Jump to content

Talk:Czech Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hum Hum (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 13 October 2016 (→‎List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Czech Republic Transport in the Czech Republic." Czech Republic. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2016. AlexisElena (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)AlexisElena[reply]

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

"Czechia" controversy

It should be mentioned the name "Czechia" is controversial. More widely used name is "Czech". It's adjective from the longer term "Czech Republic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valtri (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing controversial my friend, Czechia is now the new formal name of the Czech Republic. ;-) 202.72.165.105 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Czech Republic is still the formal name. Czechia is the informal/geographical name. Just as France (informal/geographic) is formally known as the French Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.....as the French Republic has geographic name France, the Czech Republic has Czechia :-PJan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. So the article should be called Czechia. It's so simple... Carvin (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yesJan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Article titles use the most common English name. Czechia is only just barely used enough now to be in the lead. We will wait to see if it actually becomes the common name or if general usage remains the Czech Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the states have official political names and official geographic names. You should use official geographic name, because it can be keyword, because of no limitation by time and political character of the state. Political name defines only current political formation in the state, but not the country as a whole with historical continuity. You cannot write about "the Czech Republic" in historical context except the period from 1993. Therefore, the main keyword in an encyclopedy cannot be a transient political name. Personally, you can wait and call it how you want, we will use it :-)Jan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're wrong. Just as the United States history class I took in high school could and did cover the time before 4 July 1776, so too can a "History of the Czech Republic" cover history before 1993. However, you must phrase things in a different manner. You cannot say that "In the Czech Republic in 1587..." but you can say "in 1587 in what is now the Czech Republic...". As far as what the main keyword in an encyclopedia (not encyclopedy, that is not an English word) should be, Wikipedia convention is that articles should use their common names as titles. So far, even with the increasing usage of Czechia, this country is still best known in English as the Czech Republic. All the wishes and desires of every Czech throughout history count for absolutely nothing here. What is actually done in English is all that matters. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Czech Kingdom of Bohemia in 1587... is correct. Official name in Middle Ages was Čechy. In Latin Bohemia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.214.97.242 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why you should call our country CZECHIA

Czechia (read "checkia") is the English short name of the Czech Republic. It is the English equivalent and translation (in proper transcription [ˈtʃɛki.ə]) of the short name "Česko" [ˈtʃɛskɔ] in Czech. The name was registered by the United Nations and included in the UNO Gazetteers of Geographical Names when the Czech Republic was formed in 1993. The name "Czech Republic" is the administratively-political name of the current state formation, while "Czechia" is the denomination for the Czech state as a more than 1200 years old geographical and settlement-historical unit, which is independent of actual political regimes.

Czechia (Česko) consists of three historical lands: Bohemia (Čechy), Moravia (Morava) and Czech Silesia (Slezsko). In the past, the entire country used to be called Bohemia in English. The term Bohemia originated from the Latin name of the territory that was settled by Celtic tribes Boii before the arrival of Czech tribes into the Czech territory. Consequently, the Czech people and their language were formerly called "Bohemian" in English. The term Czechia was first used in Latin at the beginning of the 17th century and the first evidence of its use in English is from 1866. The name was also commonly used in the United States in the first half of the 20th century during the existence of "Czechoslovakia" for the Czech part of Czechoslovakia and in historical meaning by newspapers, such as the New York Times or Herald Tribune.

Thus, the name Czechia is not completely new and has a long tradition in English. Foreign countries and their politicians expressed their willingness to accept and use the short name Czechia when the Czech Republic was formed in 1993. In other languages, the equivalent of "Czechia" is commonly used (Chequia in Spanish, Tchéquie in French, Tschechien in German, Chéquia in Portugal, Cechia in Italian, Чехия in Russian, Tjeckien in Swedish, etc.). Why then do we refuse to use Czechia in English and continue to mistakenly translate the short name Česko as "the Czech Republic"? The history of our country did not start in 1993 when it officially became the Czech Republic. The great Czech composer Antonín Dvořák - inter alia the founder of the American classical music in the 19th century - was not from the Czech Republic, because such country did not exist in that time, but he was from Czechia. Czechia is not so hard to learn and it is much easier to pronounce than Czechoslovakia, which so many people still remember today and pronounce with ease. Therefore, we do not see any problem in using Czechia by English speakers.

Some people call our country "Czech", which is wrong. "Czech" is an adjective, the name of the inhabitant of Czechia and of the Czech language, but surely not the country name. English speakers do not use French for France, Japanese for Japan or German for Germany. So, please, remember that we are not from Czech but we are from Czechia.

http://www.czech-this.net/articles.php?req=read&article_id=111 http://czechia-initiative.com/czechia_name.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.24.162 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire post is an essay attempting to promote the usage of Czechia, but that is not what Wikipedia or this talk page is for. Current English usage is Czech Republic for the current state and a mixture of the Czech lands, "the region of the current Czech Republic", Bohemia, and other historical names for prior eras. Wikipedia will change if and when English usage changes. Until then, your attempting to school the English speaking peoples in the usage of their own language is massively rude and likely to result in a further resistance to this change. --Khajidha (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when the English speaking people decide how other countries are being called even in English? Did they decide on Belarus, Lithuania, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Myanmar etc.? You are way off here. Countries themselves decide how they are being called and not foreigners. Your last sentence is massively rude and reminiscent of colonial and imperial practices. If and when the Czechs let the world know that they want to be called Czechia in addition to the Czech Republic, the world is going to respect it. Obviously, some Czechs like to use the short name for their country in appropriate contexts including the Czech president. You and your friends pretend that this is not the case and have been deleting any mention of Czechia on Wikipedia, which is a form of rude censorship.Geog25 (talk)
Since the English language began. ALL languages decide what to call foreign countries when referring to them. SOMETIMES the word used is the same as that used by the populations of those countries, sometimes it is similar and sometimes it is completely different. This has been true in all languages since the beginning of time. English speakers decided to use some of those that you mentioned, but Myanmar is STILL not the common English term. Again, expecting to be able to speak my own language without some foreigner saying that I should use THEIR words instead of my own is NOT rude, it is basic self determination. It is YOUR determination to force your words onto others that TRULY smacks of imperialism. I do not know what Czechs do in their own language and do not care what they do in their own language. IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS how Czechs name countries in their language, just as it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS how the English language names countries. Mention of Czechia has not been deleted, it is simply not used much because the English language doesn't use it much. In this it is much like the term "Usonian", a proposed national designation for citizens of the United States that never really caught on. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Khajida, your responses reek of intellectual snobbery and general international disregard. Wikipedia is, whether you like it or not, a publication, and publications have to take editorial decisions - informed decisions - and these decisions are inherently political. Moreover, it should be up to a specific country what they wish to be called. If a person changes their name from Jake to David, and wishes others to refer to them as David, then it is ignorant and rude to insist they are called Jake. With this in mind, I don't see why the New York Times has more authority than the elected leader of the country in question. That is truly US-centric thinking, and not particularly healthy either. Amphibio (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia is a publication IN ENGLISH. General English usage does not include "Czechia". 2) Your analogy fails because a country is not a person, it is a thing. 3) The New York Times is an English language source, the president of the Czech Republic isn't. 4) Not US-centric, English language centric. --Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
English is an international language, is the predominant language of the internet, therefore it needs to be internationally aware. Also, look up the definition of analogy.
It's officialy called czechia now, so you can stop arguing. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36048186 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrabuo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ladies and gentlemen, please feel free to ignore the post above exhorting the use of "Czechia". It's been a matter of some minor debate nationally that there is no single-word name for our country (yes, I'm Czech) in common use (not even in our own language, as "Česko" (basically Czech for "Czechia"), the natural candidate, is ambiguous in that it has historically referred mostly to the region of Bohemia, and not the entirety of present-day Czech Republic; personally I'm unsure whether Bohemia or the whole country is meant whenever it's used). For that reason, some PR afficionados and tourism industry professionals formed a drive to determine and endorse a single-word official name for the Czech Republic. Their efforts have gone largely ignored by the bulk of the population, however, and no one I know actually uses "Czechia". (Personally, I find the word ridiculous and wouldn't use it if they paid me to.) If anyone's interested, the word we use to refer to our country in common speech is "Čechy", which however is indistinguishable from our word for Bohemia, and therefore has to be interpreted from context (also, some inhabitants of Moravia and Silesia, the other two major regions of the country apart from Bohemia, are sometimes grouchy about the use of this word for the whole country, feeling "left out" due to the fact that the word can also be interpreted to mean Bohemia only... hence, the drive to find a different single-word designator). 89.102.133.166 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, please ignore lies. Here is true: Translations in dictionaries: CZECHIA >> ČESKO, ČESKO >> CZECHIA http://czechia-cesko.webnode.cz/slovniky/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.21.8 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To 89.102.133.166's POV : If somebody does not have any argument, only feelings, false subjective impressions, personal quasi-aesthetics, contrived assumptions and myths, there is no other path, than beg for ignoring facts. Jan Blanický 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Very funny discussion, nobody should be using Czechia, there are around 9'000 fans on Facebook, www.facebook.com/CzechiaCZ; diverse boards existing on Pinterest, what about checking first before writing nonsense? Czechia is as ridiculous as Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, Serbia, Macedonia; Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Colombia, India and so on. If Czech administrators of Wikipedia keeping deleting all articles about Czechia, it is a typical cause and effect misinterpretation, suppress the word wherever you can and then declare it is not used, if something is ridiculous, this kind of logic is it definitively. Helveticus96 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, show us the usage in the English language press. When the New York Times writes about Obama going to Czechia, then we will change it. Wikipedia reflects general English usage, and that is "Czech Republic". --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the president Milos Zeman ot an authority enough? He is using Czechia constantly, as well as www.czechtourism.com has started using Czechia again. You can keep deleting and suppressing as much as you like, the logical term will come through in the end, as it is convenient as brand. It took 20 years for Cesko, another 20 for Czechia....Helveticus96 (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is the president Milos Zeman ot an authority enough?" Honestly? No. Usage by Czechs, even the president, is of little relevance to English language usage. Again, get mainstream English-language (primary language) sources to use it. Change the nameplate at the UN. Get the NY Times, BBC, etc. to use it. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, follows general usage. It is these sources that need to be changed first. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Miloš Zeman is absolutely not an authority on English usage.[1] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is the New York Times... --Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, I can understand argument of Khajida, there is not any reason to hide here the existence of the name, its spheres of the use and problems in its disputing, as well as constant erasing of relevant references about the name and preference of misleading information (can be documented). In general (for use in some encyclopedy) the name "Czech republic" (contemporary state formation since 1993) is simply (ane more than obviously) NOT enough to describe the country with more than 1100 years long history. Equally, the division of every issue into two categories (Czech lands 9th century - 20th century vs. Czech republic 1993 - now) is awkward uniqueness, because the country is the same settlement-historical unit all the time. In addition, the denomination "Czech lands" has never been used in English, neither in Czech (České země) as the name of the country, only as some periphrasis (here as some circumvention). CZECHIA is a geographical name of the country, thus, it is unifying element of the historic and thematic line. The struggle against the name is irrational, making only complication and negative aftermath. Only some shortsighted, mentally restricted, masochistic or completely irrational person (personal taste is absolutely irrelevant) is able to ask and encourage the use of only transient political name, which (belonging only to political language) steals historical context of the nation and country, because it relates to actual state-political formation only. Nobody else in Europe solves such a kind of problem. Every country has simulatenously political and geographical name, but uses second one, because it is natural and neutral, thus, it is able to describe the location without limitations, only some Czechs are able to go against their own interests, which is embarassing disgrace. To use Czechia is a matter of common sense. Because of that neverending story of blindness, maybe it is necessary to repeat and emphasize: "the Czech Republic" is only time-limited denomination of the kind of state-political formation in the country (nothing less and nothing more), "Czechia" is the denomination of the Czech state as a whole without limitation by time and political status? I hesitate to believe somebody is not able to get it. Understanding of the difference of meanings requires really only minimal demands on intelligence...... Diggindir (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All great arguments but not for Wikipedia. (After my own "fight" I can tell you) Wiki may agree with all this, but its purpose is not to help with this. And I hope admins won't block the change then they will be given evidence of usage they demanded.
What are current goal of Czechia supporters on Wiki? To change name of article (and all references of Czech Republic)? You can't be serious it would be approved.
To mention it in first sentence? It would not pass either (not even with "rarely used" confession).
To fully describe why it should be used in section in the middle of the article? Answer would be "not interesting enough for English readers".
And the main thing: Would any of that really help with spreading of name Czechia and make any difference? Maybe if all Czech Republics on Wiki were changed to Czechia, but you can't expect Wiki would do that. For promotional purposed, video on YouTube will be more effective than Wiki, I guess. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the root of the problem: You are attempting to utilize Wikipedia to spread the usage of Czechia, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for recording facts and is supposed to follow usage, not set it. The facts are: 1)Czechia was proposed and 2)it was not actually used much in English. This is already in the article. All of these protests about how it should be used are pointless and inappropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1 190 000 hits on the Internet obviously means that it is "not actually used much in English". I would like to know how many hits there must be for Wikipedia administrators such as Khajidha to allow the use of Czechia on Wikipedia beyond its simple mentioning. Also, I would like to know whether you have the same standards for other terms. Obviously not. Geog25 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say it any better than WP:GOOGLE: "Raw 'hit' (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many 'hits', some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit count numbers alone can only rarely 'prove' anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results."--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are those English language only sites? Are those sites written by native speakers or by non-native speakers? How many of those sites are simply people saying that the English language should use Czechia? When I run the search, the ENTIRE first page of results is nothing but 1)simple definitions of the word (Wiktionary specifically describes it as "rare") or 2)sites that are designed specifically to lobby for the increased usage of the term. I do NOT see news stories with actual bylines in Czechia. There are no "President of Czechia announces....", "Economy of Czechia experiences....", "Take your next vacation in Czechia", etc type stories. The word is not being used, it is being explained and lobbied for. Call me when that changes. --Khajidha (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be changed to "Czechia"? We certainly call it "Τσεχία" (Tsehia) in Greek.

And what bearing does Greek usage have on the English Wikipedia? English isn't Greek and Greek isn't English. Czechia is all but unknown in English language sources, particularly those produced by and for the native English speaking population. --Khajidha (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article could still be "Czech Republic". But not even mentioning the short form in the first sentences is absurd. You treat the short form like som "f-word". It is totally absurd. --Muniswede (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the "f-word" in English sources FAR more often than Czechia. --Khajidha (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech Foreign Ministry encouraged the use of "Czechia" today, so we'll probably eventually switch to that, but I'd keep this at "Czech Republic" as long as that's the most common English name. It's not disrespectful to the Czechs; it is the official name of the country translated into English. One of the articles said that they just are tired of the country's name being rendered (incorrectly) as "Czecho" or "Czechland." Jsc1973 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As and when the term "Czechia" enters common usage in the United Nations and its respective organs, including references in General Assembly meetings and resolutions, Wikipedia should likewise conform. --Katangais (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually up to English speakers what we call other nations. We say Germany not Deutschland, Netherlands not Nederland, Denmark not Danmark, Spain not Espania, Greece not Helas. Similarly we don't get pissy about French saying Londres not London. It's just what grown up nations do. Bohemians may call their nation whatever they like but they can't force speakers of other languages to conform. Particularly when the name they've chosen sounds absurd to English speakers. Gymnophoria (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erb Jižní Moravy

Could someone redraw the bunch of grapes in the lower-left quadrant of the South Moravian coat of arms / flag? I originally drew that like a decade ago, assuming someone would fix it, and it still looks awful.

Czechia now in UNGEGN (July 5 2016)

The short name "Czechia" is now in UNGEGN as of July 5 2016: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ Kind of makes most of this discussion moot and the name should be changed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiri.bohac (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is no provision for Wikipedia to follow UNGEGN. I'm pretty sure that UNGEGN doesn't use Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, or East Timor either, so there is plenty of precedent for us to follow our own rules. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha: I would say wikipedia preferences are
officical formal name < official informal name (if known and used) < unofficial informal name (if known and used)
maybe with the exception Republic of Ireland where formal name is used to differentiate between Iraland state and Ireland island (my view would be to rename Ireland-> Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, but of course it is not up to me). Or some other exceptions maybe.
Anyway I am not expecting that all or any article names should now change Czech Republic to Czechia even though Czechia is now as official as it can be (right?).
But I would expect en wiki to be more tolerant to Czechia in some cases, e.g. hypothetical Czech book "Česko a Česká republika" translate like "Czechia and Czech Republic", not "Czech Republic and Czech Republic". Or TV show Česko hledá SuperStar - which contains explicitly short Czech version of the state - translate using short English version. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We do not advocate usage - we reflect it. Czechia is the official short form name, so we properly reflect that. Czech Republic remains the common name for the country, so we continue to reflect that until/unless Czechia becomes the common name. It's really that simple.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the first case you mention, of course we would use Czechia. The meaning is lost otherwise. The second case would probably still be translated as Czech Republic because that is the English common name. Czechia simply isn't used to any real degree in outside sources so it isn't used in running text here. --Khajidha (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar problem on dewiki where some users, linking to the map on ungegn, tried to bring this news in the last days. After I have asked on the cswiki, see perma diff, I've got some links like reuters.com/... or trt.net.tr/francais/europe/... and so, imho, it is possible to insert this in the wikipedia as I did in dewiki [2]. Cheers, -jkb- (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2016

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 16:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Czech Republic → Czechia – The Czech president, government and parliament has recently decided upon an official short version of the country's name. In English, this is Czechia. Dammråtta (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Previously, the government had asked for a name to be used. It wasn't, so it made sense to retain the old name. This isn't a request, though, any more - it's an instruction accepted by the UN from an organ of Government - it is, essentially, the official name of the country. It reminds me a little of the fights over Ireland v Éire, Myanmar v Burma, Kampuchea v Cambodia and Ukraine v The Ukraine. In all cases, it was (reluctantly) conceded that the name of the country in the English language is what the state/country itself set it out to be. I know one of the writers above thinks Czechia is "foolish-sounding". With respect, that's utterly irrelevant. The test isn't which name you find pleasing to the ear, but which name is factually correct. and the Irish and Ukrainian cases suggest clearly that that decision lies with the state involved. This isn't Macedonia - there isn't an actual serious 'naming dispute'. there's simply a state decision on the proper name for their own country in English, and a group of wikipedians irritated by that new name - with respect, that irritation doesn't deserve protection. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a valid point, IF it was true. Wikipedia changed Burma to Myanmar against these principles. Czechia is used in English and has so far not been used at Wikipedia because of a lack of officiality which is now no longer valid. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know if people will ever start saying Czechia more commonly than Czech Republic in English, but they certainly don't at the moment. And for Mpjmcevoybeta and Skogsvandraren, Myanmar is a perfect example of how we would *not* change this yet. For years, the government was telling us to call it Myanmar, but we retained Burma, because that was what a majority of reliable sources continued to call it. We are certainly under no obligation to follow an "instruction accepted by the UN from an organ of Government", WP:OFFICIALNAME tells us that. The move to Myanmar was finally made just a year or two ago, because after decades of saying Burma, reliable sources such as the BBC, newspapers, etc, finally started saying Myanmar, and there was no longer any reason for us not to move. If that ever happens with "Czechia", then this move can go ahead then. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The name Czechia has been official according to ministry of foreign affairs documents since 1993 but no one has ever worked hard to promote anything beyond one official name, "Czech Republic", in English. Meanwhile, in Czech, the translation of Czechia, Česko, has become widespread and perhaps the most frequent name used for the country. Top politicians and language institutes have finally agreed to do something about it in the U.N. etc., and these steps should be imminent. Hundreds of articles in the world media have informed about the plan and looming steps. So even though I am sure that in the world, like in Czechia, some 70% may dislike the name, they should still respect the official views about the question and the right of the fans of the word to use the short name. In the case of Burma/Myanmar, Peking/Beijing, Bengalore/Bangaluru, Ceylon/Sri Lanka etc., much less was needed to "convince" the Westerner to adopt whatever the third-world country politicians wanted. I think that the top Czech politicians should be admitted to have (at least) the same status. Lumidek (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute support the name Czechia became official and it is usual to call country by informal name. The Czech Republic is denomination of actual political system in the country, nothing more, absolutely impractical in common use, cannot be used in historical context, but Czechia bridges every state a political chanmges in the country. Finally !!!!!!!!!!! Malsovicka (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, there's no rush, WP:NOTNEWS. When it catches, then fine. If not, treat it like Ivory Coast. 75.172.185.114 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Yopie (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. For goodness sakes, take a look at this chart. I think that that seals the argument once and for all. The arguments against -- which devolve to "we should be complete poodles for whatever some government bureaucracy decides, and to hell with titling our articles in such a way as our readers will understand what they are about" -- are so weak, and so overwhelmed by that graph, that its time to close this one down. This is not a vote. You have to have some argument beyond "yes everyone uses term X, but I personally find this illogical and unpleasing". See you back here in a few years. Herostratus (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: it's not quite as slam dunk as that... your ngram only goes up to 2008, and obviously the "official" name change announced by the Czech government means that the common usage may (or may not) change from now henceforward. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should give extra weight to usage in reliable sources after that date. However, right now, with the change just announced, it remains way too early to make that determination. There is no rush on this, and as I said in my !vote above we should not move this now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm against changing now. I agree with this comment. If every newspaper for the next two months and other organisations start using 'Cezchia' then even though evidence like this would still suggest that CR has been the common name for a long time, there'd be clear evidence of movement. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it only goes to 2008, but 1) it'd take hella amazing impossible to bend that curve anywhere near was much as you'd need in seven years, and 2) it's the total area under each curve that matters (I exaggerate some, but only some); if all the book publishers in the world woke up on January 1 2009 with a chip implant that told them to only use Czechia, you still have the weight of all the existing books on all the shelves in the world, and all the existing terminology habits of all the people in the world. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, move to Czechia is OK. Other countries are listed under their geographical names, too. You can find, say, Germany under "Germany", not perhaps under "Federal Republic of G." etc. There are no rational reasons why the name Czechia should be discriminated. It is as "official" as its partner "Czech Republic". Each of them has its own function: when Austria, Poland, Spain - - - then Czechia! When Kingdom of... Federal Republic of ... --- then Czech Repubic. DaisyXL 11:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC) DaisyXL 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The name should be included in order to inform Wikipedia users. It is currently barely mentioned, which is problematic. As the government has reached a consensus, there is no reason in delaying the change. Wikipedia titles should be consistent - in this case it means using the short name. If this doesn't pass, we should still include Czechia in the first paragraph of the article. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can look up the evidence to see that you are wrong. It has been used in books, articles etc. Not as much as the Czech Republic of course but not at all? Please, be reasonable and do not lie.Geog25 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change on the horizon?

According the NY Times (here) the Czechs are proposing a new name for the country: Czechia. Which makes logical sense, very few entities require one to specify their form of government to denote them (the UK is another, I suppose).

Obviously we have to go with current usage. But something to keep an eye on. Herostratus (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "obviously" statement is obviously incorrect. While controversies are guaranteed to exist for some time, the renaming is already work in progress and two paragraphs above this comment of yours at the Talk page, there is already a voting process about the renaming of the main page to "Czechia" while "Czech Republic" would be redirected. Two days ago, the "Czechia" supporters could have seemed weak. But now the top politicians in Czechia agreed to do something about the promotion of the short name for apolitical situations. It may be a matter of days when a formal verbal note is filed with the U.N. Such a process is likely to get through without problems. If the U.N. takes it seriously, events such as conferences and, much more importantly, the Olympic Games in Rio could already be expected to use the term Czechia in all situations where France is used instead of the French Republic, and so on. It seems obvious that the momentum powering the advocates of "Czechia" is strong and may increase in coming days, weeks, and months, so if some opponents of "Czechia" are at least slightly neutral, maybe they should abstain from unnecessary edit wars. Lumidek (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I was just making a driveby note. No, it actually doesn't much matter what the Czech government calls it, it's what notable sources call it. BTW there's no need to be rude, you know. I was trying to be helpful. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that your criterion about "notable sources" is right (even though other sources will probably pick Czechia as well, after similar controversies as those we participate in here). The rules for Wikipedia titles [4] demand recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Recognizability and naturalness work well for Czechia because it's clearly a country name derived from the well-known adjective "Czech". It's precise because it's been newly defined to represent a very particular territory. It's more concise than the Czech Republic, and it's more consistent because many more countries have articles named -ia than "some republic". The overall result is that if Czechia becomes officially okayed as a possible correct name of the country by the Czech political establishment (an OK by the government is waited for), it's more suitable as the main title than the Czech Republic according to Wikipedia's rules. Lumidek (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if you don't agree that my criterion is right, because it is right, and that is what matters. I'm quite closely familiar with the Five Virtues of WP:TITLE. Your argument comes down to "people call this entity by a name I find illogical and displeasing, therefore we should change it". It's a timewaster of an argument. (Heh, there was a comic just a few days ago at XKCD (here) exactly on the subject -- look at the first entry.) Your argument comes down to "Hey, I have a better idea for a name for the Czech Republic!" ... Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious comic and so true in many ways. IMO we should wait and see how the name change goes and catches up. I trained myself to use Denali instead of Mt McKinley the very day they renamed it. --Killuminator (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, the country isn't being renamed. There is only a plan to adopt an official short form. "Czech Republic" will continue to be an official name, and I tend to doubt the bastard "Czechia", formed from the Polish-derived "Czech", meaning Bohemian, and the Latin root "ia" will catch on in common English usage. If the Czech government were smart, they would capitalise on the historical name "Bohemia", which is both beautiful sounding and evocative. Complaints about "Bohemia" only referring to Bohemia proper are nonsense, as "Bohemia" in a broader usage has existed in English for centuries, and because "Czechia" is just as much derived from the name of Bohemia (i.e. the Czech name Čechy via Polish). Regardless, there isn't much discussion to be had until there is evidence of a change in common usage. RGloucester — User talk:RGloucester 13:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To User talk:RGloucester You have apparently zero knowledge about the origin of the name. Old Czech had the same digraphs "cz" as Polish and both those languages were very similar. Later, Czechs decide to change spelling. The name Czechia has origin in Latin by standard suffix -ia, with the first record in the beginning of 17th century, English took the term over in the first half of 19th century. The meaning of the name Bohemia today is different from the past, today Czechia = Bohemia + Moravia + (Czech) Silesia.
But, the most important thing. As soon as the name will be registered in UNGEGN Geographical Names http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/, you have to fully respect it. It is absurd, that some anonymous people from Wikipedia feel some right to decide about the names of countries. The history of Czechia is almost 1500 years old, the republican system in our country only less than 100 years. We have right to use geographical name the same way as other nations, not some transient cumbersome political one, which steals the overwhelming majority of existence of the Czech state ! Moreover, when other languages use commonly geographical name of our country, almost identical with Czechia - Chequia, Tchéquie, Tchéquia, Cechia, Tschechien, Tjekkiet, Tsjechië, Tsjekkia, Tjeckien, Чехия, Cehia, Τσεχία, #צ'כיה (read chekhia). The name "Czechia" is a correct translation of the geographic name "Česko", which is registered by the United Nations and included in the UNO Gazetteers of Geographical Names Blanicky 07:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the name will be registered in UNGEGN Geographical Names, you have to fully respect it. Umm, no, we don't. If you look at the UN maps you will see that they list Côte d'Ivoire, Timor-Leste, and Cabo Verde. However, en.wikipedia.org uses Ivory Coast, East Timor, and Cape Verde. This isn't because "some anonymous people from Wikipedia feel some right to decide about the names of countries", but because the general usage in the English language is to use those forms and not the ones the countries themselves prefer. It is possible that Czechia will become common usage in English now, but it is also possible that it won't. And it still would not be an insult like you seem to perceive it as. As much as any country has the right to determine what it calls itself, so too do language communities have the right to decide what to call countries. The only limitation is that you cannot call a country by a name that is (in and of itself in your own language) insulting in some way. So, while the English speaking world does not have the right to refer to the Czech Republic as "Assholia" or "Stupidstan", it does have the right to decide not to use Czechia. I'm not saying that Czechia won't become standard English, only that you cannot say that it SHOULD become standard English. That is beyond your or the Czech Republic's power. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Khajida", your personal opinion is already known for very long time, you do not like the name personally and have deleted it all the time from Wikipedia. Official statement of anglophone countries obviously declared the willingness to respect English form of geographical name of our country. Now, it is officially done. Finally. It is not about standard, but about the right. We have right to use it in Wikipedia and you cannot make abstructions as you do. Btw. I ignore your hidden insults, I understand you are angry. The main page of our country in Czech is called Česko, it means it should be approprately translated into English and Czechia should be the keyword. This is what it is. Stop your demagogy. Jan Blanický 15:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, no. You have COMPLETELY misunderstood my position all along. I neither like nor dislike the name Czechia and I actually think it would make writing easier if it were commonly used in English. However, as long as it is not commonly used in English sources outside of Wikipedia it is inappropriate to use it on wikipedia. What I have been fighting is the attempt by you and many others to tell the English language community what it MUST call a country. I am offended by your attempts to force my language to follow your rules. I do not go to the Czech site and tell the community there what they should call my country. As far as "hidden insults", I made none. If you were offended by my examples of names that the English speaking community is not allowed to call countries, then I apologize, for it was my intent to show that such insults are not acceptable. --Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Czechia formed from the Polish-derived Czech? Czechia comes from Latin not Polish. The first recorded use of Czechia is from 1634 in Latin and 1841 in English.Geog25 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is right. The "official name" of Greece is the Hellenic Republic but the article is under the short name. -- Evertype·✆ 16:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's under the most common name in English, which is the standard. Official names, common native or foreign language names, disputed names, short names, long names, and names following correct non-English orthography in some language or violating it can all be the most common name in English, but for the purpose of article titles they must stand or fall on actual usage in English. Even the sourcing requirements are only there to enforce verifiability, they don't override the requirement for common usage. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was only pointing out that there was no rule saying that the long name would have priority, ever. In a matter like this, quantification is of course impossible. (I wonder why they didn't pick "Czechland"...) -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Evertype We did not "pick" anything, the name Czechia has 400 years tradition with the origin in Latin. There is not any choice. "Czechland" is a neologism. Though, thank you for support. Your example with Hellenic republic is "classical" Jan Blanický 07:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Blanický is absolutely right. Vaclavjoseph (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jan Blanický is making a lot of sense. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Czechia as an alternative name in the LEDE

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

Nearly all agreed and it's already mentioned in the lead. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There's some dispute over whether the name Czechia should appear in the lead. I've put it in a couple of times (as I also mentioned in the RM above, against a proposal to do just that), but RGloucester feels that it should not be there. Per MOS:BOLDSYN above, Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. Although I am clear (as my vote above says) that Czechia is not yet the common name for this, I think yesterday's decision, and the fact that this name has been in minority use for many years, means it should be included as an alternative secondary title in the opening sentence. What do people think?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – No significant usage. Until it is adopted by an English-using organisation, I do not believe it can be tolerated in the lead. Political creation of place names is always a rough subject. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - It is information that wikipedia users should be able to find, as the short name has been codified.77.240.103.249 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If nothing else, it will stop people trying to change the article itself to that title. I don't see any harm being done by including this. Smurrayinchester 13:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - It has been proposed above. The Czech Republic or Czechia, is a landlocked country in Central Europe [...] Itsyoungrapper (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree and support. The name exists, and the lead is the obvious place for it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, in fact required. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support listing "Czechia" as an alternative name in the lead. It's nowhere near the common name in English, but it is an alternative name being promoted by the government of the country, and Czechia is a redirect to this article. It should be noted as an alternative name in the lead, just as the Czech term "Česko" should be. Moreover, as Smurrayinchester notes, it is the best possible inoculation against silly claims that Wikipedia is "suppressing" this name. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I came out opposing immediately renaming the whole article, there is clearly a case to mention the sought for, and partly already established shortname in the first sentence of the lead. --PanchoS (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of current status I've fully protected the article to quench the edit-warring over using this as the main (first) term during the currently-open page-move request in an above section. This should not be taken as a blessing of the current state of if/how the lede should mention the alternative name as a secondary/synonym of sorts. I welcome any admin to evaluate and implement whatever consensus arises from this alt-name discussion here. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm against changing the name of the article, but the alternate name should be in lede. IMO it might have belonged there before, but under the new circumstances, definitely. Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- it's a co-official name, and while it's not as widely-used as "Czech Republic" it's common enough to be mentioned in the lede IMO. Chessrat (talk,contributions) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I hope that this vote doesn't contradict my support for the renaming of the page to Czechia. It's vital for the page to at least mention Czechia early on especially because a very large percentage of the visitors are currently visiting the page because they have heard something about the name change and Wikipedia should assure them that those reports weren't practical jokes. Czechia is obviously much less widespread among the native speakers right now but the idea is that the word should get a chance and is expected to become much more widespread, much like the counterpart in Czech, Česko, did. (Czechia has been used since 1634 in Latin and 1841 in English; Česko was a genuine neologism of the 1990s.) Lumidek (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, should be included in the lead, but not be the title of the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yes it should be there. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the short name is notable and helps explain why Czechia redirects here. Pburka (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is the title used by its own government. --Kaihsu (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pronunciation

I disagree with the suggested pronunciation (/tʃɛkiə/ ⓘ che-kee-y-ə; I think that in English the stress will naturally fall on the first syllable (/ˈtʃɛkiə/ chek-ee-ə) regardless of what a Czech native speaker might say. One-syllable country names in -ia are usually stressed on the first syllable: Austria, Bosnia, Gambia, Georgia, India, Latvia, Serbia, Syria, Zambia. Exceptions are only Russia /ˈrʌʃə/ and St Lucia /ˈluːʃə/. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed this too, and will change it when the protection is lifted. It's only the respelling that needs changing, to chek-ee-ə, as you say. Rothorpe (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the audio file I attached after "Czechia" (click at the speaker icon) sound OK to you? I actually meant what you wrote, I think, although for a while, cze-KEE-yah sounded pretty cool, too. Just to be sure, the stress in Czech is always on the first syllable, and somewhat weaker stresses on third and other odd syllables, so what you say sounds rather "Czech". English is much more likely to have stress on the second syllable (sloVAkia, dePOsit etc.), it seems to me, a feature that makes the Czechs' accent sound alien. Lumidek (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the English pronunciation to chek-ee-ə and also changing the audio file. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 April 2016

I would like to suggest we replace the current pronunciation of Czechia with the following pronunciation, as the current pronunciation is not by a native speaker.:

Pronunciation of the short English name of the Czech Republic - Czechia

A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's much better, sounds like a native English-speaker. Rothorpe (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recorded the current audio file and I agree that the proposed audio file is equivalent in spirit to what supporters of the name "Czechia" believe to be right in Czechia itself, and may be used as an improvement given the authenticity of the speaker's English. Well, I feel that it sounds a bit too close to the Russian pronunciation – Czechs imagine the stress on the first syllable to be less visible – but the English word is ultimately designed primarily for the native speakers so it's clear that the details should be decided according to the natural pronunciation from the native speakers' viewpoint. Lumidek (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the audio link to this version. The existing version does not sound like a native English speaker. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Czechia in the lead stays then yes, as said above, proposed version is much better, current version speaker is Czech. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound better, yes.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 16 April 2016

Please edit the pronunciation of "Czechia" in the intro. The the Pronunciation respelling key does not match the IPA pronunciation (this has been discussed above as well with support for this change). The pronunciation respelling key should be corrected to show stress on the first syllable and the correct final sound as follows: {{respell|CHE|kee-ə}} which will show CHE-kee-ə. (The marked up text for the relevant line would be: also known as '''Czechia''' ({{IPAc-en|audio=Czechia,_official_short_name_of_the_Czech_Republic,_pronounced_by_a_Czech_speaker.ogg|tʃ|ɛ|k|i|ə}} {{respell|CHE|kee-ə}};, which would read "also known as Czechia (/tʃɛkiə/ ⓘ CHE-kee-ə;") Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  03:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Would someone attend to this request, changing to CHE-kee-ə, please? Rothorpe (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed. Thanks. I also fixed the missing stress in the IPA. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  03:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 19 April 2016


REMOVING QUESTION MARK - ? is used only in English translation.

| national_anthem = {{vunblist |{{native phrase|cs|[[Kde domov můj]]|nolink=yes}} |{{raise|0.35em|{{small|''Where is my home?''}}}} |{{center|[[File:Czech anthem.ogg]]}} }}

ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 April 2016


Grammar correction, misuse of semicolon in opening:

The Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004; and is a member of the United Nations, the OECD, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.

to

The Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004, and is a member of the United Nations, the OECD, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.

149.157.114.236 (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done There is already an "and" in that sentence, so I fixed it a different way while keeping the semi-colon. Is that okay with you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks 149.157.114.236 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Why is it written Czechia and not like Checkia? What does the cz really stand for, as a sound, in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.245.246 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 April 2016‎

@77.218.245.246: I think the section Czech Republic#Etymology already discusses this point! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It states that the local form in Czech was written like that until there was a spelling reform almost two hundred years ago, in 1842. It says nothing about how this came to be the accepted form in English, well after that local spelling reform. I don't think the country was called Czechia or anything like it in English before the creation of Czechoslovakia after world war I, in 1918, and this was much later than that spelling reform. It would be interesting to read about the reason for the English form. Skogsvandraren (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming there was any real reason. The local form was probably utilized by those few English speakers who discussed the language and the people before the spelling reform and that form was probably maintained through the English language's general resistance to spelling change. In other words, "that's the way it was spelled when we borrowed it, why change it?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's named Czechia after forefather Čech (a brother of Lech, the first Pole) who founded the Czech nation some 1200 years ago by legends. In the Czech language, the name of Čech is not only spelled but also pronounced with "ch" at the end [English speakers could transcribe the sound as "kh"]. The "Cz" at the beginning is transcribed to English as "Ch", it's been written as "Cz" by the early 15th century when John Huss reformed the spelling and introduced the diacritical signs and "cz" became "č" (the diacritics was later also adopted in Slovak, Baltic, Yugoslav, and a few other languages). "Czechia" is an old name used in Latin documents at least from 1604 and English is supposed to import this whole Latin word. Despite the Czech origin of "cz" – with our old spelling rules – Wikipedia misleadingly mentions that "Czech" is an English word of Polish origin [5]. Poles are the only ones who find the spelling "Czechy" natural today. Lumidek (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's the OED, not Wikipedia, who claim "Czech" to have been borrowed from Polish, so burden of proof is now in your court. If English really did borrow the word "Czech" from the Czech language pre-Hussite spelling reform, we would expect to see some English sources using the word from that time, but there don't seem to be any. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 06:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20160705 UN

published updated name Czechia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.74.167 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UN homepage still uses the name Czech Republic, see here. /Hum Hum (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely known as Czechia

I am very reluctant to bring this topic up again but I noticed that the lede says that the Czech Republic is "rarely known as Czechia". The use of the word "rarely" is a bit ridiculous given that the sentence is at the very beginning of the article. "Also known as Czechia" was more appropriate. There was a consensus here that Czechia would be mentioned in the lede, but when paired with "rarely", I see no point in mentioning Czechia at all. It appears that someone was reminded of the topic of Czechia now that it has been registered with the UN as an analogous name for the Czech Republic. Although it may not be popular with some people because of subjective feelings, Czechia is now officially the short name for the Czech Republic and that is a fact. So would it be possible to change "rarely" back to "also"? A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word also is misleading, implying some kind of reasonable frequency as a synonym (e.g., "Mumbai; also known as Bombay, ..." or "Maize, also known as corn, ..."). As clearly pointed out earlier (e.g., Herostratus's "... take a look at this chart") the name Czechia has no reasonable frequency that balances it with "Czech Republic". In fact, it's statistically equivalent to misspellings. I have no objection to it appearing in the lede, but we should be honest about its functional non-equivalence. Doremo (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I almost changed the text to "also officially though not commonly known as Czechia". It's accurate, but it feels a bit stilted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't listing Czechia as second, after "Czech Republic" imply its functional non-equivalence? (Although "Czechia" is rarely used compared to the usage of "Czech Republic", it is in fact legally equivalent to the Czech Republic)A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to dance too many angels on a pinhead, but there's really no such as a "legal" shortform in another language. Czechia is simply the English shortform preferred by the Czech government. Clearly we should acknowledge and record that information, but Wikipedia uses the common name over the legal or official name in almost all cases - see WP:COMMONNAME.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listing second doesn't imply anything about a term being rare (in addition to Mumbai/Bombay and maize/corn above, other examples are color/colour, organization/organisation, etc.). All of these are in active common use, whereas Czechia is a statistical flatliner. Doremo (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "The Czech Republic ..., occasionally self-styled as Czechia ..." would be appropriate lede phrasing, as here or here. Doremo (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this such an ENORMOUS problem just in the English language? There are endless discussions here, and even an article of its own just concerning the name of the country. In most other countries/languages this country is handled like most others in the world. One formal name (long form) for diplomatic and governmental use and one informal name (short form) used in most other cases. To use the name "Czechia" has nothing to with changing the name of the country. The key question is: Why differ English-language media from most others when it comes to the name of this country? --Muniswede (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple. Mainstream English sources are not in the habit of using this term so it makes no sense for us to use it. Also, it seems rather rude on the part of the Czechia boosters to insist that another language MUST do things their way. It is as ridiculous as it would be for me to try to force the Czech language to use the word "blue" instead of its own, native, word for that color. --Khajidha (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most coutries are normally called by its short name. The only exceptions are Central African Republic (why really not just "Central Africa", like "South Africa"?) In the case of Dominican Republic it could be mixed up with Dominica (maybe a good reason), the UEA (problematic). But this one? There is de facto a short form, but "mainstrem media" refuses to use it. Increadible! --Muniswede (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just another one of the many, many, many irregularities of the English language. What I don't understand is why the Czechs (or yourself) even care what English calls their country? I have no clue what my country is called in Czech, Swedish, or virtually any other language. In fact I have no desire to know as it is completely irrelevant to me. As long as another language doesn't use a word that would be offensive in and of itself in that language, why would anyone be upset about the name that it uses? --Khajidha (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post script about "Central Africa": In English "Central Africa" means "the center part of Africa". The parallel terminology is "Southern Africa", as opposed to "South Africa". For whatever reason in the English language things like "South Korea" and "South Carolina" can be used as distinct polities as opposed to directionally determined regions. However, "Center Africa" would not be allowed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason media refused to use it was because the republic itself discouraged its use. Now it's not so anymore. Czechia is the common name of the country. /Hum Hum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum Hum (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Media is getting used to the name Czechia: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21697158-government-prefers-english-version-name-reminded-vaclav-havel-crawling /Hum Hum

Now known as Czechia

The country is now known as Czechia, even if this was not always so.About the nameCNNBBCNPRThe Atlantic, about how it was before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.131.61.38 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least usually, commonly. /Hum Hum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum Hum (talk • contribs) 10:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a mainstream English media source actually using it and not just commenting on it/explaining it. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CNN, BBC, The Atlantic all did nice stories in April about how the country wanted to be called Czechia, then pretty much immediately went back to calling it the Czech Republic - I looked at the search histories for all three sources.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how things can be. Funny how seemingly irrational journalist can describe things. One might have thought those articlew would have been the starting point for these news sources to change their own way of writing the country's name. I thought it was. /Hum Hum 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum Hum (talk • contribs)
The starting point for a change in English language usage is for the country in question to start using the name in its English communications. Change the name plate at the UN, field sports teams under the new short form (I THINK this is starting), make press releases about events in the country (something like "Czechia seeks bids for construction of new railways"). Don't TELL us to change, SHOW us the change. --Khajidha (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but newspapers and news sites often take their own policy decissions on things like this. /Hum Hum 07:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Khajidha's comments on this topic here and elsewhere are correct. Proponents of the name Czechia should review WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:COMMONNAME, and other guidelines. If usage patterns change in the future, then future changes in WP will be appropriate. Doremo (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current status of lead is good and we should stick to that. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current lede ("also known as Czechia") is currently misleading for the reasons discussed above. Doremo (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no really short way to describe the situation in the lead. The other option is to remove "Czechia" from the lead entirely, returning to the previous set up where it is only mentioned in the Name (or is it Etymology?) section. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of the "Kazakstan" issue (see here). Despite the Kazakh government's 1995 decision, the h-less spelling never gained currency in English and is not even mentioned in the Kazakhstan article (although it should probably be noted in the Name/Etymology section). Doremo (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever even hearing about this idea. I am STILL confused as to why non-English speaking countries try to determine the English language form of their names. --Khajidha (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. English usage is not determined by academies (like French or Spanish are), let alone by nonce decisions by foreign governments. Doremo (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna point out that Czechia issue in the lead was already discussed on this talkpage here and consensus was met and I see no reason to discuss it again since it is from April of this year. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone agrees that it should be mentioned in the lead, though the exact wording is up for debate. It's an unusual situation, and I don't know of any real precedent. The lead sentence is already long, so I'm leaning towards keeping it simple and sticking with "also known as".--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But until this spring, the use of the name Czechia was discouraged from by the regime of said land. What happened this spring, was just that the regime decided to lift that discouragement and letting English speaking people say Czechia if they want to even in official circumstances. So Czechia did try to decide over this usage in English, but don't do it anymore. /Hum Hum 07:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
English speakers have no interest in (or even awareness of) the Czech government's opinion on how English should be used. It's no more relevant than if Washington issued a decree on how Czechs should use Czech. Doremo (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason wikipedians don't like the word "Czechia". 97.127.101.92 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered to read any of the comments on this page? Wikipedia doesn't care if the country calls itself Czechia, the Czech Republic or even Czechistan. Our only issue is what name the English-speaking world (primarily the media) uses for the country. If the English-speaking world calls it Czechia, so will we; if the English-speaking world calls it Czechistan, so will we.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can you tell me why my edit on the dominican republic article was change twice? I pointed out that Czechia adopted a short form name it got changed back twice 97.127.101.92 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the change, but I suspect its for the same reason that this article name hasn't been changed. The "Czech Republic" is currently the common name for the country in the English-speaking world, the Czech governments preference notwithstanding.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the web site they use as support for that statement doesn't use Czechia. The site doesn't actually count up the countries with names like that, it seems like the whole sentence could be removed as original research. --Khajidha (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the verge of removing it myself, so well done. It's not only OR, it's poor OR. If United Arab Emirates is included, why not United Kingdom and United States?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Czechia

What will it take to change the name of this article? "Also known as Czechia" is quite alright for the time being, but how long will it take for a potential change to come through so that everyone here is OK with a change of the article title? The 2016 Summer Olympics is comming up, I for one will try to look out to see if the Czech team calls itself Czechia at the opening ceremony on 5 August, where the countries always carry their flag and a name plaque. /Hum Hum 07:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum Hum (talk • contribs)

It will take English speakers and writers actually using the name Czechia more than Czech Republic, that's all. In the meantime, it looks like this. Doremo (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Thanks! When changing to a date closer to now, the lines look slightly different: 1980-2008. It looks like you can't set a date later than 2008. /Hum Hum 11:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hum Hum (talk • contribs)
It takes a consensus of Wikipedia editors in a move discussion. In the last move discussion, the name change failed to achieve consensus with many contributors concerned that Czechia was not yet the common name for the country in English. Convincing people that the new name has become the common name would usually requires evidence of actual use in English language sources. The most convincing evidence is often statistical comparisons of a form that allow one to compare how often "Czechia" is being used relative to "Czech Republic". For perspective, Wikipedia recently moved "Burma" to Myanmar about 15 years after the (controversial) ruling government declared that "Myanmar" was now the official name of the country. Sometimes these things can take a while, though I doubt Czechia will be as controversial as Myanmar. In that case whole articles were written about the geopolitics and history of the Myanmar naming dispute. Dragons flight (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the matter of Burma vs Myanmar, the name change was made by a government which internationally was considered illegal and Burma is still today probably more used than Myanmar as a name anyway, so I don't know if that's a good comparission. Hum Hum (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the consensus was that Myanmar is now more common, hence the name change. Dragons flight (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends which data one looks at, but it's a good comparison. "Myanmar" obviously has a decent claim to statistical legitimacy, whereas "Czechia" is still a flatliner. Doremo (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How long, so everyone here is OK with a change of the article title? Even many Czechs find single word name for their (our) country controversial...Pavlor (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a change eventually, if this new name really takes off in reliable English sources, but we're really a very long way from that. As already said, we stuck with Burma for years because that was still the common name, but finally it became clear that English RS really had moved to Myanmar.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current text "also known as Czechia" is OK (for now) no renaming needed. Measuring of English usage will be interesting or how to do it (occurences in last year? Ten years...?) but now it is not the time. I don't believe Czechia will be seen anywhere in Olympics, change was too recent and it hasn't been promoted at all. On the other hand CIA noticed :The World Factbook :) and so did [US Departement of State]. CZechia may not be the first option to pick, Czech Republic wins, but Czechia has its place in the article as official short version. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the short form in the article

Given all the talk above, is it appropriate for the short term to be used except in the lead and etymology sections? I think there about five other examples in the article. Farleysmaster (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've cleaned up the inappropriate usages. Doremo (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2016


"srtistic" should be "artistic"

"wthout" should be "without"

(both in the "Film" section)


Choroba (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media about the possible future of Czechia's name

http://www.radio.cz/en/section/one-on-one/bureaucrats-holding-czechia-back-but-name-will-catch-on-says-professor-petr-pavlinek

>>The government began taking fresh steps to promote the use of “Czechia” in April this year. How do you view the progress since then regarding the use of “Czechia”?

“There has been important progress. First of all, on May 2 the government formally approved ‘Czechia’ as the short name, the geographic name for the Czech Republic.

“Then the United Nations was officially notified by the Czech government about the use of the short name.

“And on July 5 it was included in the official UN database of geographic names as the short name for the Czech Republic.”

But is it being used more? I’m not talking about formal steps, I’m asking about the actual usage of “Czechia”.

“Actually, it has been used more by others than by the Czechs.

“For example, the American State Department now has ‘Czechia’ on its website.

“Also the influential CIA World Factbook included ‘Czechia’.

“But the Czechs themselves have been hesitant to use it. They are making a number of excuses as to why not to use it.<<

Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 02:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Czech Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia, once more, again

According to this article in The Independent, and UK government document, the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names is recommending standardising on Czechia. Scarabocchio (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see if this has any affect on general usage. So far the articles I am seeing are mostly (as in the VAST majority) specifically arguing for or against the use of Czechia or are from the English language press of a non-English speaking country (ie Ukraine Today) or are exceedingly minor sources (Carbon Pulse is not likely to have much affect on general usage). --Khajidha (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. The Czech Embassy in London [6] and the London Czech Centre [7] are both using 'Czech Republic'. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Khajidha: it's only worth a footnote until this changes. Doremo (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, Doremo, you forgot several things. First of all, the graph doesn't go further than 2008, meaning it's automatically outdated. Second of all, you didn't use the right syntax. See here (it needs quotation marks). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your syntax returns an error when you click on the link and it contains "year_end=2008". Doremo (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesizing some of my previous comments on this: I do NOT see news stories with actual bylines in Czechia. There are no "President of Czechia announces....", "Economy of Czechia experiences....", "Take your next vacation in Czechia", etc type stories. The word is not being used, it is being explained and lobbied for. Don't TELL us to change, SHOW us the change. --Khajidha (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2016


Czech Republic should be primarily known as 'Czechia', according to Government advisors on the proper naming of geographical places and features outside the UK. The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN) advised all english to start using the new term. Czechia leaders released a statement saying “it is recommended to use a one-word name in foreign languages if it is not necessary to use the formal name of the country”. One does not use 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as the full name for the 'United Kingdom', so the naming convention of 'Czechia' should also be observed and respected.

193.55.52.1 (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that Czechia is very uncommon in English, IF that changes we will change. Until then, no. --Khajidha (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that. See page 15 of The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography (2008): "Increasingly one hears the short form Czechia. Even though that name is not as widely known as other truncations (e.g., Slovakia for the Slovak Republic), we have decided to use Czechia for consistency and to reflect its growing use in the country itself." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is usage in the country itself relevant to usage in the Anglophone world? --Khajidha (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Anglophone world" should be represented by some hypothetic not very educated farmer (or journalist) somewhere (nothing against him, nobody can be omniscient!), who didn't noticed dissolution of Czechoslovakia and never did know their parts, then we can suppose wrongly that the "Anglophone world" is a bit delayed towards reality. Should be Wikipedia also? When I see edit wars about Czech Republic (disambiguation), which tenaciously mentions several randomly selected eras of Czechoslovak Republic as "other meanings" of the Czech Republic, I have a suspicion that Wikipedia is intended for dyslectics or ignorants who are able to confuse Czechia with Chechnya, Slovakia with Slovenia, Latvia with Lietuva and Austria with Australia, and always ignored geographical name of Czechia, known and used from the 17th century when nobody supposed the future republicanism or specific republics. Wikipedia should be not a promoter of unsuccessful ideas, but also not a flywheel which should support ignorant people in their obtuseness, backwardness and lack of education. Wikipedia should bring accurate and updated information to the reader who can not know them yet. It's a dilemma. Should be prevalent "common use" (or even "common ignorance") preferred over official, authoritative or updated sources? How much? --ŠJů (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that you are attempting to lecture as to proper English usage......--Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at English but I'm quite sure that Czechoslovakia is not a meaning of the words "Czech Republic". The described dilemma is not just about English usage but about the role of Wikipedia generally. What should be preferred – the more correct (or the more consistent), or the more common? We need balance it. Of course, the common usage is always belated toward the current reality. --ŠJů (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha, I don't see how can mockery of knowledge of English be argument in: Why "Czech Republic (disambiguation)" contains links and terms which do not contain exact phrase "Czech Republic" in their article name. ŠJů apparently thinks that the disambiguation may contain only pages "Czech Republic (****)", not some randomly chosen articles "Czech****Republic****" (like Czechoslovak Socialist Republic). The argument can be "It does not matter, the disambiguation page can contain any links which may sound similar or are historically connected."
Czechia - it is OK that Wikipedia uses "Czech Republic" as "common name". But it should not be silenced that "Czechia" is official short name as proven by UN, CIA and ISO sources. Wikipedia cannot choose to ignore that fact in articles describing the name(s) of the country (and now it does not ignore but it was a struggle), in other articles it is understandable to use "common name". Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article's lede and the full article dedicated to this topic. Nobody has "silenced" anything. Doremo (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: now it does not ignore but it was a struggle. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment to me: I made such arguments several times in the edit summaries when I reverted ŠJů's changes. My point is that if you are going to make the judgement that the common English language usage is "wrong", you need to make sure that your own English usage is as right as possible.
Response to comment about Czechia: As long as I've been coming to this page it has included information about Czechia being a (little-used) short form name for the Czech Republic. This has never been denied or hidden. No, it was not formerly mentioned in the lead for the simple reason that the usage of the word in English is extremely rare. Misspellings were shown to have greater usage in ngrams previously provided. Calling attention to this word in the lead was therefore not reasonable. The recent pronouncements by the Czech government have given it enough currency to be mentioned in the lead, but it is still rare to see actual usage in English texts. Compare the number of "Czechia experiences record economic growth" type articles to the number of articles that basically say "You can use Czechia now, guys". It is still being lobbied for and explained much more than it is being used. --Khajidha (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is included in official databases, so the lead should contain both official names short and long. Other countries are in the opposite situation - official long names are rarely known and used, but they do have their place in the lead nevertheless. I do agree that Czechia is now used mainly in news about the "renaming". But was it really expected that "new" word would be used all of a sudden, yesterday 0 %, tomorrow 100 %?! Did you think that in three months period you'd hear only about Czechia, no more Czech Republic? It takes time for huge country, it takes more time for a small country which is not in the news every day, and it takes ages for a small country which does not do anything for new name promotion (anything visible... yet, you know to make new manuals, promo materials, jerseys, blahblahblah :)). I agree that Czech Republic must identify as Czechia if it wants to be called that way. Chrzwzcz (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't they changed their nameplate at the UN? Surely that could have been done at the same time that they registered the short name with various UN agencies. I actually expected exactly the result we've gotten: no change. Most of the news agencies that reported on this have failed to follow through in their own usage, so why would anyone else change? --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the agencies only reported the bombastic message "country will rename itself". Then it was clear it is not the case and they are waiting for country to do something, because both names are correct long and short and they are not really forced to change anything. Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (PCGN) advised all Britons to start using the new term, maybe UK will fight it for Czechia (or is it Czech diplomatic success)? Maybe DB entry is preliminary move, I agree that it could go faster, but it is politics and it is slooooooow. I don't know anything about UN nameplates, if they have to be the same as short name in UN DB, how often do they make them, if country must ask for them, or if it is such a deal. Idea was to promote it mostly through sport because it makes most positive news about CZ. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations listed in lede (CR)

It should be noted that CR is the official abbreviation of Costa Rica, only CZ is correct. The source cited is questionable. The CR abbreviation listed is only used in Czech, with a caron, not in English. This may cause quite a bit of confusion...perhaps the abbreviation information should be moved somewhere else and a special note included? What is the point of including it in the lede? The lede was already long before, now it's just ridiculous. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CR is the official abbreviation of Costa Rica not the Czech Republic. CZ should not be listed BEFORE the short name Czechia, which is now included in the official UN databases of country names: UNTERM and UNGEGN (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/ and https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/search?urlQuery=CZECHIA). This edit needs to be removed or at least moved in the case of CZ. The lede was already too long. Also CZE is used as the abbreviation for the country. The lede should be protected against this kind of arbitrary changes. Does Wikipedia normally list official abbreviations of other countries in their ledes and before their short names? Of course not.Geog25 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the abbreviation from the lead because I don't think it somehow helps and makes the article better, in Wikipedia article on Germany, for example you also don't have an abbreviation GER. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should not confuse international codes of countries with abbrevations of states, even though they can be similar or identic. For example, CS was a stable abbrevation of Czechoslovakia, but CSR or CSSR or CSFR abbrevations of the specific Czechoslovak states. Beside it, the international code is not necessarily a usual abbreviation. E.g. the code of Ukraine is UA (because UK is "usurped" by the United Kingdom, the origin of the "A" is disputable - in the Czech context, UK is also sometimes interpreted as Ukraine, "úkáčko" is a common slang name for Ukraine people). CZ is used as an apolitical code for the country, while CR is a specific abbrevations of the current state regime and a literal translation of the official Czech abbrevation ČR. Of course, the unambiguous code should be preferred, but the alternative abbrevation can be also mentioned. If Czechia (Czech 2+1/10 lands) would change back to the monarchy (or to anarchy or to declared dictature or protectorate), it can remain CZ (Czechia) but not CR (Czech Republic). --ŠJů (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

The motto "Pravda vítězí" (veritas vincit, truth prevails) is on the presidential flag. Isn't it rather a presidential motto than the national motto? Is there any relevant source which mentioned it as an official national motto? Yes, it has some pattern in Hussite motto "Veritas Dei vincit", is sometimes cited on Czech WWI memorials etc., but not officialy declared as national (state) motto IMHO. --ŠJů (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

It was decided to move discussion from List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe here. So: column English short and formal names [19][20][21] where links are official documents with Czechia present, why it is not allowed to include Czechia in this column. Answer(?): Column name says English short and formal names but in fact it means English common (not necessarily official) and official formal names, as proven by names like "United Kingdom", or (in similar articles) "United States", "North Korea", which are not at all official (UN, ISO), but damn common. Therefore there's no place for Czechia, it is neither common short nor official formal long. But why it has to be twice repeated "Czech Republic" (once with the "the") and why a note "Czechia is official short" and link to "Name of Czech Republic" is not allowed...? IMHO it makes no difference, it won't help Czechia a bit if Czechia is included in that article (at least as a note), but also it is not promoting, why trying to eliminate it when it kind of is article about country names from official documents and common names. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would list Czechia, but with a footnote that it is rare and may not be understood/may be misunderstood. --Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twice Czech Republic - no other state has twice the same line. Yeah, I added small note "A simpler official short-form name has been encouraged by the Czech government: the English variant Czechia remains uncommon, but variants in Czech (Česko) and some other languages are more popular. See Name of the Czech Republic." which was copied from similar article. It may need some update (not only government idea, now official) but was deleted. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was not that the discussion of what goes on that article should take place here. That's outside all Wikipedia norms. It was that that article - and every other article that refers to the the Czech Republic or any other country on the list - should be using the name of the article as its primary reference to the state in question. That way, we avoid having the exact same discussion with the exact same arguments separately on thousands and thousands of different articles individually. There will be exceptions per WP:COMMONSENSE and project consensus, but neither applies here.

The contents of the article List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe are decided at Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. The decision made there was not to move the discussion here, it was that we should use the title of this article to refer to the state. If consensus here is to move this article is "Czechia", then that article - and the vast majority of other articles - should change to use "Czechia". But while this article is entitled "Czech Republic", we should also refer to the "Czech Republic" as the standard English name of this country. Kahastok talk 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consider this as an invitation then. "article that refers to the the Czech Republic or any other country on the list - should be using the name of the article as its primary reference to the state in question" - it is a little bit strict to use only one of possible names and unify all occurrences on one term, but OK. But you can't really rename things that do have "Czechia" in their name or rewrite cited documentation to contain the one and only unifying term. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're overcomplicating this.
Obviously, if an organisation has a WP:COMMONNAME that includes the word "Czechia" then we'll use the correct name of the organisation. Obviously if we're taking a direct quote from a source we'll respect the quote (though there is no need not to apply our own standards to our own writing). We don't jettison common sense.
But it would be totally crazy to insist on having exactly the same discussion over and over and over again on article after article after article after article after article after article after article and thousands more, when the arguments are identical in each case because there's no reason why it should be different on this article to what it was on that one. That's the alternative. And it's not like this is a novelty. It works perfectly well with the vast majority of other articles. There's no reason it can't work with this one. Kahastok talk 21:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either it is the same discussion as before and it was correct to jump with discussion here, or "List of" is an exception to be discussed there. I don't want a discussion about common name, it is solved over and over again. I accept that in vast majority of articles "Czech Republic" will be the used as first choice. (IMHO on this page there is an agreement that) mention about "Czechia" is totally acceptable (or welcomed maybe?) in articles where the name of the country is discussed. "List of sovereign..." looks like the kind of article (names names names), it does have a few notes about other countries and their specialties, it roughly looks like copy of official UN database table, so Czechia can be included as small (meaningless) note :) Is it important to include it? Not really. Is it necessary to delete it then? IMHO no reason. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support a move to Czechia. Others have noted good reasons. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The risk of being misunderstood is miniscule. Hum Hum (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

other page that needs to be "corrected"

No, because most of the history is from before the present state was founded and as far as I know, the terms are not exactly interchangable. Hum Hum (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czech_Republic&oldid=744136456"