From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed changes[edit]

Following the recommendation (of bots) I would like to make lead section more compact,

following the example of Paris, I would make a special section on etymology

of Etymology The name Paris derives..

and remove it from lead, would like find a better photo for a lead. For Paris it is Eifel tower, for Praguit should be either Charles bridge or Prague Castle panorama. (suggestion anyone?)

I would remove 'twin cities' section and replace it by a reference. Few people care about that.

If anyone has objections, please speak now, or forever hold your peace. Petr (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You should know that Jerusalem is in Palestine.. you can use west Jerusalem to Identify Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

editing Prague[edit]

moved from User talk:Svick#editing Prague. Svick (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Svick

First I want to apologize if I reverted any of you changes without talk.

Only now did I got your message and noticed that youe have done some deletions.

It was not a revert, I may have typed it in again, wondering about my memory

I may have put something back, a map, wondering if I forgot to include it.

Do you have problem with link to Google map? Is there some objection to it in the style manual?

If I would be looking for encyclopedic info about Prague, I would certainly appreciate it. With it's

ability to show photos and street views it provides lot of basic info .

, the list of historical topics in the section

Main article: History of Prague

During thousand of years, the city grew from the Prague Castle and a fort Vyšehrad to the multicultural capital of a modern European state, the Czech Republic, member state of European Union. [edit] Ancient age

had list of events 30 years war, husites, etc

was intended for Lead, which, "may not adequately summarize its contents" it certainly has no summary of history. I just did not get to organizing and placing that info.

So, I am now looking at your deletions - let's discuss it before any other deletions and or reverts OK?

I would prefer to finish proposed changes, before someone else starts rolling them back. Most of my changes concern language, long convoluted sentences and often bad grammar. ed I am not sure, if in addition to that, I have patience to go through 10 changes you did put in trying to divine what you object to from the history.

Let's start with the map. What's wrong with it?

Petr (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a link to a map of Prague is certainly useful, but such links are already included: see the top right corner of the article. If you click at the coordinates, you get to a page linking to various maps of Prague. Wikipedia tries to be neutral, and there is no easy way to decide which map service to use. Also, I don't think a description of a map is very useful – people can see that themselves.
I like to separate my editing, when it concerns multiple sections, into more edits, but you can look what effect did they have combined (at the history tab, select the first edit before the changes and the last edit of the changes and click

”, in case you didn't know that). You notice that I didn't revert your changes regarding language.

Also, I have moved this discussion here, in case anyone else wants to add something. Hop you don't mind.
Svick (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not object to moving the talk here, I did notices that you left the improved language, and yes, I do know about “Compare selected revisions". So, so far no problem.

I do however disagree about inclusion of 'that map', which has the two 'castles' , and their description, which their collection of photographs. It is not essential that it is Google. It is just most efficient way to convey that information.

I was ALSO thinking about replacing the lead photo. Paris has Eiffel, and Prague should have Castle from the bridge. That is the icon of Prague. No reason for a montage, when thousands of Prague photos are everywhere, (including Google maps, where they are geolocated). so? Petr (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But, I have no inclination to spend my time on arguing. So, how do we resolve the map issue? It is one external link and 2, or 3 sentences which give e newcomer instant background on which to see the history is evolving.

I do want to add, that I am not inclined to wastetime my on completing the review of the page (about half done) and adding better photo for the lead, unless I have some assurance that arbitrary deletes of my contribution will stop.

What time-zone are you at? (or should I ask which planet?)

I asked few questions, do I get any answers?

Petr (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You won't get any assurance that someone else isn't going to change or delete what you wrote – that's not how Wikipedia works. I can tell you that I won't revert your changes regarding language or the photo in the lead, but I can't speak for other editors.
Regarding the map – I really don't think adding another link to a map of Prague will make the article better. And a description of a map isn't useful either: people can read maps, we don't have to do that for them. And if you want a collection of images of Prague (assuming the ones in the article aren't enough)? Go to the bottom of the article where is a link to Wikimedia Commons.
As for the timezone, I live in the Czech Republic, so it's CET (UTC+1).
Svick (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

I do not have all the guidelines memorized, certainly not as well as you, but I do know in general how it works. This not my first contribution. We may have met on Britske listy article in the past.

As to 'another' map, please look at the,_France#Geography there is a map, not even an interactive one.

Try this experiment: Get a guy who does not know Prague (a visitor perhaps) and let him read the description. Then give him Google map link and ask him to find Vysehrad and Castle. They usually get confused.

It is not issue of more photos. Photos on the Google map are geolocated. Those in commons are not. I would add to commons nice flash 10 interactive media of Prague parts (from Prague magistrate) in czech only, though.

How do you feel about 'another map' in the section on Geography, and I would throw in some links to Parks. The Rhododendrons in Průhonice are world unique. Perhaps even custom markers to castle , bridge and Vysehrad. What is so bad on outside link, if it serves a purpose. I would like to use google shortener for that. Perhaps you may help it to get an exception to a black-list? How is that done? Petr (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I am done for now. If you - or anyone - find a mistake, (which is always possible) please let me know. Petr (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Town is not the original settlement of Prague[edit]

The first settlements are all on the west side of the river. Unless you like legends, in which case the first settlement is Vyšehrad, but still not Old Town.

(for citation, see Denetz' Prague in Black and Gold) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theurbanmapper (talkcontribs) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

not clear sentence[edit]

"Founded during the Gothic and flourishing by the Renaissance eras, Prague was the seat of two Holy Roman Emperors and thus then also the capital of the Holy Roman Empire.[6][7]"

I think this sentence is a little bit confused, in particular the part in bold.Jorgecarleitao (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


the HRE had no fixed capital city, like France or Engalnd.

Where the the king or emperor located his court that was the capital (pro tempore).

Their where several ceremonail places, like Frankfurt / Main, or Aix le Chapelle, but there was no capital defined by law. -- (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, as viewed from the Petřín Lookout Tower. The view is approximately 180 degrees, from north on the left to south on the right. The area on which Prague was founded was settled as early as the Paleolithic age. By the year 800 there was a simple fort with wooden buildings, occupying about two-thirds of the area that is now Prague Castle. Prague was an important seat for trading where merchants from all of Europe settled, and it especially flourished during the reign of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor.

Photo: David Iliff
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Prague Montage Image[edit]

Can we please keep the montage image I currently have in the infobox?!?!? It gets removed, but the other montage is inferior. It is widely spaced, you can barely see it's contents, there are way to many pictures, and a proper caption cannot be provided. Mine has a simple 6 photos, a caption, isn't spaced and is overall just neater.--Pollack man34 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My Montage
Other Montage


"caput" means capital not just head. -- (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ancient kings?[edit]

there was a celtic tribe named the boii that lived in the area that combined with a german tribe named the rugians to form the bavarian confederation. no need for ancient kings, it's in the roman sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Map of the quarters[edit]

I would suggest a map showing the quarters of the city (old city, new city, etc.). I've been to Prague several times (great city -- if you haven't been, go!), but don't have the complete knowledge or skill to make such a map. Merely listing the quarters is informative, but doesn't show the relation between the parts of the town. (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Districts of Prague has three such maps showing the overlapping administrative/municipal divisions (Prague 1–10 vs. 1–22) and the cadastral areas (old town, new town etc.) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality ?[edit]

The city played major roles (...) in 20th-century history, during both World Wars and the post-war Communist era. - ? Major in Europe (rather not true) or major in Czechoslovakia (the biggest city, rather typical)?Xx234 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this assumes European history or world history in general. Probably based in Prague's surrender to the Nazis, the assassination of Heidrych, Prague's liberation at the end of WWII, the Communists seizing power in Prague, the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution all being considered major events of this period. This is obviously arguable but that's where the claim comes from. Not sure about WWI though, since the war isn't even mentioned in the article body.--MASHAUNIX 15:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Standard Central/Eastern European history. The 'major roles' statement needs sources. Xx234 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

New infobox or separate article?[edit]

The Historic Centre of Prague is one of the few UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) without an article with a WHS infobox. This article is included in the category 'World Heritage Sites in the Czech Republic', but it does not include the infobox. It could be added but the article is already very developed and the scope seems to go well behond the historic center. I wonder if it's not better to create a new article dedicated to the World Heritage Site of the Historic Centre of Prague. So my question to the regular editors of this article is: What is more appropriate: adding WHS infobox to this article or to create a new dedicated article?reisfe (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Prague[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Situated in the north-west of the country[edit]

Situated slightly north of the center of Bohemia isn't north.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is further north than the vast majority of the country, so I guess it's based in that.--MASHAUNIX 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prague. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All three archive fixes are correct, Cyberbot II. Many thanks, as usual. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbians living in Prague[edit]

There is an error in a "Largest groups of foreign residents" section. Surely there are not 6,019 people from Serbia living in Prague... (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed You're correct. I found the archived link to the relevant statistics and found that the list was incorrect in a number of instances. I've now rectified the misinformation. Thank you for bringing my attention to the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Prague. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1306 BC legend[edit]

Please move the story to local legends, but don't pretend you accept the story.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that it does not belong in the history section. If the main articles on Prague's history and timeline are dedicated to actual mainstream historical content, at best this legend only deserves a subsection specifically dedicated to legends. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The List of Bohemian monarchs doesn't include the one.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the actual proof of it being merely a legend or hearsay? The author, David Gans (1541–1613), who brings down these ancient histories is a very reliable and respectful author of tremendous worth, and almost everything he writes in his histories can be confirmed by other sources. I say that we should keep it.Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, it's not up to editors to prove that it's merely a legend or hearsay. The only reference being used is Gans's (Gans'?: I hate trying to work out possessives for surnames) own work which is is a WP:PRIMARY source. If there are reliable secondary sources, the content is fine for List of Bohemian monarchs. The breakdown of the reference in the citation contravenes WP:NOR. If there is merit in this 'history', there must other sources to confirm its merit. This article should not be used to carry content that doesn't exist in the more comprehensive list. I'm sorry, but I don't really understand this to be negotiable dependent on editor discretion as policy trumps WP:CON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is no contravening of "original research," since the reference simply quotes verbatim the source, which is permitted to do in Wikipedia. Your asking for other sources about events dating back thousands of years is tantamount to asking for other sources other than the primary source (e.g. Hebrew Bible) used to describe the conquest of Canaan, or other war scenes mentioned by classical authors. It is not always necessary to show secondary sources if there are none, but only a reliable primary source as in our case, and by quoting the name of the author and showing the source from which the edit is derived. There is no reason to expunge this pertinent anecdotal, historical reference from a renowned Czech historian, even if his original sources are no longer extant.Davidbena (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
We're not discussing using the old testament in referencing itself, or any form of classical texts as references unto themselves. We're not even discussing a chronicler who lived during - or anywhere near - the period he is chronicling: there's one and a half thousand years between the purported historical information and Gans's chronicle. What sources would have been existence and at his disposal from 1306 BCE? This is such a stretch without any supporting RS that it really does not belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
People familiar with Jewish history and chronology can tell you that Czech historian David Gans' overview of history, from the creation down to his present time, is very reliable and accurate. The problem, however, arises with people who may not be familiar with the methods used by chroniclers of ancient history, and with those who cannot read Hebrew, and especially those who may not have the skills for converting dates written in anno mundi into our Gregorian calendar system. Translations are meant to bypass these problems. The record is good and should stay. If, however, you wish to change "Jewish historian" for "Czech historian," that might be a consideration. By the way: Gans does quote a source, and the name given by him is "Burg" or "Borg." Be well. One more thing, if anyone wishes to obtain a confirmation of the Hebrew sources, he may do so through User:Avraham.Davidbena (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is the Czech translation [1]. If we accept the story, we should quote it also in Bavaria. The source is Spangenberg (?). If he was Cyriacus Spangenberg, he was older than Ganz, born 1528. But he was Christian. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

History of Bavaria says similar history - Boii were Celts, described by Tacitus.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They may have, indeed, originally been Celts, but I would know very little about that. The Celts moved from one place to another, as I recall, and were once also around the Black Sea.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hesitate to call three people a consensus but I went ahead and culled the minority, to put it mildly, view supported by a singular source and frankly giving pretty WP:UNDUE[2] weight to the claims, and also went against mainstream sources (i.e. in disputing the Boii/Bohemia claims). I admit I am somewhat surprised this remained in the article for so long. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign residents in the city (2015) ?[edit]

Isn't it 2013?Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Actually, no. The sources only covered 2012 (although published in 2013), so I've adjusted it to reflect that the figures are for 2012. Until more recent stats are sourced, the dates must remain as are. Thanks for noticing this anomaly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Prague bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics[edit]

The subject should be mentioned in History of Prague and Timeline of Prague but not here. Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)