Talk:Czech Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
July 16, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Czech Republic is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Czech Republic at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

"Czechia" controversy[edit]

Partially mooted by #RFC: 6-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions and also has moved past being WP:TPG productive. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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.

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 (talkcontribs) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing controversial my friend, Czechia is now the new formal name of the Czech Republic. ;-) (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
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) 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)
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)
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 encyclopedia 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)
It's not about the name itself, it's about consistency in article naming policy. Almost all countries have the «formal/political» name and the «common/human» name, e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany vs. Germany, the Russian Federation vs. Russia, the French Republic vs. France, the same is in this case, the Czech Republic vs Czechia. And if you open an English article of DE, RU, FR, you'll see the «common/human» name as main article title, but not in the case of CZ, there you'll see the «formal/political» name as the main title. That's inconsistency and should be fixed. 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
A wish to create some sort of formal parallelism isn't a solid basis for this proposal (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As already clearly explained, when another name becomes the English common name (see advice at WP:COMMONNAME), then the article title will naturally reflect that. Doremo (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With this argumentation Myanmar would still be called Burma Helveticus96 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Especially as this so-called inconsistency is actually consistency. Consistency with actual usage by the English speaking population. Said usage is itself inconsistent, but that is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's important to note, as of 2017 Google Maps began to adopt Czechia as a primary name for the Czech Republic. If you'll search for «Czech Republic», you'll be redirected to Czechia, e.g. link. Google Maps have already updated the country name and in all search suggestions on the service appears Czechia only, try to type «Prague», and you'll see. 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
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 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
As it's been already mentioned: How do you explain WP's application of the name Myanmar, when the older name of Burma is still widely used? It's probably predominant in an informal English language and the 'official' US and British sources such as CIA Factbook, US Dept. of State or The Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom also don't reflect the change, which they did in the case of Czechia. Google Maps service has solved the issue evasively: adding both Myanmar and Burma in brackets. Oasis98 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There have been many debates and discussions about that page, which was at "Burma" from 2007 to 2015. Consensus that Myanmar had become the common name only just happened in 2015. It takes a while.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure but Czechia is:
  • Listed in the United Nations´ databases “UNTERM” and “UNGEGN” as the official short name of the Czech Republic.
  • Listed as the short name by ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization.
  • Used on Google maps.
  • Listed on CIA fact book.
  • Will be used in sports moving forward in the English language.
  • Used in all Google applications (i.e. any drop down boxes etc which are used across the internet by thousands if not hundreds of thousands sites.
  • And Technological comitee made this statement:----> The decision about the name “Czechia” has been made by those who are qualified by the law to make it. November 2014 statement of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster states: “According to the article 3 of Act 1994/200 on Land Surveying, the standardization of names of settlement and non-settlement units is a land surveying activity in public interest and its results and recommendations should be followed by national and local state institutions. The position of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster, an advisory authority of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster for the codification of country names, on the use of the name Česko and its foreign language variants (Czechia, Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia…) is positive. This position on the use of the one-word name Česko and its equivalents in foreign languages has not changed since 1993. The experts unequivocally recommended the use of “Czechia” in English and its variants in other language (Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia etc.). This is not an opinion but the outcome of the process of standardization.”
  • Its time to update Wikipedia and stay with the times. Czechia should be the title and be redirected to when linking to Czech Republic. Lets get it over with and make the logical choice, it is the proper standard today and will continue to be moving forward. Wikepdia can do its part in being accurate and educating people. X243m3 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because Wikipedia's mission is not "to stay ahead of the curve". Wikipedia reflects current general usage. You can list a hundred places where "Czechia" is being used, and it won't matter if the bulk of reliable sources are still saying "Czech Republic". WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Czechia is absolutely corrrect[edit]
Go to hell with "Czech republic", this issue is already awkward. User "Khajida" is an psychiatric patient, probably with some Czech ancestors, who pushes "Czech Lands", however such a name is only terminus technicus and it has never been the name of our country. Czechia is absolutely correct, and since July 5, 2016, Czechia has been the official name of the country being included in the UN List of World Geographical Names (UNGEGN) & the United Nations Terminology Database (UNTERM) The name is codified by ISO 3166 Standards

So, what is your problem ?? There are some people, who do not understand the sense of universal geographical name, which can be used in general (historical) context as well as other counries usually do. Khajida & company is a part of pests and idiots, who partly do not understand the sense, partly want to harm historical consequences of the Czech state from their own (POV) reasons. We have to defend our country.

While the political name is only applicable in official documents, such as international treaties, the geographical name has its clearly defined natural function in all other cases. In the said "all other cases", the political name can never replace the geographical name because, unlike the latter, it has a temporary character ignoring the historical continuity of the state, and so its function is limited to the current state subject. Using it without time limits is wrong, confusing and inappropriate. From this point of view it is quite irrelevant whether or not its geographical equivalent was used in the past because it is clearly defined at present time, in spite of all efforts to call it in question. The implications of words are subject to changes and it depends on the use or institutionalization, how the respective meaning is understood. The decision was made as early as 1993 and any recall is useless. Česko is clearly defined as Čechy & Morava & Slezsko (Czechia = Bohemia & Moravia & Silesia) and thus the name covers the entire territory of the state.

Simply, the Czech Republic is nothing else than the current state formation in Czechia Is it so hard to understand ? If yes, the recipient is a moron and unable to contribute to encyclopedy, which pretends to be free.

There is no controversy for educated people or peole with common sense .......Kilastemi (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jan Blanicky. Aren't you supposed to be blocked? These personal attacks should suffice to get rid of this account, too. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
PS - Could you please at least get my name right? I mean, it's right there for you to copy and paste if you can't remember it.--Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Kilastemi puts it right, this is the way it is and all efforts trying to suppress Czechia on Wikipedia are just ridiculous. Czechia is used more and more every day, Google maps, AirBnB, US Department of State, CIA World Facts Book, just to name a few. More important is that Czechia being used by young Czechs in daily life increasingly. So you can go ahead with your fight or give in and make peace with it, that Czechia is official short name Helveticus96 (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no effort to "suppress Czechia". That name is identified as an alternative name in the first sentence of this article, and no-one -- no-one -- is arguing that it shouldn't be. Read the article. And when it becomes the most commonly used term by English-speaking people, then the article should be moved as Wikipedia policy says it should be. Czechia's time will come, but we're not there yet.
And yes, personal attacks like "moron", "idiot" and "pest", and suggesting that people who disagree are not educated violate Wikipedia policy and are grounds for blocking. Please withdraw those remarks and apologize. 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Ground Zero | t

I disagree as the geographical name for the country of Ireland is Ireland yet the Wikipedia name is the republic of Ireland. As the State and region is not synonymous this is avoid People being upset over the troubles and the North. As the official name on legal documents published by the Czech government(not meaning its registered name in the un)is the Czech Republic, it should be kept as such. Unless of course there is a referendum on the name of the country as decided by popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for things like this, to maintain consistency and instead of us having editors reason things out from scratch all over again for every article. "Use the official name" isn't Wikipedia's guideline for article naming, so it isn't the principle being applied here. As for Republic of Ireland, because the island is also called "Ireland", there'd have to be disambiguation between the articles in any case. The official name, conveniently, lends itself to that. If the country's official name were "Ireland", then the country article would have to be titled "Ireland (country)" or something similar. Or else it would be titled "Ireland", and then the article about the island would be "Ireland (island)". Largoplazo (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As a czech I disagree that czechia should be used. In a referendum people voted against it, yet the government still used it and it is an undemocratic namer chosen in violation of the Czech referendum where the majority was against it46.135.110.245 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha :) There was no referendum about this thing, how could majority of people vote in nonexistent referendum? And is the government really using it so much? Strange post... Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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


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.

It seems to me that there is a parallel between the logic for Chelsea Manning's very high profile rename in 2013 and the multiple requests to move this article to Czechia. The Czech people, as represented by their government, have changed their name - just as Chelsea Manning changed hers. We should respect their wishes. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning is a person, this country is not. --Khajidha (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The Czech Republic is also welcome to name itself whatever it wants to in Czech. As for the English name, it simply depends on what becomes predominant usage in that language, and WP should reflect that. Doremo (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I just want to point out that we didn't change the name. The government has just added shorter name - Czechia that COULD but doesn't have to be used. The country's name is still the CZECH REPUBLIC. It's like Britain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or like France and its official name French Republic. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No, the point is that Czechia is currently an uncommon name, unlike the common name France. If Czechia becomes common then WP should reflect that. Doremo (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You two are basically saying "Czech Republic must use this name to show that it is meant seriously" but on the other hand "Czech Republic can't order English what to use, English can use whatever it wants". The only solution is "Czech Republic have to use it so much that English will notice and adopt it willingly". Tough task. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
English doesn't "want" do do anything; it is a language and has no volition. All languages gradually change, and maybe Czechia will someday come into common use in English. Or maybe not. Doremo (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"Czech Republic have to use it so much that English will notice and adopt it willingly". Yep. That's how a non-regulated language works. --Khajidha (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Google Maps has changed Czech Republic to Czechia, it has to be moved Von Sprat (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on the basis of what is commonly used in English. It does not take orders from Google Maps. It does not have to be moved.
The Czech government's English website uses "Czech Republic": [1]. The Czech Tourism Authority's website uses "Czech Republic" and the slogan "Czech Republic - Land of Stories". The argument that the Czech government has decided that "Czechia" is the official English name isn't valid. The Czech government isn't even using it. Ground Zero | t 22:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Your argumentation is invalid and quite disregarding. The project of the Czech Tourism Authority is running since 2012. Neither the slogan nor the logos, materials and so on can be changed in a matter of six months in a such long-term plan. The Czech government isn't even using it. The Czech government uses the formal, political name due to a certain diplomatic protocol, so as most other countries do. Take a look at the website of, for example, The Slovak government [2], Polish [3], Croatian [4], Bulgarian [5], Macedonian [6]. On the other hand, Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched a video last December promoting the name Czechia [7]. You are mistaking political and geographical name. I'm afraid that you are not informed properly and that you've made some incorrect conclusions. Oasis98 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Did you really just say that it was not possible to change "Czech Republic - Land of Stories" to "Czechia - Land of Stories" in six months? That just sounds ridiculous.--Khajidha (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, "launching a video to promote" the name will have VASTLY less effect than actually using the name. Don't tell people to change, show them that it has changed. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is not possible to change, "Czech Republic - Land of Stories" is (co-)funded by EU and conditions (and name) of promotional action is not possible to change when already started years ago (2012) before the "official Czechia introduction" (2016). Also government has clearly no intention to rename existing things (eg. throw away existing sport jerseys, but eventually change them next time they will be made which should be 3-year period). Article in Czech says that "Czech Republic" MUST be used until 2020 for program Czech Republic - Land of Stories. Elsewhere whatever, but this particular thing cannot change. It does not matter anyway, it would not change a thing for wikipedia accepting Czechia, so why are we discussing this thing anyway? Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

PLS stop (!!) this ugly contraproductive and off topic discussion that bothers us for some more years yet! -jkb- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The name of an article is not off-topic for discussion on the talk page of an article.
For what it's worth, both the CIA World Factbook[8] and the United States Department of State[9] have reflected the new name. On the other hand, only a few months ago The Guardian had this to say about it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Doing google news searches for the past month, I still see basically three types of results: 1) articles that are simply explaining the name, 2) English language press from non-English speaking countries (particularly Belarus for some reason, although actual Czech sources are finally increasing), and 3) very minor English as primary language sources (many having to do with casinos and cannabis, interestingly enough). This doesn't really strike me as indicating general acceptance of the name in English. --Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian article is written on demand by a friend of Mr. Jan Culik, who is a prominent Czechia opponent. This article is a classical example of poor journalism and is full of bias.Helveticus96 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The usage won't be forced by authorities (no mandatory renaming of companies etc.) so it will take time, you may monitor it and make graphs :) Making Czechia official simply decided which 1-word-alternative is the correct one, if someone wants to use the shorter variant - if(!). It was the same with Czech Česko, it took at least 15 years and there was the advantage of everyday news and need of writing about self. General acceptance - for now mainly in encyclopedic entries and maps,... you monitored just news which may increase later. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's not only encyclopedic and governmental data that moved on (CIA Factbook, US Dept. of State, The UK Ministry of Defence, United Nations,...). It looks like Google is working on fully adopting Czechia and removing the political name. It's already replaced "the Czech Republic" in some services and apps: eg. Google Maps show only Czechia, British Youtube has also Czechia in the location segment, Google Translator, Google Calendar. This's all came up approximately in the very last month. I guess that further actions will follow. Oasis98 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Its time for Wikipedia to stay ahead of the curve and make the change. The Google stuff is huge as hundreds of thousands of sites use their databases. In other words a large amount (if not majority) of drop downs pre populated with country names will show Czechia before the year is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X243m3 (talkcontribs) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because Wikipedia's mission is not "to stay ahead of the curve". Wikipedia reflects current general usage. You can list a hundred places where "Czechia" is being used, and it won't matter if the bulk of reliable sources are still saying "Czech Republic". WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Czechia is not an exact synonyme of the Czech Republic, as well as France is not an exact synonyme of French Republic etc. The short name is a geographical name of the area (country), the full name is a name of the current state organization (a republic in this case). The crucial question is what of the two related but different items should be the core of the article. Czechia has its unquestionable identity long before the first separate Czech Republic was created in 1969 within the Czechoslovak federation. During the previous unitary Czechoslovakia, Czechia had not its own republic but was officialy mentioned as "Czech regions" in the Czechoslovak legislation, while Slovakia had its asymmetrical autonomy. Some references about Czechia as the area of Czech lands and Czech language are findable even in the 19th century in English (in Latin since the 17th century). The name of the Czech Republic was not changed recently. The change was that the Czech government officially accepted (not invented!) the geographical name of the country, which was officialy acknowledged by geographical and cadastral authorities at least in 1990s already.

Maybe, the word "fruit" is more common than the word "apple", However, this is not a valid reason to title the article about apple with the name "Fruit". If the words are not exact synonymes, we choose the article title primarily by its meaning and by intended scope of the article and the naming system, not only by frequency of the words in English. Wikipedia is generally built on the principle that an article about existing country deals not only with the state organization but generally with the country including its natural and geographic conditions, history, society etc. That's why the geographic name of the country is generally preferred to the political one. The fact that some sources mention the Czech Republic more frequently than Czechia doesn't mean that "Czech Republic" is convenient as an timeless and non-political name of the country as the area. Maybe, some countries have no such timeless geographical names - that can be a reason to use the political name. However, Czechia is not such a case, even though some ignorant people never heard or never read this word before it became widely and officially popularized. --ŠJů (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A few people call an avocado an "alligator pear," but most do not. That is why the article is at "avocado" and not "alligator pear." That is also why the article Czech Republic is where it is. Doremo (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Are wikipedia readers mostly idiots who find the Czech Republic, but can not find Czechia? You don't know the function Redirect? from the Czech Republic to Czechia?
Many people don't know species of birds or flowers or trees. But the fact that majority of people is uneducated doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not distinguish terms and concepts. When we see a wood warbler, some minority of very educated and specialized people call it "wood warbler" or even Phylloscopus sibilatrix but crushing majority will call it simply as a "bird" or "small bird". Or even confuse it with some other species. But it is not a sensible reason to rename the article Wood warbler to Some small bird. I confess, I belong to such ignorants in many fields, as everybody. However, ignorance of such people should be not the determinative criterion for Wikipedia article titles. Opinion of acquainted specialists and authorities should have its relevance. In some items, we prefer official or expert systematical names to the slang or folklore names, even though they are widely used. Wikipedia should distinguish the geographical name from the political name and should have its system which of the two names should be systematically preferred for articles about countries, because the two names are not synonymical. Maybe, "Czech Republic" is more used as "Czechia", but the meaning is not identical. --ŠJů (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The distinction you're drawing is spurious. It may be that "Czechia" has been used in the past, even before the existence of the Czech Republic, to refer to part or all of the areas inhabited by Czechs, but the discussions on this page are about whether to name the article "Czechia" in connection with its one particular role as the official short name (in English) of the Czech Republic. As with "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" versus "North Korea" or "French Republic" versus "France", this is about which of two political names (these "short names" are no less officially declared than the fuller, formal names), which in the context of this discussion refer to the same thing, should be used as the title of the article. It isn't about differences in precision. Largoplazo (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Another point is that when English language sources want to talk about the entire history of the region, they already have a word for that: BOHEMIA. In English, Czechia (when used AT ALL) is used only as a short form of "the Czech Republic", the two terms have EXACTLY the same referent. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It can't be true. Otherwise Wikipedia would use it as common name for the article History of the Czech lands and similar ones. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Except that the Czechia boosters are also the ones who insist that Czechia does not equal Bohemia (because of Moravia and Silesia). They ignore the fact that in English Bohemia-proper, Moravia and (Czech) Silesia have all been included in the usual English meaning of the term Bohemia. To avoid that shit-storm, the other common English term (Czech lands) is used, but that has the drawback of being less of a national identity term than Bohemia. It all seems to come down to the idea that English should have the same frame of reference as Czech, and ignoring the fact that they are different languages and can thus conceive of things differently.--Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, Bohemian Crown -> Bohemia simplification, but Bohemia is no longer fitting for recent history. You can't say History of Bohemia and include whatever happened since 1993 or even 1918 and include Moravia or Silesia events. Also you would have two Bohemias with two meanings, too confusing. I think maybe Czechia could be first used on wiki in the name of that History article. "Czech lands" or "Bohemia" also do not match the (now) common name Czech Republic and its main article, so what, you can as well use Czechia :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
1) "two Bohemias" - not really, one of those is simply thought of as "that part of Bohemia that isn't Moravia or Silesia", not a separate thing. 2) We could use Czechia, but we don't because we follow English language usage and English language usage generally does not include Czechia. Bottom line, forget about changing Wikipedia's usage until you can show that usage outside of Wikipedia has changed significantly. Show me the major media and publisher usage of Czechia in the UK, the US, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand.--Khajidha (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
1) Yeah, really not confusing. 2) My point was that "Czech lands" is also not common English name - so Czechia won't be different and at least it is official. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
1) no more so than Serbia and "Serbia-proper" 2) But Czech lands is more common than Czechia and "official" is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
1) It's contemporary usage, Bohemia is no longer used that way you propose, so let us forget it completely :) 2) Right, right, Czech lands are like 2 sources ahead, but thanks to ancient sources. Let us describe and unify history of current Czech Republic and its predecessors by forgotten anachronic term, clever. Next we can search for recent events about German Federative Republic in article History of Prussia maybe. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that English handles all countries the same. Guess what? It doesn't. "But that isn't the way you talk about Germany!" is totally irrelevant to how we talk about this country. It is just as irrelevant as your point about "official names" earlier. In fact, every argument I've ever seen for the usage of Czechia has been either or both of the following: 1) it's official, 2) it's like other countries. Both of these are of no importance. Again, " forget about changing Wikipedia's usage until you can show that usage outside of Wikipedia has changed significantly. Show me the major media and publisher usage of Czechia in the UK, the US, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand." --Khajidha (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I had 3rd. It is allowed to stay for "Czech lands", equally uncommon name, which has disadvantage of being archaic and anachronic with sources old as a rock. Very strange to connect such name with current events. We have a chance to use modern term instead which is more likely to hear and see nowadays and is more likely to search it here. Both equally uncommon, 1 old, 1 new. What to choose! (Again: For the acticle History of ...)Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Something that is uncommon but has been around for a while would seem to me to be a better choice than something that is uncommon but has only been around for a very short time. Especially when most of the sources that contain the term "Czechia" are simply arguing for its usage. At least the sources that contain the term "the Czech lands" are actually using it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"Czechia" can beat "Czech lands" much quicker (so renaming of History article would be possible), but we will wait until "Czechia" beats (catches) "Czech Republic". Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The point is it doesn't beat either right now.--Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Find 3 differences: France x French Republic, formerly France x French Empire, formerly France x Kingdom of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Find differences: the first concentration camp in Germany x the first concentration camp in the Federal Republic of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How I love this stupid nazionalistic discussions. Czechia is commonly used in many countries. Today it's used to reffer on Czech republic, so I see not problem of redirect. Wikipedia isn't here to teach us what is more correct but to adapt to what is used. Nobody ever used Czechia to refer to Czech lands or Bohemia. Dominikmatus (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Short name: Czechia[edit]

See the above six-month moratorium on discussions of this nature. Largoplazo (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

The short name of the country is Czechia. I suggest changing the wording from "known as Czechia" to "short name: Czechia"

This name has been formally registered as the short name (official term) by the United Nations[1], Google maps[2], many departments of state (from USA[3] to the Philippines) as well as some encyclopedia like the CIA[4].

Please note this is not a suggestion to change the name of the page. The term "short name" is more correct than "known as". Actually it is still less "known" as Czechia than it is a fact that this is the oficially recognized short name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeregrinuxXX (talkcontribs) 13:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not noticing any difference in the page as displayed with EITHER form. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I thought the changes were just in the infobox (where it isn't visible). --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Infobox changes are useless (parameter short_name is not implemented). And about first sentence of the article - better to leave it as it is, it was a struggle, no party is fully satisfied but at least it is a lasting peace :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong as it is and it's rather tiring to keep seeing you push Czechia on everyone. LordAtlas (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Who truly read my posts know I am not pushing but rather trying to meet halfway and to find compromise - to inform about new facts (no concealing) but with accordance with its impact (no exaggeration). Like this new thread - better leave it as it is than begin another round of useless posts about tiring misunderstandings. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What you are arguing for is based on semantics. There is nothing wrong as it currently stands. LordAtlas (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
For supporters of Czechia it lacks "official short name", for opposers "also known as" is too strong, but I do not suggest any change and I am not arguing, read my posts, this thread was started by different user. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
But "official" doesn't mean anything to the English language. That's the central disconnect here. A lot of Czech's get excited that it is the "official short name as registered at the UN" but the general English speaking community doesn't give a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys for "official" (or the UN for that matter). --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Since "Czech Republic" is also official, that's, well, just a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. The same goes for laying this on English speakers. What do you suppose proportion of usage is in Google's most recent French language corpus of books between "Birmanie" and (the official) "Myanmar"? Three to one. In German, "Burma" and "Birma" together still outpaced "Myanmar" as of 2008, and in Spanish "Birmania" and "Myanmar" were only just neck-and-neck.Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
1) CR being official isn't relevant to the point. That point being that English adopts short form names with no necessary relationship to the official ones. Some match, some don't. And that lack of match is no reason to change usage. 2) We are discussing appeals from Czechs to change English usage, the French, Spanish, and German names for Burma could hardly be less relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think "also known as" is better, I am surprised, it sounds like it actually is known under that name, which is not (it is merely official but not known). If Wikipedia wants to exaggerate the familiarity, who am I to judge :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC
But it IS "also known as". It is known that way to many organizations. "Also known as" and "commonly known as" are two different things. Czechia has enough usage to justify an "also known as" tag, but not a "commonly known as" one. This is quite an advance. About a year ago "Czechia" was about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj" (or any other example of random letters). --Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
It is known that way to many organizations. - Well, it is known to many organizations as "official short name to put into databases or map" but not as "name to use in a sentence". If it qualifies for "also known as", then OK. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Khajidha: You said: About a year ago "Czechia" was about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj". Maybe, it applies to some people who know nothing about geography and about Central Europe. If we find out that most of uneducated people from "English speaking world" don't know alder or ash and call them all simply "tree", due their ignorance, should we pronounce that "alder" and "ash" are about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj"? Surely not. The acquainted and educated English speakers can be taken as a criterion of the right English usage - not some babbling of unknowing uneducated ignorants (who are not able to understand the distinction and relation between the geographical name of the country and the political name of the state and use some derivative adjective (Czech) obtusely, without any concern to the source substantive. Of course, we can decide to prefer the name of the republic to the name of the country for the article name, in case of this one country, as a strange exception. But please abstain from such absurd argumentation. --ŠJů (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Invalid comparison. We're not talking about someone not knowing about a generally used English term here. We are discussing the attempt to impose a new term upon the English language from outside. Totally different situations. Czechia has not even been familiar to educated English speakers. --Khajidha (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
You: English speakers are failing to call the country "Czechia" because English speakers don't care about what name is official. Me: When English speakers call it "Czech Republic", they are referring to it by an official name. You: Irrelevant!
You: And I'm singling out English speakers when I say this, because speakers of other languages, of course, don't do this. Me. That isn't true, there are speakers of other languages who don't jump to adopt other countries' official names [citing an example]. You: Irrelevant!
Your understanding of the concept of relevance is baffling. Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see how you got your interpretations of what I said.
Me: English speakers do not see "official" as a reason to adopt something.
Me: I'm not singling out English speakers. The conversation is about English usage. I never mentioned usage outside of English and Czech until you did.
--Khajidha (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else get the feel there's some weird disconnect here in understanding English? The Czechs don't seem to understand. LordAtlas (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I still do not understand why the is such a BIG issue in the English language. In Sweden, for instance, Czechia was called Tjeckien from the very first day of its independence. The more formal name Tjeckiska republiken is almost never used. Perhaps in very strict cases such as treaties and so on. But never in the everyday language. Short forms are of course much more convenient than long forms. Why is it not that way also in English? Why should this country not be treated in the same way as its neighbour and former partner Slovakia, which is seldom referred to by its formal name Slovak republic? --Muniswede (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And I still do not understand why this seems to matter so much to some people. How can what another language calls something be of any importance to you? To me this makes no more sense than asking "Why does English call the color 'blue'?" --Khajidha (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Btw., Czechia as a country existed (within various state formations) long time ago, before the independent Czech Republic. How did English call Czechia before 1969, when Czechia was the bigger part of Czechoslovakia, but had not its own republic? How a standing name has English for Czechia during all its periods when the country was included in or consisted of various republics, kingdoms, duchies, margraviates, lands and protectorates? Czech Republic was established in 1969 and became independent in 1993, but Czechia existed a long time before that. Should be the right English usage assessed according to some uneducated ignorants, who never heard about Czechia before 1993, but some of them even live with the mistaken assumption that Czechoslovakia is a country identical to the Czech Republic? Czechia is the country, Czech Republic is the republic. --ŠJů (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
"How did English call Czechia before 1969, when Czechia was the bigger part of Czechoslovakia, but had not its own republic?" BOHEMIA. If we thought of it at all we called it Bohemia, as we had for centuries. Or just "the Czech part of Czechoslovakia" --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Are you able to assert such an elementary mistake even past many months of your participation in related discussions? Bohemia existed since the Early Middle Ages, and stil exists within the Czech Republic, but it was (and is) only one of Czech lands - Bohemia fills about two thirds of the area of the whole Czechia only. The whole Czechia consists of Bohemia, Moravia and the Czech Silesia (about 1/10 of the whole Silesia). The arise of the Czech Republic in 1969 as well as its independence since 1993 changed nothing on these facts. The new Czech Republic was named according to the long ago existing country of Czechia, populated (besides particularly German minority) by Czechs (i.e. especially Bohemians and Moravians), who use Bohemian, Moravian and Silesian dialects of the Czech language. English language has the big advantage that it is able to distinguish Czechia and Bohemia, Czech and Bohemian. (Even Czech language is not able to distinguish the two adjectives, and distinguishes only the two substantives.) Yes, there exists a dilemma which of the two names to use, but unfortunately, even hopelessly confused and unknowing people can obstruct the factual decision making. --ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Maybe, you was also confused by the strange list of the "previous formations" (while the corresponding formation at the area of Czechia, Czech lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown, is missing). These are formations related to Czechia, but some of them (duchy and kingdom of Bohemia) contained only one part of Czechia, some of them (Czechoslovakia) exceeded area of Czechia significantly. Regrettably, many uneducated people mix all the terms together and are not able to distinguish them. --ŠJů (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Not confused, not mistaken. Simply explaining English usage to you. In English, the whole thing is "Bohemia", with Moravia and Silesia as little considered portions thereof. It is a different language, you know, the conceptions aren't going to match 100% with Czech. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is this still a thing? You Czechs can do whatever the hell you want at the Czech Wikipedia. The English one uses English. You don't get to randomly boss people around. No one cares what you call the country in Czech. LordAtlas (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Motto and Formation date of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia dispute[edit]

Edit war were reverted to state before May 2017. You can express yourself User:ŠJů and User:Mujdeda dispute. I don't have sourced evidence about formation, but I am sure that it is presidential and also national motto because of depiction of version of Coat of arms of the Czech Republic. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Greater coat of arms of the Czech Republic didn't contain the motto, but the presidential flag contains the presidential motto (it's not a different version of the Czech coats of arms but an usage of the coats of arms in the presidential flag). That's surely not a proof that the motto is a national motto oficially. Even though the presidential motto comes out of some national (especially Husitte) traditions, it is simply not an official national motto. Czech Republic has no official motto. --ŠJů (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was a coerced formation, under German occupation, and was not recognized oficially and was nullified retroactively, but it was actually a real formation with a real power on the area of Czechia, even though the exiled Czechoslovak government existed paralelly and countinuously. From the historical view, this formation cannot be omitted. (From the philosophical view, every state formation has a forcible nature, even though it can have less or more of legitimacy).
However, also some other corrections of inaccuracies were reverted improperly:
* In 1993, the Czech Republic dídn´t arise but only became independent.
* If the table distinguishes "Czech Socialist Republic" and "Czech Republic", also the date of this renaming (6 March 1990) should be stated correctly. --ŠJů (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In the case of motto ThecentreCZ is right. Greater coat of arms of the Czech Republic have 2 versions. One constitutional without and one with the motto Pravda vítězí and linden leaves. This version is also used in Presidential Standard but not only, also used other ways for example on talking stand of the President on Prague Castle and other places.[5] You have bad impression because as you anticipate, the motto is not directly contained in the Constitution described as "national motto" like for example in France. But that is not the problem, the column of motto is not constitutional information only, same as for example patron saint of any country, which is not oficially adpoted in any secular countries of course. We have same situation as for example in German motto Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit which is descripted as (de facto). Motto Pravda vítězí is national motto of the Czech Republic and also of Czechoslovakia since adoption of Constitution of Czechoslovakia in 1920 depicted in Greater Coat of arms of Czechoslovakia[6]. It is like this in every article like First Czechoslovak Republic also Socialist Czechoslovakia and motto Veritas Vincit is considered as motto also of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, which have it also on presidential flag. So I suggest to add here also notice Truth prevails (de facto) like Germany and other nations, because that could be disinterprated.
In the case of formation I don't have specific issue with marking renaming or something, but Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia can't marked as precedding state. Even Slovakia don't have their formation as Slovak State in 1939 marked in there, because Constitution of the Slovak Republic by it's rule of law abandonned Fascist statehood as something immoral by decision of Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic. And that is Slovakia which had more less sovereign Slovak Republic (1939-1945). But Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was part of Nazi Germany, no way independent country like Slovakia. We would have to metion in formation mark also every annexetion and changing of borders of Kingdom of Bohemia for 1000 years of existence. --Mujdeda (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Let's be logical here[edit]

Not a suitable topic for discussion, per #RFC: 6-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
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.

Quite frankly, the totalitarian maintainance of the title Czech Republic is irresponsible, delusional and unethical. Wikipedians, you have no choice over what the nation is called. If the Czech government wishes us to use Czechia, we use Czechia. If they wanted us to call it 'Bandiaterra', we would call it Bandiaterra. If Wikipedia existed in the 1990s, the current logic would require we called the Commonwealth of Independent States "the Soviet Union" as it is still the most commonly used name. Ridiculous! As I once was a Wikipedian however, I do realise a consensus of sorts is required as not all will agree - so I propose this (possibly radical) step - that only Czech users and IPs can decide the name of the article, a system that would be IP monitored by admins. This would be solely limited to those with a Czech IP so we avoid any conflicts of interest with users who may claim to be Czech but really are not. Links used to direct people to this article should remain as what they currently stand, be it Czechia or Czech Republic, until the Czechs have reached a consensus. Wikipedia once was great, where people just got on with the job without having silly squabbles over what are essentially two wrongs - but a serious step needs to be taken. For an acceptable consensus to be reached, outsiders should not have a choice in the matter as it is not our problem. (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If we are being logical, only users and IPs form English-speaking countries should be allowed to edit the article. Czechs do not get to dictate the English language. English Wikipedia uses English as it is. Stop trying to push others around. Czechs can stick to the Czech Wikipedia if they want to as they are Czech speakers and not English speakers. YOU are the outsiders on English Wikipedia by your own logic. LordAtlas (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You both are wrong. Of course it is not OK to let only Czechs to contribute on this article. And of course Czechs (Czech Republic) has its say how it wants to be called in English, otherwise what are UN databases for? Of course English (users/language) can ignore these official names (political and geographic) but has no imminent reason (and it does not ignore - it uses one of those registered names). It is not the same as "Czechs are trying to dictate English language how to call window/bike/door in English", so do not try to present it this way. For now common name is Czech Republic, other sites are more flexible, Wikipedia is bound by other rules. And look at this graph which shows how long it took Czechoslovakia to beat Bohemia, and how long it took Czech Republic to beat Czechoslovakia! I gues Wiki would wait until 1933 to finally recognize Czechoslovakia. Maybe. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
UN databases are for UN usage, not general language usage. And how is it different from your "window/bike/door" example? It's still a word. Word usage in any language is determined primarily by native speakers of that language.--Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Word versus proper noun - that's the difference. So should I expect "Czechoslovakia" was English language's own idea? Don't be ridiculous! :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
A proper noun is a word. Stop pushing POV on how English speakers speak. We don't call Japan "nihon". LordAtlas (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017[edit]

change "In January 2017 Czechia replaced Czech Republic on Google Maps." to "Most of the online map providers use the official undisputed form Czech Republic." Only google is using Czechia, all the others (yahoo, bing, msn) use Czech Republic. And majority is what matters. (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: We should call out the exception, regardless of the other online map providers. So, I disagree with your request in the general case. Izno (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@ The site traffic and the world importance of the map websites should be also considered. In Europe, Google maps are definitely the dominant worldwide map website. Yahoo, Bing and Msn maps are almost unknown and very rarely used (maybe, obsolete and inaccurate data related to European facts can be corresponding to the negligible usage and missing feedback and maintenance). However, Google maps distorts many names of Czech sites and organizations also. The question is, whether just the uneducated, ignorant or negligent English-language speakers or editors should be the decisive gauge of good English, or rather the acquainted and intelligent ones (even though they are always a minority). Btw. "Czech Republic" is undisputed as the official name of the state form (in the context of full formal political names of other republics and kingdoms) but is very problematic and inappropriate as an equivalent (parallel) of geographical names of other countries, and unusable as the timeless name of the country. --ŠJů (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not among the intellectual variant if you believe you can dictate English. English speakers can say what they like. As can you Czechs. They are not the same language. Your flowery language is a poor attempt at coercion through faux superiority. LordAtlas (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote earlier, before someone conveniently closed previous topic: Czechoslovakia was not invented by English language, it was pushed (dictated if you may) by Czechoslovakia. Of course proper nouns are different than just "words". And same with Czechia. And of course - no, it cannot be changed now or any time near. But about this one: That paragraph lists examples where Czechia has been already adopted, not list of those which has not yet. Why to silence Google maps with number of less (or far less) important map providers?! Simply - Google adopted, and others have not adopted - it goes without saying. "Only Google" - very funny combination of words, as in "his webpage can be found ONLY on Google". BTW once again this is discussion between Czechs :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want to be Czechs only and whatnot, stay on Czech Wikipedia. Problem solved. Proper nouns ARE just words. If English speakers don't use Czechia, too bad for you. We don't speak Czech. LordAtlas (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You are commenting something else than was said, I see it repeatedly in your smug posts. Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"once again this is discussion between Czechs" could easily be taken to mean that "the discussion should be Czechs only".--Khajidha (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, I meant "is" as "is" and quite clearly LordAtlas thought "should". No, Anonymous IP address is Czech, opponents are Czechs and a few Non-Czechs are witnessing battle between them... again... which is kind of lame :) And ARE NOT, proper nouns much more easily slips into different language (who wants to rename all the towns and people and sportsmen during sport event...) without change or with some kind of quick and simple transcription or transliteration method. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

See this archive of this talk page. As the result of a consensus, there is a one-year moratorium on discussing this here. There is one general rule that applies (WP:COMMONNAME), and there is no need for endless repetition of the same arguments (such as "Google Maps says 'Czechia'") that don't satisfy that guideline. By the way, this is also why the page is protected. And, also, please pay attention to WP:CIVIL, User:LordAtlas. Largoplazo (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That moratorium means "discussion about move is 'forbidden'". This is something else - anonymous IP address proposed to delete mentions about Google using Czechia. Yes, it is "Czechia related topic", but not "Move this article" kind of topic or "Use Czechia more" or "Why is Czechia better name" topic. Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples of increasing usage of Czechia[edit]

Please stop, User:Chrzwzcz (and others). DMacks (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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.

Just recent examples of increasing usage of Czechia (slow... slowwwww.... but steady). No intention to move this article (!), just FYI...

  • Pilsner Urquell, famous Czech beer known worldwide, finally changed "brewed in Plzeň - Czech" to "brewed in Plzeň - Czechia"
  • launched - for now it is just redirection to an english version of promotional site operated by Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but this page uses Czechia a bit (for those who said Czech officials are not using it at all)
  • also on facebook

Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've got the right honey pot? :-) -jkb- (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It was just FYI. "The Move" is not closer, but as a recall to last year Guardian article "The trouble is, Czechia is not catching on. Czech authorities continue to use the term Czech Republic on official correspondence and English-language websites..." - at least some progress, right, if Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses it here and there... It was unthinkable a year ago. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No one cares. I'm not staying civil if you are going to continue this nonsense. Czech Republic is the official name and we use it. Czechia is a short name, regardless of official status or not, and we don't use it. So what? Why are you so determined to push this name? "Progress" seems to be nothing short of your own personal bias. All you've shown is a couple Czech sources use the name in one or two instances. It doesn't matter what the Czechs do. No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. What matters is what the English-speaking world does. LordAtlas (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Esthonia and the Ukraine[edit]

Estonia's name was Esthonia prior to 1921. You can see it on this map. Yet the country's article only mentions it in one sentence in the Etymology section. And the case wasn't as clear-cut either (source).

Ukraine was called the Ukraine prior to 1993. The article mostly uses the form Ukraine, even warning that the other name is offensive.

I wonder if these similar case can help the discussion. I've checked the archives and nobody mentioned Esthonia.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this relevant? --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
They aren't relevant because this case is being evaluated against common usage in English regarding the identification of this country. Further, there is, by consensus, a moratorium on discussing this issue. Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any relevance to this case either. Also the moratorium was archived so newcomers won't know about it and occasional link "Not a suitable topic for discussion, per #RFC: 6-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions." does not work. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017[edit]

I want to report vandalism, user called Heptapolein removed (at 10:21, 13 July 2017) big chunk of text which was clearly relevant. i.e. Bing maps really do use Czech Republic and not Czechia. The other parts of removed text were using relevant sources and all cited facts used references according to Wikipedia policy for references. Please revert this change and blacklist Heptapolein. (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, all is reported and true, it should stay, but...
The first part - it tells a story about (only) those who adopted the change (others have not yet, it goes without saying, doesn't it, why to list them - to undermine it or what? If Bing changes it in the future, will you find other less important map server to show not all are on board?).
The other part - A while ago a discussion was closed with "It doesn't matter what the Czechs do. No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. What matters is what the English-speaking world does." The deleted/reverted part and source tells exactly that - what Czechs do and think. So now what? Do you or do you not care what Czechs do and call their country?! :)
Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Chrzwzcz, there's a difference between "reporting what is happening" (like the paragraph in question) and "using what is happening as justification for changing terminology".--Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
As "No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. Unless you use the same as we are then we do care deeply." Well, and what about "reporting what is happening which shows (very) slow increase of usage but with no intention of immediate change of wikipedia terminology, just updating info about the progress"? I was sent to hell and back with that. Here we have "reporting that someone already uses new terminology but let's quickly show another example of someone (be it less important) who heroically resisted". Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
A company changing its tune to make customers happy is not the same as a language changing. LordAtlas (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)