Talk:Karlovy Vary

Note: there is a debate below on the inclusion here of the Project Germany tag. Please leave in place while this is ongoing

Name

Strange, I have never, ever heard of this being called anything other than Carlsbad. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

me neither -- and last time i looked, it was indeed Karlsbad. i suspect User:Wik or one of his more recent socks. 72.235.246.80 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Carlsbad or Carlsbadt is used in historical Latin writings. Again, English Wikipedia should at least 'remember' the old latin name that monks used for centuries. --IEEE 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentence Carlsbad, New Mexico and Carlsbad, California, in the United States, and nearby Carlsbad Caverns National Park take their names from Karlovy Vary. is plain hilarious. I'll make a request to move the article. Many Czech websites written in English use Carlsbad anyway, quite a testimonial that they don't consider this obsolete or politically incorrect. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, not moved. Teke ^(talk) 05:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant to write "no consensus to move." Teke ^(talk) 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Karlovy Vary → Carlsbad — There are already talk entries supporting this. There was even a sentence in the article that claimed that other places like the Carlsbad caverns in the US take their name from Karlovy Vary (sic!), which stretched political correctness obviously quite far. Similar case as Prague, not Praha (and IMHO Cracow, not Kraków)  Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nom. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Support -- I am an American, and I never hear the term 'Karlovy Vary', even from people I know who are Czech. They use Carlsbad. Ameise -- chat 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   Amise: You support Danzig and claims yourself as a german nationalist, don't cover it by calling you are an american and you never hear that ! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   Yet my profile clearly states that I live in America (Chicago). Ad Hominem attacks don't make much sense; attack my argument, not my character. Ameise -- chat 03:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

   sorry, hot blood. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Support Carlsbad is the name normally used in English. If you rename it to Karlovy Vary you could just as well rename Munich to München or Warsaw to Warszawa.Unoffensive text or character 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Founder of the city Charles IV (House of Luxembourg), called it 'Carlsbadt' or 'Karlsbad', local name 'Karlovy Vary' may be used in local Wikies but certainly not in general English Wikipedia. Immigrants to America from central Europe used name Carlsbad because their home city in Bohemia was called Carlsbad. Latin archives in Bohemia all name that city Carlsbad. Another example is use by famous Flemish cartographers Ortelius and Mercator they used always the original imperial name. 15th century map crop from Library of Congress made in Flanders (also used in England for derived maps). This is NOT German, or Czech local map.

   

   Map crop of 15th century Flemish map

   Again, if English name exists do not use your local German or local Czech name (more so if the English name it is well documented and established). English wikipedia should use names that are verifiable by historical sources from England, US, Vatican etc. and other trusted English or Latin domains. Even the local Czech homepage use Carlsbad for history overview in English. http://www.karlovyvary.cz/static/historie_1.asp?LangId=2&Kol=1. Use English name first if any (applies here), then Latin name, then local name. -- IEEE 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So we should use Ofen for Budapest I suppose? Johnbod 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read what I have written ? Budapest and Carldsbad are both names used in English. Do not use some local German, local Czech, local Hungarian names if established English name exists. English->Latin->Local in that order. Example: we use Copenhagen (English) not København (Danish). English speaker can't even pronounce 'Karlovy Vary' right. That name is useless for English speakers and this is English wikipedia if I am not mistaken.--IEEE 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map from 15th century ? No way. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Map Regni Bohemiae Descriptio was made by famous Flemish cartographer Abraham Ortelius', it is part of his well known Atlas Theatri Orbis Terrarum first issued on May 20 1570 in Flanders, the base maps for Bohemia are surely from 15th-16th centrury, its one of the most precious map books in possession of Library of Congress in Washington, DC. The point is that it is a Latin map, not German or Czech local map. So it is a good support of my claim above. -- IEEE 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So go and rename Volgograd to Volga Castle it is the same ...ism like this. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, this is not about renaming, its about proper English Wikipedia entry name like Cologne/Köln, Vienna/Wien, Prague/Praha. In local German, Czech, Danish.. wikis you also do not use English names, so in English we use our proper ortographical names if there is one available, like in this case, and not forced ones, like in your case, do you have any support for your name in history?, no. Carlsbad was and is well known spa city and there is a ton of documents to support this. Even the city homepage agrees with me. -- IEEE 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please try to tell me, why the official English name of Karlovarský mezinárodní filmový festival is "Karlovy Vary International Film Festival", not "Carlsbad International Film Festival". Thanks in advance and assuming good faith. – Yarp ^Talk 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You clearly do not know what this vote is about. Explain why US cities are named Carlsbad and not KV? The name KV is local name that alone breaks WP:NCGN because it is forced over proper English name. It also breaks good faith using such names in English Wikipedia. Same way as if we wanted to use English names in German or Spanish wikies. It hurts the city itselft, it hurts the people in connection with that city, it hurts your festival. English people can't say KV properly, then why on earth we should push them to use this local name over original English name? Is't like use Londres (Spanish) for London (English). Use it in your local German Wiki not in English Wikipedia. Good examples again: Cologne/Köln, Vienna/Wien, Munich/München -- IEEE 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Czech wiki -- the German form would be 'Karlsbad'. Antman -- chat 07:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Support I am sick and tired of English taking a back seat in English wikipedia. What ever happened to this Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. from Wikipedia:Naming conventions? Masterhatch 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; see NY Times and BBC etc usages below! Johnbod 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose, see below. Duja► 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose per Duja, its name is Karlovy Vary. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Conditional oppose Assuming Duja is right that the official English reference has changed I oppose. Simply stated: If there is an English name (e.g. The Hague) this has to be preferred, exclusivey otherwise, the local name should be used. I am not sufficiently acustomed to the English language to know for sure, hence my opposition is conditional under the assumption Duja is right. Arnoutf 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose – I have to agree to Duja's Google arguments below, as they are often used in similar discussions (what should an article be named or renamed) everywhere on the en-wikipedia and are generally accepted. – Yarp ^Talk 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I screw the obvious Google arguments. Support the actual and native name. Thank God this ain't nominated for moving to "Karlsbad", that would be more LOL. - Darwinek 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   Native names have no standing on the English Wikipedia. I suppose we should change ALL city names on EN to their local tongues... München, Warszawa, Praha, Moskva, etc. Ameise -- chat 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

6. Strong oppose per Duja. Carlsbad as an English name isn't as much as used like Karlovy Vary, and that's why I'm strongly against moving of this article. We don't need another round of heated arguments like few months ago at the Plzeň/Pilsen article. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

   As a native English speaker living in an English-speaking country (USA), I disagree; although Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary -rarely- comes up in conversation, we usually would say Carlsbad, if not least because we know of Carlsbad Caverns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antman (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

   Carlsbad is spelling of german name Karlsbad, it is the same as we would rename Montreal to Mont Royal as the main article's name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

   English is a Germanic language, related to Dutch, Friese, and German. There is a reason why city names such as 'Carlsbad', 'Stettin', 'Breslau', etc, are FAR easier for us native English speakers to pronounce and spell than city names like 'Karlovy Vary', 'Wroclaw', 'Sczecezcezceczin'... simply put, Slavic city names look and sound -very- strange to English speakers, and to pretty much anyone outside of the part of the world that speaks Slavic languages. Ameise -- chat 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

   The problem isn't about the name itself, the problem is about contemporary frequency of its usage, and unfortunately for the "Carlsbad" fans, more references lie on the Karlovy Vary version, and I prefer that version, though I don't damn that Carlsbad is used in the historical context until early 20th century, or with those cities in the US. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose. Per above, and see also WP:NCGN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose as per Duja. Olessi 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose I am generally a strong supporter of English names Guernica (town) etc, but this is not well enough known, and anyway likely to be confused with the German Karlsbad by most English native-speakers (to whom either name means anything except places in the US). In the German WP it would be different perhaps. Johnbod 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Strong Oppose Town is mostly known as Karlovy Vary, even in English. English form derives from German Karlsbad, and is falling in disuse.--Húsönd 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I would suggest that it is falling into disuse because of things such as this: forced renamings. Ameise -- chat 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Per above :) Petr K 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose Per above. Rex 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose because the only evidence provided (by Duja below) as required by WP:NCGN supports the "Karlovy Vary" version. Tankred 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong oppose because "Karlovy Vary" is the official name approved by the law of the Czech Republic and is used by its ihabitants. And only exception are some tourists comming from Germany who use the name "Karlsbad" - not "Carlsbad" --Bluewind 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. from the same reasons as wrote Duja and Husond--Honzula 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The article about the city was created on 12 May 2002 by User:LA2 under Carlsbad.
• On 12 September 2003, User:Qertis created Karlovy Vary as a redirect to Carlsbad.
• On 8 November 2004, User:Mikeshk replaced the redirect by a copy&paste move of content, reducing Carlsbad to a disambiguation. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast please. This looks like the infamous Gdansk/Danzig case: however, modern Czech name Karlovy Vary is a) official and more correct b) even more prominent in English today as the old German rendering Carlsbad:

• Google Book Search: 715 Karlovy Vary vs. 463 Carlsbad. (Also pay attention to the book dates)
• Google Search: 1,480,000 Karlovy Vary vs 777,000 Carlsbad
• Encarta: Karlovy Vary, Britannica: Karlovy Vary
• NY Times, BBC refer to the town predominantly as Karlovy Vary

need more? Duja► 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So I assume that we should change the names of places such as Carlsbad Caverns to Karlovy Vary Caverns? I'd wonder how many of the hits on 'Karlovy Vary' are actually in Czech; at least one hit on the first page is. Ameise -- chat 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I included the word "czech" in the Google searches above, in order to a) exclude [most] Czech language pages for Karlovy Vary and b) exclude [most] American Carlsbads pages. Of course, the American Carlsbads stay where they are. Duja► 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want a -real- English name, let's call it Carl's Bath. Ameise -- chat 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Charles' Bath would be even more correct. ;-P – Yarp ^Talk 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we use the name Carl too :) Ameise -- chat 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But definitively not for that Charles. – Yarp ^Talk 14:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So we are agreed :D. So should it be Charlesbath or Charles' Bath? I'll call the NY Times right away. Ameise -- chat 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This user is an Imperial German Nationalist.

This user supports Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! Danzig! Danzig!

I don't believe you Antman at all and I don't trust to your arguments about the polish student from Danzig or Carlsbad very high usage in the English. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I too think that Antmann (or his buddy Matthead for that matter) has no credability here. Both are (self)proclaimed German nationalists, their bias is literally dripping from this survey/vote.Rex 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem -- as a user and contributor to Wikipedia, I have the same right to vote here as well... Mr. "I'm Not A Dutch Nationalist... or Am I?". Ameise -- chat 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the above discussion seems rather incivil, and I hope the participants can calm down and assume good faith with each other. Personal attacks will not help the situation, but will only heighten tensions and make things worse. Olessi 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All I am doing is stating what I know, and stating facts from my experience. If they choose not to believe me because I am an "uncredible self-proclaimed German nationalist with bias literally dripping from me", then I really don't have much choice in the matter; this is the same problem that I have been claiming to have with User:Rex Germanus for many months; he attacks me at any chance, even when I -try- to be reasonable, his immediate goal seems to be only to attack and attack. Ameise -- chat 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tulkolahten & Rex, as a neutral observer one could get the idea that you both are on an anti-German crusade. Try to calm down. Try to understand the other side. And please stop ad-hominem attacks. Unoffensive text or character 09:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about Carlsbad, it is more about Karlsbad vs. Karlovy Vary, like Gdansk vs. Danzig. And Antman, nationalist is never reasonable. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, Tulkolahten, read through some of your recent contributions and through some of Antman's. I cannot find anything in Antman's or Mattheads contributions that points towards their being nationalists. But your and Rex's remarks sound very incivil and biased. Just stick to the facts. And, as I said, try to understand the other side. Unoffensive text or character 13:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Volgograd -> Castle on Volga

Stalingrad -> Stalin's Castle

Düsseldorf -> Bonehead Village (not an attack, real translation)

Are we going to rename them too ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, that is an attack -- Dussel is bonehead, not Düssel. Secondly, Stalingrad IS Volgograd; they are the same city. Volgograd is the English name and has been for many years; Carlsbad was the English name until you decided to change it. Hence; what you are doing by making me say Karlovy Vary is telling me to change 'Volgograd' to 'Castle on the Volga', only in Czech. Antman -- chat 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First, it is not an attack. I know very well that Volgograd is Stalingrad, but I think you have not even basic idea about the russian language. And Volgograd is not an english name, it is the transcription from russian language. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ameise, Tulkolahten, please stop being ridiculous. You are behaving like a bunch of Dussels. Unoffensive text or character 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antman

Actions against consensus are very unwikipedian [1]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What have I done against consensus? That is not against consensus, that would be bringing up the vote again with evidence seeking a new consensus. An action against consensus would be if I unilaterally moved this article back to Carlsbad, as someone did to the original Carlsbad article. Antman -- chat 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

EN nomenclature

Huh, this one is good [2]. He will push his POV and german equivalents all over the wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And this belongs here... how? Personal attacks aren't helping you. Antman -- chat 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, personal attack ? Huh. Your actions on wikipedia are not personal you must be ready that they will be reviewed by other editors. Report me once or twice more if you wish. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to; you have already proved that you are both not above personal attacks, and that you are not willing to work with other editors; you only wish to push your own biased view of history, and if someone disagrees, you instantly begin to attack them; that is not an attitude that is welcome on Wikipedia. Antman -- chat 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, may I ask since when is 'Prague' a German equivalent? 'Prague' is an English name; the German form is 'Prag'. I would push for 'Tantsic' instead of 'Danzig', as it is an older English equivalent, but I doubt that it would get any support. I support Stettin because the current form 'Scseczecezeczecsin' I can't, and most Americans can't pronounce. Lastly, the German equivalent of this city name is 'Karlsbad', I am pushing for 'Carlsbad', for which several areas in the United States are named. Antman -- chat 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

interwiki

27x Karlovy Vary (or alternative spelling) and 3x Karlsbad (Turkish, Deutsh, Nederland) which we can count with. There is no doubt about number of use. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No one here is asking to change it to Karlsbad, we are asking for Carlsbad, which is the English name. The Interwiki is irrelevant, what Hungarians or Serbs call Karlovy Vary does not matter on the English wikipedia. Antman -- chat 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki was always and still is important part of discussions. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

[3] German Karlsbad, also spelled Carlsbad, spa city, Západoceský kraj (region), western Czech Republic. The city lies along the Teplá River where it flows into the valley of the Ohre River, 70 miles (113 km) west of Prague. The surrounding highland areas were once subject to volcanic activity, which accounts for the thermal springs in the vicinity. Of more than a dozen active warm springs, the best-known and hottest, Vrídlo

There is no doubt Carlsbad is a spelling of german Karlsbad and that Karlovy Vary is proper name of the article. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Britannica is never, ever wrong. If Britannica says something to be true, then there is absolutely no possibility that anything else may actually, in fact, be true. I could point out, of course, that Carlsbad is linguistically much more similar to what it would be in English ('Carlsbath' or 'Charlesbath') than 'Karlovy Vary'... pointing out that most English speakers have no idea how to even pronounce that let alone know what it could possibly mean. Antman -- chat 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you ignore encyclopedia Britannica then you are making original research. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not; original research came about when someone went 'hey, let's call Carlsbad 'Karlovy Vary'. Antman -- chat 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not an original research, at first it is an official name, at second it is the name of the entry in encyclopedia Britannica, at third Duja provided exhaustive google test. Also encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that Carlsbad is a spelling of german name Karlsbad. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And what did Britannica state was the official name of the city in 1945? Antman -- chat 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know why 1945 would be so important. WP:NCGN states that 1993 should be considered as a limit when looking for current name. Or am I wrong? BTW:

• Jan–May 1945 as a part of the nazi Third Reich: Karlsbad
• May-Dec 1945 as a part of free Czechoslovakia: Karlovy Vary

However, I can't see Carlsbad either. But that are local names, aren't we talking about English name (if some different of the Czech one exists in modern context)? – Yarp ^Talk 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Greetings to all, although I'm not an editor on Wikipedia I couldn't miss the heated debate around the nomenclature for this article. I'm not an expert on the subject but I'd like to share my point of view.

When I travelled to Karlovy Vary, indeed population there knew it as Karlovy Vary, our tourist guide (from Spain) named it Karlovy Vary and the first time I knew of Karlovy Vary (I'm native Spanish speaker) was as Karlovy Vary. Without doubt this is its official name.

However, the naming conventions sate "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"

Attaching to this, and although the CORRECT and OFFICIAL name and with which I personally agree more, the correct wikipedian nomenclature (in case all or most English-speakers know it as so) should be "Carlsbad".

So here we should make a comparison between official and "more commonly known in English" names.

Here has been stated that "Carlsbad" is not only the name by which ost English speakers know Karlovy Vary, but accurately, it is closer to what it would mean in English both phonetically and grammatically i.e. to most English Speakers "Karlovy Vary" doesn't even give a clue to English speakers about a possible meaning of the name, (which in my view nonetheless would make it perhaps more interesting to discover the reasons of that name, or would at least broaden their knowledge by letting them know "Carlsbad" or "Charlesbath" in a different language and which besides is official) while "Carlsbad" does give them a closer clue as it is directly tied with their native language.

It has been stated as well that "Karlovy Vary" is the official name and that most nationalities including the very same Czech know it as as so, which is true.

So here is my conclusion:

It would be more wikipedian to name the article "Carlsbad", adding into it the fact that Karlovy Vary is its official and more recognized name throughout the world and in the very same Czech Republic.

But it would be more "officialy correct" to name the article "Karlovy Vary" as it is after all the way the natives call it and the way most in the world know it.

So it's matter of deciding wether to attach to Wikipedia's rules by attaching strictly to naming conventions giving priority perhaps to a "dogmatic" edition of wikipedia that would remain more wikipedian of course or leting the article be named "Karlovy Vary" with "Carlsbad" redirecting to it for English Native Speakers not to be unable to find the article they're searching for.

My personal choice:

Naming it "Karlovy Vary" - Even though it is more wikipedian to name it "Carlsbad" it becomes unofficial nomenclature. Also, lets take into account that the conventions apply to "English Speakers", not to "English Native Speakers" (arguably one should overunderstand that it is refering to the majourity of Native Speakers, though) and... how many non-native English speakers exist on these days? Applying relativity we could say that "the majourity of English speakers" is not even native-English speaking, or at least so they say will be one day. But well, that's not the point, the point is that, even if it's more wikipedian to name it "Carlsbad" it's perhaps, in my view, a bit misinforming due to the present situation of the official name of the city.

I personally like more "Karlovy Vary" because we're talking about a Czech city here and "Carlsbad" is "too anglo-saxon" for my taste. (Just giving my personal point of view).

So... it's just matter to decide what is more important: Attaching to wikipedian rules or putting the oficial information over wikipedia's rules forcing English speakers to call Karlovy Vary what probably they know as "Carlsbad" and to keep in mind its name, although they might know it as so, is not "Carlsbad" but Karlovy Vary.

It's more dogmatically wikipedian to call it "Carlsbad", but it is more official to call it Karlovy Vary. Should this be an exception for naming conventions in sake of stablishing an official nomenclature for any language?

Let's talk about what's more important to do, if it's more important to keep wikipedian, then, may the name be "Carlsbad" but, if it's more important to make Native English Speakers used to call it karlovy Vary, then, lets call it Karlovy Vary.

Naming it "Carlsbad" and stating that its official name is Karlovy Vary, would let the Native English Speaker readers decide by themselves wether to call it by the most common name in their countries or by its official name.

Personally I think that in this particular case it would be better to make people acustomed to call this city Karlovy Vary because it's its actual name, the name by which most people know it regardless of nationality and in my view it would be good to foment the disuse of a nomenclature that does not apply to the present reality. Like making "an official international name" This is just what I would personally like.. Besides... perhaps it would also avoid ambiguity when referring to other "Carlsbad"s Native English Speakrs might know or find in their Nations or other more germanic nations (to which Carlsbad suits better).189.141.62.172 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

Peter the great

When I was in Karlovy Vary, they told me that Peter the Great had studied carpentry there... does anyone know about any official source supporting this claim? 189.141.62.172 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma

WikiProject Germany

Someone (User:Darwinek) thought it fit to include this article in the WikiProject Germany. As This Wikiproject is not about contemporary German towns or regions but on topics that are related to Germany, anybody who removes the tag will at least need to give reasons. Otherwise the removal must be regarded as an act of vandalism. Unoffensive text or character 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue in Balcer's action who, apparently correctly, assumed it as a point of broils. WikiProject Germany fits only and only Germany, not other countries. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not insist on the tag if Darwinek does not. But if you read the tag's text carefully, you will notice that you are not right. The project fits topics related to Germany.Unoffensive text or character 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad Unoffensive text or character's edit: m (up to 1945 the town was populated by Germans. So the tag fits, after all, if only historically) 09:16, 28 March 2007" – Is it the WikiProject Germany or WikiProject Germans? I think the first one is true, so personally I don't see any reason for this article to be part of it. Is e.g. the article abou Vienna part of it? Why not, if Germany (in some users' opinion HRE = Germany) was ruled from Vienna for centuries? Were Karlovy Vary part of Germany? Yes, for 7 years, but I don't think any German is today proud of that… – Yarp ^Talk 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Vienna should be a part of WP Czech Republic, because prior to 1918 there was a significant number of Czechs and also WP Hungary because of Austria-Hungary, also WP Germany because of HRE or same language, and of course WP Austira, too many WPs huh ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, 37 kB talk, we should have a NPOV featured article from Karlovy Vary already ... :-/ Wasting time :-\ ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you are saying that the HRE was Germany, Bohemia was part of the HRE, and hence Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary would have been part of Germany for centuries as well. Antman -- chat 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's more LOL I've expected, you can surprise Antman with your logic. Bohemia was Germany, LOL LOL LOL. Yes, it was, but only between 1938-1945. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was commenting on User:Yarp's comment that the HRE was Germany, and hence Vienna was part of Germany; therefore, if the HRE was Germany, than Bohemia was Germany for centuries as well. Simple logic. If A and B, then C; else, not C. Antman -- chat 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But please note, that I don't think that HRE equals Germany. It would be the same as if someone implies, for example, that Roman Empire equals Hispania or USA equals Kansas, etc. – Yarp ^Talk 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Additionaly, it should be mentioned that in the time of HRE there was no Germany (as a political entity).

So presumably all those parts of (now) Italy, France, Belgium & Holland, Switzerland etc that were partr of the HRE have been tagged by the Germany Project also? Johnbod 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

France was Germany for centuries, didn't you know that? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Related to Germany" is clear to me. This WikiProject can include articles on eg. Namibia, South Tyrol, Albert Einstein or Theodor Herzl. It can also include Gdansk, Prague or Pozuzo, Peru. On the other hand it should not include Italy or France as countries. Were there articles on the history of Italy as part of the Holy Roman Empire, those could be tagged by the Germany Project.

I do not see a problem here. Except, of course, if someone were anti-German and resented the idea of anything being in any way related to Germany. Such a person would, from his or her narrow point of view, of course have a problem with this tag. Unoffensive text or character 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice that not even Alsace has a Project Germany tag; I suggest that if that project wants to expand beyond the current borders, it starts with places with a rather closer relationship to Germany than Karlovy Vary. Johnbod 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The project says that its goal is to improve "articles related to Germany". Bohemia is not a part of Germany. Historically and today, Germans or German weren't dominant in the area. At best Bohemia can be linked to German history, or World War 2. But not modern Germany.Rex 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there seem to be a number of people who have difficulties understanding plain English. "Related to" is not the same as "part of". And anybody who claims that "historically ... Germans or German weren't dominant in the area (of Karlovy Vary/Karlsbad/Carlsbad)" should certainly do a lot of reading before engaging in this discussion.Unoffensive text or character 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope he does not mind, but I'm borrowing Balcer's rationale: "While the present location of any town cannot be disputed, one could talk endlessly about the degree to which a given town must be impacted by another country's culture to be included in that country's project. More pessimistically, I could easily imagine various nationalists sticking the project tag of their nation all over the place under various pretexts. So overall, while project tags are mostly harmless, why not be on the safe side, avoid controversy, and use only the tag for the country where the town is presently located." Olessi 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at talk:Franz Kafka. Would you want to remove the "Czech Republic" tag? To the best of my knowledge, the Czech Republik did not come into existence until many decades after Kafka's death. Would you want to remove the "Austria" tag because it might contain an implicit nationalist claim that Prague was an Austrian city?

I think the purpose of these tags is improving articles. There will always be people narrow minded enough to suspect nationalism around every corner. But what I see here is a chance of Wikipedians of different nations co-operating on an article that touches the history of more than one country. Unoffensive text or character 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He was born in Prague, WikiProject Czech Republic covers Samo's Empire, Czech Lands, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tulkolahten, please be assured that I am not interested in an edit war. But please try to follow my line of argumentation and do not pick out single items and comment them. That will lead us nowhere. You tell me that the project Czech Republic covers Czecho-Slovakia? I do not mind at all. You are absolutely right there. For the same reason, the project Germany may cover Karlovy Vary/Carlsbad. Unoffensive text or character 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably forgot, that Karlovy Vary was never city in Germany! But you should know what Czechoslovakia was. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am getting tired of repeating the same sentences over and over again, as you seem not to understand them. "Related to" is not the same as "part of". "Czechoslovakia" is not the same as "Czech republic". Unoffensive text or character 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not speaking of a particular town, I was speaking about Bohemia proper. The point is simple. If this is a part of wikiproject Germany, then by the same logic Berlin is going to be part of Wikiproject Russia.Rex 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. As an intellectual game, one could probably think of some connection between any town in Europe and any country in Europe. Being conqured by Napoleon would thus qualify towns for Project France, by Wehrmacht for Project Germany, by Romans for Project Italy, and by Mongols for Project Mongolia etc etc. Needless to say, far from helping Wikipedians to collaborate on articles, it would just cause an unholy mess.

Towns are well defined geographical entities, and the only project they should belong to is the project of the country in which they are currently located. End of story. Balcer 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.Rex 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a gross simplification. One could say that Strasbourg belongs in Wikiproject Germany because of it's long German roots, but just because the Wehrmacht was in Greece at one point does not make Greece German. Your argument is far too broad and is a logical fallacy. Antman -- chat 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My logic is just fine. Here it is, presented in a more formal way: a town located in country A can be included in the Project Country A, the clear and indisputable criterion for inclusion being the current geographical location. However, if we allow including the town in Project Country B because the town has some connection with country B, it follows that since we have no criterion at all for establishing what a valid connection is, all connections are permitted. Result: the problems I described above will be unavoidable, as different Wikipedians will have different ideas of what a strong enough connection is (and yes, some will claim occupation by the Wehrmacht for a few years as a valid connection). In short, logic says that the only way to avoid a proliferation of project tags is to have clear rules for which tags can be included. The only such clear rule that we can all agree on is: use current country as project inclusion criterion. Balcer 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, the connection between Strasbourg, a city with strong German roots, and with Elmhurst, Illinois, a city where a few Germans lived are the same because neither are in Germany... Antman -- chat 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but neither falls under Wikiproject Germany. Johnbod 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

@Balcer: What would be the problem if a town, region or person were included in more than one project? You were the one who had the good idea of including Karlovy Vary in the Germany project. You must have had reasons for doing so. I take it that they run along this line: Karlovy Vary is a town with both Austro-German and Czech roots. Therefore, why not include it in both projects. These projects do not put a stamp on articles that says: "The subject of this article rightfully belongs to Germany (or the Czech Republic) and nowhere else". It is simply a means of identifying articles that are "related to" this country. No nationalism involved, no revisionism, nothing. Along come some people with a vivid imagination who think there might be nationalists misinterpreting these country tags. But, I ask you, so what? Will that in any way change the content of the article? I am still confident that the majority of users are sensible persons and not nationalists. Unoffensive text or character 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it was User:Darwinek who included this town (and some others) in Germany project. He has since backtracked on the idea, once I explained my reasoning to him. Let me again restate it: if the criterion for inclusion in a project is that a town is "related to" another country, this criterion will allow any number of tags to be included under various pretexts, since it is so vague and open to interpretation. This will not make editing Wikipedia any easier, but may attract various nationalists pushing their agendas. Let's face it: some people may get a big kick out of puting German flags (very prominent in project tags) on the talk pages of articles about Polish towns, some others might enjoy doing the reverse, putting Polish and Russian flags on talk pages of articles about German towns. This looks like a silly and mean-spirited tactic, but some people will enjoy engaging in it, with all the disruption that will cause. Let's not give them the opportunity.

Look how long this discussion already is. Would you like it to be repeated in various forms on hundreds of talk pages on which people will fight whether a given project is appropriate? I certainly don't. Let's stop this idea here and now, before we create a precedent. Balcer 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is rather that there are a number of people getting kicks out of removing project tags and out of accusing other users as nationalists on very feeble grounds. That there are a number of people who are extremely emotional, narrow-minded and prejudiced and cannot stand the idea of a town's history being shared by two countries. If you put a China tag to the article about my home town, my only reaction would be to wonder what in the world may be the relation between Frankfurt (Germany) and China. And I would be glad to know that there were people in China who devote time and efforts to the improvement of the article on Frankfurt. But, obviously, Karlovy Vary is in this aspect different from Frankfurt. Obviously there are people who want it all to themselves: The town, the article and the town's history. People who have denied that Karlovy Vary was in any way "related to", as the project tag claims, Germany, just because it happened to be populated by Germans for a few centuries. Unoffensive text or character 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From what you wrote it would appear that for you project tags are not just innocent tools to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, but something much more. You want the Germany Project tag to serve as a marker to proclaim that "this place was once German". The big, prominent German flag displayed in the tag right at the top of the talk page serves this purpose very nicely. This is precisely what I am strongly against. If we start to use tags to make political points like this, the controversies will become endless. Balcer 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. What makes you think so? The opposite is the case: From what you write it would appear that for you project tags are not just innocent tools to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, but something much more. You want the German Project tag to be removed because you think I want, if only symbolically, to take away Karlovy Vary from the Czech people. But I am not making a political point. I am making a historical point.

If you are in any way interested in continuing this discussion, I suggest that we do it in the relative privacy of one of our user pages. Please believe me that I am very far from being a nationalist and that I want to understand your point of view, as you are arguing (as opposed to some others here) in a very reasonable way. Unoffensive text or character 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I believe this conversation needs to move to a more frequented venue. To accomplish this, why don't you add the Project Germany tag to Talk:Vienna? That great city, obviously of huge importance to German culture, and with such close ties to Germany, and 100% percent German speaking today to boot, for some reason has been omitted from Project Germany. Do something about it, include the tag there, and see what the reaction is. I am curious myself. Balcer 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in tagging any articles and I have said so. I merely question the grounds on which the Germany tag was removed. And I think that it's for the people who work on the projects to decide which articles they wish to include in the scope of their work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unoffensive text or character (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

It seems that if this article fits under WP Germany, it would fit under History in relation to Germany. Does this article significantly in Germany;s history? Kingjeff 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For modern Germany (1871-), not so much. The Carlsbad Decrees were released in the town when Bohemia (as part of the Austrian Empire) was part of the German Confederation. The town had a German-speaking majority populace for most of its history; whether that or its inclusion as part of the Holy Roman Empire makes the town worthy of WP:Germany is debatable. I would like to be an optimist regarding project tags as Unoffensive text or character is, but nationalist debates I have observed on Wikipedia lead me to agree with Balcer's rationale and concerns. Olessi 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The exclusion of Vienna is a rather weak argument for not including Carlsbad in the German Wiki project. Whether or not Carlsberg is tagged that way should be able to stand on its own merits. There is enough room for the article to be included as part of both the Czech and German wiki projects. Quite simply Germany and Czechoslovakia share some history – that's fairly obvious. Including the city as part of both projects is legitimate as it acknowledges this shared history and helps create an appropriate context for understanding. Tagging Kingjeff with a 3RR violation over this was a pretty cheap shot and a poor man's way out of a proper debate over the issue. Tsk! Wiggy! 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I bet if one tried hard enough, one could identify a shared history between any city/country pair in Europe. If we allow arbitrarily defined "shared history" we get: 1. proliferation of projects, with each page tagged with literally dozens of tags, making the whole idea behind projects useless, since categorizing is only helpful if categories are reasonably restricted 2. endless discussion about how strong the "shared history" is and whether it warrants a tag. 3. truly outlandish project tags (Legnica tagged as in Project Mongolia and Vienna in Project Turkey spring to mind). On top of this we are almost certain to get nationalist editors adding project tags solely to stick the flags of their nations all over the place. This to me is clearly a recipe for disruption and disaster. I rest my case. Balcer 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your examples don't wash. The conflict between the emerging nation states of Germany and Czechoslovakia is central to the history of the region (Sudetenland) that includes Carlsbad - its not a question of "trying hard enough". For a substantial part of its history Carlsbad was a "German" city and it was materially affected by the attempt to create first a united Germany and later a Greater Germany and its character was changed as a result of the the expulsion of Germans from the Sudetenland after WWII. Today the place is Czech. Editors from both projects could make useful contributions towards creating a better article. In this case tagging it as part of the Germany project simply draws editors knowledgeable about that aspect of the city's history. Wiggy! 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

These all also aply to other Austro-Bohemian, Austro-Moravian and Austro-Silesian towns, so why I can't see the WikiProject Germany Tag in Liberec/Reichenberg, Opava/Troppau, Brno/Brünn, etc. Weren't they important enough? – Yarp ^Talk 07:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Could be. But that kind of argument is weak, don't you think? They could be left out/missed for any number of reasons. The counter is that they likely deserve similar consideration based on their own individual merit. Wiggy! 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My input. I think it should be possible to tag places with various project tags as nothing is black and white but (as we discussed with Balcer earlier) for now it would be better to include only tag of a country which currently administers such place. Cities such as Karlovy Vary should be tagged by e.g. WPP German History or German Culture if such projects would appear in the future. And then it will be no problem with that as it is much less controversial solution and also fair, as many towns e.g. in Sudetenland were and are strongly influenced by German culture, architecture etc. (it is not a matter of pertinence to same state). In the same way it would be correct to tag Armenian villages in Turkey with WPP Armenian culture, Danish municipalities in Germany with WPP Danish culture and Polish municipalities in the Czech Republic with WPP Polish culture. Regards. - Darwinek 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. – Yarp ^Talk 08:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not about the culture of the place or ownership of a piece of turf. Read the preamble of the wikiproject article and consider just what a wikiproject is. An article can bear a number of tags and in this particular instance German and Czech tags look to be those that would most likely bring together editors with the knowledge or resources to make useful contributions to shaping the article. Who currently holds title over the geography is moot in that sense. Sure its not a black and white thing in many instances, but if a tag can lead to the improvement of an article by drawing the notice of a particular group of contributors, it deserves fair consideration. Wiggy! 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)