Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RFC: 612-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions

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.

---

For months, this talkpage has been dominated by editors thinking we should rename the article to "Czechia" and/or that we should use that as the main identity for this article's topic in the prose. Every time, lots of heat, but no new ideas brought to bear, and consensus every time is that there is no policy- or guideline-based reason to change at this time. Instead, the consensus is that at some point in the future it may be appropriate to change it, based on what situations may or may not change over time external to Wikipedia, and that there is no deadline to do such change let alone do it "too soon". In the interest of saving everyone time and not drowning out other article-content discussions, I am here proposing a moratorium on any such discussions for six months, during which time any such discussions would be promptly closed with a pointer to this RFC. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support 100%. I'd be in favor of a full year. Change in common usage will be gradual, and it isn't as though the world will end if this article remains "Czech Republic" for days, weeks, or even some months after the day when usage of "Czechia" passes the magical tipping point of popularity. We just don't need to revisit the question that frequently. Also, if the question of moving the article to Czechia had been posed as an RFC in the first place, it would have ended months ago. When I contributed to the discussion recently, I didn't notice it had been going on for so long. Largoplazo (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ground Zero | t 03:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Totally agree, the endless discussion about article title is drowning out article-content discussions.--Jklamo (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Would a 'header' section on talk, explaining why the article is called what it is, and summarising why it is not 'Czechia' help? That would equally be a point to refer commenters to. It would require tact to write such a header (I'm not volunteering!) . Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Like the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this page?--Khajidha (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Errrr very like that, Ooops. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think a disclaimer would suffice: We recognize, that Czechia is official short name of Czech Republic. We know Czechia would be more handy for names of historic articles (History of .... in Czech Republic). We know linguistically it is acceptable (or fine). We know Google maps uses it. But the issue is - it is not common enough, yet. Please wait till October 1 2017 for next evaluation. Is this the reasoning for all the supporters of moratorium or some just dislikes the name (as only reason) and thus will propose longest possible term? Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning is that the ONLY criterion relevant for deciding the names of pages is English usage. You seem to keep arguing what English usage "should" be, but the question is simply what English usage "is". --Khajidha (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no. It is YOUR reasoning, valid one actually. You don't know the people in this section, you can't know their reasoning and (interior) motives. If (!) I saw nick or two of this poll previously said "I don't like Česko, I don't like Czechia, awful words, therefore wikipedia shouldn't use them" now just saying "support of moratorium, 10 years minimum", you can see my concern how damaging this ban of discussion can be. If approved, 1/2 year absolute maximum, to truly reevaluate usage after a while. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support and would agree with a full year as suggested above. Language patterns change slowly; any change (or lack thereof) will be clearer with more time. Doremo (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• support - ack Doremo, one year could be even better, -jkb- (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• support one year or longer. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Possibly even longer than 6 months, but that seems like a reasonable term.  ONR  (talk)  20:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• SupportThis is a reasonable idea. --Joobo (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic thread, continuing the discussion that this RFC is about curtailing

Comment what about filling an official protest with the Czech Government that they have dared to register Czechia? Maybe you can ban it forever, republicans? This is just ridiculous Helveticus96 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) We are not opposed to their registering it for official use at the UN and other bodies. Nor are we opposed to the UN and other bodies using it. However, and this is the point that you keep missing, such registration is not binding on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy is to utilize the commonly used names. Until such time as common usage outside of Wikipedia changes, usage on Wikipedia will not change. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Many Czechs seem to be very sensitive to this topic and the discussion should not be amateurishly silenced. It might affect WP's credibility, which is in general already weakened. Censorship in any way shouldn't (and mustn't) be allowed here. If it were, WP would not be called the The Free Encyclopedia at all. Oasis98 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1) see My response to Geog25 about "censorship". 2) "The Free Encyclopedia" means that Wikipedia does not charge. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• It isn't clear why being sensitive to the issue means one must continue to talk about it ceaselessly, in terms that fail to consider Wikipedia's guidelines for such matters, when a clear guidelines-based conclusion has long since been reached, to the point where it's disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Bravo. I will use this in my university classes to show students how the Wikipedia censorship works. Not even the discussion is allowed anymore. A bunch of anonymous Czechia haters led by an American chemist deciding that the name does not exist. Have you guys ever heard of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, for example? It is really hard to believe what is happening here. Geog25 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1) How can it be "censorship" when the word is used? No, it is not used as the name of the article, but "censorship" would mean it did not appear here at all. 2) Until new arguments are created or new data showing a change in usage patterns is presented, there is no need for more discussion. 3) The First Amendment applies only to government action. --Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone writes an article on Wikipedia dealing with anything in Czechia and even if s/he uses sources that use Czechia, you will be the first to delete any mention of Czechia and replace it with the Czech Republic or, perhaps, with the Czech lands, which you obviously like and to which the same criteria you apply to Czechia obviously do not apply. If the author disagrees, her or his article will be deleted. If she or he protests, she or he will be blocked. If this is not censorship then what is? Geog25 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This is using common English, something we are expected to do. --Khajidha (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha! "censorship would mean it did not appear here at all". If not talking about names of articles but content of articles: Yes, it can appear, I give you that, 100 %, but the presence is strictly limited (lead of this article, it was a fight even after official recognition, and in sections about name of the state). Would it kill wikipedia if it appeared more? Like to add into "The history of what are now known as the Czech lands (Czech: České země) or Czechia (Czech: Česko) is very diverse." Yes, I know, it would be very (VERY VERY VERY!) small victory not even worth fighting for, but it is for you(all) to oppose it and delete it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would we write text using a word that we have evidence is not familiar to our users? Again, until it becomes used (not just explained or lobbied for) outside of Wikipedia, there is no reason to use it on Wikipedia. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of articles using words not familiar to its users. For example, how many English speakers know the meaning of these randomly selected words: Aminoacetonitrile, Glycolonitrile, Ribose-5-phosphate isomerase deficiency, Polyol, Phonotactics, Gemination etc. This list of words not familiar to Wikipedia users can go on almost forever and it shows clearly that your argument: “Why would we write text using a word that we have evidence is not familiar to our users?” is completely false and self-serving. You should delete all these articles and purge all these unfamiliar words from Wikipedia. Please simply admit that you do not like Czechia and prefer the Czech lands and we will all shut up. Geog25 (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This objection is disingenuous (and therefore unconstructive). "Czech Republic" is currently familiar for the topic at hand and "Czechia" is unfamiliar, as already pointed out ad nauseum. The terms cited in the objection are the familiar ones for their topics. Doremo (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"Our users" so do you expect the poor users are so simple minded, that they would get a panic attack after seeing Czechia? Not being able to understand it out of the context or even type this few letters into a search engine? Keep you name in the main article, but stop deleting it in articles of people, which use it naturally, I would never write Czech Republic in historical context, if I am not describing something after 1993. Helveticus96 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"... stop deleting it in articles of people, which use it naturally, I would never ..." Gee, why don't we just throw out the entire Manual of Style and have no editorial guidelines whatsoever for this website? Because, of course, people should be able to write however they find to be natural. Or are we to understand that the guidelines are find for most people, but people who are drenched in devotion for the name "Czechia" are exempt from them? If you don't like one or more guidelines from the Manual of Style, then go find the MOS page containing those guidelines and argue your case over there. In article space, on-topic discussion is based on what the guidelines are. Endless discussion on what we wish the guidelines were is off-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How can you justify demanding that Wikipedia "censor" Czech Republic, which is what the large majority of the English-speaking world uses? Why are you trying to insult English-speaking people? Will Czechia be damaged if the Wikipedia article continues under the CAR name for a while longer (specially when the Czech government seems to be comfortable using both names)? Ground Zero | t 12:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is demanding that you “censor” the Czech Republic; no one is trying to insult English-speaking people. I am not even trying to vote. I have just commented on the ruthless and almost immediate deleting of Czechia anywhere on Wikipedia with the exception of the lede where it has to be protected since it has been deleted many times before. Since you can’t easily delete it in the lede, you use it now to show that everything is fine and that there is no censorship. Geog25 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Ruthless"? We also routinely replace casual references to the subjects of biographical articles by their given names with their surnames. If someone wrote "Roumania" in an article, someone would replace it with "Romania". We have bots that replace hyphens with en dashes where the style guidelines call for them. Is this all "ruthless"? Wikipedia has lots and lots of style guidelines. There is a corps of editors who, when they notice deviations from these, rectify them. One of the guidelines is that we use the common name for things, including countries. Please stop imagining that edits that constitute ordinary, everyday maintenance carried on constantly throughout this website amount to a vicious attack. Largoplazo (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• OK. But at the same time, please you stop imagining that the constant deleting of Czechia anywhere on Wikipedia (with the exception of the lede which is now protected because of its constant deleting) amounts “to edits that constitute ordinary, everyday maintenance.” We are not talking about a misplaced hyphen here. You argue: “One of the guidelines is that we use the common name for things, including countries.” This criterion is, however, applied selectively on Wikipedia. It does not apply to countries such as Macedonia, for example, because I have not met a person, with the exception of Greeks, who would be using “the Republic of Macedonia” or “FYROM” in everyday speech. Here, you would probably argue that the international organizations, such as the United Nations, use “the Republic of Macedonia” and would not consider what is used in common English. How convenient. The “Republic of Macedonia” instead of Macedonia is obviously used on Wikipedia because of Greek administrators who do not like “Macedonia” and have power to block it and delete it despite Macedonia being used in common English as a country name. So at the end it is all about power and censorship hiding behind the selective use of convenient arguments to justify a particular discourse and personal agenda of many administrators.Geog25 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Here, you would probably argue ...." Hey, buddy, you don't even know my position on the subject, let alone how I would argue it. Another straw man argument from you, a hunting expedition, a vain stab at attributing a position to me that would allow you to call me out on hypocrisy that you have no idea whether I'm guilty of. Do you have an entire litany of positions that you assume to be held in lockstep by all people who disagree with you on the name of this article, tarring all of us with the same brush? You happen to be absolutely wrong about what I think about the whole Macedonia thing. And there is nothing whatsoever in my background that would cause me to have any special sympathies or antipathies toward Greeks, Balkan Slavs, Czechs, Slovaks, Moravians, Bohemians, Turks, Albanians, or any other nationality or ethnicity you'd like to try to bait me over. There's no agenda here. So kindly give your mindreading trick a rest. It's a losing proposition. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are repeatedly accusing me of things I did not do or say. It is you who is making many assumptions about my arguments and me as a person. I was talking about “many administrators” not all administrators. I was not accusing you personally of anything or attributing you any position. It is actually you who is doing it. I was talking about any mention of Czechia being deleted on Wikipedia for years, while you are talking about the name of this article only. I guess you are trying to say that Wikipedia is impartial, neutral, objective, just and that “there’s no agenda here.” I really wish it were the case. Unfortunately, because of personal views and preferences of some administrators on some issues, including this one, Wikipedia can be as biased as any discourse can get and the outcome of this discourse simply reflects the distribution of power on this website. Banning the discussion is a nice illustration of this whatever your supposedly rational justification might be. I was just commenting and that’s all I wanted to say. Geog25 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• You wrote, and I repeat, "Here, you would probably argue ....", lumping me in with whoever your displeasure is directed at. Then, at no point did you write, "From this point on I'm no longer responding to you or addressing what you wrote. Without even creating a new paragraph, I'm going to go off on a rant that has nothing to do with you." Accordingly, I understood there to be no point where you were suddenly not talking about me. Sorry for not perceiving that you were going off on a tangent and that I could have safely not even bothered to read it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, guess what: I just took a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and learned that Wikipedia's convention is to use plain old "Macedonia" except when, in a nutshell, there's a possibility of ambiguity. So anyone arguing otherwise is arguing against the official guideline. Now, as far as avoiding ambiguity is concerned, that makes tremendous sense: Americans will often specify "Democratic Republic of Georgia" because otherwise we would likely be understood to be referring to our own state by that name. We also often called the state named Washington "Washington State" to avoid confusion with Washington, D.C., and we will refer to "New York State" to avoid confusion with "New York City". And now that Zaire is Congo again, we're back to having to specify whether we're talking about the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. None of this is political. Likewise, in cases where one could be understood to be talking about Macedonia that is in modern Greece, "Republic of Macedonia" makes sense (though I roll my eyes at the whole FYROM business). Basic attempts to be clear shouldn't expose one to charges of political motives. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a professor, perhaps you could convey to your class the difference between censorship and maintaining a forum for orderly discussion. The discussion has been allowed, has been held, has reached a conclusion. Court is adjourned. We don't keep redeciding the same thing over and over and over and over again, that's all. Do you think we should keep deletion discussions open forever? The proposal here is to reopen after sufficient time has passed so that the underlying circumstances that led to the conclusion this time around have had a passable chance of changing. Besides that, you are doing harm if you're teaching your students that creating imaginary motives on the part of the people they disagree with is a legitimate and acceptable political strategy. I wonder how many other straw man arguments you raise in your class. "Czechia haters"? Because we recognize the fact that "Czechia" is not yet a commonly known, let alone commonly used, name for the country? For your information, I thought from the moment of the Velvet Revolution that Czechia would have made sense to begin with. I support general use of that name. But it isn't in general use, and that's the criterion here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support moratorium. I would do it slightly differently: we would consider the matter settled as described, until (at any time) someone brings overriding new argument or evidence to the case, demonstrating that common usage has changed. If there is new argument or evidence that needs to be considered, we should consider it. But until then it's reasonable to ask that this page not be dominated with this discussion. Kahastok talk 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic thread

Comment Just last remark from my side, the "anti Czechia" fanaticism on Wikipedia goes so far, that some administrator deleted my Czechia article even on my private page! I will not waste any energy anymore on this. Helveticus96 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Your user page is not "yours" in the sense of being able to do anything you want with it. Placing an article that had been deleted from the mainspace into user space is only allowed for the purposes of reworking the material to be an acceptable article. That Czechia article was identified as a content fork, it could not be made acceptable. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't mind the title of the article being Czech Republic. I just find it strange that whenever someone uses "Czechia" in an article it seems to get changed to CR. It is like some people don't want to see the word "Czechia" anywhere on wikipedia. Czechia2016 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would we write text using a word that we have evidence is not familiar to our users? Again, until it becomes used (not just explained or lobbied for) outside of Wikipedia, there is no reason to use it on Wikipedia.--Khajidha (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why would someone not include the official short form name for Czechia in a column that WAS called short form and formal names? List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe? Czechia2016 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC) but instead change the title of the column to "common" name when this was pointed out ? Czechia2016 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea. If you look further up this page, you will see that I am in favor of having Czechia listed there (albeit with a note that it is still uncommon). My point is that it does not yet belong in running text. --Khajidha (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you seem to assume that my original comment was even direct to you and or your view on the name? Czechia2016 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me for thinking a response to my comment was directed towards me....--15:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if that came off rude, but I was wondering why you felt the need to reply to my first comment.Czechia2016 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: & List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe: Thanks, good to hear that in THAT article, which shows possible alternatives, Czechia has its place (be it in table cell or as small invisible note). Can you please edit it to stick? When I did it, it was reverted, we were expelled to this talk page and back and nothing achieved. Edit: I just made another try, let's bet how long it'll stay :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose That FAQ on the top is better. Every time somebody asks FAQ, you'll say: already answered, nothing new in this, see 2a) or so. If no new arguments come, it must suffice. No discussion would be banned, no hard feelings. In case moratorium authorized, you would have to write that FAQ or something like it anyway to inform newcomers why the discussion is banned. In case moratorium approved, it should not be longer than 6 months, then reevaluate arguments, new proofs, and maybe set next evaluation date.Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• We could comb through the previous discussions, pull out each point raised for Czechia and answer each separately in the FAQ. --Khajidha (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To name a few, I saw an answer to most of them - 1) Officially approved by Czech govt., UN, listed on Google maps, here and there 2) Wikipedia "always" uses short names 3) It is better to use Czechia - timeless, non political, used in 1604... 4) Wikipedia denies information, it is censorship that it is not included in more articles, it does not hurt anybody to write "so called Czech lands (or now Czechia)", let's not move Czech Republic, but let's use the word Czechia more, at leasts instead of "Czech lands" 5) are we waiting for 51 % usage, or just "common enough" to be considered and wikipedia would gladly use it because it better suits its naming standards (similar to 2)... 6) common like in last year or common since eternity 7) what exactly would help to be more common 8) how important are actions of Czechs? Their usage in English. Sometimes you argue Czechs has no effect on English, they can't say English what to do, but on the other hand you are saying "but Czech government and Czech sports team are not using it" 9) You say you choose 1 name for country and then you use it all over Wikipedia, but what are articles with "Czech lands" in their name then, and they describe Czech Republic tooChrzwzcz (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify one point, as it is probably just a matter of slightly different phrasing at different times. "8) how important are actions of Czechs? Their usage in English. Sometimes you argue Czechs has no effect on English, they can't say English what to do, but on the other hand you are saying "but Czech government and Czech sports team are not using it"" The point is that the Czech government can't require the usage of Czechia by the English speaking world, but if it were to have sports teams named Czechia or do tourist ads for Czechia this would tend to influence English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• comment to some votes. 1) @ Oasis98, 23:13, 18 March 2017: sensitive Czech readers are still free to visit the Czech Wikipedia, nobody is asking them, to read the English one; 2) @ Helveticus96, 09:52, 20 March 2017: if you want to find some fanaticism (you write above about an anti Czechia fanaticism), so pls see the Czech Wikipedia and the discussion about independent Moravia etc. This is the English WP so let English speaking user decide this.By the way, I was born and living in Czechoslovakia, and I left both the country 1968 and the Cswiki 2006 for the German ones. -jkb- (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like battle between Czechs moderated by tired non-Czechs :) (chat: And in German, is it Tschechien, Tschechische Republik or Tschechoslowekei for you?) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Gigantic time-sink as above discussion shows. More than enough time has been spent explaining WP naming policies and that we are primarily here to serve the reader. Even though we try to respect the sensitivites of the country being documented, neither the Govt nor the citizens of those countries have a veto on English usage, just as we don't try to tell them that Řecko is actually called Ελλάδα, Německo is actually Deutschland. Wouldn't any of you guys rather see these editors spending time IMPROVING this article about CR/Czechia ? Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Question is if this is simple case of wp naming policies as any other article, or does this case has some interesting aspects and such situation was unexpected for the rules. Of course renaming is out of question (at least for now) but maybe some strict actions against including the word Czechia inside a few handpicked articles may be loosened. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any guidelines that need to be relaxed, except the general guideline that articles generally are going to use the most common name in the real world. We follow, not lead real world use. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about content of the article, not the name! In recent months the move is not so often requested as everybody (moratorium supporters) say, but insertion of the word Czechia into articles is discussed. Where it can be inserted without hysteria but it causes hysteria anyway. Into a few articles where each country has listed both - long and short variant, for example. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comment A really good reason to bring discussions to a close within a reasonable amount of time is so that people who have an article on their watchlist don't have to choose between paying attention to it, only to discover every time it comes up for months on end that it's just more handwringing about the same thing, and ignoring it or even dropping it off their watchlist, thereby missing new developments that are genuinely of interest. Largoplazo (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If it really is still the same, why are CR-defenders still creating new answers? :) They should have done FAQ ages ago and answer with numbers. Watchlist reasons as a problem?!?! If it really is, talk subpage could be made you would not watch. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

At a high level, the only answer that counts is whether WP:COMMONNAME. I'm having trouble imagining anyone coming up with Months And Months Of Brand New, Groundbreaking Ideas Every Time to establish the "Czechia" is not well established in the general lexicon of English speakers. I am equally skeptical that "Czechia"-defenders have come up with as many ideas that were distinct, fresh, credible, and pertinent to a finding that Czechia has entered the common lexicon as would be necessary to fill months and months of discussion with such. Just look how many times the use of "Czechia" by Google Maps has been raised above, for example. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

a) I think in last months it was not about "hey, let's rename this article" but "hey, throw us a bone, Google Maps use it, there's NO reason to delete this piece of information from the article". Official recognition in UN lists were also deleted frequently as "not important enough for English to be in paragraph about name of the state" or something like that. Yes, some people proposed renaming, but the main battles were about Czechia just mentioned IN the article somewhere with proper acknowledgement (no longer just proposed variant from 1992, but now also official). b) Another topic was if Czech lands is OK to use even for recent events (in articles which have Czech lands in their name). c) Occasional posts about new development and examples of usage, without demands to change the title of this article. Maybe sometimes with "Impressed? Are we getting closer? Are we on quick path?" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrzwzcz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic thread, continuing the discussion that this RFC is about curtailing

OPPOSE Czech republic is by far the most used term. WP:COMMONNAME states that that is the rationale we should take when naming an article. If you said Chee-kee-uh out in public no one would know what you are referring to.Crewcamel (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC) You may not have read the RFC correctly. It isn't a resolution to change the name of the article, it's a resolution to stop talking about it for six months. Largoplazo (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Are wikipedia readers mostly idiots who find the Czech Republic, but can not find Czechia? You don't know the function Redirect? from the Czech Republic to Czechia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Being insulting and ignoring the point of the common name guideline will not help your case. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC) These rude comments are only helping the other side. Or was it your true intention, dear anonym?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC) ... not as anonymous as you could think - from "Czechia" :-) -jkb- (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC) My money is on yet another Jan Blanicky sock account.--Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) You see, whatismyipaddress.com also uses Czechia :) Of course impatient supporters are from Czechia, where else?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussions on closure

• Comment after closure - I voted Oppose, but I kind of like the result, it could have been worse. Bringing new evidence is not forbidden during moratorium. Also only move proposals are forbidden, it was not discussed so much lately anyway. So OK. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chrzwzcz:--It may not be out of context to inform you that a move request and a rename request is technically same and that the moratorium also explicitly forbids ay discussion attempting to use Czechia as the main identity for this article's topic in the prose.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's OK. It was not discussed either, to use it as "main". Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We need to make clear that this applies to usage of Czechia site wide. Until outside usage increases, there is no reason to use it here.--Khajidha (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point in re-addressing or raising the same issue across multiple individual WP pages when it has already been addressed here. Doremo (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Should probably make sure that it is mentioned at Project: Czech Republic.--Khajidha (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My intepretation: Czechia banned in article names (category names also). Czechia banned as main identifier in the prose. But, Czechia allowed in source citations (no need to delete them or rewrite them). Czechia allowed as secondary identifier (in articles which lists two or more possible names of countries). Czechia welcomed in lead of this article (as is now), Czechia welcomed in chapter about the name of Czech Republic, Czechia welcomed in Name of the Czech Republic article. Czech lands used when Czech Republic is too inaccurate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And Česko/Tschechien/Tchéquie/Chequia/Чехия translate as the "Czech Republic" (Česká republika/Tschechische Republik/République tchèque/República Checa/Чешская Республика), yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Czrzwzcz seems to have hit it pretty squarely. As far as rendering Česko and the like into English, I'd say "Czechia" if we are quoting and "Czech Republic" if we are rephrasing. For example, we would write "Dr. X said 'Czechia is the greatest country on Earth!'" but "Dr. X said that the Czech Republic was the greatest country on Earth". --Khajidha (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For historical text, I would suggest using the name of the then current polity (Bohemia, A-H Empire, Czechoslovakia, etc) if relevant and "Czech lands" if it can be left vague. With a "now in the Czech Republic" note somewhere if it is felt to be needed. --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say, if you use some pie chart or table with "Czechia" in source, rewriting into Czech Republic is expected. If you see sport match and Czechia is playing, rewrite (let's say to be systematic all around Wikipedia). If you are citing ISO standard or UN database, it is nonsense to rewrite, even in indirect speech. "Czech lands" is glue between past and present, if such article contains historic and current info. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Khajidha, don't forget the Czecho-Slovak Republic (1938-1939), the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939-1945) and Sudetenland (1938-1945) and the Czech Socialist Republic (1960-1990)!

I'm not forgetting them, I just figured a short list would get the point across. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So if Dr. X says in Czech "Česko je OK", wiki should translate it as: Dr. X said "Czechia is OK"? As I can see the other debater here fought in past about TV show "Česko hledá SuperStar" and its correct translation into English. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing is genius. Dr. X said: "I go to piss" and some wikipedists rephrase it as Dr. X said: "I go to shit".

First, you don't use quotation marks around rephrases. Second, you didn't "rephrase" anything there. You changed the meaning. Rephrasing would be saying that Dr. X had indicated a need to urinate.--Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. X said: "the first concentration camp in Germany" and some wikipedists rephrase it as Dr. X said: "the first concentration camp in the Federal Republic of Germany"! or in the "German lands" (what are "German lands"?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Germany has got established short name, so they can use it. Czechia has got current political name, and if it creates nonsenses like your camp, surrogate term "Czech lands" is used (or then-current names like Bohemia). It is not perfect surrogate, but already established one. Other phrasing would be something like "the first camp on the territory of present-day Federal Republic...". Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Germany was in 1930's and 1940's only on the territory of present-day Federal Republic of Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What's your point?! It won't be in article name and if unclear, it would be described in more words. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just ignore this person, their command of English (and I use that phrase loosely) isn't good enough for them to be a useful participant in this discussion.--Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this means that you don't have arguments and began grammar nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it means that it is nearly impossible to extract any coherent arguments from your posts. While perfect grammar is not required here, some basic level of coherence is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

At this point I don't have the feeling we discuss the slosure of this but we discuss pissing and shitting. Could we go on and leave the off topic? -jkb- (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It is just some restless annonym who does not understand his actions. He thinks he's helping but the opposite is true.Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fuller intepretation: Czechia banned in article names (category names also). Czechia banned as main identifier in the prose. But, Czechia allowed in source citations (no need to delete them or rewrite them). Czechia allowed as secondary identifier (in articles which lists two or more possible names of countries). Czechia welcomed in lead of this article (as is now), Czechia welcomed in chapter about the name of Czech Republic, Czechia welcomed in Name of the Czech Republic article. Czech lands used when Czech Republic is too inaccurate (describing whole history up to now) - or use current polity (Bohemia, A-H Empire, Czechoslovakia, etc.). Czechia is translation of "Česko" (and Tschechien in German etc.) and it is OK to use it when translating direct speech or translating a name which contains Česko (eg. TV show Česko hledá SuperStar -> Czechia seeks SuperStar). Chrzwzcz (talk)

Just FYI An example of historical inaccuracy on Commons: Category:Built in the Czech Republic in 1927. It is like Built in Czechoslovakia in 2017. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

All seems good except it should be "then-current polity" or "relevant polity", current polity would be "Czech Republic". --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's very inteligent! For example here Template:European_history_by_country are histories of states + 1 history of some "lands" (Czech lands) or history of the Czech Republic since 1990.

Enjoy small victory and try not to achieve all at once. English wiki is not ready to use Czechia as a main identifier of current state nor as a general identifier of all states on Czech territory throughout history - Czech lands are used instead as (maybe) inaccurate but compromise and also used variant. Czech lands may be first to "go", even before Czech Republic, but as discussed before, there's no strong backing in sources yet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You can say Czechia in Czech. We say Czech Republic in English. That's just how it is. Don't be jealous of your other half. LordAtlas (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Czech Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129060510/http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home to http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416165655/http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do to http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121128035158/http://www.nacr.cz/zpravy/zlatabula800.aspx to http://www.nacr.cz/zpravy/zlatabula800.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217231510/http://archiv.radio.cz/history/history03.html to http://archiv.radio.cz/history/history03.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.radio.cz/cz/zpravy/105664
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.czso.cz/sldb/sldb.nsf/i/8BE4678613181F2AC1256E66004C77DD/%24File/tab3_21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160123123959/http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/2015visaopennessreportonline.pdf to http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/docpdf/2015visaopennessreportonline.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524215837/http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A20421402~pagePK%3A64133150~piPK%3A64133175~theSitePK%3A239419%2C00.html to http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A20421402~pagePK%3A64133150~piPK%3A64133175~theSitePK%3A239419%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internetprovsechny.cz/wifi-poskytovatele.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1099.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512221406/http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/3586 to http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/3586
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129060510/http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home to http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Motto and Formation date of Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia dispute

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

The Greater coat of arms of the Czech Republic didn't contain the motto, but the presidential flag contains the presidential motto (it's not a different version of the Czech coats of arms but an usage of the coats of arms in the presidential flag). That's surely not a proof that the motto is a national motto oficially. Even though the presidential motto comes out of some national (especially Husitte) traditions, it is simply not an official national motto. Czech Republic has no official motto. --ŠJů (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was a coerced formation, under German occupation, and was not recognized oficially and was nullified retroactively, but it was actually a real formation with a real power on the area of Czechia, even though the exiled Czechoslovak government existed paralelly and countinuously. From the historical view, this formation cannot be omitted. (From the philosophical view, every state formation has a forcible nature, even though it can have less or more of legitimacy).

However, also some other corrections of inaccuracies were reverted improperly:

* In 1993, the Czech Republic dídn´t arise but only became independent.

* If the table distinguishes "Czech Socialist Republic" and "Czech Republic", also the date of this renaming (6 March 1990) should be stated correctly. --ŠJů (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In the case of motto ThecentreCZ is right. Greater coat of arms of the Czech Republic have 2 versions. One constitutional without and one with the motto Pravda vítězí and linden leaves. This version is also used in Presidential Standard but not only, also used other ways for example on talking stand of the President on Prague Castle and other places. You have bad impression because as you anticipate, the motto is not directly contained in the Constitution described as "national motto" like for example in France. But that is not the problem, the column of motto is not constitutional information only, same as for example patron saint of any country, which is not oficially adpoted in any secular countries of course. We have same situation as for example in German motto Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit which is descripted as (de facto). Motto Pravda vítězí is national motto of the Czech Republic and also of Czechoslovakia since adoption of Constitution of Czechoslovakia in 1920 depicted in Greater Coat of arms of Czechoslovakia. It is like this in every article like First Czechoslovak Republic also Socialist Czechoslovakia and motto Veritas Vincit is considered as motto also of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, which have it also on presidential flag. So I suggest to add here also notice Truth prevails (de facto) like Germany and other nations, because that could be disinterprated.

In the case of formation I don't have specific issue with marking renaming or something, but Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia can't marked as precedding state. Even Slovakia don't have their formation as Slovak State in 1939 marked in there, because Constitution of the Slovak Republic by it's rule of law abandonned Fascist statehood as something immoral by decision of Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic. And that is Slovakia which had more less sovereign Slovak Republic (1939-1945). But Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was part of Nazi Germany, no way independent country like Slovakia. We would have to metion in formation mark also every annexetion and changing of borders of Kingdom of Bohemia for 1000 years of existence. --Mujdeda (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Short name: Czechia

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

---

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

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

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

I'm not noticing any difference in the page as displayed with EITHER form. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I thought the changes were just in the infobox (where it isn't visible). --Khajidha (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox changes are useless (parameter short_name is not implemented). And about first sentence of the article - better to leave it as it is, it was a struggle, no party is fully satisfied but at least it is a lasting peace :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong as it is and it's rather tiring to keep seeing you push Czechia on everyone. LordAtlas (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Who truly read my posts know I am not pushing but rather trying to meet halfway and to find compromise - to inform about new facts (no concealing) but with accordance with its impact (no exaggeration). Like this new thread - better leave it as it is than begin another round of useless posts about tiring misunderstandings. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What you are arguing for is based on semantics. There is nothing wrong as it currently stands. LordAtlas (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For supporters of Czechia it lacks "official short name", for opposers "also known as" is too strong, but I do not suggest any change and I am not arguing, read my posts, this thread was started by different user. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But "official" doesn't mean anything to the English language. That's the central disconnect here. A lot of Czech's get excited that it is the "official short name as registered at the UN" but the general English speaking community doesn't give a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys for "official" (or the UN for that matter). --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Since "Czech Republic" is also official, that's, well, just a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. The same goes for laying this on English speakers. What do you suppose proportion of usage is in Google's most recent French language corpus of books between "Birmanie" and (the official) "Myanmar"? Three to one. In German, "Burma" and "Birma" together still outpaced "Myanmar" as of 2008, and in Spanish "Birmania" and "Myanmar" were only just neck-and-neck.Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

1) CR being official isn't relevant to the point. That point being that English adopts short form names with no necessary relationship to the official ones. Some match, some don't. And that lack of match is no reason to change usage. 2) We are discussing appeals from Czechs to change English usage, the French, Spanish, and German names for Burma could hardly be less relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think "also known as" is better, I am surprised, it sounds like it actually is known under that name, which is not (it is merely official but not known). If Wikipedia wants to exaggerate the familiarity, who am I to judge :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC

But it IS "also known as". It is known that way to many organizations. "Also known as" and "commonly known as" are two different things. Czechia has enough usage to justify an "also known as" tag, but not a "commonly known as" one. This is quite an advance. About a year ago "Czechia" was about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj" (or any other example of random letters). --Khajidha (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is known that way to many organizations. - Well, it is known to many organizations as "official short name to put into databases or map" but not as "name to use in a sentence". If it qualifies for "also known as", then OK. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: You said: About a year ago "Czechia" was about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj". Maybe, it applies to some people who know nothing about geography and about Central Europe. If we find out that most of uneducated people from "English speaking world" don't know alder or ash and call them all simply "tree", due their ignorance, should we pronounce that "alder" and "ash" are about as recognizable to the English speaking world as "rsdteyjklhj"? Surely not. The acquainted and educated English speakers can be taken as a criterion of the right English usage - not some babbling of unknowing uneducated ignorants (who are not able to understand the distinction and relation between the geographical name of the country and the political name of the state and use some derivative adjective (Czech) obtusely, without any concern to the source substantive. Of course, we can decide to prefer the name of the republic to the name of the country for the article name, in case of this one country, as a strange exception. But please abstain from such absurd argumentation. --ŠJů (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Invalid comparison. We're not talking about someone not knowing about a generally used English term here. We are discussing the attempt to impose a new term upon the English language from outside. Totally different situations. Czechia has not even been familiar to educated English speakers. --Khajidha (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You: English speakers are failing to call the country "Czechia" because English speakers don't care about what name is official. Me: When English speakers call it "Czech Republic", they are referring to it by an official name. You: Irrelevant!

You: And I'm singling out English speakers when I say this, because speakers of other languages, of course, don't do this. Me. That isn't true, there are speakers of other languages who don't jump to adopt other countries' official names [citing an example]. You: Irrelevant!

Your understanding of the concept of relevance is baffling. Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see how you got your interpretations of what I said.

Me: English speakers do not see "official" as a reason to adopt something.

Me: I'm not singling out English speakers. The conversation is about English usage. I never mentioned usage outside of English and Czech until you did.

--Khajidha (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else get the feel there's some weird disconnect here in understanding English? The Czechs don't seem to understand. LordAtlas (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I still do not understand why the is such a BIG issue in the English language. In Sweden, for instance, Czechia was called Tjeckien from the very first day of its independence. The more formal name Tjeckiska republiken is almost never used. Perhaps in very strict cases such as treaties and so on. But never in the everyday language. Short forms are of course much more convenient than long forms. Why is it not that way also in English? Why should this country not be treated in the same way as its neighbour and former partner Slovakia, which is seldom referred to by its formal name Slovak republic? --Muniswede (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And I still do not understand why this seems to matter so much to some people. How can what another language calls something be of any importance to you? To me this makes no more sense than asking "Why does English call the color 'blue'?" --Khajidha (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw., Czechia as a country existed (within various state formations) long time ago, before the independent Czech Republic. How did English call Czechia before 1969, when Czechia was the bigger part of Czechoslovakia, but had not its own republic? How a standing name has English for Czechia during all its periods when the country was included in or consisted of various republics, kingdoms, duchies, margraviates, lands and protectorates? Czech Republic was established in 1969 and became independent in 1993, but Czechia existed a long time before that. Should be the right English usage assessed according to some uneducated ignorants, who never heard about Czechia before 1993, but some of them even live with the mistaken assumption that Czechoslovakia is a country identical to the Czech Republic? Czechia is the country, Czech Republic is the republic. --ŠJů (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"How did English call Czechia before 1969, when Czechia was the bigger part of Czechoslovakia, but had not its own republic?" BOHEMIA. If we thought of it at all we called it Bohemia, as we had for centuries. Or just "the Czech part of Czechoslovakia" --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Are you able to assert such an elementary mistake even past many months of your participation in related discussions? Bohemia existed since the Early Middle Ages, and stil exists within the Czech Republic, but it was (and is) only one of Czech lands - Bohemia fills about two thirds of the area of the whole Czechia only. The whole Czechia consists of Bohemia, Moravia and the Czech Silesia (about 1/10 of the whole Silesia). The arise of the Czech Republic in 1969 as well as its independence since 1993 changed nothing on these facts. The new Czech Republic was named according to the long ago existing country of Czechia, populated (besides particularly German minority) by Czechs (i.e. especially Bohemians and Moravians), who use Bohemian, Moravian and Silesian dialects of the Czech language. English language has the big advantage that it is able to distinguish Czechia and Bohemia, Czech and Bohemian. (Even Czech language is not able to distinguish the two adjectives, and distinguishes only the two substantives.) Yes, there exists a dilemma which of the two names to use, but unfortunately, even hopelessly confused and unknowing people can obstruct the factual decision making. --ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Maybe, you was also confused by the strange list of the "previous formations" (while the corresponding formation at the area of Czechia, Czech lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown, is missing). These are formations related to Czechia, but some of them (duchy and kingdom of Bohemia) contained only one part of Czechia, some of them (Czechoslovakia) exceeded area of Czechia significantly. Regrettably, many uneducated people mix all the terms together and are not able to distinguish them. --ŠJů (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not confused, not mistaken. Simply explaining English usage to you. In English, the whole thing is "Bohemia", with Moravia and Silesia as little considered portions thereof. It is a different language, you know, the conceptions aren't going to match 100% with Czech. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is this still a thing? You Czechs can do whatever the hell you want at the Czech Wikipedia. The English one uses English. You don't get to randomly boss people around. No one cares what you call the country in Czech. LordAtlas (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Let's be logical here

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

---

Quite frankly, the totalitarian maintainance of the title Czech Republic is irresponsible, delusional and unethical. Wikipedians, you have no choice over what the nation is called. If the Czech government wishes us to use Czechia, we use Czechia. If they wanted us to call it 'Bandiaterra', we would call it Bandiaterra. If Wikipedia existed in the 1990s, the current logic would require we called the Commonwealth of Independent States "the Soviet Union" as it is still the most commonly used name. Ridiculous! As I once was a Wikipedian however, I do realise a consensus of sorts is required as not all will agree - so I propose this (possibly radical) step - that only Czech users and IPs can decide the name of the article, a system that would be IP monitored by admins. This would be solely limited to those with a Czech IP so we avoid any conflicts of interest with users who may claim to be Czech but really are not. Links used to direct people to this article should remain as what they currently stand, be it Czechia or Czech Republic, until the Czechs have reached a consensus. Wikipedia once was great, where people just got on with the job without having silly squabbles over what are essentially two wrongs - but a serious step needs to be taken. For an acceptable consensus to be reached, outsiders should not have a choice in the matter as it is not our problem. 101.180.4.246 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If we are being logical, only users and IPs form English-speaking countries should be allowed to edit the article. Czechs do not get to dictate the English language. English Wikipedia uses English as it is. Stop trying to push others around. Czechs can stick to the Czech Wikipedia if they want to as they are Czech speakers and not English speakers. YOU are the outsiders on English Wikipedia by your own logic. LordAtlas (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You both are wrong. Of course it is not OK to let only Czechs to contribute on this article. And of course Czechs (Czech Republic) has its say how it wants to be called in English, otherwise what are UN databases for? Of course English (users/language) can ignore these official names (political and geographic) but has no imminent reason (and it does not ignore - it uses one of those registered names). It is not the same as "Czechs are trying to dictate English language how to call window/bike/door in English", so do not try to present it this way. For now common name is Czech Republic, other sites are more flexible, Wikipedia is bound by other rules. And look at this graph which shows how long it took Czechoslovakia to beat Bohemia, and how long it took Czech Republic to beat Czechoslovakia! I gues Wiki would wait until 1933 to finally recognize Czechoslovakia. Maybe. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

UN databases are for UN usage, not general language usage. And how is it different from your "window/bike/door" example? It's still a word. Word usage in any language is determined primarily by native speakers of that language.--Khajidha (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Word versus proper noun - that's the difference. So should I expect "Czechoslovakia" was English language's own idea? Don't be ridiculous! :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A proper noun is a word. Stop pushing POV on how English speakers speak. We don't call Japan "nihon". LordAtlas (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Czechia

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

---

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

Chelsea Manning is a person, this country is not. --Khajidha (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Czech Republic is also welcome to name itself whatever it wants to in Czech. As for the English name, it simply depends on what becomes predominant usage in that language, and WP should reflect that. Doremo (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just want to point out that we didn't change the name. The government has just added shorter name - Czechia that COULD but doesn't have to be used. The country's name is still the CZECH REPUBLIC. It's like Britain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or like France and its official name French Republic. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the point is that Czechia is currently an uncommon name, unlike the common name France. If Czechia becomes common then WP should reflect that. Doremo (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You two are basically saying "Czech Republic must use this name to show that it is meant seriously" but on the other hand "Czech Republic can't order English what to use, English can use whatever it wants". The only solution is "Czech Republic have to use it so much that English will notice and adopt it willingly". Tough task. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

English doesn't "want" do do anything; it is a language and has no volition. All languages gradually change, and maybe Czechia will someday come into common use in English. Or maybe not. Doremo (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

"Czech Republic have to use it so much that English will notice and adopt it willingly". Yep. That's how a non-regulated language works. --Khajidha (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Google Maps has changed Czech Republic to Czechia, it has to be moved Von Sprat (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of what is commonly used in English. It does not take orders from Google Maps. It does not have to be moved.

The Czech government's English website uses "Czech Republic": [1]. The Czech Tourism Authority's website uses "Czech Republic" and the slogan "Czech Republic - Land of Stories". The argument that the Czech government has decided that "Czechia" is the official English name isn't valid. The Czech government isn't even using it. Ground Zero | t 22:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your argumentation is invalid and quite disregarding. The project of the Czech Tourism Authority is running since 2012. Neither the slogan nor the logos, materials and so on can be changed in a matter of six months in a such long-term plan. The Czech government isn't even using it. The Czech government uses the formal, political name due to a certain diplomatic protocol, so as most other countries do. Take a look at the website of, for example, The Slovak government [2], Polish [3], Croatian [4], Bulgarian [5], Macedonian [6]. On the other hand, Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched a video last December promoting the name Czechia [7]. You are mistaking political and geographical name. I'm afraid that you are not informed properly and that you've made some incorrect conclusions. Oasis98 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you really just say that it was not possible to change "Czech Republic - Land of Stories" to "Czechia - Land of Stories" in six months? That just sounds ridiculous.--Khajidha (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, "launching a video to promote" the name will have VASTLY less effect than actually using the name. Don't tell people to change, show them that it has changed. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is not possible to change, "Czech Republic - Land of Stories" is (co-)funded by EU and conditions (and name) of promotional action is not possible to change when already started years ago (2012) before the "official Czechia introduction" (2016). Also government has clearly no intention to rename existing things (eg. throw away existing sport jerseys, but eventually change them next time they will be made which should be 3-year period). Article in Czech says that "Czech Republic" MUST be used until 2020 for program Czech Republic - Land of Stories. Elsewhere whatever, but this particular thing cannot change. It does not matter anyway, it would not change a thing for wikipedia accepting Czechia, so why are we discussing this thing anyway? Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The name of an article is not off-topic for discussion on the talk page of an article.

For what it's worth, both the CIA World Factbook[8] and the United States Department of State[9] have reflected the new name. On the other hand, only a few months ago The Guardian had this to say about it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing google news searches for the past month, I still see basically three types of results: 1) articles that are simply explaining the name, 2) English language press from non-English speaking countries (particularly Belarus for some reason, although actual Czech sources are finally increasing), and 3) very minor English as primary language sources (many having to do with casinos and cannabis, interestingly enough). This doesn't really strike me as indicating general acceptance of the name in English. --Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The usage won't be forced by authorities (no mandatory renaming of companies etc.) so it will take time, you may monitor it and make graphs :) Making Czechia official simply decided which 1-word-alternative is the correct one, if someone wants to use the shorter variant - if(!). It was the same with Czech Česko, it took at least 15 years and there was the advantage of everyday news and need of writing about self. General acceptance - for now mainly in encyclopedic entries and maps,... you monitored just news which may increase later. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's not only encyclopedic and governmental data that moved on (CIA Factbook, US Dept. of State, The UK Ministry of Defence, United Nations,...). It looks like Google is working on fully adopting Czechia and removing the political name. It's already replaced "the Czech Republic" in some services and apps: eg. Google Maps show only Czechia, British Youtube has also Czechia in the location segment, Google Translator, Google Calendar. This's all came up approximately in the very last month. I guess that further actions will follow. Oasis98 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Its time for Wikipedia to stay ahead of the curve and make the change. The Google stuff is huge as hundreds of thousands of sites use their databases. In other words a large amount (if not majority) of drop downs pre populated with country names will show Czechia before the year is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X243m3 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia's mission is not "to stay ahead of the curve". Wikipedia reflects current general usage. You can list a hundred places where "Czechia" is being used, and it won't matter if the bulk of reliable sources are still saying "Czech Republic". WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

A few people call an avocado an "alligator pear," but most do not. That is why the article is at "avocado" and not "alligator pear." That is also why the article Czech Republic is where it is. Doremo (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Are wikipedia readers mostly idiots who find the Czech Republic, but can not find Czechia? You don't know the function Redirect? from the Czech Republic to Czechia?

Many people don't know species of birds or flowers or trees. But the fact that majority of people is uneducated doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not distinguish terms and concepts. When we see a wood warbler, some minority of very educated and specialized people call it "wood warbler" or even Phylloscopus sibilatrix but crushing majority will call it simply as a "bird" or "small bird". Or even confuse it with some other species. But it is not a sensible reason to rename the article Wood warbler to Some small bird. I confess, I belong to such ignorants in many fields, as everybody. However, ignorance of such people should be not the determinative criterion for Wikipedia article titles. Opinion of acquainted specialists and authorities should have its relevance. In some items, we prefer official or expert systematical names to the slang or folklore names, even though they are widely used. Wikipedia should distinguish the geographical name from the political name and should have its system which of the two names should be systematically preferred for articles about countries, because the two names are not synonymical. Maybe, "Czech Republic" is more used as "Czechia", but the meaning is not identical. --ŠJů (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The distinction you're drawing is spurious. It may be that "Czechia" has been used in the past, even before the existence of the Czech Republic, to refer to part or all of the areas inhabited by Czechs, but the discussions on this page are about whether to name the article "Czechia" in connection with its one particular role as the official short name (in English) of the Czech Republic. As with "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" versus "North Korea" or "French Republic" versus "France", this is about which of two political names (these "short names" are no less officially declared than the fuller, formal names), which in the context of this discussion refer to the same thing, should be used as the title of the article. It isn't about differences in precision. Largoplazo (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Another point is that when English language sources want to talk about the entire history of the region, they already have a word for that: BOHEMIA. In English, Czechia (when used AT ALL) is used only as a short form of "the Czech Republic", the two terms have EXACTLY the same referent. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It can't be true. Otherwise Wikipedia would use it as common name for the article History of the Czech lands and similar ones. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that the Czechia boosters are also the ones who insist that Czechia does not equal Bohemia (because of Moravia and Silesia). They ignore the fact that in English Bohemia-proper, Moravia and (Czech) Silesia have all been included in the usual English meaning of the term Bohemia. To avoid that shit-storm, the other common English term (Czech lands) is used, but that has the drawback of being less of a national identity term than Bohemia. It all seems to come down to the idea that English should have the same frame of reference as Czech, and ignoring the fact that they are different languages and can thus conceive of things differently.--Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, Bohemian Crown -> Bohemia simplification, but Bohemia is no longer fitting for recent history. You can't say History of Bohemia and include whatever happened since 1993 or even 1918 and include Moravia or Silesia events. Also you would have two Bohemias with two meanings, too confusing. I think maybe Czechia could be first used on wiki in the name of that History article. "Czech lands" or "Bohemia" also do not match the (now) common name Czech Republic and its main article, so what, you can as well use Czechia :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

1) "two Bohemias" - not really, one of those is simply thought of as "that part of Bohemia that isn't Moravia or Silesia", not a separate thing. 2) We could use Czechia, but we don't because we follow English language usage and English language usage generally does not include Czechia. Bottom line, forget about changing Wikipedia's usage until you can show that usage outside of Wikipedia has changed significantly. Show me the major media and publisher usage of Czechia in the UK, the US, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand.--Khajidha (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Yeah, really not confusing. 2) My point was that "Czech lands" is also not common English name - so Czechia won't be different and at least it is official. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1) no more so than Serbia and "Serbia-proper" 2) But Czech lands is more common than Czechia and "official" is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1) It's contemporary usage, Bohemia is no longer used that way you propose, so let us forget it completely :) 2) Right, right, Czech lands are like 2 sources ahead, but thanks to ancient sources. Let us describe and unify history of current Czech Republic and its predecessors by forgotten anachronic term, clever. Next we can search for recent events about German Federative Republic in article History of Prussia maybe. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that English handles all countries the same. Guess what? It doesn't. "But that isn't the way you talk about Germany!" is totally irrelevant to how we talk about this country. It is just as irrelevant as your point about "official names" earlier. In fact, every argument I've ever seen for the usage of Czechia has been either or both of the following: 1) it's official, 2) it's like other countries. Both of these are of no importance. Again, " forget about changing Wikipedia's usage until you can show that usage outside of Wikipedia has changed significantly. Show me the major media and publisher usage of Czechia in the UK, the US, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and New Zealand." --Khajidha (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I had 3rd. It is allowed to stay for "Czech lands", equally uncommon name, which has disadvantage of being archaic and anachronic with sources old as a rock. Very strange to connect such name with current events. We have a chance to use modern term instead which is more likely to hear and see nowadays and is more likely to search it here. Both equally uncommon, 1 old, 1 new. What to choose! (Again: For the acticle History of ...)Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Something that is uncommon but has been around for a while would seem to me to be a better choice than something that is uncommon but has only been around for a very short time. Especially when most of the sources that contain the term "Czechia" are simply arguing for its usage. At least the sources that contain the term "the Czech lands" are actually using it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Czechia" can beat "Czech lands" much quicker (so renaming of History article would be possible), but we will wait until "Czechia" beats (catches) "Czech Republic". Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is it doesn't beat either right now.--Khajidha (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Find 3 differences: France x French Republic, formerly France x French Empire, formerly France x Kingdom of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Find differences: the first concentration camp in Germany x the first concentration camp in the Federal Republic of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

change "In January 2017 Czechia replaced Czech Republic on Google Maps." to "Most of the online map providers use the official undisputed form Czech Republic." Only google is using Czechia, all the others (yahoo, bing, msn) use Czech Republic. And majority is what matters. 213.155.254.192 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

You are not among the intellectual variant if you believe you can dictate English. English speakers can say what they like. As can you Czechs. They are not the same language. Your flowery language is a poor attempt at coercion through faux superiority. LordAtlas (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, before someone conveniently closed previous topic: Czechoslovakia was not invented by English language, it was pushed (dictated if you may) by Czechoslovakia. Of course proper nouns are different than just "words". And same with Czechia. And of course - no, it cannot be changed now or any time near. But about this one: That paragraph lists examples where Czechia has been already adopted, not list of those which has not yet. Why to silence Google maps with number of less (or far less) important map providers?! Simply - Google adopted, and others have not adopted - it goes without saying. "Only Google" - very funny combination of words, as in "his webpage can be found ONLY on Google". BTW once again this is discussion between Czechs :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to be Czechs only and whatnot, stay on Czech Wikipedia. Problem solved. Proper nouns ARE just words. If English speakers don't use Czechia, too bad for you. We don't speak Czech. LordAtlas (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You are commenting something else than was said, I see it repeatedly in your smug posts. Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"once again this is discussion between Czechs" could easily be taken to mean that "the discussion should be Czechs only".--Khajidha (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I meant "is" as "is" and quite clearly LordAtlas thought "should". No, Anonymous IP address is Czech, opponents are Czechs and a few Non-Czechs are witnessing battle between them... again... which is kind of lame :) And ARE NOT, proper nouns much more easily slips into different language (who wants to rename all the towns and people and sportsmen during sport event...) without change or with some kind of quick and simple transcription or transliteration method. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

"Czechia" controversy

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

---

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

Nothing controversial my friend, Czechia is now the new formal name of the Czech Republic. ;-) 202.72.165.105 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Czech Republic is still the formal name. Czechia is the informal/geographical name. Just as France (informal/geographic) is formally known as the French Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

.....as the French Republic has geographic name France, the Czech Republic has Czechia :-PJan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. So the article should be called Czechia. It's so simple... Carvin (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

yesJan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article titles use the most common English name. Czechia is only just barely used enough now to be in the lead. We will wait to see if it actually becomes the common name or if general usage remains the Czech Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the states have official political names and official geographic names. You should use official geographic name, because it can be keyword, because of no limitation by time and political character of the state. Political name defines only current political formation in the state, but not the country as a whole with historical continuity. You cannot write about "the Czech Republic" in historical context except the period from 1993. Therefore, the main keyword in an encyclopedia cannot be a transient political name. Personally, you can wait and call it how you want, we will use it :-)Jan Blanický 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. Just as the United States history class I took in high school could and did cover the time before 4 July 1776, so too can a "History of the Czech Republic" cover history before 1993. However, you must phrase things in a different manner. You cannot say that "In the Czech Republic in 1587..." but you can say "in 1587 in what is now the Czech Republic...". As far as what the main keyword in an encyclopedia (not encyclopedy, that is not an English word) should be, Wikipedia convention is that articles should use their common names as titles. So far, even with the increasing usage of Czechia, this country is still best known in English as the Czech Republic. All the wishes and desires of every Czech throughout history count for absolutely nothing here. What is actually done in English is all that matters. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the name itself, it's about consistency in article naming policy. Almost all countries have the «formal/political» name and the «common/human» name, e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany vs. Germany, the Russian Federation vs. Russia, the French Republic vs. France, the same is in this case, the Czech Republic vs Czechia. And if you open an English article of DE, RU, FR, you'll see the «common/human» name as main article title, but not in the case of CZ, there you'll see the «formal/political» name as the main title. That's inconsistency and should be fixed. 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A wish to create some sort of formal parallelism isn't a solid basis for this proposal (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As already clearly explained, when another name becomes the English common name (see advice at WP:COMMONNAME), then the article title will naturally reflect that. Doremo (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Especially as this so-called inconsistency is actually consistency. Consistency with actual usage by the English speaking population. Said usage is itself inconsistent, but that is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's important to note, as of 2017 Google Maps began to adopt Czechia as a primary name for the Czech Republic. If you'll search for «Czech Republic», you'll be redirected to Czechia, e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Czechia/ link. Google Maps have already updated the country name and in all search suggestions on the service appears Czechia only, try to type «Prague», and you'll see. 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In the Czech Kingdom of Bohemia in 1587... is correct. Official name in Middle Ages was Čechy. In Latin Bohemia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.214.97.242 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As it's been already mentioned: How do you explain WP's application of the name Myanmar, when the older name of Burma is still widely used? It's probably predominant in an informal English language and the 'official' US and British sources such as CIA Factbook, US Dept. of State or The Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom also don't reflect the change, which they did in the case of Czechia. Google Maps service has solved the issue evasively: adding both Myanmar and Burma in brackets. Oasis98 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been many debates and discussions about that page, which was at "Burma" from 2007 to 2015. Consensus that Myanmar had become the common name only just happened in 2015. It takes a while.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure but Czechia is:

• Listed in the United Nations´ databases “UNTERM” and “UNGEGN” as the official short name of the Czech Republic.
• Listed as the short name by ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization.
• Used on Google maps.
• Listed on CIA fact book.
• Will be used in sports moving forward in the English language.
• Used in all Google applications (i.e. any drop down boxes etc which are used across the internet by thousands if not hundreds of thousands sites.
• And Technological comitee made this statement:----> The decision about the name “Czechia” has been made by those who are qualified by the law to make it. November 2014 statement of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster states: “According to the article 3 of Act 1994/200 on Land Surveying, the standardization of names of settlement and non-settlement units is a land surveying activity in public interest and its results and recommendations should be followed by national and local state institutions. The position of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster, an advisory authority of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadaster for the codification of country names, on the use of the name Česko and its foreign language variants (Czechia, Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia…) is positive. This position on the use of the one-word name Česko and its equivalents in foreign languages has not changed since 1993. The experts unequivocally recommended the use of “Czechia” in English and its variants in other language (Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia etc.). This is not an opinion but the outcome of the process of standardization.”
• Its time to update Wikipedia and stay with the times. Czechia should be the title and be redirected to when linking to Czech Republic. Lets get it over with and make the logical choice, it is the proper standard today and will continue to be moving forward. Wikepdia can do its part in being accurate and educating people. X243m3 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia's mission is not "to stay ahead of the curve". Wikipedia reflects current general usage. You can list a hundred places where "Czechia" is being used, and it won't matter if the bulk of reliable sources are still saying "Czech Republic". WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Czechia is absolutely corrrect

Go to hell with "Czech republic", this issue is already awkward. User "Khajida" is an psychiatric patient, probably with some Czech ancestors, who pushes "Czech Lands", however such a name is only terminus technicus and it has never been the name of our country. Czechia is absolutely correct, and since July 5, 2016, Czechia has been the official name of the country being included in the UN List of World Geographical Names (UNGEGN)

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames & the United Nations Terminology Database (UNTERM) https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/Display/Record/UNHQ/NA/4275087d-4018-4082-899d-95f37efeda65 The name is codified by ISO 3166 Standards https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:CZ

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

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

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

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

Hello, Jan Blanicky. Aren't you supposed to be blocked? These personal attacks should suffice to get rid of this account, too. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

PS - Could you please at least get my name right? I mean, it's right there for you to copy and paste if you can't remember it.--Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

There is absolutely no effort to "suppress Czechia". That name is identified as an alternative name in the first sentence of this article, and no-one -- no-one -- is arguing that it shouldn't be. Read the article. And when it becomes the most commonly used term by English-speaking people, then the article should be moved as Wikipedia policy says it should be. Czechia's time will come, but we're not there yet.

And yes, personal attacks like "moron", "idiot" and "pest", and suggesting that people who disagree are not educated violate Wikipedia policy and are grounds for blocking. Please withdraw those remarks and apologize. 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Ground Zero | t

I disagree as the geographical name for the country of Ireland is Ireland yet the Wikipedia name is the republic of Ireland. As the State and region is not synonymous this is avoid People being upset over the troubles and the North. As the official name on legal documents published by the Czech government(not meaning its registered name in the un)is the Czech Republic, it should be kept as such. Unless of course there is a referendum on the name of the country as decided by popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.126.36 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

As a czech I disagree that czechia should be used. In a referendum people voted against it, yet the government still used it and it is an undemocratic namer chosen in violation of the Czech referendum where the majority was against it46.135.110.245 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)46.135.110.245

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

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

Examples of increasing usage of Czechia

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

---

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

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

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

Are you sure that you've got the right honey pot? :-) -jkb- (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It was just FYI. "The Move" is not closer, but as a recall to last year Guardian article "The trouble is, Czechia is not catching on. Czech authorities continue to use the term Czech Republic on official correspondence and English-language websites..." - at least some progress, right, if Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses it here and there... It was unthinkable a year ago. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No one cares. I'm not staying civil if you are going to continue this nonsense. Czech Republic is the official name and we use it. Czechia is a short name, regardless of official status or not, and we don't use it. So what? Why are you so determined to push this name? "Progress" seems to be nothing short of your own personal bias. All you've shown is a couple Czech sources use the name in one or two instances. It doesn't matter what the Czechs do. No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. What matters is what the English-speaking world does. LordAtlas (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Esthonia and the Ukraine

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

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

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

How is this relevant? --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

They aren't relevant because this case is being evaluated against common usage in English regarding the identification of this country. Further, there is, by consensus, a moratorium on discussing this issue. Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any relevance to this case either. Also the moratorium was archived so newcomers won't know about it and occasional link "Not a suitable topic for discussion, per #RFC: 6-month moratorium on page-name and related discussions." does not work. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2017

I want to report vandalism, user called Heptapolein removed (at 10:21, 13 July 2017) big chunk of text which was clearly relevant. i.e. Bing maps really do use Czech Republic and not Czechia. The other parts of removed text were using relevant sources and all cited facts used references according to Wikipedia policy for references. Please revert this change and blacklist Heptapolein. 213.155.254.192 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, all is reported and true, it should stay, but...

The first part - it tells a story about (only) those who adopted the change (others have not yet, it goes without saying, doesn't it, why to list them - to undermine it or what? If Bing changes it in the future, will you find other less important map server to show not all are on board?).

The other part - A while ago a discussion was closed with "It doesn't matter what the Czechs do. No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. What matters is what the English-speaking world does." The deleted/reverted part and source tells exactly that - what Czechs do and think. So now what? Do you or do you not care what Czechs do and call their country?! :)

Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrzwzcz, there's a difference between "reporting what is happening" (like the paragraph in question) and "using what is happening as justification for changing terminology".--Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As "No one cares what you call yourselves or your country. Unless you use the same as we are then we do care deeply." Well, and what about "reporting what is happening which shows (very) slow increase of usage but with no intention of immediate change of wikipedia terminology, just updating info about the progress"? I was sent to hell and back with that. Here we have "reporting that someone already uses new terminology but let's quickly show another example of someone (be it less important) who heroically resisted". Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A company changing its tune to make customers happy is not the same as a language changing. LordAtlas (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Czech Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170513130508/http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/10104119/CEUP-FULL-REPORT.pdf to http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/10104119/CEUP-FULL-REPORT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214000000/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

The references to Marxist theorists in this article should be removed. These individuals have nothing to do directly with the Czech People, or the Czech nation, and are out of place in this article which is about the nation state of the Czech Republic. 61.68.137.179 (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Presuming you mean the mentions of Karl Kautsky and Karel Kosík, don't see why they out of all the other notable Czechs in the field of humanities should be removed Cannolis (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Consistency

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.

---

So Nagorno-Karabakh has been renamed Artsakh and that gets changed instantly, and Czech Republic has been called Czechia for 18 months and nothing's happened. Please explain. And don't use the shit "no-one calls it that" excuse - I guarantee that once you change it, people will start using it's proper name. 2001:8003:3CEA:2900:54DD:DC3:1616:2B98 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You have not raised any issues that have not been covered before. Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader, promotor, or advocate, and you don't have a crystal ball. DMacks (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Oceanic climate?

I noticed that in the lead - but not the Climate section - the climate is said to be both continental and oceanic. This struck me as odd since it's a landlocked country. I checked Wikiblame and found "oceanic" has been in the article text since at least January 2016. I see it's also on the climate map, which was uploaded to Commons in September 2016, but that says the climate classifications are calculated from the temperature data. Our oceanic climate article does show oceanic extending through much of Europe, and has a paragraph explaining that "maritime" climates can also be found inland, but if this is the situation, I think it needs to be in the Climate section and explained. As it is, since it's only in the lead, there is no reference I could check to verify that part of the country does indeed have an oceanic climate. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

The information about religion is wrong! Recently The Gallup International made the poll on the topic. Here's the source: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/370/file/370.pdf Repugraf (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (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. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

Czech Republic needs to be changed to Czechia 206.246.144.10 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The policy on the naming of articles says to use the common name in English. You will need to create a consensus among editors to support changing the name. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017

I would like to report vandalism. Please undo revision 800035473 (revision from 11 September 2017, 06:29) as the text which has been removed is valid. The referenced articles follow wikipedia policy for referencing. The content of the referenced articles prove that this topic really is controversial among the people of the Czech Republic. 147.32.98.62 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This request refers to the edit made by Filelakeshoe and it's best if the editing user state their case. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, that's an ordinary content dispute. Filelakeshoe gave his reasons, which are arguably within the content policies. 147.32.98.62, you are welcome to try the dispute resolution procedures, starting with the most important one -- civilly discussing the change with Filelakeshoe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Arguments like "weasel-worded POV" and "shitty news articles" are clearly vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The text I removed was: Many groups[who?] within the country do not support the name "Czechia", perceiving the term to have been abruptly adopted by bodies like the United Nations[38] without consultation with the general population.[39][40]

"Many groups within the country" is problematic per WP:WEASEL. Either you state which "groups" and reference it properly or it just means "I think that". Someone else had already tagged it with "who?" before I removed it. Reference 38 says absolutely nothing about people perceiving the UN to have abruptly adopted the term, only that they did adopt it. That is original research. As for the two news articles, I read them both through and neither of them mention this perception that the UN or the government should have consulted the public, so that is, again, original research. They do indicate that the topic is controversial, but they do not indicate any of that sentence I removed. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And btw, as for those news articles, two journalists reporting that "linguistic change hasn't happened in six months" is really not very informative. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As per your concern "who" are the people who are against Czechia, here are some examples:

current Minister of Regional Development - Karla Šlechtová

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/15/the-czech-republic-is-getting-a-new-name-czechia/

http://languagehat.com/czechia-2/

former Minister of Foreign Affairs - Karel Schwarzenberg

former ambassador to the US - Michael Žantovský

former Minister of Defence and of Foreign Affairs - Alexandr Vondra

https://www.svu2000.org/issues/czechia-q.m.htm

http://sunnewsonline.com/czech-republic-considers-name-change-czechia/

Here they explicitly reject this term saying that it is "ridiculous" (směšné) and that "We don't want to use Czechia, because it sounds like Russia"

http://www.euportal.cz/Articles/7627-havlovo-slavne-pri-vysloveni-nazvu-cesko-po-mne-lezou-slimaci-.aspx

current Member of Parliament - Tomio Okamura and his political party. His personal website:

http://www.tomio.cz/aktuality/nazev-czechia-vymyslel-diletant-muj-rozhovor-na-radiu-impuls/

non-parliamentary political party Moravané (Moravians)

http://www.moravane.cz/domains/moravane.cz/blog/2017/05/hysek-proti-zemanovi

Regarding the fact, that no one asked the people if they want it, here is an article from professor Jan Čulík at the university of Glasgow which proves it.

http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-3196

Yes, there are quite a few people who are against Czechia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have created a stub draft article to create a place better suited to documenting the Czechia/Czech Republic naming issue. It is currently not under any level of protection, so all interested parties are invited to add, modify, or otherwise edit it to their satisfaction. If it achieves some level of consensus and otherwise complies with policy, it can then be linked from this article. I have added the IP's list of opposing voices above as a starting point. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime I readded the sentence but reworded it to what the sources say. I think the last source provided by anon here (the Edinburgh one) is a good one. I would be wary of starting a POV fork about this topic, they have existed before and are very difficult to keep NPOV. Also the split would rather be from Name of the Czech Republic which already discusses the issue in a bit more depth. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not find that when searching for such an article. Probably because I searched for variations on dispute and controversy and the like. I've edited my comments on the IP user's talk page and requested CSD G7 for the draft. Name of the Czech Republic would be the correct place for their contributions. Thank you for the correction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, if any of that had been in the article before filelakeshoe would not have cut it in the first place. "Some people don't like it" is not a useful sentence. It tells us virtually nothing. The original cut was correct and the assertion should only be readded if some of the people and organizations you mention are specifically named in the new section with good descriptions of what they say and why they object to the name. --Khajidha (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Šlechtová - she has no clue what's going on and what is short name for. Proven by her other statements.
• Schwarzenberg - he just answered he wanted "Bohemia", when he was asked after it was decided, it was not a thing for him before and since
• Žantovský, Vondra - they are one of main reason why Czech Republic never had short name, they actively blocked it because of their personal opinion, not political agreement
• Okamura - I think he dislikes it just because it was not decided by referendum. But German name, Slovak name, other languages - none of those were approved that way either so what
• Moravané - They dislikes everything - Czech flag, Czech anthem, even long name Czech Republic, so naturally Czechia too.
• Čulík - Just one-sided view. He is against Czechia, he just mounts reasons why it can't be used and approved. But it was approved.
• Guardian - did poll on street with 5 people or so and states "Czechs do not want it", journalism at its best.

But OK, you have your sources, if you want to publish it, it may be better, people will see the respected people who are against. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)