Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

I would like to report the sentence and its author claiming that the short name Czechia 'as has the fact that there was no consultation with the public about it.' This is simply a lie, because the Senate of the Czech Republic held a public session about the short names including Czechia in May 2004 . There were many other public sessions as well eg. at universities, TV or radio programmes. Thank you. Oasis98 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated from "...as has the fact that there was no consultation with the public about it" to "...including claims that the consultation with the public about was deficient", which better reflects the source cited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The first link refers to a meeting where there were 57 participants present and 5 senators. This is some sort of joke.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 15:53, September 29, 2017

As has been previously explained to you on your talk page, Wikipedia is not the place for you to battle out your causes. Please refrain from using this page to promote your opinion on the English naming of this country. The core content policies ask us to make sure that the articles say what reliable sources say, not what we think is right or true. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Yea, but this public session organized by the Senate took place in 2004, whereas the recent attempt to change name was in 2016. The time difference is 12 years. So these are two unrelated events. Can you please change it back to its original wording '...that there was no consultation with the public about it.' Because there really wasn't. Unless someone proves that there was. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 17:39, September 29, 2017‎

It was NOT out of a blue in April 2016. It was approved in 1993, general public could have read about it multiple times. Yes, people may think that it was not discussed with them, so what, german, slovak, japan, finnish even czech short name was not "discussed and approved by general public". Even name "Czech Republic" was not discussed :) One of biggest opponents, small political party Moravané knew about it prior 2016. So yes, people may think that they have to speak into everything, and that they did not know about it, but is is just excuse which you can write everywhere. Even into that blog-like article used as a source in the text. Sources 2013-2015: 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so Chrzwzcz also admits that there was no consultation with the public. Please revert the change then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 09:40, September 30, 2017‎

How do you define "consultation with public"?! Nonsense. Government decided, elected by people. Linguists decided - "proffesional public". "General public" could read about it in advance, so it was not anything hasty (23 years BTW). Chrzwzcz (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are saying that it was the government that decided and that general public could "read" about it. Sorry, "reading" doesn't count. Please revert the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 10:37, September 30, 2017‎

Once again, just because you think something is "the truth" does not make it a reason to change an article. Wikipedia follows the sources. The sources say there was public input and some of those opposed think there was not enough input. That is what the article says. It is not in policy to make the article text conform to one editor's assessment of the level of appropriate public input, particularly when there are opposing opinions. You need to achieve consensus for this change and obviously none has been here. If this discussion does prove fruitful in that regard, then you may decide to follow the steps laid out in the dispute resolution processes. Also, please sign your talk page messages. You can do this simply by typing a row of four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your posts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that there was an input in 2004, that is 12 years before this attempt took place. Because many citizens of the Czech Republic were kids back then, they couldn't have their say. In 2016 there was no input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.98.62 (talk) 11:54, September 30, 2017‎

I don't know how many different ways there are to say this:repeated arguments are not how Wikipedia works. It does't matter how eloquent or insistent you are. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Find a reliable source that supports your change, then it will be considered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It is strictly your problem. You clearly did not express an interest before it was "too late". I gave you several sources that it was known problem before April 2016. This wikipedia (talk) page is a witness too, battle for recognition of Czechia was here long before official announcement, it was understandably very futile back then. Who was interested found the place. It was decided in 1993, just stuck in the process of international announcement. I don't know why Čulík's (who is known for his anti-Czechia personal attitude) article has such impact, I very much doubt he did some research how Czechs feel it. People may think there was insufficient consultation (in internet discussion forums I found quite different reasons), what I feel there was insufficient explanation, and newspaper did not help either (Česká republika is renamed to Czechia - 2 nonsenses in one; so imminent public opinion was affected by this misunderstanding too).Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is wrong with stating the fact that the input was 12 years beforehand in 2004 and that the change took place in 2016. So that everyone can see how much 'consultation with the public' there actually was.

So prove that general public never knew about possible change between 2004 and 2016. You can't, I already sent a lot of articles that change was on the way at least from 2013. If general public was against, it could revolt or something :D Oasis also wrote "There were many other public sessions as well eg. at universities, TV or radio programmes." You were not asked personally and now you are against or what. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"There were many other public sessions as well eg. at universities, TV or radio programmes." Source? For 2016?

2016? What for? Since August 2015 it was pretty much decided, end of discussion, start of legislative procedure. I think you can browse through old talk pages or wait for Oasis's proof of bold statement. This was broadcasted after the decision (before definitive agreement), educate yourself and maybe you won't fight for useless peace of sentence on wiki sourced by some blog. It has similar impact as "higway D35 was named D35 without general (common) public discussion" ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's your claim, not mine. You should provide sources. Give some source that the general public was given a chance to have their say in 2016, not some 12 years ago. Otherwise let's keep the formulation, "that there was no consultation with the public about it"

Why? Is there some expectation that there WOULD be such consultation?--Khajidha (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@IP address who can't sign: It was not my claim, I leave the burden to original author :) There were some surely sessions at universities, but TV and radio was I think mainly the same time as newspaper news (mentioned above). Experts had their say all the time (linguists, geographers, exporters, people from advertisement) it was other way round - politicians were not listening! @Khajidha: It is mainly specialist and politician decision, but yes, Czechs expressed every possible and impossible objections in internet discussion forums (not being able to decide in referendum as one of them, as never-before-heard invention another). Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so Chrzwzcz is not able to provide sources to any of his arguments. The general public was not given a chance to say whether they agree or disagree with adopting the term Czechia, before this attempt took place in 2016. This should be made clear.

Do you read my comments or just every tenth word? 1) SIGN your comments, you were asked several times already. 2) You do not have source for your sentence "as has the fact that there was no consultation with the public about it." as Eggishorn correctly stated "Changed to reflect actual source cited" ... even though source blog clearly states "Please note that this article represents the view of the author(s) alone" so be happy that this blog with personal opinions was even used as a source for such high-profile statements ("many Czechs think" - how can that author know this). Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you provide your sources? No, so do it. Sources are to be provided for events which did happen, not for something which doesn't exist. If you are able to provide sources that in 2016 the government asked the general public, I would actually like to see them. Ok, I am signing my comment.147.32.98.217 (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

I still don't understand WHY you think the government should have asked the populace. Generally governments just do things, referenda are the exception not the norm. --Khajidha (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Governments do things which they promised to voters before elections, which is not this case. People were simply bypassed. 147.32.98.217 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

OMG, in elections political parties promise key program values, not every possible decision which will be made in next 4 or so years! Name in English is not key program value, as is not name in Finnish, French and Spanish or Mandarin Chinese. It is not renaming of the country (and even in that they would not ask you). In this case government waited long enough, 23 f-ing years, and followed EXPERT decision approved by specialists in their fields in 1993. And once again (3rd time now!) - I did not write the sentence "There were many other public sessions ..." so I am not feeling responsible for sourcing it ;P Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So Chrzwzcz just gave here another proof that the people were bypassed. Btw. you did write "There were some surely sessions at universities..". If you don't feel responsible for providing sources, then stop arguing, because you have nothing relevant to say. But Ok, you said you were leaving the burden to Khajidha. So, Khajidha, yes, people were not asked whether they wish to have their country renamed. In a democratic society people should be asked, one way or the other, but not ignored. 147.32.98.217 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

Your fight isn't with Chrzwzcz, Khajidha, me or Wikipedia in general. You fight is with Czech politicians. Take your fight, which really has nothing to do with Wikipedia, off to a more appropriate venue. No matter how this article reads, it won't change any of what you are upset about.

Furthermore, everything you said supports the edit you are trying to change, namely, that "...that there was insufficient consultation with the public about the change." You certainly appear to think you weren't personally sufficiently represented in this debate.

I also note that, in all the time you've been posting here, you haven't provided one cite to support your version of events. The text in the article, however, is cited. If you want that to change, provide a cite. Otherwise, your continued harping on this is merely disruptive editing. Your IP address can and may be blocked by the administrators if that continues. Please stop unless you have something substantive to contribute to the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, you are saying that I haven't provided one cite. Please read the article by Jan Čulík, which I referred to previously. Quote from this article: "Many Czechs have critically pointed out that no one has actually asked the people what they think – this seems to be a typical administrative decision, dictated from above." So, I did cite a relevant source. I hope you are not going to block me, only because you didn't read the article which I did cite. What I suggest is to change the wording from "The decision to adopt the short name Czechia has been met with some criticism,[40] including claims that there was insufficent consultation with the public about the change.[41]" to "The attempt to adopt the name Czechia has been met with a lot of criticism,[40] including claims that there was no consultation with the public about the change.[41]" Also regarding blocking someone, before you block me, please block Chrzwzcz, because he refused to provide sources to his claims, as you can read above.147.32.98.62 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

You are obviously not listening or reading the links I give you so I will only say two things: A: Your cite doesn't say what you want it to say, in fact it supports the "insufficient consultation" text. B: I am not an administrator so I won't block you; I am another editor warning you that you are engaging in behavior likely to lead to blocks. Please read those links, and I'll even throw one more onto the pile for your consideration. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article written by professor Čulík: http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-3196 Quote: "Many Czechs have critically pointed out that no one has actually asked the people what they think – this seems to be a typical administrative decision, dictated from above." There is a difference between "no consultation" and "insufficient consultation". That's all I am saying. 147.32.98.62 (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

"this seems to be a typical administrative decision, dictated from above." That's because it IS such a decision and I fail to see why you expect it to be treated differently from other such decisions. This isn't a renaming of the country, it's a change in protocol usage. The name "Czechia" was given at the same time as the name "Czech Republic", the first for informal use the second for formal use. The informal one never caught on. The Czech government has finally decided to start using it. Why would they need to ask the public about it? Does the Czech government consult the population on every decision of protocol? If not, why would you expect them to here. If the government were to decide to change the name to something completely different (like Bohemia or Dobblepoppupistan), I would agree that such consultation was warranted. It simply isn't to be expected here and to complain that such consultation wasn't made is rather silly. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. First, stop using Čulík's blog as some kind of exact source with correct measured data, his nonsenses like "Czech lands, Moravia and Silesia" speak for itself. Current sentence in the article is enough, it says basically what you want to have here "Czechs THINK they were not consulted enough", but that's it. You cannot write some personal opinions like "it really was not sufficient, 147.32.98.* was not informed enough, it had to be decided by SMS voting blah blah blah". Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Khajidha, you are missing the point here. I am not questioning whether this decision should or should not be consulted with the people. The claim is that the people did expect this to be consulted with them. Some think they were right about this expectation and they should be consulted, others (like you) think they were wrong, nevertheless, the people did expect to be consulted. And they were not consulted. And because this name change brought criticism, then it would be fair to state this fact. 147.32.98.62 (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)nickname1

Considering that such a statement has been in the article since before your first post in this thread, I fail to see what you are complaining about. --Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

85.207.78.5 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Name Change

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.

---

Since adoption is becoming more common. I think now is the time to rename this page to Czechia.

Some notable adoptions: Google Maps, CIA World Factbook, US State Dept, Apple system settings, Common Locale Database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You aren't showing that "Czechia" is more commonly used than "Czech Republic". See WP:COMMONNAME, and Q2 under the Frequently Asked Questions, above. Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, see the 12-month moratorium on discussing this here that was declared in March 2017, at the top of Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 6, following a variety of eventually repetitive discussions recorded in Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 5. Largoplazo (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m so confused. Why not just name the page “Czech Republic (Czechia)”?? 173.54.215.179 (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't include multiple names in a title, since people don't search for information like that. Instead, we redirect from alternative names for which people might be searching. For example, Czechia redirects to this article. As another example, we have United States, to which United States of America and USA redirect. We don't title the article United States (United States of America) (USA). The lead section of an article generally covers alternative names. It isn't necessary for the title to do so. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It obviously should be Czechia. No clue what the personal agenda of people opposing this is.Eccekevin (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the talk page if you have "no clue." Doremo (talk) 05:34, 1 November 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.

---

The Czech Wikipedia uses Czechia, and they obviously know better than us. UN, EU, CIA factbook, Google all use Czechia. It's Czechia, get over it. Just cause this is 'Murica and you want to continue deciding how other people should call themselves doesn't matter. Just cause Donald Trump called it 'Nambia' doesn;t mean we should change the Namibia page to Nambia. Same way doesn't matter what Americans want, it matters what the country is actually called. It's Czechia, and that's it. This said, I won't discuss further cause I have no time to discuss with editors that (for whatever weird/selfish reason) wanna keep Czech Republic. Eccekevin (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedia has Česko, so if you're using that as an authority, you should be telling us to name the article "Česko" rather than either "Czech Republic" or "Czechia". Anyway, it has nothing to do with "knowing better". English Wikipedia reflects usage in English. Also, for your information, the Czech government has in no way told anybody it should only be called Czechia in English. They have only introduced it as the short form. See above for the discussions that have already been held about this and for the link to the 12-month moratorium on discussing this here, ending 26 March 2018. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

See User:Largoplazo/Why the Czech Republic article isn't named Czechia yet. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

How is Czech usage relevant to English naming?--Khajidha (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

.. another argument might be that the 1st, famous and respected (now mostly rather in abroad, unfortunately) Czech republic president Václav Havel has said: "Mně lezou slimáci po těle, kdykoli čtu nebo slyším slovo Česko." —Mykhal (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First, if you want to take part in a discussion here on the English Wikipedia you need to use English. Second, that is still Czech usage and just as irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation: "I feel slugs crawling all over my body whenever I read or hear the word "Česko"". Anyway, agree that it's irrelevant to English usage what Havel (or Zeman) say. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified

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/20150525013421/http://www.brad.ac.uk/ssis/media/ssis/ceer/2013/Guyver_Cole-and-Unowsky.pdf to http://www.brad.ac.uk/ssis/media/ssis/ceer/2013/Guyver_Cole-and-Unowsky.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210080250/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-c/czech-republic.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-c/czech-republic.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

PorchFam (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"Liberated" by the Soviet Union???

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely this must be a joke??? (31.50.131.106 (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)) No it isn't, "liberated" there just means from German wartime occupation. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Science and philosophy#Science and technology

Not sure if all of those names need to be listed here, but surely they could be better organized. The question is whether the list should be alphabetical or chronological. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up. Still not sure the list needs to be that long. For contrast Germany, France, and Russia have a much smaller number of scientists mentioned in prose in the main article with more detail in subarticles.--Khajidha (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170206182305/http://www.cnb.cz/en/faq/the_exchange_rate_commitment.html to http://www.cnb.cz/en/faq/the_exchange_rate_commitment.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021065544/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf to http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828073616/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/czechrepublic.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/czechrepublic.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to 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.

---

I used to be a strong supporter of retaining Czech Republic as the article title, but I have changed my mind after I saw this: United Nations Statistics Division – Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). Right now, even the UN starts to use Czechia instead of the Czech Republic. I think now we should seriously consider changing the Czech Republic to Czechia, just like changing Burma to Myanmar and Republic of China to Taiwan. What do your guys think? Kenwick (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like to hear some comments from the Czechs. Ultimately, they are the people of their land, their opinions should be respected. We have made the mistake by sticking with Burma for too long and opposing the will of their local people. This time, local opinions, not American opinions, must be respected. Kenwick (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I assure you, a lot of the supporters here on this page are Czechs :) Does majority of Czechs want to use Czechia? You don't need to hear the answer because Wikipedia does not care ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Czechs want or advocate; it's simply based on usage in English. Ukrainians have advocated the spelling Kyiv for years, but English usage still has not changed and so that article has not moved from Kiev. Doremo (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Please see WP:COMMONNAME, the applicable guideline. 2. As noted above in a discussion that ended in March last year, and as noted in the FAQ above, there is a moratorium on discussing this until March 26. Largoplazo (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of editor's didn't event want to include information about official name in English in the article saying "Czechs do not have power to decide it". Of course Czechs have the power (moreover obligation) to register their country in UN under whatever official English name and this information must be included somewhere in the article about the country (yes - not necessarily in the title). Kyiv is not a good example, 1) it is just spelling change 2) country versus city. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (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.

Etymology section, suggestion and request

Hello, I'd like to share my opinion on actions that some editors make in the Etymology section. For the past few months, this section has turned into a tangle of one-sided and biased argumentation with barely beneficial informative value. When some factual and objective information such as: In January 2017 Czechia replaced Czech Republic on Google Maps, some authors quickly diminish it with obvious intention as: while some other map providers such as Bing Maps still use Czech Republic. Or On the other hand, there have been supportive calls encouraging for wider use and efforts to refute the common myths, this appears the very next day: And there were naturally the voices clearly standing against the Czechia word meant as the designation for the whole country (Czech Republic), as can be read in the Declaration of geographer against arbitrary pushing through the name Czechia from 2016. It has clearly turned into a argumentation war where certain authors tend to demonstrate their personal position (on both sides) towards the name Czechia with no intention to meaningfully develop the text. And if this continues, I'm worried that it will all end in a very messy state, because each part of the dispute has its counterarguments.

My request is: We already have a whole page dedicated to the issue Name of the Czech Republic. I suggest to close the etymology section on Czech Republic leaving only factual, objective and basic necessary information and displace further comments and other ballast to the main article Name of the Czech Republic and develop and map the Czechia issue here.

Thank you very much. Sincerely Oasis98 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

When one author has written something, and another add something that "diminishes" it (with something else that is also factual and objective)—that's what's supposed to happen, to keep the article from being one-sided and biased.

Yes, but the other information also needs to meet the criterion of notability. For example, the last edit made on January 31 was about the petition that did not receive any significant or in-depth coverage to be notable and it had no lasting effect. Only one internet newspaper of questionable quality published the petition but did not report on it at all. The internet petition was signed by only 29 people. Geog25 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and also no "newspaper" whose editorial line is "no one tells us what we're allowed to write" can possibly be considered a trustworthy source. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

However, I agree with the alternative, given that there's already a whole article with the gory details, which is to curtail the level of detail that's here altogether. But neutrally. No point goes without contrary points going as well. Largoplazo (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as there is a clear link to the article Name of the Czech Republic, the entire paragraph could be replaced with this: "After Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1992, the Czech part lacked a common English short name. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommended the English name Czechia in 1993, and the Czech government approved the name in 2016. However, the name Czechia has not attained general use in English." Examples, arguments, trends, etc. can all be given in the article dedicated to the topic. Doremo (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the intention to keep the paragraph brief, but I don't know whether it's good or needed to state, that the name Czechia has not attained general use in English." First, I think that for any reader this statement is fairly obvious especially due to the headline and the WP common name the Czech Republic that is used for mostly any mention about the country on Wikipedia. (when WP aims to follow some kind of general use and it pushes the words that it considers most common). Second, I personally don't know how to rate the general use and I think that this is very problematic to judge and to categorically document it. This could lead to another hassle. In order to be respectful and fair enough to various opinions this cause raises, I suggest to either omit this sentence or write, that Even though the usage of the short name is rising, it has not yet attained general use in English. I think that this could describe the situation better, as this has already been written in the Name of the Czech Republic earlier. There're both sentences as: the increase in usage of Czechia has been noted both within the country and abroad and most English speakers use [the] Czech Republicin all contexts. It would be consistent to note it in this article as well. Oasis98 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This kind of short information would need to include at least the reference to the international recognition of the name "Czechia" by the United Nations and its international standardization by the ISO. I would also exclude "However, the name Czechia has not attained general use in English." or modify it to something like: "Although the use of the name Czechia has increased in English since 2016, it has not yet attained general use." Geog25 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doremo and Geog's suggestions, that section is getting overcrowded and battlegroundish. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think simpler is better. I don't see a need to mention the UN or ISO (this is what starts generating laundry lists), or increasing use (which encourages further speculation). Details like this are better presented at the article Name of the Czech Republic. Doremo (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

My point is that your proposed sentence would cause speculations and outrage as well, because as we can see here as well, it's quite hard to find a consensus on the general use and to support it by reliable sources. It's almost impossible. The less people speculate, the better it would be, that's why I propose to have a summary compromise for both sides of the barricade. Oasis98 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. You are right that simpler is better but we need to be consistent. For the same reasons you are listing, the sentence "However, the name Czechia has not attained general use in English" would also be better included in the article Name of the Czech Republic. Geog25 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there current reliable sources observing that "Czechia" has not attained general use in English? If not, then that would amount to one or more Wikipedia editors adding their own assessment of the situation to article text, prohibited WP:OR. Largoplazo (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I believe that we have to reach a compromise that would appease both sides of the cause eliminating further harsh arguments (because I think that the categoric the name Czechia has not attained general use in English. totally would), but still remain brief, neutral and objective. If we want to keep this mention about the general use, I suggest to write: Even though the usage of the short name is rising, it has not yet attained general use in English. I think this would be a good summary of the whole situation and it's supported by the sentences in Name of the Czech Republic. Oasis98 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"Even though the usage of the short name is rising, it has not yet attained general use in English", unless sourced as such from a reliable source, would amount to using the article to convey original research, to express a conclusion drawn by one or more Wikipedians. This isn't allowed. I mean, what would the footnote read? "Conclusion drawn by a bunch of Wikipedians"? Wikipedia doesn't convey to readers through its articles its own assessment of situations. That holds here as well as in the full article about the name. Largoplazo (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources are easy to find. For example, increasing use here, not yet attained general use here, and both here. Doremo (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, great! That takes care of that, then. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read these articles before making your mind. The article in the Guardian is based on the opinion of three Czechs and published only three and half months after Czechia became official. The situation has obviously evolved since then. The article showing both is using the same method of asking the Czechs (who speak Czech and not English as their first language) and was published on August 8, 2016, exactly one month after Czechia became official. How can we expect the name to be commonly known and used one month after it became approved? Finally, the article showing increasing use was published on June 8, 2016. Perhaps, you should consider more recent usage such as Financial Times or here. More examples of increasing use exist. The situation has clearly been that of increasing use, which will only increase in the future. Geog25 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop using the Guardian article from October 2016 as "argument". The name was registered in July and it's not massively used in October yet? By a few people randomly asked on Wenceslas Square? What a surprise. And what a bad journalism. Helveticus96 (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source (probably better than radio.cz, which is also an acceptably reliable source). One could also cite The Atlantic (here or here) for "not attained general use." There are surely other sources as well. (Frankly, it's a bit difficult to find such sources because it's general knowledge that the name is peculiar, and so journalists don't spend much time debating the point. To borrow an example from above, there are probably no reliable sources showing that the name Dobblepoppupop is not catching on. Yet we all know it is not catching on.) If one is patient and prefers a long-term view, one can cite this, which is relevant against claims that the name Czechia has existed in English since 1841. Doremo (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Guardian article should not be taken too seriously. That's an opinion piece, and what credentials does Robert Tait have that show us he understands how language change happens? Clearly none. I think this one looks reliable enough to say that usage of Czechia is increasing. To be honest, I think saying the name has "not yet attained general use in English" one and a half years after it was made official is not particularly informative anyway. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Helveticus96's point regarding the date of the article is well taken. When reporting on the progress of a shift 19 months after the event that triggered the shift, which could, from an a priori perspective, take many years to roll out, a source from four months after the triggering event is stale, no matter how reliable it might have been at the time it was written. Largoplazo (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So, can we at least all agree that the usage of the name "Czechia" has been increasing in English? These important sources from English speaking countries started to use Czechia in 2017: Google Maps, Google Earth, the Oxford Atlas of the World, Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Apple iOS 11, TomTom navigation and others. Can we all agree that this amounts to increased usage without repeating that Czechia was not used in 2008 or even 2016 as a counterargument? Geog25 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We can agree that the usage is increasing without thinking that this is something that needs to be said on this page. --Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

By this logic, it's irrelevant to write that it has not reached general usage. This should be fairly obvious when WP aims to only use words that are generally used (i.e. the Czech Republic) and it's not necessary to repeat it at all, is it? If we can agree on that, I would suggest to omit this sentence about recognition/usage/non-usage etc. completely. In a nutshell, just state the ideas Doremo has suggested without the recognition sentence and redirect the rest to Name of the Czech Republic. Oasis98 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It might be increasing, but one could also make a long list of publications and sources that have never started using it, and so non-use may be increasing too. All of these examples are anecdotal; to do it properly and objectively, one should access a corpus with data tagged for time. Google Ngram is a good corpus, but unfortunately has too much of a time lag to show what is happening in 2018. Doremo (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"non-use may be increasing too" - right, but ratio of (Czechia)/(Czech Republic + Czechia) is increasing, at least as number of Google results. But you have to follow it at count yourself, so... I agree it is still quite small ratio (less than 10 %) but increasing. And also usage on map servers is definitely increasing while there is limited number of map servers :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you really saying that all these important sources do not meet the notability test?Geog25 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the sources, I'm commenting on the idea that we need to mention usage. It seems to be falling into the trap of thinking that English usage should be changing. We base our writing on what English usage is, not what someone says it should be. Basically we just need to say that Czechia has been proposed (without saying that it should/should not be used or even that it is/is not being used) and then just write our article using the Czech Republic because that has been determined to be the common name for purposes of article titling and text should follow title. --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you. You are saying that Google Maps, Google Earth, the Oxford Atlas of the World, Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Apple iOS 11, TomTom navigation and others are not English usage and that all these sources are saying what the usage should be. This is simply not true and your argument is wrong and unsustainable under the weight of evidence. These sources and others are using exclusively Czechia and these are the facts. You seem to be asserting an opinion that these facts should be completely ignored by not mentioning usage. Geog25 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how you got that from what I said and I don't know how to make it any plainer. A list of "this uses it, and this, and this" presupposes that it SHOULD be used. That is not an assumption we should be making. If you want to detail who does or does not use it or how quickly usage has grown, this page is not the one for that. Take it to the "Name of the Czech Republic" page. On this page "we just need to say that Czechia has been proposed (without saying that it should/should not be used or even that it is/is not being used) and then just write our article using the Czech Republic because that has been determined to be the common name for purposes of article titling and text should follow title." --Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No one argued for listing significant English language sources exclusively using the name Czechia in this article. The discussion is about noting the increased usage, which is supported by the strong evidence. Your argument that noting the increased usage of Czechia "presupposes that it SHOULD be used" is simply preposterous. Writing on Wikipedia should be based on verifiable facts that should not be ignored just because someone like you subjectively believes these facts presuppose something. Geog25 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

To end that section with "Czechia has been proposed." is not good enough. It is like to write "The movie was approved to be made." when shooting already begun and there's evidence to support it. Old news. Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

But basically I am still unable to understand why anyone cares what their country is called in another language. Czechs seem to feel insulted by not having their country's name treated the same way as others in English and that makes no sense to me. Is your sense of self worth THAT fragile that words in another language can destroy it? And then they come here and say that we MUST change. That the English language should be subject to the control of the Czech legislature. Can you imagine the towering ARROGANCE needed to make such a demand? If you tell me what your language calls my country, I will simply nod, say "that's nice" and move on.--Khajidha (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right you don't get it :) First - Czechs do not care how their country is called in any another language, JUST English. "Hater's" of Czechia do not care that in many languages it already IS Czechia or something very very similar to that (imagine that). English is simply more important to global communication than Vietnamese or Dutch (eg. sporting events use English). Second - Czech legislature does not even control Czech name for Czechia, there's no law, just - let's say - recommendation. Third - we (or at least me) don't want to rename Czech Republic to Czechia here (now), just fair description of current usage or state of things (yes, it should be in "Name of" article), no 2 years old source articles saying "after 3 months it failed to catch, it is doomed". Fourth - why "Czech Republic" is considered by supporters of Czechia to be a lesser name was here described many times - mainly "nowadays only unstanle states use Republic in their name and we don't want to be in that club" or "Czech Republic cannot describe 1000 year old history". Fifth - Of course we can say what we want to be called in English, we came up with Czech Republic (it was not English's own idea), we created the name Czechoslovakia, so it happened in the past and it is not uncommon. We can't control the usage - of course. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your fourth point that you say has been described here many times: Why has an absurd point been made so many times? It's better to be in a "club" with Syria, Libya, Chechnya, Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Mauritania, than to be in one with France, Andorra, Botswana, Germany, Italy, and Portugal? Well—the countries in my first list also mostly call themselves "republic", but my point is still that the correspondence implied by the objection, that "republic" in the name correlates with instability, doesn't exist. Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

""republic" in the name correlates with instability" - NO, not like that! But "countries using just and ONLY(!!!!) political name because they are too new / too unstable / without tradition" may be little bit more valid, don't you think? If you list such countries, you'll see that is mostly the case. Your "-ia club" is just silly group like "countries beginning with C club" without any relevance or common characteristics and your list of republics are republics which does not commonly use it because they have also shorter name without that republic (they don't use it in English/ English doesn't use it - does not matter here). But I don't want to fight for such view on things, I would say just Czech Republic seems unnecessarily formal (imagine it would be Czech Socialist Republic!) General public maybe don't see it as a problem and consider "Republic" to be as unique as "Czech". Shortening Czech Republic to just Czech shows that need for shorter less formal name was there. Chrzwzcz (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "C club" is any sillier than "Countries that have the word 'republic' in their short names". It strikes me as falling under the category "Reasons that people invent to create a controversy over." I agree that it sounds awfully formal. In case you got the wrong impression, I'm in favor of "Czechia" myself to the extent that I was perplexed that they didn't use it to begin with after the split with Slovakia. I'm only disagreeing with the rationale we're discussing. Of course, if the Czech government had promoted "Czechia" to begin with, English speakers would have been calling it that ever since. Largoplazo (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a great correlation between unrecognized/too new/unstable states and states using just and only political name. Of course you can find similar correlation between unrecognized/too new/unstable states and states having let's say "e" in their name, but that would be more random and silly peace of information. Further reading: Category:Unrecognized_or_largely_unrecognized_states, List of states with limited recognition, Banana republic. Yes, you may find it as made-up controversy, but it has at least some foundation. "Awfully formal" - well you can say this is the main reason if you like it the best :) Czech Republic may seem like a weirdo, who insist on formalities where it is not necessary or even wanted. Like a person who comes to a beach in full formal dress... and swims in in too :) To recap: It was just clarification to raised questions why it may bother, not reasons why the article should be renamed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion got off-topic.Geog25 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha asked, I tried to answer him, he's acting here as the most prominent guard, so why not. Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Shall we please finally reach the conclusion?

Replace the current paragraph with this: After Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1992, the Czech part lacked a common English short name. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommended the English name Czechia in 1993, and the Czech government approved Czechia as the official short name in 2016. And leave the use/non-use/general acceptance for Name of the Czech Republic without having to mention it here. Can we agree on that? Thank you. Oasis98 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. The "officially" that was later added is a good humorous touch—like they blew a trumpet and blessed it when they did so. Doremo (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha.. that would be quite appropriate! It's my bad, I'm sorry, but I haven't realised that it sounds like that in the English language. I only wanted to stress that it became the official short name, not just some alternate nickname or so. I rephrased it a bit and so it should sound less ridiculous to you now. Hope this version can be officially approved. :)

Slovenians overuse the adverb "officially" too; it's some sort of continental European thing. :-) Doremo (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My last input: Could this new paragraph contain something like More at: Adoption of Czechia, just to make it easier to get further information about this specific topic? Thanks. Oasis98 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, the suggested version sounds fine to me, also the "More at:" note. Doremo (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Doremo. Shall we implement it then and agree, that any new information that will appear here will be directly redirected to Name of the Czech Republic? Oasis98 (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. Maybe give it 24 hours to see if there are any objections? Doremo (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that we can adopt the changes with a clear conscience now. The final text would be:

After Czechoslovakia dissolved in 1992, the Czech part lacked a common English short name. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs recommended the English name Czechia in 1993, and the Czech government approved Czechia as the official short name in 2016. More at: Adoption of Czechia. May I ask you to change it accordingly? Oasis98 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I made the change earlier this afternoon; there haven't been any objections. Doremo (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you very much! Oasis98 (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Geog25 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Czech concentration camp acceptable?

The use of phrase “Polish concentration camps” has been condemned by the German Association of Historians.

http://www.enrs.eu/de/news/946-phrase-polish-concentration-camps-condemned-by-the-german-association-of-historians Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think yes, as an example Lety camp was fully directed and administrated by Czech citizens only with knowledge of Nazi government. But lets admit that a majority of Czech people were against Nazi occupation. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I object to the attempt by Germans (and Poles and Czechs) to control English usage. A concentration camp in Foo can quite correctly be described as a Fooian concentration camp. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; it's simply a failure to understand common English syntax (as in Spanish terror attack or French car attack). Doremo (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't think we should be using "Polish concentration camp" (to refer to the likes of Auschwitz) or "Spanish terror attack" on Wikipedia, though. Both are journalistic, attempts to cram as much information as possible into a headline. We can be more formal and precise and use full sentences. I would advise avoiding "Czech concentration camp" for the same reason, to be honest. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hm, Foo = Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, so.... Fooian = Czech?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Foo = occupied territory of Czechoslovakia, so Fooian = Czech. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The order to build these "work camps" came at the end of the Second Republic, before Nazi occupation. See [2]. Though it only became a concentration camp during occupation. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For me this disscusion is one big nonsense. Polish or Czech is poiting tothe location, not nation who did it. Anyway, Lety camp was built by czecoslovakian government and Romani were killed by czechs so there is no problem with that. Dominikmatus (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not Fooian, but Foian or Fian then. But anyway where do you need to write "Czech conceptration camp" anyway?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dominikmatus: I subjected your thesis that "Polish or Czech is poiting tothe location, not nation who did it" to a brief thought experiment. The United States has military bases in a number of countries, including many in Germany, such as Kaiserslautern Army Base and Ramstein Air Force Base. Would anybody refer to these as German military bases? I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't. I think of them as American military bases in Germany. By analogy, it seems fair, if Poles and Czechs weren't running these camps, to refer to them as German concentration camps in Poland or Czechoslovakia. Largoplazo (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes: "a German military base where her father from Teesside was stationed","an American soldier currently stationed at a German military base", "a GI at a german military base", "arriving at a German military base". Doremo (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is matter of language not facts. We tend to use the easiest way of communication, so instead of saying nazi concentration camp in Poland, we say just polish concentration camp. For a little bit informed person It's obvious that it's not work of polish, but mostly of germans.Dominikmatus (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Language is important when ambiguity can lead to unintended and undesirable understandings. As for "For a little bit informed person", the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to assume that the reader is already informed and has all the knowledge necessary not to misinterpret an ambiguous phrase. If we should assume everyone's already informed, let's just delete the article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, fair enough. So then, by analogy, "Polish concentration camp" can just as well stand for "concentration camp operated in Poland". This doesn't mean that the ambiguity of this phrase doesn't pose a serious problem that should be addressed by alternative phrasing, but at least it means that "Polish concentration camp" isn't incorrect. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't, and the discussion above shows misunderstanding of the historical facts.

There were two kinds of concentration camps within the territorry of occupied Czechoslovakia. First were run directly by German authorities, e.g. Theresienstadt, and the other were run by Occupation authorities that were subordinate to Germany, e.g. Czech puppet police force.

The Lety camp that is mentioned before was indeed established by the Czech authorities, but it was used as a prison work camp under Czech auspices, not as concentration camp. The concentration of Romani citizens for the purposes of final solution there happened only later during occupation and it is directly attributable to Germany, even though Czech puppet forces were used at the camp. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Another wikipedia page

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.

---

Another wikipedia page that contrdicts itself List of sovereign states column says short and formal names and yet "nope can't use the official short form name " even though the column calls for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe what was trying to be explained in that discussion was that "Czechia" is not really a "short form name" as it stands, since it is used too rarely in English. Despite what the Czech government "wants" it to be. Such short form names are normally more common than their official "long form" counterparts, but this is definitely not the case in the case of the Czech Republic. Anyway, it does not matter, because a decision on weather to include "Czechia" on that article will depend on what happens on this article after 26 March 2018. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

NO no no. Czechia IS short form name, that column says short form name but it lists "common names according to wikipedia evaluation". And it is not dependent on the title of this article either. Things like these only helps to think that really someone here is trying to eliminate Czechia. There was a lengthy debate about Česko not included in LEDE, that it would not be "symmetric" because English did not have short form and other nonsences. Where Wikipedia lists 2 name variants for other countries, it should list for 2 names for CZ too, otherwise it would not be symmetric (see, if I use it as an argument, it is bad :)). It is nonsense that wikipedia came with "common name" and "official formal name" but totally misses "official informal name". Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If 'Czechia' truely is the short form of "Czech Republic", as you insist, how come I have never heard it's use before yesterday? I am an English as a first language user and have spoken many times with others about the Czech Republic, and not once has this word come up (See my lengthy post about the subject above[3]). No one is trying to eliminate "Chzechia" by some conspiracy as you claim. I accept it's existence, and use, by a tiny minority of English speakers, but this certainly is not a majority used term. The fact that "Česko" was not included in LEDE is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. As this is not LEDE, this is EN Wikipedia, and we will make decisions that affect EN Wikipedia here not anything else. You are arguing for the symmetry and reciprocity of using two names for all countries. However, language is is not nearly this convenient. Unfortunately, the English language does not give a damn about symmetry or reciprocity, and many countries have just one commonly used name, such as Malaysia, New Zealand, and Romania in English. Using two name variants is not necessarily a requirement for how a country is listed on List of sovereign states. Seeing as "Czech Republic" is way more commonly used than the largely unknown "Czechia", it is acceptable to continue using this single term as the way the Czech Republic article is referenced. That is, of course, unless the article itself changes name. Wikipedia did not come up with "common name" and "official formal name" as you have claimed, these are concepts that just exist within language and nationality. "Official informal name" is not a real concept with respect to states, it is a term that you have invented for the use of your argument here. As an "informal" name is, by definition, not "official".- Wiz9999 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Official names are 2 - "Formal name" and "Short name" (i took liberty to call it informal and it derailed you). Wikipedia creates "common name" which usually matches official short name, sometimes official formal name, sometimes something different altogether. In lists which contain "everything" it should acknowledge all of it, however long post you create why something should not be included - because you don't know it?!!?! And it is not dependent on article name. "Using two name variants is not necessarily a requirement for how a country is listed on List of sovereign states." - that list is built that way, collumn name, other states, so ... Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

A place's short-form name is an official designation, whether or not it has crossed your radar, just as the official long form name of Bangkok is "City of angels, great city of immortals, magnificent city of the nine gems, seat of the king, city of royal palaces, home of gods incarnate, erected by Vishvakarman at Indra's behest", whether or not you ever knew that before now. That isn't what's at issue here, which is the use of "Czechia" to denote the country on Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The "short form" means the WP:COMMONNAME, that's the point of the column. It does not denote an official short form, because the official name is covered by the "formal name" column.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Short name" and "Formal name" are clear terms - columns in UN database. Wikipedia chooses to leave one of them (the short one), replace it with its own "common name" and mask it as "Short name". There are 2 official names, it cannot be covered by one value in formal name. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us that the concept of countries having official long and short form names did not exist until Wikipedia came along, and that countries today rely on a bunch of editors on Wikipedia to decide for them what their short form names are. Largoplazo (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Czechia is not the name to denote the country on Wikipedia. Issue is if it is OK to use "Czechia" as second variant in lists like List of sovereign states there other countries show other than common-wikipedia-'denoting' names. And it should not be an issue. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at List of sovereign states, not here. OFF TOPIC. Largoplazo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That is what I tried to do but was told to bring it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone at that talk page told you to talk about that article here, they were wrong. Maybe they meant to see, and perhaps join, the existing discussion above, but even that doesn't belong here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read their comments on that talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Things like these only helps to think that really someone here is trying to eliminate Czechia. " <-This. It sure seems like if someone put the word Czechia in an article someone else will come by and remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2018 (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, everywhere?

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.

---

We agreed that the article is titled Czech Republic. Does this mean that we have to go and replace "Czechia" with "Czech Republic" (in references to the modern country) all over en:Wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Options

• Yes - replace "Czechia" with "Czech Republic."
• No - keep all mentions of "Czechia."

Discussion

• My answer: "No". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Until usage outside of Wikipedia changes, it makes no sense to use Czechia here. --Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

PS to Staszek Lem: What little usage Czechia sees in English is only for the current state, not for the ethno-cultural region throughout history. Things that happened in Czechoslovakia are still said to have been in Czechoslovakia, things that happened in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown are still said to have happened in Bohemia. Despite the fact that its supporters champion Czechia as a term to draw the history together, it is actually used for the same post-Cold War state as the Czech Republic. --Khajidha (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with you for places where the name is used in an official context, but not everywhere. "Czechia" is widely used. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Virtually every reference I come across it is either 1) explaining why it should be used or 2) originating in the English language press of countries where the cognate word actually is used (most such being very minor players in the global media arena). I would hardly call that widely used.--Khajidha (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In article titles yes, it should be unified on one name, the same name as main article has. But you don't have to change anything, all article/category titles are unified. In plain text no - if it is clear citation, book title, event name, recommendation citation, etc. Czechia should stay where Czechia is used (IMHO). File/image names do not matter so much I guess. Of course Czechia has potential to be more unifying name throughout history then the one with "Republic" in it. For now it is perfectly OK to mean mainly just the state existing since 1993. If it catches for current state, then it may naturally spread into historic mentions too. "Czech Republic" spread this way too and it is not always nice and logical, just systematic for wikipedia sake ("kings of the Czech Republic from 14th century", Music of the Czech Republic containing virtually nobody from Czech-Republic-era etc.). Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No one is arguing to change usage in direct quotations and such. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

With a few exceptions endorsed either by clearly-stated consensus or common sense, it is good practice to use the name of the article on the country as the standard reference to the country everywhere on Wikipedia unless there is a good article-specific reason not to. Such a rule concentrates discussion in one place and hence avoids the laborious process of reaching an identical consensus on every article independently.

In this case, if "Czechia" were widely used enough to be used as the default reference to this country, the place to make that case would be on this talk page as an WP:RM. Of course at this time any such RM would be speedy-closed per the moratorium. Kahastok talk 20:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I vote NO !Czechia2016 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• No. It would be a waste of time, because the name Czechia is more and more popular and we will have to change the title of this article sooner or later. Propositum (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that the English language doesn't "have" to do anything, right? English usage could change tomorrow to call this country "Dobblepoppupop" and there would be absolutely nothing the Czechs could do about it. --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but some of your arguments, such as this one, are increasingly ridiculous. “English usage could change tomorrow to call this country "Dobblepoppupop"” based on what? Country names are standardized on national and international levels, which is the basis of their usage in different languages. The fact that not all or even the majority of English speakers have not yet learned the short name Czechia does not mean that it is not being used and should be continuously deleted from Wikipedia. Wikipedia pretends that the name Czechia does not exist because of people like you despite the growing evidence suggesting otherwise. It seems that all Wikipedia users will have to wait for you to decide when Czechia is to be allowed to be used, which is, of course, preferably never in your mind. However, whether you like it or not, your personal fight, for whatever reason, against the usage of the official and internationally recognized short name Czechia will ultimately be futile despite you being successful in blocking it on Wikipedia for a while.Geog25 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Country names are standardized on national and international levels, which is the basis of their usage in different languages." Except that that is NOT how English works. English usage doesn't give a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys about that. English usage cares only about English usage. Even today when I do a search for Czechia the majority of the results I get are either articles telling people to use it or English-as-a-foreign-language usage (which is going to be more indicative of what is used in the writer's native language). There is comparatively little usage by major English language media. When that changes, we will change. --Khajidha (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And as for the "could change tomorrow", that was not meant as a serious prediction. It's an English language idiom. The point is, that whatever English usage is now or becomes in the future is not the business of the Czechs. --Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. per above comment. Even Google Maps uses "Czechia" now. -- Gokunks (Speak to me)
• NO Czechia2016 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

References

• Yes Until usage outside of Wikipedia changes, it makes no sense to use Czechia here except as an acknowledged alternative term. The Forbes above is an opinion piece, and apart from its title, it largely endorses the fact that the short form has not been widely adopted. We use WP:COMMONNAME, not new forms favoured by few. If, and when the real world situation changes, so can we. I thought this subject had long ago been settled. Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It is settled and it works. Czechia is used only in articles about the short name (and in source name titles - if some newspaper article or book uses it), in ISO norms articles, in some templates where it remains unseen (flagicon), in some images (otline map) and that's pretty much it.Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, sort of. I wouldn't advocate a wholesale massive exercise to go and replace it everywhere, but given that the WP:COMMONNAME and the article title remain at Czech Republic, we should be discouraging use of Czechia in other articles and replacing it should be uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. The avoidance of the now official short name Czechia is uniquely applied to this one country in this one language mutation of Wikipedia and the arguments against it are shifting as its worldwide usage is picking up. At first, the argument was, it's not official, so we won't use it. It has been made official. We won't use it, because it hasn't been added to the UN databases. It has been added to the UN databases. We won't use it, because it's not being used by the Czech government. The Czech government started using it. We won't use it, because it's not used by English-speaking governments. English-speaking governments started using it. We won't use it, because it's not used by English-speaking media. English-speaking media started using it. We won't use it until it's used by the New York Times and until the country's UN name plate is changed to Czechia. Some of these demands are becoming quite specific. One argues, that virtually all mentions of Czechia usage are in discussing the name change only. That is provably false. In fact, that is precisely what is occurring right here. All mentions of Czechia are being meticulously deleted, except for the name change section (and the lede). The fact is, we are in a transitional period, in which both names should be more or less equally used. To prefer one name form over the other leads to either relevancy deficit or to activism. Neither is beneficial to the virtue of facts nor to Wikipedia's purpose and reputation. To exclusively continue or promote the replacement of all mentions of Czechia with the Czech Republic is as unhelpful to the reader as replacing all mentions of Czech Republic with Czechia at this time. All Wikipedia languages that I checked use both Czech Republic and Czechia interchangeably. It causes absolutely no confusion. The only thing causing confusion is the lack of Czechia usage here. Danda Panda (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing practice in other languages with practice in English, and to be overlooking the difference between the (still) usual English name for the country and the (still) unusual name. Doremo (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

English Wikipedia chose not to use two names for the same thing. Synonyms are listed in the main article, but the rest of Wikipedia uses same name as the title of the main article about the subject - and it is mainly the name with highest usage. It applies to country names and anything else. That's my explanation. Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• No Czechia is catching up more and more, newest Oxford World Atlas is using it, National Geographic Visual Atlas as well, let the authors decide what to use Helveticus96 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Czechia is now used by Google Maps, Google Earth, the latest edition of the Oxford Atlas of the World, Times Atlas of the World, National Geographic Atlas of the World, Apple iOS 11, TomTom navigation, CIA World Factbook etc. Its usage will only grow in the future. Deleting it on Wikipedia does not make any sense anymore and is counterproductive. Geog25 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I agree that avoiding the name 'Czechia' doesn't make sense anymore. It's used far more than ever before and many sources (as it's mentioned above) now use it exclusively. I'm actually not afraid that the people who have some interest in this country's background aren't familiar with this name. Deleting the name 'Czechia' now means that it necessarily will have to be re-added in the years to follow. Is it really effective, or should we focus on more important issues that actually will make Wikipedia a better source of information? Oasis98 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No It is long-term bad habit of Wikipedia. Czechia is an official geographic name of the country being included in the UN List of World Geographical Names (UNGEGN), the United Nations Terminology Database (UNTERM) and the name is codified by ISO 3166 Standards. Czechia should be also the name of the main page of the country instead of "the Czech Republic". Czech Rep.is political name, the name of the current state system in Czechia. Political name used as the encyclopaedic keyword cannot describe fully its content, because it is time limited. "Czechia" is a geographical name, which is independent on time and state-political changes in the country, thus, it can be used for our country both in historical and contemporary context. In addition, Czech Wikipedia equivalent page "Česko" should be correctly translated into English Wikipedia - the correct translation is Czechia. Heptapolein (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Off-topic This is off-topic, as this discussion is not about the name of this article. There is a moratorium (see above) on discussing the name of this article before 26 March, 2018. Further, if you read last year's discussion, you'll see that every single thing you've written here has already been addressed. See WP:COMMONNAME for more information. Largoplazo (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• No The trend of the increasing use of the name Czechia is obvious as shown by the evidence presented in this discussion and will only accelerate in the future. 62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Czechia has increased in usage quite a bit. It wouldn't make sense to keep deleting it as there is nothing incorrect about the term. It is a synonym to the Czech Republic and there is no harm in allowing mixed usage of Czechia and Czech Republic. Especially in tables etc. where all other countries have short names, it would make sense to use Czechia. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think random usage of Czech Republic/Czechia is not welcome. Dual usage maybe - in tables where each state has 2 names, or maybe in sentences like "what is now known as the Czech Republic" which IMHO can be extended with "(or Czechia)". Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say random. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah OK. It was just clarification, some people here does think you can randomly choose one or other name but English wikipedia clearly does not want that. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the comment "what is now known as the Czech Republic is utter nonsense. What about to write "what is today known as the Federal Republic of Germany?" Helveticus96 (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that Germany is a commonly used term in English, Czechia isn't. English doesn't necessarily treat all countries the same. --Khajidha (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• No Czechia (in Czech Česko) is the official geographic name also Slovakia, Latvia or Australia. Czechia is used by MFA, UN (UNTERM, UNGEGN), ISO norms 3166, CIA, Elsevier Publishing. They also use the most famous maps of the world (Google maps, Oxford Atlas of the World or National Geographic Atlas of the World). It is commonly used on social network (Pinteres, Twitter, Facebook or Instagram). It is not the only reasonable reason to replace the timeless geographical name with the unstable political name. BeastCZ (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• No I was a strong supporter of retaining the Czech Republic as the article title, but I have changed my mind after I saw this: United Nations Statistics Division – Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). Right now, even the UN starts to use Czechia instead of the Czech Republic. I think now we should seriously consider changing the Czech Republic to Czechia, just like changing Burma to Myanmar and Republic of China to Taiwan. I will start a discussion about this in a new section. Kenwick (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• NO Wikipedia should be more about being correct then what is seen as right. I was confused when I came here and got into an argument because wikipedia still didn't update. Even google maps says Czechia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C802:5C50:40A4:D14B:547D:9689 (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• No - I have been alerted to this discussion by comments made in the Talk:List of sovereign states article, and I feel I must weigh in on the discussions going on here. First of all, no, all instances of "Czechia" should not be forcefully replaced with "Czech Republic" across the rest of EN Wikipedia, as it does seem like the term is gaining modest traction around the world, with big corporates such as Google, National Geographic, etc. accepting its use. After all, this is what the redirect links are for! Till that decision/discussion is resolved, simply redirecting Czechia to Czech Republic should suffice.
  Off-topic - However, that having been said, were the decision to be made that the article's name is changed to "Czechia", I do not feel that we should go around and change all references of "Czech Republic" over to "Czechia" in all of EN Wikipedia either. This is because the term "Czech Republic" is still very prolific and common in English, and has been so for a very long time now. It should not be expected that this will change, even if the use of "Czechia" (or an alternative) were to rise in prominence. In time, we may have to accept the use of multiple terms within EN Wikipedia to refer to this country, as terms continue to evolve, and terms come in and out of use within English when referring to this country (EN Wikipedia needs to reflect this). Expect a long time of the dual usage of terms. However, it is very important to note that such changes are natural and cannot be forced onto an existing population. Especially one as large and diverse as all English speakers around the globe.
  Terms in English will always evolve naturally, and it is a very bad idea to try and force it one way or another. A good example of this is with the term "ISIS". It took a long time for English users to essentially settle on this term, and get used to it. There were concerted efforts by different groups to not use this term for various differing reasons. One of these groups was the US Obama presidency that decided to take a stand and only refer to this group as "ISIL" in an obvious attempt to try and force English users and media organisations to use only "ISIL" to refer to this group (when the group wanted to only be refered to as "The Islamic State"). However, despite all the power and prestige that the US presidency holds, they were largely unsuccessful[4], and the majority of English speakers around the globe now use ISIS despite this clear attempt (Yes, I am aware the debate is not 100% resolved). This is because it was never up to the US government/presidency to decide what term English will use for ISIS in English, as it is a collective decision that English speakers across the entire globe will slowly come to an understanding on. I feel here that a similar tactic is being used by the government of the Czech Republic, to try and force English users to not say "Czech Republic" but to instead use their prefered term of "Czechia". However, it is not up to the Czech government to decide what English users should say. Just like with Obama, English users will collectively come to an understanding as to what is the best and most acceptable way to refer to the Czech nation in English. To try and force them to do otherwise is foolhardy, and doomed for failure. English users can and will decide for themselves what is an appropriate term to use for the Czech nation in English that sounds correct and that will work with the way English is spoken and pronounced. I feel that many members of this discussion are taking the same attitude as the Czech government and are trying to force other English users to say what they would prefer them to say in English. I wish to tell them this; that it will not work. You cannot force another person or group of people to say what you want them to say. No matter how much you insist that they do so, if a majority of users say things a certain way, then so be it. That is the way they have chosen to do so. No government or organisation will directly dictate to people how they are to use language. To do so brings us one step closer to George Orwell's vision of 1984 and the concept of Newspeak, where language is controlled in order to restrict others.
  Having said all of that, I feel I should also explain that I have grown up with English being used as my first language and I have spoken it all my life. Before I was altered to this discussion I had never once heard of the term "Czechia". I have always referred to this nation as "Czech Republic" and "Czechoslovakia" before that, when it was previously federated with the Slovak Republic. Now, I am willing to accept new ideas, and that I might be entirely incorrect about my assumptions of the use of this name, but as far as I am concerned, whenever I have had conversations with others in English in the past, the only term that I ever heard was "Czech Republic". I'm not saying that this usage cannot change, only that, as far as I am concerned, it has not yet done so for me.
  In addition, I do feel that there is an issue in English when it comes to adding modifiers onto the word "Czech". A word that ends in a "-ek" sound does not easily pluralise in English. Thus it is hard for English users to know what to do with the word when it comes to modifiers. Personally, in my opinion, I do not feel that "Czechia" is a good modification of this word. It does not flow evenly enough and is too similar in sound to Chechnia, which is a completely different place (And I do stress this is just an opinion and not necessarily fact). Additionally, I see no problem with other alternatives that could be used instead, which would sound a lot better in English than the seemingly more commonly accepted alternate "Czechia". Examples of such are "Czechy", "Czecho", or "Czecha". Personally, I think that 'Czecho' sounds the most natural in English, but as I said before, this is just my random opinion on the matter. I do not expect others to agree with it. I also do not expect to see any other term spread among English users other than "Czechia", if any. As it is the most prominent alternate that has active support behind it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of a self-declared state is very different from that of an internationally recognized one. When a new country forms, it itself decides what its name is. That is how UN law works. When Slovakia became independent, the Slovak government registered its name with the UN just as Czechia did at the same time. Due to a rather unfortunate step by the Czech government to remove Czechia from UN databases in the 90s, the name never took hold and the Czech Republic did not have an official short name. Now that has been fixed and the official short name is Czechia whether you like it or not. The "iconic" name of Czechoslovakia was also ridiculed when it was created. It always takes time for people to get used to new things. You might also like to note that the Czechs and Slovaks decided to call their country Czechoslovakia and English speakers learned the name, not the other way around. It is quite ridiculous to say that the Czech government is forcing someone to use Czechia, the only thing the Czech government did was register the name with the UN because the Czech Republic lacked an official short name. If you want to draw parallels with Orwell then that would be Wikipedia trying to replace all mentions of Czechia with Czech Republic even in places where it makes sense to use Czechia such as lists where all countries use their short names. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be that "Czechia" becomes the standard English reference in the future. But it is not our job to promote it. We should not spread the name faster than it spreads naturally.

Reality is that in modern English, the only short form name of this country "Czech Republic". IRL, "Czechia" barely makes it out of WP:FRINGE territory right now. Per your example, since you would expect to find "Czech Republic" used in reliable English-language "lists where all countries use their short names" outside Wikipedia, so you should expect to find it inside Wikipedia as well. Maybe that will change. But we should not change until it does. Kahastok talk 23:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@User:A Nebraska Cornhusker - Yes, countries always choose their own names when they form. This is normally done in their own language however. It does not matter what was registered at the UN. That only matters to the UN, and to the registering state. The fact is that "Slovakia" was accepted by English speaking people from 1993 onward, as was "Czech Republic", but "Czechia" was not. As you say, it "never took hold". I'm sure that for decades linguists will be arguing why or why not that was the case, but still that is the case! Having an "official" term and forcing certain organisations to use it does not mean that English speaking people will just automatically adopt it. For instance, Côte d'Ivoire has been trying for years now to force everyone to say "Côte d'Ivoire", as it is pronounced in French (and not just English speakers, mind you), but they have been woefully unsuccessful. In common English speak, everyone still says "Ivory Coast".
With regards to "Czechoslovakia", I agree with you that it was a made up term, just as much as "Czechia" is today. These terms have their origins in the names of the Czech and Slovak people, naturally, but historically they did not previously exist in both cases. However, the difference is that "Czechoslovakia" became very widely adopted and accepted, and "Czechia" has not ... yet.
This may change in the future, but no one, ... not you, ... not I, ... not the Czech government, not the UN, and not Wikipedia can force that change to happen. It may happen slowly and naturally, but I warn you, do not expect it to, because it may not do so. "Côte d'Ivoire" is proof of that. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"It may be that "Czechia" becomes the standard English reference in the future. But it is not our job to promote it. We should not spread the name faster than it spreads naturally." That is fair but it should not be Wikipedia job to try to prevent it from growing/spreading either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That is why I chose "No" as my option above. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

glad to hear that. my comment is based on an overall (not just you ) view on this topic the past year or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.82.105 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

1) "The name of a self-declared state is very different from that of an internationally recognized one." Not really. Both are just "this is what we want to be called." 2) "When a new country forms, it itself decides what its name is." No one is arguing against that. What is being argued is that such decisions can only be made in that country's own language(s). Whether to accept or reject that name in other languages is beyond their purview. 3) "Now that has been fixed and the official short name is Czechia whether you like it or not." It is official with the UN, but that does not give it any claim to primacy in general English usage.--Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the debate. The Czech Republic's official short name is Czechia. Just as the official short name of the French Republic is France. It has nothing to do with what English speakers think. It is the actual official short name. The article should be retitled to match with all the other articles about European nations. They just made it official recently, but it's official just the same. Go look at Google Maps if you doubt it. 166.67.66.245 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Except that it already matches all other articles about European nations. Wikipedia article titles are based on the common name for something in English usage. It just so happens that the common English usage for this country is the long, formal name as opposed to the short, geographic name. --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I get it, and it would work nicely if Wikipedia was some kind of university project which would not affect outside world. Wikipedia would pick "most common term on the internet and in the sources" and that would be it. But Wikipedia is source of its own and I hate arguments like "I will not use Czechia because not even Wikipedia uses that". Sources do not use Czechia because Wikipedia does not use it and Wikipedia does not use it because sources do not. So the usage must be very huge and bold, bolder than pre-wikipedia times, don't be afraid to use terms which wikipedia "fails to recognize" and use it in such volume to crush Wikipedia in the end. I agree Czechia does not do enough in its own presentation (Olympic games - huge waste of opportunity), I can only hope it was not because of fear of Wikipedia (We would compete on OG as a state which does not exist on Wikipedia - so embarassing). BTW Would usage on olympic games change something? I doubt that. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE. IT IS OFF TOPIC HERE. PLEASE STOP. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

These stopping sentences can write anyone, but to write short summary to the beginning of this page - noone. So people keep coming in and wonder why Wikipedia does not change name or at least allow to use Czechia here and there, this talk does not offer such summary. No, just "WP:COMMONNAME" as an answer is not short summary, it is a smug retorting which says nothing for other than everyday editors who know all rules (even if linked). WP:COMMONNAME is a nice rule, but maybe way too common, Czechia case has its interesting special aspects not covered there (at first sight for some editors at least ;). Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's so much better to pretend that this is a special case and then have one group of people bring up the same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, when they continue to be irrelevant because Wikipedia already has guidelines for exactly this purpose, guidelines that don't include these other considerations. The whole purpose of having guidelines is to avoid exactly this. It's understandable that newcomers aren't already aware of the guidelines, but for you to suggest that they somehow can't be bothered, and that wave after wave after wave should argue this in circles all over again, disrupting this page and those who would like to track it in order to find out when something new is being discussed? No, sorry, maybe you think that it makes sense to reenact the same arguments endlessly, but I repeat: NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE. IT IS OFF TOPIC HERE. PLEASE STOP.Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2018 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Milosforman.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved.

There is a snow consensus against the proposal and having failed to spot a single policy-based argument, I'm closing this earlier than the stipulated time-frame.That this avalanche has happened after the passage of 12 months of time since my previously imposed moratorium, I'm extending the moratorium to another 12 months, from the date of this closure.

For purposes of clarity I'm copying my previous statement:--

A one-year moratorium is hereby established with the effect that any future discussion at this talk page concerned/related with an aim to move the article to "Czechia" and/or about using Czechia as the main identity for this article's topic in the prose would be promptly closed with a pointer to this RM. This may be over-ruled iff someone brings some overwhelming new argument or evidence to the case, demonstrating that common usage has changed noticeably.

Thankfully, ∯WBG^converse 05:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Czech Republic → Czechia – According to our Name of the Czech Republic article, "Czechia" has become more common than "Czech Republic", and IHMO, keeping the old name makes the Wikimedia movement look stubborn. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• This info might be useful. Good luck. —  AjaxSmack  02:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• For the benefit of those not familiar with this situation (i.e., exactly those who can help us avoid problems of nationalistic WP:NPOV and instead comply with English WP:COMMONNAME and related guidelines/policies), please state exactly where in the article, with support from cited secondary sources, this is now more common. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose by far not anywhere near WP:COMMON. Even if there are literally dozens of sources listed using "Czechia", vast majority (thousands) of sources use Czech Republic.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Nothing's changed in the last fifteen months. Though the RM moratorium has expired, the majority of sources continue to call it the Czech Republic, so we should call it the Czech Republic as well. ONR (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Doremo (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (I also support the moratorium) - why do we have to keep going through this bullshit? R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Associated Press, style pacesetter for the news media, says, "Country name: the Czech Republic. The government says Czechia can be used in English communications, but it hasn't caught on."[5] On Highbeam, which archives news articles, I get 14 mentions of "Czechia" in the last month compared to 1,191 for "Czech Republic." The Czechs themselves call the country Česko and are not changing the name in Czech. "Czechia" is a "short form name" created strictly for the benefit of English speakers. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If the name of the country has been changed, somebody needs to tell the Foreign Ministry. See Permanent Mission of the Czech Republic to the United Nations and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that the name has changed, it is that the informal, geographic name is being recommended for use in many situations. However, the mission to the UN would still most properly use the longer, political name. Just as the United States has a "Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations" --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Exactly! Also AP's one year old tweet can't assess current situation today, what if a lot happened since then. It has not, but anyway ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per others. Also, the original poster does not seem to have read the Name of the Czech Republic page as no such claim is made there. --Khajidha (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. If a perennial proposal is going to be reopened, I like to see some sort of evidence that the factors that made it fail the last time have changed in some way. This RM tells us that Czechia is now more common than the Czech Republic, but without any evidence other than a link to a Wikipedia article which apparently doesn't even make the claim suggested. If this is unsuccessful, I suggest reimposing the 12 month moratorium which was effected from March 2017 so that the issue can be put to bed once more unless there's a radical shift in outside usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I second the proposed moratorium. --Khajidha (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As do I. This certainly bears revisiting at reasonable intervals, but not to the point of drowning out everything else related to this article, being disruptive to this of us having this page in our watchlists. If the title change is eventually justified, no harm will come from not having enacted it the very instant it became tenable. Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - I imagine that consensus will later change as the facts do. Red Slash 12:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It seems to me that this is the way forward. The fact that most sources are not using this new official name yet is immaterial. Deb (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy is irrelevant? --Khajidha (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant, because the short name might actually never get into a wider use than the full name. Or it may take a generation. Suggesting that it will happen in the near future is a speculation. Wikipedia is supposed to just reflect sources, not guess what might possibly happen.--Concus Cretus (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no radical shift of usage of short name. I agree with proposed moratorium as well.--Jklamo (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support... in the future "Czechia" has become more common than "Czech Republic". It definitely has not. It was a valid point to try it after moratorium expired, but it can't win now. Maybe the usage of Czechia doubled, some high profile examples exist, but I can't see it would be enough to convince Wikipedia about common name now. It would be much simpler with Czechia on Wikipedia, it would easily replace Czech lands, Czech state, Czech Republic and strange formulations as "Music of the Czech Republic comprises the musical traditions of that state or the historical entities of which it is compound, i.e. the Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia)." But it can't be the reason to push it against the sources. I thing 12-month moratorium is long enough so see you in June 2019 :) In the meantime page Name of the Czech Republic will accumulate more and more new examples of spreading for anyone to see how it goes... Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chrzwcz: So if you support it "in the future', then does this mean you oppose it now?... Because no one is asking for your future stance. They're asking for your stance now. RfCs work on present opinion. (WP:RfC)R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh, these smug comments of yours "strong oppose" (changed to "oppose" just before you wrote this), "oppose because I think it is a bulls**t", "learn how to..." I support it but I admit only "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" can help now :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated above, and impose the moratorium. - Darwinek (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is clearly the common English name for the country. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite the best efforts of the Czech government, the name of this country in English is still Czech Republic. Bradv 02:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course the name of this country in English is still Czech Republic, it hasn't changed. Chrzwzcz (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - @Lojbanist:. Curious... I just re-rede your summary, you claim that ..."Czechia" has become more common than "Czech Republic"... Nowhere in the article Name of the Czech Republic has it ever said that "Czechia" is more common... What exactly are you talking about? Can you show me in a recent reversion where you saw that?R9tgokunks ⯃ 07:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nope. Czech Republic is still far commoner in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Please someone apply WP:SNOW and close this In ictu oculi (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as that's the name of the country it has chosen for itself. Regrettably, the major problem with WP:COMMONNAME is that it encourages many of us to follow sources -- no matter how wrong they are. Thinking back to the long draw out dispute over Burma/Myanmar. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

How is it "wrong"? This is the English language, not Czech or Burmese. If English usage is to call a place Slorbitibump, then that is it's English name regardless of whatever the residents of that place say. And given that I still see "Myanmar, also known as Burma" in just about every reference to that country, it seems to me that we have made a mistake in changing that article.--Khajidha (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case it was not a mistake "Primary name, also known as secondary name". And this was a country which actually changed its name, unlike Czechia/Czech Republic and even heavy promotion did not help (compare it with Czech Republic which does nothing, only registered it). That's why I guess eSwatini and North Macedonia will happen sooner then Czechia in the sources and also on Wikipedia. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the proposed North Macedonia? I doubt it'll pass a referendum & the Macedonian President's promise of a veto. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a huge OT, so quickly: Nevertheless North Macedonia or Some other name for Macedonia has IMHO better prospects than Czechia. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The "proper" name is still "Czech Republic" and "Czechia" is not used outside the country. jamacfarlane (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Very unknowledgeble move to rename page, when this issue were already solved. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not an argument. Usage can shift in time, it is OK to reevaluate when strong new evidence come. Not the case here. This proposal was too hasty, even though 1-year moratorium ended 3 months ago. Usage progressed, sure, but not so drastically as stated above, not even close. It just irritated people (eh Czechia again) and I guess even longer moratorium will be imposed. Move will not pass, but I would suggest at least to reduce that anti-Czechia hysteria that banned to speak about Czechia in IMHO totally justified cases - like translating "Česká republika" to "Czech Republic" and "Česko" to "Czechia" in direct speech translations. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "anti-Czechia hysteria"? Methinks you should take a peek at WP:POV. We edit WP from a encyclopedic and policy-based perspective. R9tgokunks ⯃ 19:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Just a note that I also support a(nother) 12-month moratorium. I was proposer of and helped enforce the previous one and it was successful in avoiding time wasted and drowning of other discussions. I am not concerned that this latest RM happened. As intended, there was a reasonable revisiting after the previous one expired. which has demonstrated that there is no change warranted after a 12-month time, so we merely avoided having who-knows-how-many other futile discussions in the preceding year. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Untrue

The statement on the article page: "In 1918, during the collapse of the Habsburg Empire at the end of World War I, the independent republic of Czechoslovakia, which joined the winning Allied powers, was created, with Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk in the lead" is simply completely untrue. At the very end of the war Masaryk and his exiles declared their new State but to suggest they "joined the winning Allied powers" or played any part in The Great War as an independent country is simply a monster lie.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:7590:EA91:CDFD:8588 (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-religious to Atheists

After some discussion with foreigners coming to Czech Republic I decided to propose a change in the information box. Why don't just use the word "Atheists" instead of "non-religious", when many foreigners studying or living here ask "What does the non-religious mean?". It simply is atheism, so I think it would be wise to just call it like that than to hide it behind some "non-religious" stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatran11 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-religious can also mean agnostic. Or deistic. Or spiritual. --Khajidha (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Economy - update

...It has a per capita GDP rate that is 89% of the EU average... - see 82 --HAV278 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

HDI update: http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI, (27th with the new value 0.888)--HAV278 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Short name Czechia

DMacks asked me to find consensus for text "also known by its short-form name Czechia". I think it's all obvious, when it's clearly sourced on the un.org website. Several reverts have been made here today, but that's because of misunderstanding with user Khajidha. He did not first specify his reason for reverts, then he said that he bothers grammar. The last edit he did not reverted, so I think everything is quite clear. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't really call that an edit war. While I'm not sure that Jirka.h23's last version was needed, it was no longer ungrammatical and did not seem POV. I am happy with either version. --Khajidha (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 and Khajidha: Thank you both for your well-reasoned comments here. I updated the article. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We could simply have the country as Czechia and that the official name is Czech Republic Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Czechia is not the article title as it has yet to become the common name of the country in English and article titles are supposed to use the common name. --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How do you know it has yet to become the common name of the country in English? What is your source? Standingfish (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to explain how things work here the best I can.We have had numerous WP:RfCs and discussions on this talk page(there's even one visible on this talk page right now, if you look) and others and no-one has been able to provide ample, reliable sources and/or WP:policy- based evidence that leads to a WP:consensus that Czechia is used more. Everytime, our community overwhelmingly comes to the conclusion that Czech Republic is the WP:Commonname, and we use that to determine the usage here. Hopefully that clears it up for you. R9tgokunks ⯃ 23:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of all that, but thanks for enlightening me nonetheless. The issue I had was with the person saying that Czechia is "yet to become the common name of the country in English" as though it was a matter of fact. It's just an opinion, albeit a widely held one by the people who use this particular talk page. It's important not to lose sight of that. Standingfish (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is the consensus of the editors based on the evidence presented. --Khajidha (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless look what was agreed months earlier - [6] - Czechia is not completely banned on Wikipedia. Page move is denied, next window July 2019, OK, fine by me. Random usage here and there is not allowed, also fine, who wants that. What is possible (my interpretation of not so clearly closed discussion/vote): to use Czechia where sources says Czechia, to translate direct quotations of the word Česko as Czechia, to use Czechia in translations of (event/book) titles where Česko is used in Czech. Possible, not mandatory. And maybe not worth fighting for, so few occurrences fulfill this 'exceptions'... Offtopic: Current official wikipedia appeal: "To all our readers in Czechia This Tuesday we need your help. On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament will vote on a new copyright directive. If approved, these changes threaten to disrupt the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of. You have time to act. Join the discussion. Thank you." Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I will just leave this here... https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/czechia-se-po-dvou-letech-prilis-neujala-kratsi-nazev-ignoru/r~20e13ffa7f9611e8aaa4ac1f6b220ee8/ Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It says how Czechs and Czech companies uses/does not use that English name. And then short note about Google maps. Also that "Wikipedia uses it in its announcements" ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopening of discussion during moratorium, October 25, 2018

It should absolutely be moved to "Czechia". Why is it we changed "Swaziland" to "eSwatini" so quickly on one order of their absolute monarch, but something as simple as "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" gets bogged down in pages and pages of discussion and a 12 month moratorium? Seriously, Czechia is a logical name recognized by most of the world. PrussianOwl (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC) If you think the move to eSwatini was based on "one order of their absolute monarch", then you can't possibly have read the discussion that led to the decision. And, now, note the announcement above that a moratorium has been placed on further discussing the move of this article before July 2019. Largoplazo (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC) I'm actually curious as to why Eswatini was moved swiftly but not Czech Republic. I personally think the case is stronger with Czechia considering the current name is basically the 'full' official name, like for example 'Russian Federation' or 'Republic of Poland'. I really hope this page will get the long-awaited move by July next year. --Wq639 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC) My guess another 12-month moratorium will be issued. 97.127.9.115 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

North Macedonia case

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed as concerning the name during moratorium

---

I would like to ask another question: Why was the wikipedia page for FYRO Macedonia nearly immediately changed to North Macedonia, but the wikipedia page for Czechia is still Czech Republic??? Phoenix (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mainly because with FYROM, Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, all became obsolete and inaccurate?! Both Republic of North Macedonia and North Macedonia are not exactly "common common", but old common name is misleading now. Also "Republic of Macedonia" was a compromise article name with all that Greek stuff and all. With Czech Republic and Czechia - Czech Republic is still valid name and more common. That's the main difference I guess. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This. Also the government of North Macedonia actively uses the new name while the Czech government sticks with the formal name and does basically nothing to promote the short one.194.79.55.130 (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I remember it was to be used in informal settings, with the official name to be used in all official settings, like in the UN, the EU, bilateral/multilateral treaties and such. This doesn't mean the government has to necessarily promote the toponym over the official name, but they should. But what about Swaziland?! That one was changed just as fast! Nothing about bilateral treaties there (in fact it was one man's word and that's it!) and the name chosen is just the siSwati name for the country which means the same thing as the English name, eSwatini = Swaziland "land of the Swazi/Swati". That's like if Italy tomorrow decided to tell everyone that it must be called Italia or Russia saying it had to be called Росси́я, however the Ivory Coast has done just this and almost no one follows! Why is one different than the other? -- sion8 ^{talk page} 06:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(North) Macedonia changed both formal and informal names. Swaziland/Eswatini changed both formal and informal names. Czech Republic added informal name. See the difference? Yes, we were told million times here that it does not matter what Czech government does - it does not affect usage in English. On the other hand it must be visible somehow and who else than the country itself should do something to promote it. Some people even said that Czechs can't be so arrogant to propose English name. At least this smug comments were shattered by Macedonia and Swaziland cases: countries proposed, English language followed and quickly (and gladly). Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of membership in international organizations, I suspect it's necessary and routine rather than arrogant for countries to specify the name by which they expect to be known in the languages used by those organizations (except when their choices are contested for political reasons). Largoplazo (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Routine for them to specify how they will be known within the context of those organizations. But it still seems odd to try to say that all speakers of a language must use that terminology in all situations. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And why do you expect a consistent outcome? English is a very inconsistent language. --Khajidha (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Talk:Czechia into Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7. Because Czechia is only a redirect page for Czech Republic for a long time; Talk:Czechia really has some content; Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 7 is the newest archive page for Talk:Czech Republic, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.177
11:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree Patriccck (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Move proposal (10 April 2019)

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.

---

Czech Republic → Czechia --Patriccck (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree Per official page of European Union europa.eu Google Maps and Czech Wikipedia. --Patriccck (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2019 (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.