DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Czech Republic

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former featured article candidateCzech Republic is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted

Should we change the name of the article to Czechia instead of the longer term "Czech Republic"??

[edit]

I think it's now time to switch it, since Czechia has already become the official name that is being used everywhere, in the UN, in sports, in the EU, and the Czech Government pushed it almost 10 years ago. Also, I'm beggining to hear in my daily life more "Czechia" instead of "the Czech Republic", and the second one sounds artifitial. So, I think everyone would identify Czechia as the Czech Republic when searching on Wikipedia about this country, and therefore the article should be named Czechia, and not "Czech Republic" 88.7.158.109 (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion from just three weeks ago, three sections above, and contribute there instead of carrying on a parallel discussion here. At this point, if someone wants to formally propose a move following the path prescribed in WP:Requested moves, let them do it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on keeping the name is becoming absurd. Clearly you are not able to understand the will of the people of the country who want it called that way. A very imperialist line of thinking, if I might add too.
The change in name will happen. T is not a question of if. It is a question of when. Cease these foolish attempts to halt progress. 82.169.208.242 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Start the WP:RM#CM when you're ready, but do it right. Afaict, most of the people don't give a tiny rat's ass what en-WP does in this matter. Being sensible people, they probably don't see changing the title of an en-WP article as any significant progress worth their time. On this website, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies, so when you start the WP:RM#CM, you should use other arguments. But sure, this article-title must be a remnant from that time the British Empire ruled Bohemia.
Fwiw, the Czech government seems to think this article is pretty ok:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it seems like it's not the Czech government getting worked up about this, both Czechia and Czech Republic are valid English names according to them. Anecdotally, like Timor-Leste and Myanmar, the Czechia name is gradually coming more into day to day usage by sources, so probably it's correct now to predict that we'll change at some point. I don't think we're there yet though. Either way, hyperbole about "imperialist lines of thinking" is completely uncalled for. Who exactly is trying to establish an empire over the Czech Republic?! It's just a name used in a language that isn't the local language there. In the Czech Republic they call the UK "Spojené království" apparently, but I'm not taking that as evidence that the Czechs are going to be sailing am invasion flotilla up the Thames any time soon...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably because they're still looking for that elusive bit of coast to set sail from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Nice one! :-) Seriously, when we do reopen this, let's not have silly emotional arguments and ad hominem accusations. Nobody in this debate has a malicious motivation. Doric Loon (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It was a well-attended, civil and well-argued discussion, with both sides providing good arguments and evidence to support their choice."
It can happen. Some journalists have noted that compared to other online forums, WP is generally quite civil. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the question is when. The when will be such time as a consensus is reached the the criteria for the change have been met. "The will of the people" is not one of those criteria. Besides, can you show any evidence that what English Wikipedia's title is for this article has even entered the consciousness of a substantial portion of the Czech population, let alone that they've devoted any mental energy to questioning it? Let alone that their passion over it is on the level of "Do You Hear the People Sing"? Largoplazo (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good song. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well. The Google Map led me to here. Czech and Turkey are named "Czechia" and "Türkiye" currently. The another disputed name change goes to Myanmar, which Google Map marked as "Myanmar (Burma)". However, Ivory Coast, which English Wikipedia is still using, is already named as "Côte d'Ivoire" in the Google Map. I think we have to consider more situation here. KyleRGiggs (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar talkpage, 2015: "The result of the move request was: Moved to Myanmar. Clear consensus that the newer name has become consistent with WP:COMMONNAME.". If that situation appears in a WP:RM#CM on this talkpage, this article will be moved too. Using "Burma was moved" as an argument for moving this article is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument (that essay is an essay). "It's what the Google Map says" is a better argument. Not IMO enough in itself, but better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for not enough. However it fell into WP:COMMONNAME basis again. So what is the common name in English language? "Türkiye" may be not common at this moment, "Côte d'Ivoire" is further not common. However, I don't see "Czechia" is not common, only because no one knows how to interpretate this state when Czechoslovakia disintegrate as "Czech" is at the first one making into "Czecho". When the word "Czechia" comes, wow. KyleRGiggs (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, anonymous IP addresses, do not attempt to re-open a topic that was extensively discussed recently. Some over-eager users may use this as a reason to extend the moratorium. We are aware of the topic and will revisit it at the right time. For now, these messages are quite counterproductive. Chrz (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Against. Honestly I¨ve had this discussion here so many times, that I just refer to the previous discussions. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, it will be changed to Czechia. Just gonna take some time. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Talk:Czech_Republic/Archive_1#Requested_move was 20 years ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2005: 'do travel books use the term "Czechia" (Lonely Planet, etc)? Do major news media use the term "Czechia" (the Economist, etc)? Do airlines use it? Do Czech government institutions even use it?'
2025: Lonely Planet does, some news media do, airlines do, Czech government and sport do... Of course those were examples that the name was completely unknown at the time; now we're mostly arguing about whether it's common "enough"... And out of all those listed "conditions," weight is given (only) to the news media, the largest ones. Chrz (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very funny, you can go back and look at all the old discussions and the anti-Czechia folks were saying "it's not common enough yet. Look, source x and source y still call it Czech Republic". Now you open source x and source y and both have been changed since then to say Czechia. 90% of the time this is the case. But when the discussion reopens, the anti-Czechia folks will dig up a couple more sources that still say Czech Republic, and by the time the next discussion comes up those will now say Czechia and they'll have to find new examples yet again. Eternally moving goalposts, I don't think the page name will ever change so long as a single source on the internet still uses the Czech Republic name. 67.200.228.170 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume those sources "x" and "y" were just an example showing that the name isn't/wasn't even used in the lowest-level places, which themselves don't guarantee a successful move. Do you think the outcome would be different if this were the very first attempt at the move? Some opponents vote with 'Oppose, not this sh.... again,' but let's assume that has zero weight in the evaluation. Chrz (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on previous given points. The name is now in wide and official use as the short name and there is little to no point to use the official long name instead of the common name. Slovakia isn't "Slovak Republic", Switzerland isn't "Swiss Confederation" and such and such. PLMandarynka (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PLMandarynka, please see the recent Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_22_October_2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have PLMandarynka (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After RM

[edit]

Personally, I am surprised and disappointed that the same arguments as last time resulted in a different closing outcome.. it seems it was just a matter of the headcount.

However, the discussion typically shifts immediately to a moratorium. As discussed during RM, I have already set up a page outline Talk:Czech Republic/Czechia to gather arguments for a properly established and well-supported RM. Contributors there would know exactly when to launch the next attempt, even without mandatory moratorium breaks.

So, instead of declaring a moratorium, could we propose that new RM be expected only after an agreement is reached on that specific subpage, and not from random passersby? Do the rules allow that? Working on the arguments will take a few months anyway. Currently, the overall usage across various types of sources isn't advanced enough for this to be an easy, unambiguous transition - it's just 'already theoretically conceivable' now and that requires more supporting material and convincing others about the relevance of individual sources, rules and metrics. Chrz (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrz It wasn't the same arguments with a different conclusion. Quite simply no arguments were put this time. By all means we can use the preparation page, and obviously we would not start a new RM until that comes to fruition, but only a moratorium can stop another newcomer launching an unprepared RM like we saw this week. Doric Loon (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No new arguments, just a few new cherry examples from sources that haven't fully switched to Czechia yet, but are now occasionally starting to use it — which they weren't able or willing to do a year ago. Plus, Google Scholar, which was meant for the opposing side but actually shows a skyrocketing trend in support for Czechia. :D Of course, it could still be continuously rejected even without a moratorium, stating that the case is being built on a subpage. Chrz (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RM nomination was hardly unprepared, it was done in good faith and was well-based on the relevant guidelines. It's just that in this particular situation (and also on Talk:Twitter, where I got pinged on a subpage like this just yesterday) that's apparently not enough. We probably need to flesh out the talk FAQ a bit, I think it's unrealistic for us to expect everyone who comes here and wonders "why hasn't Wikipedia changed its usage yet when all these other sources have" to read 20 years worth of wall-of-text RM discussions – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, what's currently written under Q1 in the FAQ is just misleading – it's weird that we give "the Czech Republic is the official name of the country" as a rationale for not moving the article, when the article title policy is quite clear that whether a name is "official" is immaterial to whether it should be the title. Not to mention the "official" argument makes no sense on either side of this debate as BOTH names are official. Also to say that there's a broad consensus against moving the article is not quite accurate any more - the October 2024 RM was closed as "no consensus" (as opposed to "not moved").
I would rewrite it to something like:

In 2016, the Czech government adopted the short name "Czechia" for the country, and since then some other sources have adopted the short name. The question of whether to move this article to "Czechia" has been extensively debated, most recently in October 2025, and the consensus is that even though some other sources have adopted the short name, Wikipedia should retain the name "Czech Republic" as it is more widely used in sources such as journalism, literature and scholarship, indicating that it is still the more widely recognized of the two names in English. This question may be revisited again in the future, but any future RM rationale should include substantial evidence to demonstrate that this situation has changed.

I've supported making this move since about 2021, so someone on the other side of the debate might want to edit that before implementing it. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help the discussion if those opposed to the change made clear what it would take for them to support it. We could avoid accusations of “moving the goalposts” and, hopefully, prevent pointless RMs if it’s clear none of these conditions have been met.
Personally, I’m not interested in seeing a list of sources using “Czechia”. I know “Czechia” is used. What I would need to see is evidence of it being used MORE than “Czech Republic”. And so far, every metric referenced in these RMs (Ngram, Google Trends, Scholar) has shown “Czech Republic” ahead. “Czechia” wouldn’t need to win in all three, or even in most of them. Wikipedia usually uses the official short name of a country, so, as long as it isn’t losing to “Czech Republic” in every metric, I would support the move. It also wouldn’t need to be these three metrics, any similar (and widely used) tool would be enough. And it does seem that “Czechia” is getting closer to “Czech Republic” in Google Scholar, so it might not be long before I change my vote. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I know Google Trends measures searches, not uses, but since WP:CRITERIA specifically mentions what “readers are likely to look or search for”, then “Czechia” winning there would be good enough for me. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trends is completely irrelevant for assessing WP:COMMONNAME, as it's usage in reliable sources that drive the assessment, not usage by the population at large. Scholar is also rarely very useful, unless it's used alongside a comprehensive analysis of usage in the other main source types. Scholarly articles form a small minority of sources as compared to books and media and it often uses more specialist language not used in other more general sources; as such, we specifically don't strive to give scholarly usage more prominence than others. As such, I would say ngrams are by far the most useful metric here as they represent the combined figures from over 5 million books and, absent a slam-dunk argument showing overwhelming shift in media and other web sources, I am unlikely to change my vote until the ngram lead for Czech Republic is significantly reduced.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Trends is indeed irrelevant for assessing WP:COMMONNAME, but that is not the only guideline that needs to be considered. WP:CRITERIA should be used to “choose the best title” when there is “more than one appropriate title for an article”. And “Naturalness” states that what “readers are likely to look or search for […] usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English”. In any case, I’m not trying to convince anyone here to change their position, I’m just stating mine, and you can very well demand a higher threshold to be crossed than me. Brainiac242 (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brainiac242, thanks for the reply but that seems to be an incorrect reading of the policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, as well as all the other associated guidelines such as WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and longstanding consensus at RMs, the common name across reliable source is almost always the bane that should be chosen. Per the policy wording, "when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly" (emphasis mine). But since the ngrams imply at present that Czech Republic is the single, obvious name most frequently used (without sufficient evidence from other source types to overturn that), there is no need to invoke any of the five criteria. Which is a good thing, frankly, because while the criteria are useful rules of thumb, they are quite subjective and open to interpretation. In my experience they're mostly invoked and weighted with a view to promoting a particular viewpoint rather than applied in an empirical objective manner. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: “Ireland” is clearly MUCH more used than “Republic of Ireland” [2], and yet the article is called Republic of Ireland, as that title “unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects”, namely the island of Ireland. Sometimes there is more than one valid title for an article, and when there is, Ngram should definitely be considered, but it should not be the ONLY thing considered.
Both “Czechia” and “Czech Republic” are valid titles for this article, and although “Czech Republic” is the better name today, that might not be the case three years from now, even if, like “Ireland”, “Czech Republic” continues to clearly win at Ngram. In any case, it’s rather pointless to discuss now whether it would make sense to move the article three years from now, but if we clearly state what could make us change our minds, maybe we can stop having RMs like this one, where everyone in favour last time, continues to be in favour, and everyone opposed, continues to be opposed. I for one would welcome an RM if either Ngram, Google Scholar, or Google Trends, showed “Czechia” ahead. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is a different case, because the name is ambiguous. The article Ireland refers to the whole island. If there weren't this ambiguity, we would 100% be calling the article "Ireland" since, as you note, that's the common name in sources. As you say, this is all rather academic right now, I was merely pointing out that basing an argument solely on Google scholar or Google trends, while ngrams continue to show a large lead for Czech Republic, is unlikely to be compliant with the article title policy and probably wouldn't be an argument likely to find consensus when viewed through that policy lens. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relationship between WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:PLACE should finally be clarified before the next attempt. We're naming a place, so it should be quite obvious which rule is the most specialized, but both in RM 2024 and now, there is speculation about the priorities of these recommendations without consensus. Chrz (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note:
I’ve noticed the use of NGram several times, and I do not believe that this is the most accurate source we could use for decisions on WP:COMMONNAME. Oftentimes NGram is based on professional, sophisticated uses. Use cases where the long, formal name is more likely to be used. NGram isn’t able to clearly the difference between “Czech Republic” (the long name) and “Czech Republic” (the wanted short name). Feel free to correct me; it is just something I’ve noticed reading through these threads. 144.129.7.117 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Ngram is about books. Books describe the present and the past. That's why the term 'Czechoslovakia' still appears almost as often as 'Czech Republic' even in the data up to 2022, despite the state not existing for 29 years.
Ngram is probably best used to see how a new term takes hold (in books) and how an older, outdated name disappears.
However, it is less useful for a term like 'Czechia'. This is because the name 'Czech Republic' remains the official and valid full name, meaning it will continue to appear in a significant quantity and will likely never disappear. You can compare this situation to 'Slovak Republic' vs. 'Slovakia'. Chrz (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a random nobody who just reads Wikipedia on occasion, have you ever considered that Wikipedia itself is influencing what name is used? As in, 'Czech Republic' gets an artificial boost over 'Czechia' because it's what Wikipedia uses? I'm just saying that, if someone comes across a country they don't know the name of, or are unsure of what name to use, they will it. And what will they find? Wikipedia, which calls it 'Czech Republic'. 192.249.3.255 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
look it up, sorry, typo 192.249.3.255 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only uses so-called reliable sources, which would never use Wikipedia as their own style guide. There might be a great deal of idealism in this; we can only hope that Wikipedia is not caught in a self-referencing loop.
In cases where two completely equal names compete, Wikipedia chooses just one of them and completely pushes the other one out. This is probably where the most damage is done, but randomly switching between them probably wouldn't help either.
There were attempts to differentiate based on context (e.g., Czechia for sports, Czech Republic outside of sports) to avoid suppressing one of the names. However, there was no willingness to adopt such solutions, even when examples were shown that Wikipedia had done similar things before... Chrz (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we can only hope that Wikipedia is not caught in a self-referencing loop"
But I guarantee it is. It's the first thing that comes up when you search pretty much any topic. Google AI uses it as it's primary source. It's the largest encyclopedia ever created. Even if people don't use it as the end-all-be-all, it's still going to have some influence on what name is used. I guarantee that if Wikipedia switched to 'Czechia' it's popularity and usage would skyrocket. The fact that Czechia is gaining traction, despite Wikipedia, is probably a sign that's it really caught on. 192.249.3.255 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree here. However, I think our best option is to make note of this in the actual WP:COMMONNAME page - protesting on this page won't help to fix that. 144.129.7.115 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is. Where I see a problem is with your underliying assumption that change must happen. It may happen tomorrow. It may happen twenty years from now. Or it may never happen. All of those are valid outcomes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is."
The problem is that Wikipedia decides what to call the country formed from the Czech half of Czechoslovakia based on what articles and other sources are calling it. Which are themselves likely pulling the name from Wikipedia. Wikipedias gets the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia which get the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia. It's feedback loop. Both texts are citing each other. Which suggests that using the most popular common name is a bad metric because Wikipedia is itself mudding the waters. ~2025-31300-01 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is."
The problem is that Wikipedia decides what to call the country formed from the Czech half of Czechoslovakia based on what articles and other sources are calling it. Which are themselves likely pulling the name from Wikipedia. Wikipedias gets the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia which get the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia. It's feedback loop. Both texts are citing each other. Which suggests that using the most popular common name is a bad metric because Wikipedia is itself mudding the waters. ~2025-31300-01 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Circular reporting Chrz (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, English usage reflecting English usage is not a problem. You are starting with the unspoken assumption that English usage is supposed to change. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that you believe that there are reliable sources that have something to say about the country but, somehow, don't already know what its name is and are looking it up on Wikipedia and using whatever they find there? Or is it that you believe the there are reliable sources that, every time they mention a country, check Wikipedia first to see whether its name has changed since the last time they wrote about it? Largoplazo (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, those don't sound like very reliable sources to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Largoplazo (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who notice that the Czech Republic is now called "Czechia" in a bunch of places and might come to Wikipedia to find out why and which name they should use in their writing, yes. That's a perfectly normal thing to use a reference source for. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And since we have information about that name, they will find out the "why"s. And since we show that each form is used by some sources, the choice is obviously theirs to make for themselves. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the source of the data you've used to establish that this is common. I'm suspicious of the proposition that reliable sources are, to an appreciable extent, outsourcing to an unreliable source like Wikipedia for this. Largoplazo (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such "lazy" sources wouldn't have to check Wikipedia before every new article; they would just save the List of sovereign states page and use it as their "own" style guide. Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents shows how even very reputable sources have been fooled by nonsense from Wikipedia. In the case of a country's name, it's quite a different thing, that seriously exists. But, they could just come to the idea that they'd rather stick "conservatively" to the name from Wikipedia than try to be more "daring". Chrz (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they saved the list, then in 2019, they'd never have updated their own nomenclature in their publications. I still await data showing that that happens with any appreciable frequency in place of freestyling conjecture.
In order to be fooled by Wikipedia, a writer would have to have looked at Wikipedia. I've called into question how often that happens. We aren't concerned with whether it's ever happened but with whether it happens sufficiently often to have a marked impact. Largoplazo (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy from Wikipedia in ways other than checking its current status daily. Once a year, they can rewrite their style guide according to Wikipedia, and then write using that guide for another year. How would you even prove something like that? If Wikipedia confirms sources, and the sources confirm Wikipedia, they are in a mutual loop.The only thing that would expose even respected sources of copying are those clear screw-ups, where they copy nonsense from Wikipedia that hasn't been published anywhere else. But I don't even want to prove it; I will choose to believe that there are enough (!) independent sources and that Wikipedia follows them and not the other way around. Without this basic (and partially) idealistic assumption, it wouldn't even be possible to do Wikipedia. Chrz (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? So what if they did? If, by and large, English language sources decide to stick with a central source that says X, then that means that English language usage has settled on X. Why is that not an acceptable outcome? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that single source is the list at the UN, then why not? That list has clear rules about where the names came from. But mindlessly copying a collective work by anonymous contributors... in the best case, they also read the notes next to the country list, but otherwise... Chrz (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would your answer change if X was what you wanted English to use? That is, would you be complaining about them mindlessly copying Wikipedia if Wikipedia used Czechia? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we are still talking about a central source for 'nomenclature', not a central source for 'general truth'. And no, Wikipedia is not a suitable central source for nomenclature, no matter what it says. Chrz (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know if you would find copying Wikipedia's usage problematic if Wikipedia's usage was Czechia instead of Czech Republic. Would it not still be "circular reporting"? Would you accept usage of the UN list if the UN used Czech Republic instead of Czechia? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swap the names, my answers would be the same :) If the UN list (lists of sports organizations, ISO) contained only Czech Republic, I wouldn't see any way to introduce the 'new' name into English at all. Would it just appear in news reports without also having formal approval? Chrz (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because you were calling for the change before those lists used Czechia. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When UN request will be sent and accepted, then the article about Czech Republic will have to recognize it at least somehow. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)" Chrz (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we have. We mention that the Czech government wants it to be used and that various entities do use it. That is recognozing it somehow. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call for the move in 2015. But I did call for including it in the article ONCE it is made official. What I wanted already in 2015 was to include the Czech name 'Česko' in the first senence, and the excuses were that it wouldn't be symmetrical or something like that... Chrz (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Wikipedia has a huge influence on what is subsequently used across the internet and by AI. Ideally, Wikipedia should rely on independent sources that can think for themselves and remain completely unaffected by this. It would certainly be an interesting experiment to 'arbitrarily' rename something on Wikipedia well in advance and see how the world shifts.
We have to ask: what prompts English-language news media to suddenly decide to name a country differently? Anyone can see that the initial step must come from the country itself, which (to the chagrin of some opponents) naturally has the right to influence the English language.
The best moment for a name change is when a country is first established (which is not renaming, but naming). Another good time is when the country renames itself in its local language, creating a large discrepancy with the English equivalent. It's clear that Czechia has no such advantage: it was established long ago, there was no change in the local language, and the 'old' name remains valid as the formal name. Wikipedia did not account for such special sub-cases, and maybe its general rules cannot resolve them. Chrz (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can see that the initial step must come from the country itself, which (to the chagrin of some opponents) naturally has the right to influence the English language." Yes, influence. Not command. If the influence is insufficient, then English usage doesn't change. Maybe there is nothing to resolve with respect to English usage and Wikipedia, the change didn't happen. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We surely can't claim that nothing has changed since 2016. Some sources HAVE CHANGED (because influence works), some ARE CHANGING, and some HAVE NOT CHANGED. "Naturally", opponents exaggerate the ones that haven't changed, while supporters do the opposite. During the RM, we evaluate which ones are better. However, observing the changes in the English language over the last century, the changes in country names IMHO didn't mostly happen due to willingness, but rather due to guilt (colonialism, etc.). Chrz (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I should have been clearer. When I said that "If the influence is insufficient, then English usage doesn't change." my point wasn't about an absolute lack of change, it was about changing from predominantly one form to predominantly the other. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want more than the rule suggests. It's enough to roughly reach 50/50 and note the trend direction. Waiting for some 'predominantly' would no longer be Wikipedia ahead of the current state of things, but severely behind. Chrz (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just keep misunderstanding me. Predominantly, majority, most common. Call it what you will. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not being "ahead of the current state of things", but somewhat behind, is a core part of our policy of verifiability and the "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow" principle. While it's inevitable that what we do has some effect on what the outside world does, we strive for it to be strictly the other way around.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly one of the things that RMs naturally deal with: that Wikipedia is becoming too far behind what is up to date. For some sources, it is definitely behind, but for others, it would be ahead a lot. And no exact formula was (or could) given for weighing all sources together. Chrz (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we follow. We can follow immediately after the triggering condition has been filled and seems stable. Earlier, User:BarrelProof said that Google Ngrams could be taken into account for this season's analysis despite their corpus running only up to 2022 because ... Wikipedia does not try to lead the way in speculative up-to-the minute status. It intentionally lags behind. A few years is not a big deal. I disagree substantially with that. If "Czechia" had overtaken "Czech Republic" (unnoticed by Google Ngrams) in 2023 or 2024 or even early 2025 and stayed consistently ahead since then, it would now be time to make a change. "Follow" doesn't mean "ignore everything that happened in the last three years". Conversely (as I've often noted when supporting moratoriums) we also don't have to sit in constant watch and seize on the shift the very day it happens. It doesn't hurt if there's a year or two between reassessments. But once we're doing one, we should be using reasonably up-to-date corpuses. Largoplazo (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, waiting doesn't hurt; some might say we have been waiting unnecessarily for the tenth year now. On the other hand, what harm would be done if the article was renamed 2-3 years earlier than some people think it 'should' be? Would it be a disruption of Wikipedia's sacred rules, the end of the known order, or just another example in the long line of times when Wikipedia evaluates things more comprehensively (AKA "exception")? Would a wave of resistance really rise up and demand an immediate reversal in the name of Wikipedia, or would it finally be the end? Chrz (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It took quite a long time, but eventually Burma got moved to Myanmar. Slowly, the winds are changing & inertia is pointing towards Czechia. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Around what time do you think the usage will sway enough toward Czechia to prompt another discussion? If a moratorium ends up being put in place, we need to be diligent as to how long we set it. ~2025-31721-48 (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Around what time do you think the usage will sway enough toward Czechia to prompt another discussion?" - good question, I'll pop down to the store and grab a WP:CRYSTALBALL and then I'll let you know 😀. As for how long to run a moratorium for, I'm not sure it even matters that much. Moratoria are rarely more than a year in length, whereas the time needed to see a slam-dunk change in usage is typically longer. At other cases such as Timor-leste, Myanmar etc, it generally seems that we forget about it for several years and then when the next big RM comes along, one looks again at the evidence and it's suddenly overwhelming. I would imagine something like that will happen here, and possibly at Ivory Coast too, but I doubt it will be any time in 2026.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia

[edit]

The Czech Republic is not historically known as Bohemia. Bohemia is just one part of the country. Historically it was three separate lands/countries, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. They were part of the Holy Roman Empire and then Austria etc. ~2025-29085-83 (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-source: "For centuries, the country was called Bohemia in English and Latin, a name derived from the Celtic tribe of Boii who resided there in antiquity. ... In 1348, the Roman emperor and King of Bohemia Charles IV introduced the concept of the Crown of Bohemia (Corona regni Bohemiae in Latin), a term which designated the whole state, not only its core territory. And at least since then, it was sufficiently clear also to English authors that under the name of Bohemia, in general, are included the kingdom of Bohemia, the duchy of Silesia, and the marquisate of Moravia“ (Universal Magazine, 1756). Early editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica used the term Bohemia in this broad sense, while other publications resorted to composite names like Bohemia and incorporated provinces, Bohemia and its annexed provinces, Bohemian dominions, Bohemian lands etc. In the narrower sense, the term Bohemia Proper was frequently used." That's Jiří Šitler, this is the English Wikipedia. What source do you suggest? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet speeds - needs update

[edit]

Just pointing out if there is an extended confirmed account that sees this and wants to edit. In the economy section there is a statement from 2012 about the Czech rank of internet speed amongst countries.

This information is very out of date and recent numbers have them ranked much lower (List of countries by Internet connection speeds). Y'all Nusra Punk (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was ridiculous for the Internet situation in the country to be summed up at all with information that's 13 to 21 years old. Even without supplying up-to-date information, it was embarrassing for that outdated info to be there, so I've removed that whole paragraph. Largoplazo (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

[edit]

Czechia is now internationally accepted short name of Czech Republic. MasturrX (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NotJamestack (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, you didn't request any edits. All you did was state a fact. Largoplazo (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Republic is now internationally accepted common name of Czechia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been a Requested Move (RM) vote on this that was closed due to there being sufficient consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_22_October_2025 Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechia" as the name of a sports team

[edit]

Hello everyone, I have no intention of renaming the title of this particular article now, but I want to write something that bothers me about Czech sports teams. For several years now, all international sports federations have been using the name "Czechia" to refer to the Czech Republic team. And that's quite annoying when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. Please see this talk; I presented my idea there. Thanks, Maiō T. (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple. As long as Czech Republic is the name of this page and Czechia has not prevailed as the common name, the name of encyclopedia entries about sports teams of the country is also Czech Republic, and should be used exclusively (we follow Wikipedia conventions, not off-wikipedia usage.). When the country is moved to Czechia, the names of all related pages will change, and the new common name will be used in the text of the pages (including changing existing references to the country). The outcome of the RM discussions on this page should not be circumvented by using the Czechia parameter or by creating an alternative code, as you suggest in the aforementioned talk. Same for Turkey vs. Türkiye, Ivory Coast vs. Côte d'Ivoire, and Timor-Leste vs. East Timor, which was moved recently. FromCzech (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name Czechia naturally applies retroactively to those sports organizations/teams. Therefore, instead of using name=Czechia in current template usages, you can immediately change the code in sports templates to just "Czechia". There's no need to invent specialized ISO codes; CZE is and was Czechia, and that's that.
Eg. Martin Doktor representing Czechia in 1996, 2000 and 2004. Chrz (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech: Okay, I won't use that weird parameter |name=Czechia in articles until everything is official. However, this parameter has already been used a thousand times on Wikipedia and will probably be used another thousand times by other users... So I have mixed feelings... Maiō T. (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz: Theoretically, we could change the name parameter in Template:Country data Czech Republic, but using the name "Czechia" for events from the 90s doesn't seem very good to me... Maiō T. (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep name=Czechia for current sports references; it's a long-term 'temporary' solution. Opponents dislike this and want full consistency everywhere, even though it completely ignores the sources. Chrz (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will be perfectly OK for me, they are synonyms. When the page moves, Category:1990s in the Czech Republic will move too, etc. We refer to the country from today's perspective, not from the 1990s perspective. FromCzech (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The name Czechia naturally applies retroactively to those sports organizations/teams." Um.... no. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If sports organizations have "retroactively" changed the results list, I see no reason to frown upon that on Wikipedia. Old PDFs or articles remain the same, but the overview on the websites retroactively substitutes Czechia where it "historically wasn't". So ummm.... yes. Chrz (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that would immediately invalidate those organizations as valid, reliable sources. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who dares to call it Czechia before 2016(?), is invalid? For example Merriam-Webster- "divided Jan. 1, 1993 into the separate countries of the Czechia and Slovakia"? Chrz (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Show me any English reference from the time that called it Czechia. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not impressed by a source that says "the Czechia". A professionally produced dictionary should have better grammar than that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have just disqualified yourself from this discussion, both sports and general. Those are some criteria of yours that are not supported by anything, now you are rejecting sports organizations and dictionaries, and soon you will be forced to reject almost all sources because they are not 'historically accurate.' Chrz (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, expecting sources to be historically accurate is a bad thing? Explain this to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was never, ever, ever about renaming the state (but rather about a second name for the same country), the retroactivity of the geographical name is truly not unexpected. Sources dared to use it, so why we should label them as invalid, I truly don't know. Chrz (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The error clearly occurred after renaming the entry 'Czech Republic' to 'Czechia' (Last Updated: 4 Nov 2025 - Definition revised), when it changed links leading to 'Czech Republic' to 'Czechia'. This is another disadvantage of the Czech Republic - the 'the' :) Chrz (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The error clearly occurred after renaming the entry 'Czech Republic' to 'Czechia'" Yes, I know when it occurred. I just expect better of them than to do so blindly and leave obvious grammar errors in place for weeks. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2025

[edit]

Change the name of the prime minister back to Andrej Babiš. ~2025-40656-33 (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the infobox. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Babiš took office when?

[edit]

Differs on date, 9/15 December. If anyone knows what is WP-best, consider fixing. There might be other articles that has the "wrong" date too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]