Jump to content

Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Consistency

I know many people are tired of the Czechia/Czech Republic discussion but I have 1 thing to say.

See look many people are talking about how more people use Macedonia rather than North Macedonia, Burma rather than Myanmar but yet when the name changed the Wikipedia title changed. The response was that those countries changed there official and short names.

But what about Cape/Cabo Verde? It changed its official and short name from Cape Verde to Cabo Verde, yet no name change. Also Cabo Verde is used more according to Google Trends.

Ivory Coast/Côte D’Ivoire has a similar case where the official and short name changed, yet no name change. Although Ivory Coast is used more.


Wikipedia needs to be consistent.

If it’s when both official and short names change then what about Cape/Cabo Verde, and Ivory Coast/Côte D’Ivoire?

If it’s when the short name changes then what about Cape/Cabo Verde, Ivory Coast/Côte D’Ivoire, and Czechia/Czech Republic

If it’s when the majority of people use a different name that’s when you change it then what about Macedonia/North Macedonia, Burma/Myanmar, and Cape/Cabo Verde?

If it’s when map sources like Google Maps use a different name that’s when you change it then what about, Ivory Coast/Côte D’Ivoire, and Czechia/Czech Republic?

In previous discussions like this one, they do talk about Cape/Cabo Verde, but the response was that the majority of people use Cape Verde instead, which according to Google Trends is now incorrect.


It doesn’t make sense currently, Wikipedia needs to be consistent with its naming of countries. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's say naming is consistent (most commonly used... all that), but reasonings and argumentation to back it in RMs are not. What is unimportant source or not an issue for one country, is necessary condition for Czechia. One such example of argument: Czechia is not on name plates of UN - thus it is not a commonname for Wikipedia. Russia is not on name plates - does not hurt anything!! So no "necessary conditions" in discussion, please, there never was such thing. Also: no 'single article sources'. CNN used Czech Republic in such and such article. So? It used Czechia in another one. Get me statistics how much is Czechia used by CNN, not a single article proof. I hope such inconsistencies are at least left out for closing argumentation, that COMMONNAME is a little mix of everything, no "necessary source" conditions, no one-definitive-proof kind of thing. Chrz (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the point by WikiMakersOfOurTime, I don't agree with your assessment that we're inconsistent. We are consistent, in that we follow Wikipedia's sitewide policy of adhering to the WP:COMMONNAME in English reliable sources, in almost all cases. You are asking for us to follow a different guideline instead, of using the official country name where that exists. Well that would be an option, but it isn't the one we've chosen. Beyond that, there is no clear case of an inconsistency anywhere. You mention Burma/Myanmar, but if you look at the history of move requests at Talk:Myanmar, you'll see that it took a very long time before we decided to make the switch from Burma to Myanmar - it didn't happen until 2015, and the reason it happened was because common usage had decisively changed by that point. Similarly, for Ivory Coast, it once did reside at Côte d'Ivoire, but it was moved to "Ivory Coast" in 2012 when a move request determined that "Ivory Coast" was much more commonly used in sources. For North Macedonia and Eswatini, however, for whatever reason (beyond Wikipedia's influence) sources immediately switched to the new names, and there we therefore followed suit. Your point about Cape Verde also seems incorrect - an ngram still shows "Cape Verde" leading considerably as of 2019.[1]
As for Chrz's point, you'll be aware that determining common usage can be a tricky thing. I'm certainly a believer in ngrams, as they're usually quite objective and they represent the usage in a wide variety of book sources, which ideally should be considered among the more reliable of our sources. But of course, media sources etc. are also of interest, which is why people start flicking through sites like CNN and the BBC to determine what they do. There's no empirical formula to it, which is why it relies on people searching through the available evidence and making a case for one or the other title at the RM, which the closer then evaluates. My personal interest in this is that I strongly favour using the common name, and I don't apply any other personal opinions into the mix. I was for a long time against the Burma -> Myanmar move, as well as Kiev -> Kyiv, but once the evidence was presented and seemed incontrovertible, I switched to supporting the move. The same will happen with Czechia, if such a switch in usage ever occurs.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course. Ngram - books, one part of a bigger picture. Commonname is a mix of a lot of influences. So I am especially annoyed by opposing arguments like "it does not fulfil this one condition I consider determining, so: no". "people searching through the available evidence" - was it this last case? Just a few examples, one per website. One article from CNN, one from euronews. It that a proper "research"? What do I expect "CNN used Czechia in 2 % of articles last year", "Euronews used it in 0 %", "Google maps switched completelly (what else, show one name on big map and other name on smaller?"), "EU has its own style guide, changed it, so it uses it pretty much consistently", "BBC used it only in references regarding renaming", "these US school atlas uses both (short in brackets)", "UN used in 95 % of last year articles, but it is not on name plates", "Czech sport (if it even counts) used it like once during whole olympics" (examples, not actual numbers). THIS I consider a "research". It is hard, it lies heavily on shoulders of supporters, but it MUST be shown that THAT matters, if opposing party shows proofs like "it is clearly not a commonname, and that's that". Chrz (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I was using Google Trends, instead of Google Ngram Viewer for my statement that Cabo Verde is used more.
Also for my other claim about Macedonia/North Macedonia I also used Google Trends.
I seemed to have mistaken Burma/Myanmar as in Google Trends, as Myanmar is more popular according to it. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Did you look at the data for Cape Verde/Cabo Verde? The US, the UK, Canada, India, and South Africa all show far more usage of Cape Verde. Cabo Verde leads mainly in countries that are Portuguese or Spanish speaking... where that is the native spelling. --Khajidha (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Google trends results for:
Burma/Myanmar: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Burma,Myanmar
Cape Verde/Cabo Verde: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Cape%20Verde,Cabo%20Verde
Czech Republic/Czechia: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Czech%20Republic,Czechia
East Timor/Timor Leste/Timor-Leste: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=East%20Timor,Timor%20Leste,Timor-Leste
Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire/Côte d'Ivoire: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Ivory%20Coast,Cote%20d%27Ivoire,C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire
Kiev/Kyiv: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Kiev,Kyiv
Swaziland/Eswatini/eSwatini: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Swaziland,Eswatini,eSwatini
Looking at those, East Timor might be ready for a change here, and Kiev seems to have been moved at just about the only time in the last 17 years that Kyiv was being used more in English. Otherwise, our titles seem to match usage.--Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Trends represent what people search for, maybe use in spoken language too, maybe not... Is it a reliable source then? Should Wikipedia show people what they think it is called, or should it show what it actually IS called (books, newspaper, maps)? Or what people think it is called actually shapes what it is called in general? If so, does googlesearching properly represent usage among people? And how much is their say if other sources say differently? People say and search for Kiev, sources "push" Kyiv, who's right then? PS: You were actually against Timor Leste in Trends in the last RM, you broke it by region and... Chrz (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm still breaking it by region. But the proportion of usage of Timor Leste (with or without the hyphen) has moved to be roughly the same as that for East Timor. Some English speaking countries use East Timor more, some English speaking countries use Timor Leste more. We are at the tipping point there.--Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Google Trends don't have much bearing on article title discussions, as the WP:COMMONNAME policy applies to what reliable sources use commonly, not what the general public do. And Google Trends is all about search queries, not sources. When it comes to East Timor, ngrams still show "East Timor" ahead of the combined score for "Timor Leste" and "Timor-Leste", by around 0.000064343973 to 0.0000417646, as of 2019. It's narrowing though, so perhaps eventually it will tip the other way.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I did say "might" be time. It could tip either way, but it definitely deserves close attention at this point. --Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was the only democracy in Central Europe during the interwar period

It sounds a bit like there was no Weimar Republic or II Polish Republic (before Piłsudski). From the source: "Politically, Czechoslovakia stood out as the only country in Central and Eastern Europe to remain democratic throughout the entire interwar period." So the sentence could be changed to something that resembles the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.232.38.105 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, also a similar wording to that is used in the lede, so it should be too in the lower section. Have just changed it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion length

WP:NOTFORUM
Yes, editors waste a lot of time about trivial things which appear important to them. That's not relevant to improving the article; and concerns about the SPA-like editing of some are also better dealt with at ANI if and only if that goes in hand with other problems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (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 recent move discussion was certainly intense. Combined with the moratorium section, it was about 30 kilobytes longer than the entire article. JIP | Talk 20:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

These things happen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
You should know that the subject of this article is further described in dozens of "Main article:" links and hundreds other articles. And it affects them too. So count the length of every article with "Czech Republic" in the title or better every article with "Czech Republic" in them. THEN it will be representative math. Thank you. Also maybe next time it will be shorter when it will lay some ground rules and consultation first. Chrz (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
About making things shorter: Of your 893 edits since 2015, 390 of them are to this talkpage.[2] You have added 167,191 bytes to it, significantly more than any other editor, and more than a quarter of the total.[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
That Star Trek thing of yours is a better example. That is the only acrticle about the topic, so there yes, discussion about the move exceeds the described topic. Shorter: Do you want to argue, or what? Is it usefull, this thread? Making blames, counting bytes and edits, mocking? The only important thing is strength of arguments, not count of bytes. I lost it does not mean my arguments were all bad. Next time, when I won't need to describe to opposers that Trends was not and won't be a reliable source (etc.) or I will have confidence that it won't be considered during closing, I can be silent and focus on one thing. There. Significantly more because I know about the stuff ;) the local with sources and proofs. All opposer must do is repeating "not a commonname, the end". The burden of proof is on supporters. You pushed away and also banned other supporters so that's a surprise. Even one supporter can make a case with great evidence against a hundered of opposers. But ENOUGH about me. Chrz (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:MORATORIUM

There is consensus for a one-year moratorium (i.e. until 11 August 2022) on move discussions for this article (subject to the usual common sense exceptions). Some have suggested, quite sensibly, I think, that any future RM would benefit from being discussed on this talk page in advance. Colin M (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2021 (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.


Per the continued discussion after the close of Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_25_July_2021, I think it would be a splendid idea to put a one-year WP:MORATORIUM on discussions about the title of this article. Let's do something else for a year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support For the same reasons as in the past: If and when "Czechia" meets the applicable criteria to become the article's title, then it can do so. However, such a shift is going to be gradual, not something that can be discerned by checking back weekly or monthly. Renaming isn't a matter of urgency: There's no need to pounce on the hypothetical exact day that the criteria are met and rush to change the title before the sun goes down. An annual discussion is plenty. That gives time for newer sources supporting such a change to accumulate to a degree that the possibility of a change in outcome becomes realistic. It also reduces disruption to those who have this article and talk page on their watchlists. Largoplazo (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe read, what the discussion is about - splendid moratorium already proposed by me :) 21 October 2016, 19 June 2018, 22 November 2019, 25 July 2021, as you can see, RMs are not started a day after moratorium expires, no fear of a discussion once per 365 days and 0 hours. This attempt was pretty much wasted as I wrote in the beginning, maybe consultation before starting the process would be nice next time. Chrz (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. If Czechia ever becomes the most popular term then that's that. :) But, you can't be starting a move request every month. :) Especially if there is no new data. :) Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm not particularly keen on fixed-time moratoria, because the change in common usage from Czech Republic to Czechia (if that ever occurs, which it might not) isn't going to happen at at point in time we can predict now. Future RMs should be predicated on the evidence changing in a demonstrable fashion, whether that be 3 months, 1 year or 5 years from now. That said, I can see Largoplazo's point that it's very unlikely to be within one year, so it can reduce disruption and time wasting to shut down discussion again for that period of time.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with usual qualifier that genuine new events can overturn the moratorium. I agree that moratoriums shouldn't be needed in general, but this is really more of a sanity check due to the number of people who feel really strongly about the issue and open repeated MRs over it. If another MR is opened in the future, it should be after discussing the matter on the talk page first, and directly addressing the COMMONNNAME argument. SnowFire (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Afraid that this is ineffective. Seeing how previous moratoriums were basically just timeouts until the requested move was resurrected once again (don't know how many of its 9 lives that cat has exhausted so far), I'm more concerned that this stems from more annoying SOAPBOX and long-term NOTHERE stuff by some, and don't think that just putting off the problem until next year, and then the year after next, and so on so forth, is going to make it go away. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, the previous moratorium expired in November 2020 and we actually managed to limp through to July 2021 before a new RM was started. Still not ideal though, given that no real new evidence had emerged, and we all had to devote a lot of time to it. It would be good if a moratorium included a condition that new evidence is required, going beyond the one year, but I don't know whether that can be done in a robust and objective manner...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    IMO, a one year timeout is not nothing. Not perfect, but not unhelpful/ineffective. Doing it again after a year (more if we're lucky, as Amakuru noted) is better than doing it again next week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hence SnowFire's "If another MR is opened in the future, it should be after discussing the matter on the talk page first, and directly addressing the COMMONNNAME argument." We would last more than 20 months since last moratorium expired, but it was opened by one random passer-by enthuisiast (sorry), we regulars would not do it. (But we tried to win it anyway since there was the threat that it will result in moratorium - and it happens, evidently.) So next time, consultation before opening (with me for example :D)) Chrz (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm wondering about the feasibility, within the Wikipedia way of doing things, of imposing a moratorium (of at least one year) that won't end until someone makes a proposal that argues based on what the guidelines call for. The proposal that was just dispensed with linked to those guidelines—and then completely ignored them, raising only the same arguments that, time and time again, have failed to lead to a renaming, and that will remain irrelevant to a renaming decision for as long as the guidelines remain as they are. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Opposing side was not all gold either. Eg. same old Google Trends argument which does not represent usage in sources etc. So try to teach both sides next time :) This last move request just happened out of the blue. Next time it would be nice to set ground rules before the matter is really opened. Chrz (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    (1) The burden is on those who want a change to justify the change. (2) I basically took a stab at laying out ground rules immediately after the proposal was posted. Of course, they weren't enforceable just because I wrote them, but they won't even influence anybody who doesn't even look at them. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    I suggest this: Dear opposers, Google Trends is not relevant. Ngram is not the definitive proof. One proof per website is not a proof, show me frequency on those websites (in last year). Consistency and 5 principles are in play too (though maybe later in the game). Supporters, do not mention Kyiv, Macedonia, Eswatini, did not help, won't help. No "all states on wikipedia have short name" argument. No "it's official" argument. ANd maybe also no "Wikipedia affects other because it's no 1 result in search engine". (Though maybe that rule will change a little, I don't think it is handled well, Wikipedia should not "lead", but also should not drag something down.)
    This would save at least 50 % of this last RM. Everyone would know these are not teh arguments to play, maybe some moderator could cross such comments during the RM ;) Nah, too extensive. Chrz (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, Czechia will eventually become the common name, as happened with Kyiv/Kiev. As such, kicking this bucket down the road a little further is the perfect response, though I wouldn't mind if the moratorium was a little longer than a year to better address the issues you raised. As such, support moratorium. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some mistake?

In the Cuisine subsection, it says: “ Tourism around the Southern Moravian region has been producing wine …” *Tourism* is producing wine? Boscaswell talk 06:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How much of the rail network is electrified?

The Transportation subsection has two wildly different figures. Boscaswell talk 06:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the figures is for length of lines, one is for length of tracks. FromCzech (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rollback to rev 1073042748 of 18:49, 20 February 2022

A dynamic, IP-hopping user has been edit warring to force their PoV about the historical name of the country into the article, in the following edits:

with edit summaries like, removed confusion of Czech Republic with Bohemia. Apparently, he doesn't like the fact that the Czech Republic was "historically known as Bohemia", and he consistently removes or alters that statement, sometimes removing reliable sources as well. The IP user confuses the historical name of the political entity, with the names of the areas that make up the modern nation. The following users have reverted this edit warring IP: @Khajidha, FromCzech, Qertis, and Mathglot:, some more than once (separated by more than 24 hours, due to the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions in effect). This indicates a 4 – 1 consensus against the IP currently.

Therefore, I propose a rollback to revision 1073042748 of 18:49, 20 February 2022 by User:Khajidha. This would be the version just before the IP started to go on their campaign.

In the meantime, I will be requesting semi-protection of the article to make it out of bounds to IPs; however, that would only last for a limited time—some days, or a week perhaps. If semi-protection is granted, and the POV warrior reappears upon expiration in order to force their POV into the article again, I or someone should ask for them to be WP:BLOCKed at WP:ANI. Please add your thoughts below about the rollback proposal. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please also monitor contributions from CIDR range Special:Contributions/2003:D8:8F26:7E00:9C5C:998E:F989:C11F/48 where contributions from the same editor using a new IP not seen before may pop up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure I agree with the wording that the Czech Republic was "historically known as Bohemia". The Czech Republic was founded in 1993 and never known as Bohemia. It's more accurate to say that the territory of the Czech Republic, aka the Czech lands, is historically known as Bohemia. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe:, yes, I see your point, I guess I never read it that way, but you're right given that wording. How would you adjust it, so that it says what the (removed) source said, and maintain accuracy and reliability? Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure we necessarily have to list all potential names in the first sentence of the article. My suggestion would be remove it from the first sentence and explain the term "Bohemia" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, like so: "The territory of the Czech Republic, historically known as Bohemia, became dependent on the Carolingian Empire..." (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe: sounds fine to me; since I'm involved, I'll wait a couple days to see if others want to weigh in first, or just BE BOLD, since you're uninvolved. Just in case others do comment here: Buidhe's quotation above does include "Czech lands", in the piped link "[[Czech lands|territory of the Czech Republic]]" which I think is a good solution here. Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, this is dumb. No one calls it "Bohemia" or atleast I have never encountered it in my life. It does not have to be in the lead and we can move it to "Etymology" part. It creates further confusion and is obsolote. Remove it. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "I never heard of it" is not the standard for removing sourced content from Wikipedia articles. Studying history involves learning lots of things that are obsolete, and an encyclopedia is one of the places you can find such information. This is a discussion about how to best present it. That said, I'm not holding out for including it in the lead at all costs, but Etymology wouldn't be the place to move it to. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the semi-protection just applied to the article to prevent disruption, and the recent improvements (see next section for context), a rollback is no longer needed, or appropriate. We can just carry on improving the article from this point. Thanks for all the feedback, and especially for the edits which have improved the article. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor issue about neighbours

Slovakia is in the east, not in the southeast. If Slovakia is in the southeast, then Germany is in the northwest (3 degrees of longitude overlap, Germany is north of Prague, while only 2 degrees overlap with Slovakia, even Brno is west of Slovakia). Also the quoted source (no. 14) explicitly states: It is bordered by Poland to the northeast, Germany to the west, Austria to the south and Slovakia to the east", so the article does not cite the source correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.193.18 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Cutting the history in the lead

On a related note, having two paragraphs of the lead devoted to the history before the Czech Republic was founded seems disproportionate. I'd say it should be cut dramatically. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; I'd reduce paragraphs two and three to a couple of sentences, and merge any information there that is unique into the #History section. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The history part of the lead could be reduced a bit, certainly, but it should be done carefully to make sure it's representative of the whole history of the country including the Bohemian period. Country articles don't only cover the history since they became known under their current name, or under current borders, they summarize the entire history. Let us know what is proposed for this.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, I already did it in this edit. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
You cannot reduce 1000 years of the history of this country into a single sentence. Bohemia, now known as Czechia and/or the Czech Republic, was founded 1100 years ago. The country was known as Bohemia for over 1000 years. All historical sources and all articles dealing with the history of the country before 1918 use this name. The Czechs were called Bohemians and the Czech language was known as the Bohemian language until the early 20th century. Bohemia should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lede in bold, just like Siam, Persia or Ceylon are mentioned here, here and here respectively. Qertis (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Reverted your revert. This is a parent article in summary style, which has sections on #Prehistory, #Bohemia, #Czechoslovakia, and #Czech Republic. Of those four, #Bohemia is the largest. There is a 40kb child article on Bohemia, which is linked from the {{Main}} link in that section. There is no reason to have a long section in the lead that repeats the section already in the article. I wouldn't object to a brief sentence or two, which I think was there before, and could be restored. But adding a long writeup on it would be an WP:UNDUE preference of Bohemia in the lead. The 1000 years of history of Bohemia is more properly covered at History of Bohemia (in the Bohemia article) which has a detailed writeup about it; there's no reason for it here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I also disagree with this edit cutting the history in the lede, what's the big deal? It's not like the lede was too long, if anything it's now too short. The fact that the Czech state was formerly known as Bohemia is definitely important info that needs to be in the lede. Presenting it as "these lands were part of the HRE and Austria-Hungary" makes it seem like the Czech state never existed in any form before 1918 which is bollocks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Qertis (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
As there's clearly no consensus yet on what this should be, I have put this back to the status quo ante. Please discuss potential changes here on the talk before making the changes in the article. As I said above, the previous version could be reduced to some extent, but the "new" version was too short and omitted broad aspects of the overall history of the country. Please let's come up with and agree the new version here before going live with it, per usual practice / WP:BRD etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Some data:
  • Prose size of status quo lead history paragraphs: 1478 B (239 words)
  • Prose size of the proposed reduced lead history paragraph: 534 B (84 words)
  • Prose size of history paragraph at Rwanda, which is an FA that I wrote: 1197 B (179 words)
It seems to me that the last metric is the one we should be going for. It's a sensible length that enables all the key points to be mentioned, while not distracting the reader with too much detail. We therefore need to be targeting something halfway between the old and the proposed new in size. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(Additional note: actually, the Rwanda lead has been creeping up in size since the most recent FAR in 2015, so perhaps a better indicator is the history paragraph at that time, which was 948 B (144 words) in length).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

New suggestion for the lede

Some of the history in those paragraphs in the old revision can probably be cut, but the current version leaves the lede far too short and devoid of necessary context. There is no problem having two paragraphs for history in the lede - look at Russia, a GA on a country with a similarly long history to Czechia. There are two paragraphs about history in the lede which sensibly provide enough context about Kievan Rus, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union without forcing users to read those articles. I would suggest something like:

The Czech state, formerly known as Bohemia, has existed since the Duchy of Bohemia in the late 9th century, which became part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1002. As the Kingdom of Bohemia, it was gradually integrated into the Habsburg Monarchy in the 16th century, with the Habsburgs consolidating their rule at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. With the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, the Bohemian crown lands became part of the Austrian Empire and later Austria-Hungary. In the aftermath of World War I, the Bohemian monarchy was dissolved and the Czech lands became part of the new state of Czechoslovakia.

During World War II, the Czech lands were occupied by Germany and in 1948, Czechoslovakia became an Eastern Bloc state following a Communist coup d'état. In November 1989, the Velvet Revolution ended communist rule, and on 1 January 1993, Czechoslovakia was peacefully dissolved, with its constituent states becoming the independent states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

– filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with that. My only suggestion is to put "formerly known as Bohemia" with the reference back into the first sentence of the lede. This is as important as the former names of Iran (Persia), Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or Thailand (Siam). All of them are mentioned in the first sentences of their articles. Qertis (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Contemporary borders of the Czech Republic comprise Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Hence, I find this proposal somewhat exclusive, considering Moravia is quite large and culturally significant region by itself. Am I wrong? Merangs (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
In English "Bohemia" often (probably most often) refers to all three of those combined. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Depends on the context really. "Bohemia" was the common English name for the whole Czech state until 1918 so this usage is historical, in modern usage it refers to just "Bohemia proper". We could probably do with mentioning that CZ comprises Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia in the lead too actually. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The predecessor was the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, whose abbreviated name was Bohemia, but also included Moravia and Czech Silesia. Therefore, the original wording "formerly known as Bohemia" seemed fine to me. If not Bohemia, you may want to consider mentioning Lands of the Bohemian Crown in the lead. FromCzech (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm quite strongly against it. It would give the impression that the historical administrative division of Czechia is somehow more important/relevant than that of other countries. Which it isn't. It is sufficiently covered in the Name section. Qertis (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your suggestion for the lead, there's a paragraph (the second one) which is already somewhat similar to that, although it pays less attention to pre-WWI history:
(paragraph two of lead included here for comparison)

Paragraph two of the lead:

The territory of the Czech Republic was part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 and the Habsburg Monarchy until 1918, when it became part of Czechoslovakia. During World War II, the Czech lands were occupied by Germany and in 1948, Czechoslovakia became an Eastern Bloc state following a Communist coup d'état. In November 1989, the Velvet Revolution ended communist rule, and on 1 January 1993, Czechoslovakia was peacefully dissolved, with its constituent states becoming the independent states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

What was not clear to me was whether you are proposing your suggestion as a replacement for paragraph two, or whether you meant it to replace the first two paragraphs of the current article. If the former, then I'm sure we can achieve some solution fairly rapidly, because the main difference is whether to have one sentence, vs. two or three on pre-WWI in the lead.
Keep in mind also that the lead doesn't live on its own, but summarizes the body; there are other claims on the lead, from the article sections on Government, Economy, Demographics, and Culture, and they also need to be appropriately summarized; the point being, this is the Czech Republic article, not the History of the Czech Republic article, where a longer description about early history in the lead is entirely appropriate. Having a paragraph here, that is equally as long as the one there in the lead, is WP:UNDUE emphasis on that period. Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the wording "The Czech state, formerly known as Bohemia, has existed since the Duchy of Bohemia in the late 9th century". It makes it sound like one Czech state has been in continuous existence since then. I also believe, per Mathglot, that two paragraphs of history in the lead is too much for an article that's about Czech Republic in the present day. The lead needs to be expanded with info about the current economy, government, and so forth proportionately with the coverage in the body. (t · c) buidhe 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not "about the Czech Republic in the present day". It's an article about a contemporary state that should include enough historical context just like every other country article does. The scope of this article is not just 1993-present just like the scope of the article Hungary is clearly not 1920-present. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
That's all very well, and if you can include something like that in the lead in a proportionate way, I have no objection. But the two paragraphs present in the lead in rev. 1075762133 (and several others during the edit warring) are disproportionate to the size of the body sections. I tried to clarify this above, but maybe we need some hard data to make the point clear. Here is the size of the lead in that revision, as well as the size of the history paragraphs:
Tallies from rendered page of rev. 1075762133
Item paragraphs words bytes
Entire lead 4 424 2551
History content of lead 2 246 1496
History content as % of entire lead 50% 58% 58%
(counts are from the rendered page, not the wikicode, thus long references or absence of references do not bias the tallies)
Here are the lengths of the sections of the body, per the counts in "section sizes" on the Talk page (tallies for cols 1 & 2 are from the wikicode of the current revision, while the last column is based on col 2 percent times expanded lead size of 2551 bytes):
Tallies for cols 1 & 2 from current revision; col 3 projected
Section section size
in body (bytes)		 section size as
percent of body		 proportional size in
expanded lead (bytes)
Name 7019 4.8 122
Geography 11,270 7.7 196
History 25,913 17.8 454
Government 18,468 12.6 321
Economy 36,355 24.9 635
Demographics 18,418 12.6 321
Culture 28,511 19.6 500
Comparing the values in the table, my conclusion is that in an expanded lead of the same size as that proposed in revision 1075762133, summary coverage of History in the lead should be about 18% of the lead, or 454 bytes, whereas the actual byte count in that revision was about triple that (1496). This is out of proportion, and would either require scaling back, or, if kept at that length, then the lead would have to triple in size to accommodate about 12 paragraphs and 57kb to give proportionate summary coverage to other sections of the article; but that is not a serious alternative. In contrast, the current paragraph on history in the lead is 533 bytes, but that is 1/3 of the current lead, and so is excessive; it should be cut back, and the summary of economics, government, culture, and geography should be expanded. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
"Bytes" arent important, providing enough context to get a point across is. That takes different amounts of "bytes" depending on the topic. Your opinion that we should write the lead section by doing maths is not reflected in other country articles that have reached GA and FA. Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, Madagascar and England all passed the vetting processes with two paragraphs in the lead for history just fine.
Sincere question, what would we add to the lede about economics and government without being too recentist and maintaining a neutral POV, and about culture without being too trivial? I dont think replacing the removed history para with a bunch of odds and ends like "Czechs drink lots of beer" and "Otto Wichterle invented contact lenses" and "Andrej Babiš dominated public life from 2013-21" is really an improvement. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
And when did Czech state cease to exist? It changed several forms and formal names, it was a part of something bigger, but really... when? For an article with this type of scope, "Czech state" would be appropriate suggestion, or Czechia, the name designed and able to cover more than the republic phase, but it is an old argument with moratorium. But there you have the problems you have when resisting it. Chrz (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

New edit to name

I don't like it but I'm not qualified to just blanket revert. But especially the "firstly secondly thirdly" bit is not encyclopedic and not sourced. --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If the Czech Republic

started in 1993 how can this be correct "and formerly known as Bohemia,"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.1.78 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely, why not? The territory, culture, nation, had existed for centuries prior to the establishment of the Czech Republic. Although I would argue that "Bohemia" only refers to part of the Czech Republic, but I am no historian so I do not want to claim this for certain.Ondrusj (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Bohemia is only part of Czechia, with the Eastern part traditionally called Moravia. This is an embarrassing mistake TheEsb (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Why still Czech Rep.?

https://www.iihf.com/en/events/2022/wm/teams/roster/26805/czechia https://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2022/5/17/23102444/david-pastrnak-pasta-nhl-hockey-jakolev-iihf-world-championships-2022-boston-bruins

Hey dears, what else should happen to stop "Czechia" censorship on wikipedia? ;-) I love arguments, such as nobody using Czechia :-D 89.102.142.103 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the last discussion on that: Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_10#Requested_move_25_July_2021. If you want, you can start a new WP:RM#CM after August 11, see Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_11#WP:MORATORIUM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
There are indeed people who don't use Czechia, for example the Czechs when they're talking Czech. Or these guys [4], who invented the English language. In my country we call it Tjeckien. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Yea, of course. Becouse there is no word "Czechia" in the Czech language as no "Czechia" in Swedish. It is strange that the English language is only one germanic language that censors "Czechia". In other languages, the informal name is used naturally. 89.102.142.103 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how did you conclude that the English language censor "Czechia"? Take this website for example [5], it's mentioned once or twice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I thing war over 2022 IIHF World Championship is meant. Czech team plays under the name Czechia, it can be seen during the game (and in spoken form by sports commentator) and in official results, but Wikipedia replaces every occurence of the fact mercilessly. Not twice, not once, never mentioned. Official country named is served instead of team name that clearly is competed under.
I don't think this was discussed in previous RMs - team name versus country name. Yes, you can still say that it does not change a thing, but you can maybe also relate why someone can consider it censorship. Now, when Czechia made yet another big step forward... Chrz (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but this talk page is for discussing this article, not the naming of the country in every article on Wikipedia. If you disagree what was done at another article, please discuss it on that article's talk page. It's off-topic here, and we have a moratorium on the topic here as well. Plus it was just discussed like five minutes ago in the immediately preceding section. Largoplazo (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI: Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team#Page move. Is "team name" a separate proper name - not fully dependent on "common country name", or does it have to be unified with country name no matter what? Chrz (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Czechia not Czech Republic

Czechia is the officially preferred short name in English for the country, chosen by that country for themselves. To be consistent with how other countries are represented in Wikipedia, the article title should be "Czechia" not "Czech Republic".

Having the article title "Czech Republic" would be exactly like having the article title for France be "French Republic" (the correct full name) instead of "France". Or "Federal Republic of Germany" instead of "Germany". Greg Lovern (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's just possible that if you look in the archive you might find this has been discussed before. :-) --Doric Loon (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I see now that the basis is not what the country prefers for itself, but rather what is actually most in use by English speakers. Of course there's a chicken-and-egg issue there, as many people look to Wikipedia as an authority on what the correct usage is.
The thing is, it is not really so that "the country prefers to be called that". Czech English speakers - generally - prefer to use the "Czech Republic" term when speaking in English. "Czechia" is a new-form word which was "invented" in the 1990's to provide a one-word short name in English that is officially condoned for *when a one word name is/has to be used* this was mainly to avoid /incorrect/ usage of the historical "Bohemia" term. There was a huge controversy and a big opposition to this - the official acceptance dragged on for two decades (!).
It is not and never was so that the Czech government askes anyone to to use it -in-preference-to- "Czech Republic". Quite the contrary. So yes, if -Wikipedia- requires that a short name MUST be used, then "Czechia" is the correct form. If Wikipedia requires that the-most-common official name be used, then "Czech Republic" is correct form instead.
But I think there's also a curious resistance to "Czechia" by native English speakers (I am one); somehow it just doesn't feel right, and we land on "Czech Republic" with more of a feeling of confidence that it's not wrong. Greg Lovern (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you. I always use "Czechia" myself, and when the sources suggest it is common enough, I am certain this article will change its name. I can remember when the arguments on this page were along the lines of "Czechia is not a real word", but it has grown so steadily in popularity that now its a question of whether the circles that use it are big enough to warrant a change. A discussion last year decided "not yet", but it's coming. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Some people are sticking with Czechoslovakia. The other day I read some young person mention her visit (since the 1990s) there, which astounded me. Also, this: [6] Largoplazo (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
But there is a funny part that, "Czech Republic" implies that it could only be a republic not a kingdom, is it? of course it sounds politically correct in the English speaking world to have the impression "Oh Czech people are so democratic and they restrict the format of their country could only be republic!" but then, United Kingdom is not democratic. 粵人非漢人 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
It has some historical connotations indeed. The old name for the country was "The lands of the Bohemian Crown" and that state was for about 300 years prior (roughly 1600-1900) under a de-facto "colonial" rule by the Habsburgs based in Austria. To Czechs, the old "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" automatically connotates "time when ruled from abroad". In this case "Republic" signifies "Being ruled by Czechs themselves" with "democracy" not even an afterthought. The "Czechoslovak Republic" dis not face this aspect, as the conglomeration not being Crown/King based signified it already in the name - to the local folks. Plus it was already a two-word aglomeration to begin -6- sylabes for CS one word with only 4 for Czech Republic ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.63.78 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Give it some time. The 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships used "Czechia", but the 2022 Winter Olympics & 2022 Winter Paralympics used "Czech Republic". We've yet to see what the 2022 IIHF World Championship will use. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 IIHF World Championship uses Czechia. It is official IIHF name for all upcoming events (no word against retroactive validity there and here). Olympics means different organizer, both home and international, another ordeal with name registration sport by sport, organization by organization... You would not believe! Unsustainable situation on Wikipedia will be more and more apparent. Just answering, moratorium noted. Chrz (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you about the awkwardness of using a full political name instead of a one-word name. It also brings practical problems, which are addressed above. Anyway, the discussions that are going on here have not yet led to change. The opponents of renaming always win because the full name is still used more, so for them, there is no reason to change it on Wikipedia (even though Wikipedia contributes to that). When the imposed moratorium is over, we can discuss the renaming again. --Unloose (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting that there's a moratorium on new move discussions for this article until 11 August. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

91th

In the panel on the right the population ranking is given as 91th, not 91st.

Please correct.

2001:8003:1005:1900:4DF8:1F86:802D:38FB (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed wow, a talk page comment that isn't related to the name of the article!! 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Bohemia

Isn't Bohemia just one of the historical regions that constitutes Czechia? It seems a bit odd to present it as a name for the whole country in the lead. The Czechs are promoting the name "Czechia" also for these reason: they found that western people tend to mistake Bohemia for the whole region occupied by the state and therefore wrongly use the term to refer to the Czech Lands in a historical context. FilBenLeafBoy (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC).

No, it was also the short name of the whole country, officially known for centuries as the Crown of Bohemia. The country effectively changed its name from Bohemia to Czechia in 1918 (forming the first part of Czecho-Slovakia/Czechoslovakia) and 'Bohemia' is since then used only for the region (Bohemia proper). It is properly and comprehensively sourced in the linked article. https://english.radio.cz/bohemia-czechia-8220362 Qertis (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
No - No. "Bohemia" was indeed used - incorrectly - by uneducated foreighners as a shorthand for the "Lands of the Bohemian Crown". Bohemia is one of those lands. The term "Bohemia" (land) however was always separate from "Bohemian Crown" (personal title) and so never described the lands of the Czech Republic of today or equivalents. The lands of the Bohemian Crown included Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and some others at times. It would be the same as declaring "The lands of the British Crown" were called "England". Of course, they were and are. By uneducated folks. But it does not make them so.
Sorry, no. This is just your uneducated opinion. The linked article by a noted historian says otherwise. Here is another, more comprehensive one (in Czech): https://www.pressreader.com/czech-republic/lidove-noviny/20170701/281973197671948 Qertis (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Funny. Your original linked article makes it a point that Charles IV thought it fitting to create a separate and explicit term by the "Corona Regni Bohemiae" i.e. "The Crown of the Bohemian Kingdom" specifically to distinguish if from the "Kingdom of Bohemia" as only one of its lands. I assumed there is no need to re-hash what you cite. At the time the term was specifically created as distinct from the "Kingdom of Bohemia" term and its short form of "Bohemia" commonly used then. That the English - who did not have the knowledge of this - /aka the uneducated -in this matter-/ just summarilly shortened it to "Bohemia" never made it correct. During the Middle ages the "The Crown of .." was its own authority which was NOT tied to specific lands. In the same way isince the "Kingdom of England"(Regnum Angliae) was not the same "England" starting in 13th century incorporation of Wales. Yet (again uneducated -in the subject-) foreigners commonly misnamed the whole Kingdom as "England" even though Wales was never a part of any "England" in practice. So, it is absolutely fine to state that the Lands of the Czech(Bohemian) Crown were at times/colloquialy referred as "Bohemia" in contemporary English. That on itself never made it the actual/correct name though. In the same way that calling the "Kingdom of England" just "England" was not correct till 1707 when this "issue" went away with the going away of the "Kingdom of England" term itself. It is symptomatic that the article you cite /being a justification piece for the Czechia name so anything but a non-POV scienfic piece/ manages to nicely contradict itself in trying to use some historical facts for its cause.
Add. For me there is a very simple litmus test of if a name is correct/correctly used or not: Are the people living at some place insulted when called by it or are they proud of it? And both "Bohemia" used as reference for "The Lands of the Bohemian Crown" and "England" used as a reference to the "Kingdom of England" will insult the respective peoples of Moriavia, Silesia, Lusatia and Wales. It will insult them because it implicitly denies the existence of their homeland (!) despite the fact they fought wars to ensure such and despite the reality of such legal state of affairs. This is no longer true for Moravia and Silesia since 1918 but it also why Bohemia was NOT used even after Moravian Magravate and the Duchy of Silesia vere abolished. Instead since since 1968 federation a separate term "Česko" was created. Was it not done, there would be lots of people insulted and lots of people killed. Yet it did not happen - because such an act of arrogance and hubris was never ever endorsed by the state - whatever the state form was. For good reasons. Possibly with the exception of Encyclopaedia Britannica. A publication not necessarily known for low hubris content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.63.17 (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Explain to me how Czechs have any say in what a word means in English? If English speakers use "Bohemia" to mean "all the Czechlands", then that's what it means in English. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Czechia is now the 8th safest country in the world accordin to the latest publishment of Global Peace Index (2022). 31.31.228.51 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: *most peaceful country. Already mentioned under Czech Republic#Foreign Relations, although the exact ranking is not given there. Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

Czechia is now 29th in Democratic governance (Democracy Index, newer data from 2021 rankings) - the article incorrectly states 31th. Please fix, thank you. 31.31.228.51 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Done.
Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2022

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

The result of the move request was: procedural close: no reason for a move has been given. No prejudice against speedy renomination if a policy/guideline-based rationale is provided. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


– Moratorium has ended, let’s move everything Czechia. The rest are too exhaustive for me to move. 76.68.77.79 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2022 (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.

Well, that certainly was rather quick. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

New moratorium and see you in a year? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
No reason for the proposed moves was given and the closer specifically states that it can be reopened "if a policy/guideline-based rationale is provided". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

A moratorium on this question is in effect until August 11.

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.

"Czechia," not: "Czech Republic" 2600:1700:6180:6290:28B0:221A:EFC0:6E5B (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (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.
I guess start a new WP:RM#CM yourself is as easy a way as any, since the above discussion is closed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Fwiw, the closer of the Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_11#WP:MORATORIUM discussion stated "I think, that any future RM would benefit from being discussed on this talk page in advance.", but perhaps that has already happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
It has not. Wait. Chrz (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
In this case I'll happily wait 6 months, a year, or even longer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Btw, I don't know what you intend to write, but putting it in the format of an actual WP:RFC could help making such a discussion productive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Last time we agreed "I think, that any future RM would benefit from being discussed on this talk page in advance". It means to not start move request just because moratorium expired, but list the changes (new evidence) since the last try and assess if it is enough to impress the usual opposers. So what is new? Czechia is now registred by IIHF (ice hockey federation) and it was used during world championship quite visibly. Czechia is also now recognized by AP style guide (not like "recommended as a first choice" but "allowed"). Czechia is now listed in UN member states list (it has not been until recently although it was registered 6 years ago) so it is visible on name plates. So a few reservations from the opposers vanished, but is it impressive enough to start a move request? Google Ngram does not have new data and I can clearly see usual replies "oppose - still not common". Chrz (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Is this some peculiarity of the English language? In Greece, we have been calling this country Czechia for the last 30 years. Dimadick (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
We also call Ellas "Greece", and the Turks call it "Yunanistan". I'm fairly certain that you already know that different languages having different names for countries is a pretty general thing. Largoplazo (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
But in this case the Czech government declared "Czechia" to be their English-language name. ChristyMcMorrow (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
And? How is the CZECH government any sort of authority on ENGLISH? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
See Poland. Formal name for formal usage (and for the names of the authorities), short name for casual usage. So the name of Czech government will never change but it does not mean it won't use the short name for press releases, tweets etc. Eg. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic says: "Czechia will help its allies". There. Czechia is English-language name of the country (one of them, the shorter and informal one) and the government uses it (not dominantly or anything, but it does). Here you are. Chrz (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that people don't know what they don't know and therefore can't help this, but I wish people would stop coming here stating the likes of the Czech government declared "Czechia" to be their English-language name. The wording implies that they declared it a replacement for "Czech Republic". They did not. "Czech Republic" remains the official long-form English name. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We call it Tjeckien. They call us Švédsko. It seems to work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well if anybody does open an RM 'here'. I hope they'll let me know. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay It happened, but apparently we missed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Current page on Czechia (Czech Republic) opens with "Historically known as Bohemia". This is strictly incorrect. The Czech Republic is comprised of Moravia and Bohemia. Geographically, these are separate areas. Even the current article notes that the initial state, Great Moravia, included Bohemia--not vice-versa. So, the description should be changed to "Historically known as Moravia and Bohemia".Prkimmel (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Prkimmel Prkimmel (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussion on that: Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_11#Bohemia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
It should be added that the Czech Republic is comprised of Moravia and Silesia and Bohemia. Geographically, these are three separate areas. In the case of Silesia, it is the so-called Czech Silesia. The wording of the sentence, to be accurate, would have to be modified to: "Historically known as Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia". Constitution of the Czech Republic, Preamble: "We, the citizens of the Czech Republic in Bohemia, in Moravia, and in Silesia, At the time of the restoration of an independent Czech state, Faithful to all good traditions of the long-existing statehood of the lands of the Czech Crown, as well as of Czechoslovak statehood (...)". "The text recalls the history of Czech statehood and goes on to declare the basic values of the state, mentioning democracy and, thanks to Havel, the "civic society"".--Pavel Fric (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Except that this article is written in English. While Czech usage may make a fairly consistent distinction, English usage often doesn't. "Bohemia" is the English common name for the former state that was more formally known as "the Lands of the Bohemian Crown". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
So let's change that sentence to: "Historically known as Bohemia, it continues to consist of historic lands Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia." Note: "the Lands of the Bohemian Crown" consisted of more historical countries than today's Czech Republic. Jurisdiction (territorial jurisdiction) was larger.--Pavel Fric (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
And? Lots of countries have lost territory over the years but continue to have the same common name. "Germany" is still "Germany" even though large regions of its former territory are now parts of other countries. Heck "Poland" has gained and lost territory repeatedly and has even completely disappeared at times. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
And, it can be. The emphasis in the proposal, in addition to confirming the original intention of the author of the idea: "Historically known as Bohemia", was placed on expanding and refining the statement in the sentence "Historically known as Bohemia". This seems to be one of the intentions of the Wikipedians, to provide complete information (where possible).--Pavel Fric (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like undue detail for the lead. The various Czechlands should be covered in the history sectio. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, sure. And there's more. The designation for about 2/3 of the area of the Czech Republic expressed/used in "also known as Czechia" is also an unnecessary detail.--Pavel Fric (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
By this expression, one part of the country, here called Czechia, is given an advantage over the rest, which is Moravia and Silesia.--Pavel Fric (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Czechia is the equivalent of Czech Republic, not Bohemia. The lead is completely fine. FromCzech (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This statement is true and correct for you, it is not correct and true for me.--Pavel Fric (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
You are missing the point. In English, the primary meaning for "Bohemia" is the whole thing. The smaller area is only rarely referenced separately, and would be called out as "Bohemia proper" if it was. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course. Intentionally. For interest, the explanation in the video for this behaviour, which shows how people on the globe, in the map, call the defined areas, but with the caveat that the further away from their home, the less able they are to label that particular area, if it is familiar to them at all: Danish Guy Reacts To: Geography Now! Czech Republic (proof that it is clear to foreigners that the Czech Republic is composed of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia: see 3:00 and further)--Pavel Fric (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be definitely stated in the lede that Czech Rep. consists of Bohemia, Moravia, and Czech Silesia. It is a basic fact of utter importance for this country. Just see the Coat of arms of the Czech Republic. Stating that it is ....also known as Czechia, or ...historically known as Bohemia is incomplete, if not incorrect. Czech Republic consists of the three historical regions — the Czech lands. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    No, it definitely should not. Historical regions are NOT mentioned in the lead sections. Look it up. Czech historical regions are no more important than the historical regions of Austria, Poland, Germany, Spain (see their CoA), France or any other country. This is a special example of Čechocentrismus. From our Czech POV, our historical regions seem to be extremely important. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, they are not. Qertis (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Establishment of History Czechia 14 April 2016 Johnsonkopr (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

X: • Duchy of Bohemia c. 870 • Kingdom of Bohemia 1198 • Czechoslovakia 28 October 1918 • Czech Republic 1 January 1993 Y: • Duchy of Bohemia c. 870 • Kingdom of Bohemia 1198 • Czechoslovakia 28 October 1918 • Czech Republic 1 January 1993 • Czechia 14 April 2016 Johnsonkopr (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Change X: • Duchy of Bohemia c. 870 • Kingdom of Bohemia 1198 • Czechoslovakia 28 October 1918 • Czech Republic 1 January 1993

To Y: • Duchy of Bohemia c. 870 • Kingdom of Bohemia 1198 • Czechoslovakia 28 October 1918 • Czech Republic 1 January 1993 • Czechia 14 April 2016


Czechia 14 April 2016 Johnsonkopr (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: From my understanding, on 14 April 2016, the Czech Republic simply established that Czechia is the official short English name for the Czech Republic. There was no change in government or borders or anything else, and Czechia is not even replacing Czech Republic as the preferred English term, so don't believe this should be added to the infobox as you suggest as that would infer that the Czech Republic ended and Czechia replaced it on 14 April Cannolis (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

change "Also known as czechia" to "Officially Czechia" 75.172.15.204 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023 (2)

change miloš zeman from being president to petr pavel since there were new presidential elections and petr pavel won Bretend (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For now, Pavel is president-elect. Chrz (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done Zeman is still president until 8 March. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

Zeman's second term ended on the 8 of March. He is no longer president. The Czech Republic has no president at the moment until Pavel assumes office on the 9 of March on the afternoon. Frosty141 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

how is this pronounced? / and opinion on "czechia" vs "czech republic"

is this pronounced "zech" or "kech" or is it "k-zech" or is it something else? or should i just say fuck it and call it bohemia and then always immediately think "rhapsody" and dammit now i gotta look up what a rhapsody is.

but yeah this should be in the article. kthxbai.

stuff added after edit:

i wasn't completely sure that czechia was the czech republic, which is actually why i came to the article in the first place. i was being facetious with the statement above (i know it's pronounced "check", at least as far as i have ever heard). however i am positive that if i were to ask random people "do you know the difference between czechia and the czech republic" that eh probably like 75%-95% of them would not know they are the same place and therefore would not reply with confidence that they are. i'm sure you could reword the question and get the same results. if you were to ask people "what's the difference between soda and pop?" people would tell you they're the same thing, just different names for the thing.

75.180.24.96 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@75.180.24.96 Yeah, CHECK-ia, CHECK republic -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 00:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are there no women on the culture pahe

Hermína Týrlová, mentioned in article, no ref though

Every famous artist etc. displays a male and their photograph. Can you please include women 2603:6011:F741:3100:5936:1B2B:2E84:97FD (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea. What women/images do you suggest? Note that images are supposed to illustrate the article text, so article content with refs should be added first. I scanned through the Culture section, the only women I saw was Irena Dodalová/Hermína Týrlová, so if there is a WP-usable pic of any of them, that may be the "quick" way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Some ideas? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
What about Božena Němcová, probably the most famous woman writer in the history of Czechia? And I could suggest Ema Destinová as well (she is on the 2000 CZK banknote). Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I have no personal preference, but article content first, and area shouldn't be over-crowded with pics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes. There should be a paragraph about Czech National Revival – one of the most famous periods of Czechia's literature. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Apart from that, IMO well-informed and passionate Wikipedians should consider WP:GAing this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_11&oldid=1165750112"