (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm new to editing pages on Wikipedia so I am not really used to it, and I'm working to get my skills improving. I have searched deeper for the informations about the sister cities and you were right about the reverts you made, so I have to apologize for my wrong informations. I have found this website from Japan which is official and it says the total numbers of sister city per country. I think you should take a look at it: http://www.clair.or.jp/e/exchange/shimai/countries/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by RO Andrey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech: Maybe the list shows the all the sister city that the country has/had. The list has been updated in 2021 thus. In this case, Takayama-shi is listed as a sister city of Sibiu. It's kinda confusing and I don't really know if it's considered to be. What's even more confusing is that the city's website (Tamayaka) listes Sibiu as a friendship tie-up city, so I don't know what would be the final answer in the end. What remains is Kawasaki.
@RO Andrey: Both Breaza and Kawasaki don't mention each other on their websites, maybe they are not twinned (anymore). But both are minor towns are there is no reason to deal with it. Many municipalies are missing because the sources are not reliable, I have more than 100 Romanian municipalities in my personal database which I could hypothetically add to the list, I'm just waiting for a good source (it's not good to cite individual relationships individually) and I will definitely add some of them one day. But and there is no reason to cling to a specific city or relationship with speicfic country. FromCzech (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is because the cite you used refers to the twining of Congleton in the past tence, when the page says this “This is a list of places in England which have standing links to local communities in other countries known as "town twinning" (usually in Europe) or "sister cities" (usually in the rest of the world).”.
Due to this wording twinning in the past tense can’t be used from what I can tell.
I have sadly been unable to find a source saying that Congleton is still twined with Oosterhout, so that had to go.
The cite you used also contradicts the fact that Congleton is still twined with Trappes, my source backs up the fact that Congleton is still twined with Trappes.
It was due to the source you used which I found earlier today that I even found out about Congleton having any twin towns in the first place.
@Maurice Oly: Hello, you are right, this twinning ended in around 2018, and there was also Congleton–Kopřivnice twinning which terminated in 2018 too. From what I found, since the administrative reform in 2010, the twinning has been responsibility of Cheshire East County and Congleton stopped its activities. It is probable that the twinning with Trappes is at least inactive or also terminated and Trappes' website is outdated, based on the Congleton Heritage Festival reference. But for lack of further evidence I will not deal with it and leave Congleton on the list, although it is an unnecessary controversy. FromCzech (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@D T G: Hello, what sourced information exactly was deleted? Only the reference was replaced for easier verification of information, because the current ones didn't allow it. I know it is possible to keep all the references, both the municipal website and the books, but imho it is unnecessary and kind of WP:TOOMANYREFS; not user friendly. The books belongs more directly to that work Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis, where the user would expect them, and there are too many of them on the municipalities' pages. Link to Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis is a de facto reference and does not need to be repeated, like when a birthplace and birthdate of a person is solved by a link to that person and shoulnd't be referenced extra on other pages. FromCzech (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted "It meant that the village was in the process of location (the size of land to pay tithe from was not yet precised). The creation of the village was a part of a larger settlement campaign taking place in the late 13th century on the territory of what will be later known as Upper Silesia." which was a general observation of Idzi Panic from an article about Liber Fundationis ... („Iste sunt ville circa…”) D_T_G (PL) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@D T G: This information wasn't sourced. The source you just cited wasn't used. And btw, how can I verify the information with the source you sent? There is only the option to download a file in an unknown format. If you have a better source (ideally either in English or one that can be machine translated), you can restore the information. FromCzech (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know how to open DjVu files you can open this pdf online to the book that you removed ref to. From the page 528 there is an english summary
At the turn of the 13th century, another phase of settlement can be observed in the region. In this period, another 71 villages were established. The settlement process was initiated by the first Duke of Teschen, Mieszko I.
The mentioned 71 villages are precisely from Liber Fundationis. More in Polish from the page 295 in chapter "„Rewolucja osadnicza” przełomu XIII i XIV wieku" about the settlement revolution in the late 13th century, it's copyable so it can be put through translators. D_T_G (PL) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. There are no citations in the lead at all. And the citation format has been cleaned up to that usually used on ENG wikipedia. Nothing controversial. FromCzech (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read the diff wrong. There are no citations in the lead. When I'm angry, I don't see well ;) - Citation style: I don't like citations within the prose, and always have them in a separate section. I learned that from Franz Kafka. Please restore. - The sources say that he was born in Reichenberg, Bohemia. No claim to any state, just what the sources say. Please find a way to tell our readers why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are writing that article for yourself, not for other users of Wikipedia. As I said, this is the usually used format, and the fact that a different format is used on some pages, which is historically given, is not an argument to restore it on Bulirsch's page.
Reichenberg is a German exonym of Liberec that is probably used to this day in German, but this does not mean that it is the official name of the city. But even if it wasn't official, it's still easier for users to read the current name than the historical one. You got the name Reichenberg from a German-language source and it only belongs on the German Wikipedia. FromCzech (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FromCzech, you and I are butting heads way too much, and it's making me uncomfortable. Whenever I see your username now, I feel dread, which sucks, since we're supposed to be working towards the same goal. I'm sure you're a normal, decent person, and I think I'm pretty awesome too. I do good work on Wikipedia, and I have no doubt that you do, as well. For some reason, we have some idiosyncratic differences that always lead to a clash between us, and it just seems so petty. I want to be able to work with you, not against you. What do you say? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can sign the first three sentences. I don't understand why you randomly choose one municipality and then return to it in such a way. I take care of the pages of Czech municipalities and I have destubbed many of them, and I have never had such disputes with anyone as with you. I'd rather our paths didn't cross because you're just demotivating me to do more work. It's really terrible when I spend so much time on the site, and then you come to correct crap, and in most cases unsystematically and against established practices. Don't be offended that I feel that way, but it's really just a provocation. I explained to edit summary edit by edit why I'm reverting the changes, hopefully it is clear now. FromCzech (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't quite the response I was hoping for. My intention was to extend an olive branch to you, in the hopes that we can put our differences aside and work together. It seems you are not interested in that, as you've instead decided to paint yourself as a poor victim of my senseless actions, make unfounded accusations, and even suggest that I act in bad faith in trying to provoke you. Besides being flat out wrong, this is a ridiculous claim based on nothing but your own apparent insecurity. I'm not going to fight with you over technical stuff like date and external link formatting, but when I see errors in the work you do, I will correct them. If you have a problem with that, go get a third opinion. I find it disappointing to deal with people like you, who, rather then trying to find common ground with their peers on a collaborative platform, are so convinced in their own rectitude, they would rather fight a pointless battle over every tiny hill. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your actions, the idea of collaboration is apparently that I'll write something and you'll correct it to your liking, including things that aren't wrong. That's not the kind of cooperation I'm looking for. Look at your last edit at Loděnice. I reverted it to its original form with a detailed explanation as to why it is so, but you just revert it with a meaningless Edit summary "copyedit". You have no interest in verifying the correct spelling of "late Baroque" and you disrespect my sentence formulation although there is nothing wrong with it. How am I supposed to take you seriously then? FromCzech (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted this list my edit which had added Caucasian cities Baku and Yerevan. The reason was "no consensus". But there is consensus on another Caucasian city - Tbilisi (considering its inclusion). I feel safe to assume that the same consensus is inclusion of these two cities as well (there is no ground that would support inclusion of Tbilisi and exclusion of Baku and Yerevan in the talk page).
Finally I'd like to mention my own opinion on this topic: I'd prefer the list even without Tbilisi (as it used to be in the past).
@Pan Někdo: There was extensive discussion about whether or not Tbilisi should be on the list. Caucasian cities as a whole were not discussed. Some arguments were related only to Tbilisi (e.g. culture ties). I don't think any of them belong on the list, but Tbilisi made it there based on the last discussion. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any argument supporting inclusion of Tbilisi only. I'll start new topic in that talk page with more extensive arguments (originally I thought that it would be only short discussion between us two so I started writing here). --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically, all capitals of the South Caucasian states are located out of Europe. None of them should be included. And if Tbilisi is included, then all three should be included. Calesti (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add the city of São Paulo that was stipulated as a sister city of Jordan, according to the law enacted. Any suggestions on how I can do this that does not violate Wikipedia's policy? Ric Aries (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order for a pair of cities to be considered twin towns, they must consider each other to be twin towns. However, most of the cities listed in your source do not consider São Paulo a twin town. I am not familiar with Brazilian laws, but according to my experience in the field, the term "cidades-irmãs" is also used for lower forms of cooperation and relationships, although some of the cities listed do not meet even that. Few examples of cities that are definitely not twin towns of São Paulo based on the official lists, despite being listed in your source: Hamburg, Chicago, Lisbon (São Paulo is listed there as a friendly city), Beijing, Buenos Aires, and Amman. I also don't understand why several cities that are definitely twin towns of São Paulo are missing from the list: Abidjan, Barcelona, Miami-Dade County, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, and Shanghai. FromCzech (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I understand why you reverted my edits to multiple Czech districts, but I feel like even though the districts were established in 1960 the small Sudeten German community still deserves to be represented, because even though most Sudeten Germans were expelled after WW2 a small minority still remained in their ancestral land, even though now a tiny minority, because they have strong historical and cultural ties to the region. Crainsaw (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You say you understand it yourself, so surely you will also understand that your feeling is insufficient reason for it to be there. The German names belong to the historical defunct districts and do not apply to the current ones. No benefit to readers. The German names of the district towns are listed at these pages. FromCzech (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historically defunct maybe, but uninformative to the readers? No! These names are the remnants of centuries of Sudeten Germans living in those areas and represent history, they show what the Sudeten German minority calls them and since they have such a strong connection to the land of those districts surely they deserve to be shown Crainsaw (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remnants of ethic German past are names of individual municipalities, and they are properly listed in the pages of Sudeten German municipalities. They have nothing to do with the modern administrative structure. FromCzech (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No! You fail to understand what I am trying to say. I wanted to that there are still some sudeten Germans living in the area (I myself have Sudeten German heritage and a cousin who lives in Cheb) Crainsaw (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that perfectly, but the current minority has no influence on the name. Wikipedia is not a place for the passage of ethnic feelings, and there are some rules and consistent approach. Btw according to Census 2021, there are more Slovaks, Ukrainians and Vietnamese people that Germans in Cheb District. Similar in other districts. So according to your logic, names in these languages should be preferred; which is, of course, nonsense. FromCzech (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be more Slovak, Ukrainians and vietnamese then Germans but the germans are the only ones to have a historical connection to the land. And this wasn't about ethnic feelings, this is just showing the history which deserves to be represented in all administration level of Czechia Crainsaw (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mean the highest level but below that there are a lot of districts in Czechia that should have the also show the german name. And on uniformity, I am trying to do this to all Sudeten regions but it will take a week since I am working alone, uniformity doesn’t come in a second, it takes time Crainsaw (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean uniform approach across all the Wikipedia, not Sudeten. Read MOS:LEADLANG. Read this recent discussion. This has been addressed before, adding extra language variations in such cases is contra productive. Since the German name does not apply to the current districts, it is nonsense, and even if it weren't so, it would be against the rules. If you don't believe it, start your own discussion there yourself with a link to this one, but you'll see that it's pointless. FromCzech (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is unrelated to the dispute. There are 14 recognized minorities in the CR and their languages, but only one recognized official language. According to Czech law, billingual geographic names are allowed in municipalities where the minority forms 10+% of the population. This concerns several dozen municipalities in the Czech-Polish border region.
I consider the discussion closed. If you are not open to arguments, even though you already expressed understanding in the first sentence, move the discussion to the above-mentioned page so that you can hear it from someone else. FromCzech (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I should've read the policies better, I am new to Wikipedia and prone to mistakes, thank you for improving my knowledge over Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will revert all my edits about Czech districts Crainsaw (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw please, the next time you make a similar edit, follow the typographical rules (separation with a space, double brackets) and use the correct formatting (ideally using the lang template) so that it doesn't have to be fixed after you. Thanks. FromCzech (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FromCzech, you and I haven't interacted directly for a while, but I know we've clashed in the past. Recently, you made some improvements to an article I created (Baba (ruins), and you supported my vote to keep the Tři sestry (Czech band), providing links far superior to the ones I offered. Anyway, my point is that, we're both working to improve Czech content on enwiki, and as such, we are pulling on the same end of the rope. For that reason, I'd like to extend an olive branch to you, as I believe that rather than arguing about small details, we would do better to work in tandem—and who knows, maybe even be friends 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I cleaned up Baba page because it was needed, not because you are the author (I didn't even register that at the time). I participated in the Tři Sestry debate because I felt it was right based on my own research, not because you were involved. They are just coincidences. I'm not interested in being in tandem with anyone, either a friend or someone else. Don't take it personally. A quiet coexistence and trying not to meet much will be completely enough for me. Peace. FromCzech (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you can to post the results of the preliminary, first and second round of the Czech Cup from 1993 to 1997 to that seasons's articles, from these links: [1], [2], [3], [4]? Jolicnikola (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FromCzech, thanks for your edits on articles I created!
I have a question to you who are a Czech-native speaker: do you have any idea on the etymology of Mičan ? Does it mean anything in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! It doesn't mean anything specific, but it sounds very Czech. In some Czech sources it appears written as Míčan (with a long pronounced i). In my opinion, it will be derived from some place that no longer exists. There is a very small pond called Mičan. There is a street in Prague called Na Míčánkách (literally "at Míčánky") and from a linguistic point of view, Míčánky is a diminutive of Míčany. Although these two examples certainly have nothing to do with the family, they indicate the geographical origin. FromCzech (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I see, interesting, thanks for the explanation. I wonder whether -an is a common suffix in Czech names and if it does indeed indicate geographical orign? I know that, for example, in Romanian name it does, so Mican would be Mic+an, thus from a place called Mic. The -an suffix indicating geographical origin is also used in many other languages, if seldom, even in English (Rome + -an → Roman). OTOH, I know that in South Slavic languages they use -an to make adjectives from verbs, and I wonder weather this also happens in Czech and if it could possibly be the case here? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., in some South Slavic dialects mić means "small", which is ultimately from Latin miccus. Do you also use mic, or something similar, to say "small" in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suffix -an means a demonym (e.g. Praguer = Pražan in Czech). A common suffix of geographical names is -any (Grammatically it is plural; probably a lot of people from the place before the suffix lived there. See Říčany, Rokycany, Vodňany.). I searched further, and there are villages Míčov and Mičovany. Accoridng to Antonín Profous (a linguist who in the 1950s wrote an extensive four-volume work on the origin of 15,000 place names in Bohemia), both of these villages derived their names from the personal name Mič, which originated from the name Michal.
We don't use mic in Czech, only the prefix mikro- (micro-). In Czech, only the word míč is similar, which means "ball". FromCzech (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, wow, so much information, thank you so much! The place name origin makes most sense, and the ultimate origin from Michael as well.
There is a similar surname in Romania (Mican, in which the "c" is read "z") which is definitely a place name as well, but probably unrelated IMO.
According to Forebears.io, the only other European countries where Míčan is present today is Croatia, in the forms Mićan and Mičan. There are about 60 families in total, all concentrated in the Osijek-Baranja County (which is on the border with Hungary). Since this Croatian surname appears only in this Croatian region it definitely has a common origin. Considering that Mican surname (and variants) does not appear in any other Slavic country (beside Czechia), and the only European countries with hubs of Micans are Czechia and Romania, I think it possible or even likely that this Croatian branch has Czech or Romanian roots. Wonder what you think about this and thanks again for all info. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think about it, I don't want to think about it anymore... my brain hurts :) I am much more interested in the origin of geographical names than the origin of personal names, although it sometimes overlaps. FromCzech (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just saw that you reverted my edits to the list of twin towns and sister cities, removing the state the US sister cities are in. I was working on updating all of the US sister cities/twin towns to include the state since it's not immediately clear where the US sister cities/twin towns are in the US. Especially since some of the towns I came across have the same name but are in different states.
I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia articles, but I thought that this would have been a helpful update to anyone who came across the lists. I suppose I'm just a little confused about why you reverted my changes?
Hello! Let's assume that the user is not completely stupid, and in the few cases where he needs to distinguish cities with the same name (and I don't know why you apply it only to US cities), he looks at the preview or the page in question. Many of the twin town pages are extensive, and expanding it with additional information (subregion, population of the town, etc.) would not be beneficial for their clarity. This is what the wikilinks are for. In the current state, twin town pages are in a uniform format not only among themselves, but also with twin town sections for individual cities in most countries. FromCzech (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re [5], this is just a question rather than an objection, but is there a standard way of measuring distances to/from Prague? For example distances to London on roadsigns are always measured from Charing Cross, so we apply the same standard on Wikipedia when measuring distance to/from London. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about any standard and I haven't been able to google anything. If there is one, I apolozige for that correction, but the 84 km seemed to me to be against common sense. Perhaps it would be sufficient to use a rounded value of 80 km. FromCzech (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick survey: cs.distance.to calculates with Old Town Square, mapy.cz calculates with Prague main railway station and maps.google.com calculates with Míru Square.So there is probably no standard. FromCzech (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear FromCzech, I would like to ask you not to delete {{British English Oxford spelling}}. There is no such rule that would prohibit to use of it in the case of articles that describe cities, towns, and villages located in the Czech Republic. I do add such a template after a spelling unification, so it's clear to anyone what spelling system I have used in the unification. Best regards, Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! British English is used in all Czech municipalities and is generally default for all topics primarily related to the Czech Republic, no need to draw attention to it. Within Czech topics, the spelling template is only used very rarely, e.g. on larger sites where there have been disputes in the past or which were historically written in AmE. Perhaps there could be a note about it somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic, but there's no reason for that on the pages you've been adding it to. And excuse my possible ignorance, but Oxford English and Oxford comma are two different things, right? Oxford comma does not make English Oxford English. And I can't think of any Czech topic where the Oxford English template was used (except for those where you put it). FromCzech (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article looked like this in the morning, and you might have access to something in Czech I couldn't understand. - For background on Grimes, there are two (expired) RfCs regarding the Manual of Style, - links on my user page. Don't comment! Just read for better understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I'd like a clear reference for the day of death, 30 as our article has, or 29 as the German Wikipedia, and our list of deaths. More generally, I'd like to see added that he returned to Prague in 1989, and more publications, and more reviews of them. I need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quality articles about Czech persons such as Filip Kaloč, Otmar Oliva and Jan Vodňanský, for your worldwide interest in twin towns and sister cities, for finding sources, for "A quiet coexistence and trying not to meet much will be completely enough for me. Peace." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
I hope you don't mind that it's from the cabal of the outcasts ;) - Can you perhaps follow through with the proper names of the theatres where Peter Grimes was performed, instead of piped links that look like cities? - Two of the trio banned me from their talk page, and the third even from clicking thank-you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand it. Why can't you edit the Peter Grimes page if they don't want to talk to you? According to MOS:SUBMARINE, visible theatre names should be much better than city names; you're right. In my opinion, an edit from some other party would look better than from me, after the history I have there. FromCzech (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Your edit: you deleted info I copied from here. Are you saying that Dictionary of American Family Names contains an error? Is there a way to confirm this? (I thought this suspicious as well. Can it be that Karas is diminutive of Karel?).- Altenmann>talk20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will be an error. The diminutives of the name Karel are Karlík, Karlíček. The -as suffix doesn't sound Czech at all. The page with Karas in that dictionary also does not contain such information. The Czech diminutive of karas is karásek (see, for example, the Official Dictionary of the Literary Czech Language). However, the word Karasek in your dictionary attributes this form only to Polish. On the other hand, you will not find the word karasík in Czech or Polish (see e.g. Wiktionary), although the suffix -ík is common for diminutives. Overall, I find your dictionary unreliable in the area of these specific names. FromCzech (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I's like to bother you again. Can you provide a good refference for the etymology of the surname Dolejší. I guess it comes from the common Slavic root "dol" ("something down there") and can fever to valley, trough , mine, etc., cf. Dolina. But what about Czech? - Altenmann>talk23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was lazy to consult "Czech name" :-(. By the way, can you clean up it a bit, in the part related to translation of foreign surnames for females (and add references), in the part starting with
The woman's surname is also[clarification needed] not declined if it is of foreign origin and adding the suffix -ová would be awkward or unfeasible: Olga Walló, Blanka Matragi.
Czechs tend to add a feminine suffix to the surnames of Czech as well as foreign women surnames. ....
I noticed you often move pages and work in categories, and wondered whether you feel the page mover permission would be helpful. If so, I would be happy to grant it. This permission allows you to move categories, move pages without leaving behind a redirect (e.g. to clean up page move vandalism or to perform a round-robin swap) and move pages along with all of their subpages. Have a read of the policy page and let me know – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱08:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: Hi, thanks for the offer. Of course I welcome any other rights that make things easier. On the other hand, although I regularly involve myself to page moves, they are rarely the situations that are mentioned in the policy page (like vandalism). If by acquiring the rights I do not commit myself to regular use of page moves or active search for cases where it can be applied, you can grant me the rights, I will be happy for that. FromCzech (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FromCzech. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Hi, you retracted my edit regarding Olomouc, in which I added the Polish name of the city, giving the reason that it was never the official name. However, there are centuries of history behind the name in Polish due to the cultural and geographical proximity (mostly) between the Silesian and Moravian cities. You won't find many unique names for Olomouc in other languages, from cultures that were not in contact with the Czechs, so this should justify adding the Polish name of the city in the article, as is the case with Ostrava, for example. Providing the German name as the only foreign name seems unjustified and questionable in this light. Graendail (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine per enwiki standards. There is a huge difference between a German and a Polish name; the German name was at one time the official name and appears in older English-language sources (eg. Encyclopædia Britannica), therefore it belongs to the first sentence. FromCzech (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed three of my edits in List of sister cities in the United States saying the sources, from 2006-12, were outdated. What do you consider to be outdated? Since you did not remove Clarksville's pairing with Gunpo with a source from 2017, would it be anything older than 10 years? My other problem involves Wolfsburg and Chattanooga. I have tried to ignore this topic for a while since you included a note saying they are friendship only, but it is one that interests me. The city of Chattanooga and many newspapers from the area list them as being sister cities since 2011, while the city of Wolfsburg's website says they were friendship cities since 2011. So is it automatically assumed that they are friendship cities because one reliable website mentions it while others say they are sisters, including the source for the article itself? King airaglub (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, town twinning (sister city relationships) come and go and there has to be a reliable source that is not 10+ years old for newly added pairs. Sometimes this can be verified, e.g. you added Chengu to Knoxville, but Chengu removed Knoxville from its official list of twin towns some time ago, so that is 100% invalid information as of 2024. But thank you for adding Clarksville.
Yes, unfortunately the problem is that some cities do not distinguish between the type of relationship and include everything under "sister cities". This is often problem of cities in e.g. Eastern Europe, and strangely enough, it is sometimes a problem of American cities as well (but luckily there aren't many of them). Perhaps this is just a simplification, since everything is managed by the Sister Cities organization of Chattanooga. Regardless of how Chattanooga promotes it in the media, it is not a two-way relationship and thus is not incorporated to the list. This approach is consistently applied to all cities in all countries. However, Wolfsburg states on its website that the friendship can later become a town twinning, so perhaps we will see the elimination of this discrepancy one day. FromCzech (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if friendship cities like Liverpool and Memphis were put on the list but had a special marker (maybe a bold F) to indicate that they are only friendship cities? This allows for Wolfsburg to make the list while also being considered a friendship city. If you think this is a good idea I will bring this up on as an RfC King airaglub (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely against it. The list have only twin towns and sister cities in their name, not friendship cities. Friendship cities are less notable, sometimes it's just the cooperation of mayors, etc. In some countries, signing friendships is more common, and some already very comprehensive lists would be significantly expanded even more. And it would also be a problem to determine what is a friendship agreement and what is another form of international cooperation (cooperation agreement, cultural agreement). So no. FromCzech (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
