body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Czech_Republic#Name section

I am really, really, really, really (really) sorry to start another thread about the name of this country, but I find it odd that this section doesn't mention "Czech Republic". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Makes perfect sense. Largoplazo (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and readded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"but Czech Republic was selected for use as the official short name as well as the long one. " This sounds thoroughly ridiculous in English. You are saying that the same form is both long and short. That is literally impossible. What is possible, is "no short name was selected, with the long form being used in situations that would normally call for the short form." --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever can be supported by a good source, but this section should mention where "Czech_Republic" came from. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a table of countries, you might have columns for "Capital", "Largest City", "Population", "Full Formal Name", "Name Usually Used for Repeated Mentions in Text, At Least After First Mention", "Area", "Currency", etc. The fact that, in a given country, the capital might be the largest city doesn't mean they are suddenly not distinct concepts with their own designations, that the two columns collapse into one; that that country has a capital but not a largest city, or vice versa. Likewise, "Full Formal Name" and "Name Usually Used ..." are two separate concepts that exist independently of whether they're the same for a given country. It's easier to refer to these as "long form" and "short form", and that may make it sound silly to you, but what they denote are nevertheless distinct concepts both of which warrant being specified whether or not they're the same for a given country. Largoplazo (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did notice that I gave you a way to refer to these two distinct concepts without using silly phrasing? Calling these concepts "long name" and "short name" makes sense in other cases, but not here. Using those terms here simply invites ridicule.--Khajidha (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

Why has no one changed the name of the Title yet? Ranamode (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. CMD (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See related discussions at Talk:Czech Republic/Archive 9 (and earlier, if that's not enough). If you think sources support you, start a WP:RM#CM and make your arguments per WP policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Points to consider before beginning the latest of many discussions on this topic, summarizing what can be absorb from a review of the earlier ones:
  • First, a question: How did "Czech Republic" become wrong, let alone arrogant as some have called it? It is still the formal long-form name of the country! It hasn't been discarded. Sticking with "Czech Republic" isn't the same as titling the article about Sri Lanka "Ceylon".
  • The applicable Wikipedia guideline at WP:COMMONNAME indicates that the title should change when the replacement title is being used more frequently in current reliable sources written in English. Many people have provided reliable sources using "Czechia", but with no indication that those sources outnumber sources still using "Czech Republic".
  • Pointing to specific sources like Google Maps that adopted "Czechia" early and asking "Why don't we follow their approach?" doesn't help because (a) this talk page isn't the place to debate Wikipedia's general approach to article naming, and (b) there's no reason why Wikipedia's approach should copy another publisher's approach that they adopted for their purposes rather than having its own approach for its own purposes.
  • Anybody who wants to formally request a move may do so but it will lead to no change unless it's demonstrated that "Czechia" has overtaken "Czech Republic" in recent reliable sources written in English. Until then, it isn't worth the trouble. Anyone who considers submitting such a request is best advised to do their homework first and not bother unless they're able to kick off the discussion with a solid Wikipedia-policy-based case to support the change.
Largoplazo (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I want to say even if Czechia is less popular then Czech Republic, Wikipedia has a big role in that, if you look up Czechia or Czech Republic Wikipedia shows up first, Wikipedia is in the Top 10 of most visited websites, it’s a source for many people. It has a role in how people say the Czech country. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that role is to tell people what it is called in English. Not what you think it should be called. --Khajidha (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd venture that 99.999% of people who mention the country have never seen the article on it on Wikipedia. It's as though you were suggesting that before Wikipedia nobody even knew that the country existed. Largoplazo (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This statement, meant to be an argument in favor of name change, is actually an argument against it:

even if Czechia is less popular then Czech Republic, Wikipedia has a big role in that... Wikipedia is in the Top 10 of most visited websites

the point here being roughly, "Wikipedia is a hugely influential website; if only Wikipedia would go ahead and make the name change, the rest of the world would soon follow along." But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a WP:TERTIARY source, and not the language police. We don't do anything first: Wikipedia follows other sources, it does not lead. If you want to get Wikipedia to change, you need to get the majority of WP:SECONDARY sources to change first. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

I would like to propose a change of english translation of the name of the national anthem of Czech Republic on this wikipedia site. It's translated here as "Where is my home", but actually it should be "Where my home is". Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable source but Iam Czech and the meaning of the anthem is to show Where my home is not to ask Where is my home?. Where is my home? is a question but the original has no question mark after home, it's just Kde domov můj - Where my home is. I hope that what I wrote makes a little bit of sence. Thank you. 194.228.68.37 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The individual page for Kde domov můj uses the translation "Where My Home Is" in every single instance, with what looks like a a reliable source as the first refernce in the article. ― Levi_OPtalk 16:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 July 2021

Czech Republic → Czechia – As seen by the balance of consensus in the recent RFC there has been a shift in viewpoint on this matter on Wikipedia, and this combined with the frequent comments on this talkpage by users suggest that there may be consensus for a move to Czechia.

The policies speak in favour of this move - WP:CONCISE, WP:UCRN (Major international organisations: the EU, the UN ), and WP:WIAN (for example maps: Google maps, Apple Maps, Bing/Microsoft Maps, Open Street Maps). Hentheden (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. If that's the case, then it does appear that opinion was evenly split, but then that's before evaluating whether those who favored the move provided adequate grounds to justify it. As everyone should know, a discussion is WP:NOTAVOTE, not a simple tally of responses for and against. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all Be aware that WP:COMMONNAME governs. It calls, not a name for which you can find many uses in reliable sources, but the name most used in reliable sources. After all, "Czech Republic" is also still found in reliable sources. In addition, avoid approaches that others have followed that involve being offended that we haven't switched to the new name. This argument is always offered as though the old name, "Czech Republic", had been abandoned and that Czechs find that name offensive, which is ridiculous. It is still the official long-form name of the country. If you hate the term "Czech Republic" then be angry at the Czech government for keeping it, not at Wikipedia. Finally, whichever name you think the article should have, remember that a discussion like this is WP:NOTAVOTE, not a simple tally. The substance of the discussion needs to provide adequate support for the requested change.
Final comment: Before anyone gets upset with me, thinking I hate "Czechia" and that I'm trying to have my way by preempting the discussion and scaring everyone away, let me announce, as I have before, that I like "Czechia". I've thought since the birth of that country that that should be its name. When they adopted it as the official short form of the name, I said "Finally!" I'm just tired of endless discussions here that go off in all directions other than a direction that would justify that change here under the prevailing guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment on your three comments, you have also selected the piece of guidance that you think would best suit the outcome you seek. WP:Commonname is not a sledgehammer, should not have been used in the past, or now to prevent this discussion or a move and, in any case, I prefer #WP:5P5 (Wikipedia's 5th pillar), otherwise known as "Wikipedia has no firm rules". Pillars rank higher than guidance in terms of weighting. Luxofluxo (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Czech Republic" is also a correct English name. The Czech government say so. If you disagree, (a) where did you get the idea that "Czech Republic" isn't correct, and (b) where did you get the idea that Google and the EU are in charge of all decisions about the "correct" names for countries? Largoplazo (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a good example. We have Iran and no Iran (the Islamic Republic of). Iran is also presented by its formal name at ongoing Olympics.--Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how presentation of Iran relates to the topic. We are presented as the Czech Republic and that's how the world know us. And let's be honest, we are presented to the world more often through sport than politics, at least outside Europe. FromCzech (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But is a sport shirt a reliable source? PS: I have wanted to show a precedent of solution.--Martin Tauchman (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomen omen, "FromCzech". Iran's name at Olympic games does not affect Wikipedia. What's that. Chrz (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Olympic Team just posted a video called Prince of Czechia on its official Youtube channel. While the decision of what to put on today's jerseys has sadly been taken a few RMs ago, the new name is not something wholly avoided by the olympic team. --Jiří Boháč 7:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Your points are pretty much irrelevant. 1) "sound(s) bizarre ... next to Slovakia". Only if you expect English usage to follow some strict rule about short names vs long names. Sounds perfectly normal to me. 2) "Until the title of the article is changed, it's clear that the short name won't be used as much as it could". This has it completely backwards. Until it is used the most, the article title won't change. 3) "Commonly used as the name of the article ... in other language(s)". Usage in other languages has no bearing on usage in English.--Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find it an odd notion that people these days are constantly looking things up on Wikipedia before talking or writing about them, even things that they're already perfectly familiar with and have no reason to look up. You imply that when somebody is about to refer to the country, they very commonly think "I'd better refer to the Wikipedia article on it to make sure I'm not saying anything incorrect." I, in contrast, would bet that fewer than 1% of people who have occasion to talk about Czechia have ever looked it up on Wikipedia. After all, people talked and wrote about things long before Wikipedia came along, and still feel comfortable, for the most part, continuing to do so without looking everything up. So the idea that more than a few people know the title of Wikipedia's article about the country, let alone that it influences English usage worldwide, seems outlandish.
Anyway, you're saying we should rename the article because people aren't using "Czechia" very much and Wikipedia somehow should have a position on what people should call the country and should take the lead in persuading them to call it that. This is 100% the opposite of the approach and rationale provided for us in the guidelines. Wikipedia reflects usage, it doesn't take a position on usage and try to lead it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "tolerated", it was made the official short name for the country in 2016. The point some people are missing is that as far as being official is concerned, it isn't either/or; "Czechia" didn't replace "Czech Republic", it supplements it, it has been prescribed for use. Both names are official. The only issue here is whether it has become the more common name. Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Germany should be called the Federal Republic of Germany, Slovakia should be called the Slovak Republic, Poland should be called the Republic of Poland, and Austria should be called the Republic of Austria? --Unloosek (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. All country articles should be titled what they are usually called in English. For Germany, etc, that is the short name. For this country, it happens to be the long name. I can't understand why this is considered a problem. --Khajidha (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't North Macedonia be called just Macedonia then? When there was a proposal to rename the article to its current name (after the Prespa Agreement), one of the arguments against it was that "North Macedonia" is not the most commonly used name. --Unloosek (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I thought it should have been at Macedonia all along, but that argument is for that page, not here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev/Kyiv took 2 years of "a campaign". Macedonia was true name change. Czechia talks were here long before 2016 adoption, but the situation outside Wikipedia moves slowly. Right kind of slowly to see that it is not "forced" :) Chrz (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are official, French Republic and France. Same with Czech Republic and Czechia. Constitution written in Czech - Has NO effect on Czech Wikipedia, so, very strange reasoning on enwiki. Chrz (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the legal name. It was approved by ČÚZK. The ČÚZK has got mandate by the law 359/1992 Coll. to do it.--Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to the move. However, I agree that this attempt will have the same outcome and undermine future efforts. If there is a possibility to withdraw the request, it will be great if @Hentheden would consider doing so. --Unloosek (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope @Hentheden: replies. And brings new peviously unknown killer argument and outlawyer this, because this all was here before and never ever won it for Czechia. Chrz (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this would undermine future efforts, nor why I should withdraw the request. Nor should I be trying to outlawyer the other side, although I have to admit that that seems necessary on Wikipedia these days. The fundamental argument I have in favour of this change is that it would make Wikipedia better (which is ofc subjective), removing clunky constructions in the titles of a lot of pages (which would of course require a separate, massive RM) and in their texts. The nature of wikipedia policy is such that those opposing will always be able to find something to back them up, and those in favour will be able to do the same - in which case it might be useful to remind ourselves of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I do think we are closer though - the usage of the name now on most mapping services, which wasn't the case before, strengthens the arguments in favour. I'd also like to reiterate that consensus can change. Just because we've discussed something before is no reason not to discuss it again. Hentheden (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, your fundamental arguments are the same that have already been rejected and you've chosen to make them again instead of taking your cue from previous debate conclusions and waiting until circumstances had changed so that "Czechia" would be the correct outcome in conformance with the guidelines. Also, noting that what would make Wikipedia "better" is subjective amounts to making an argument and then immediately acknowledging that it isn't an argument. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your invocation of WP:IAR is the bottom line here. Look, if you don't like the guidelines, it would be helpful if you would go to Wikipedia talk:Article titles (the talk page for the page that includes WP:UCRN) and take it up there instead of making this article's talk page a forum for airing your general discontent with the existing guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "clunky constructions" don't seem that way to me, because they follow the phrasing used "in the wild" by the sources we follow. --Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have forgot to add CIA World Factbook[17][18] and Office of the Historian.[19] --Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) "The majority of countries are referred by their short (geographical) names. " Because that is what actual usage uses. The only consistency that we are interested in is consistency with actual usage. 2) All country articles deal with history from before the establishment of their current political states, so I don't see why the Czech Republic would be any different. --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the formal name describes the current state. If we have the article about France, the French Republic, Kingdom of France or French Empire could be referred as ‘France’. But could we refer to the Lands of the Bohemian Crown by the term ‘Czech Republic’? --Martin Tauchman (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We would simply use the relevant names in the relevant sections. The article could still be at "Czech Republic" or "History of the Czech Republic". --Khajidha (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All this was here before in previous attempts to move and did not help, why should it now? Official places and maps does not concern wikipedia('s opposers) when evaluating common name, not impressed at all. Newspaper and what people search for on Google is the key. Maybe it is consistent with other states, maybe Wikipedia sets its own custom made obstacles for Czechia to overcome. Or other states had advantages in favour which Czechia does not have (Eswatini English speaking, newspaper switched soon, North Macedonia pretty much the same and bothlong and short name changed). Chrz (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"maybe Wikipedia sets its own custom made obstacles for Czechia to overcome" This right here is the root of your problem. You see the name change as a goal to be desired. And that's the wrong way 'round. You shouldn't even be asking if Czechia has "become common enough" or "what will it take to change the name". The question isn't "can we change it now?", it is "has usage changed?" If "Czechia" becomes the most common name, it will be blindingly clear in the sources.--Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know exactly how I mean it, no need for this. That bliding clearness are that obstacles. That-and-that state did not need that and that to be considered "blidingly clear" but in case of Czechia it is an issue (sport jersey, name of ministry, 51+ % in Google ngram and trends....) A lot of states found some loophole to skip all this, so maybe there's one for Czechia too. So "are we there yet? Does THIS help?" is typically asked by supporters of the change, not the opposers, and no difference here, so what. Chrz (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know how you mean it. And all these other cases that you seem to find so confusing seem blindingly obvious to me. And I am STILL (after years and years and years) waiting for someone to explain why anybody cares what some other language calls their country. I not only do not care what the word for my country is in Czech, I don't even consider myself to have the right to care. It is of no more importance to me than what the words for "red", "circle", "happy", and "mountain" are. The idea of telling another language community that "you have to call my country such-and-such" would never occur to me. --Khajidha (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were told many many times, after years and years either you do not want to understand it or you would not accept any reason at all. From your current post I guess you were against Eswatini, North Macedonia, Kyiv, and your opinion about red happy cirle mountain did not matter. So why bother explaining role of English and role of Czech in the world to you AGAIN. We will discuss it with someone who was willing to change more obvious and straightforward cases, not with someone who was against everything with his "I do not care about Czech, Macedonian, Ukrainian languages thus they should not care about MY language" type of attitude. It is not an discussion "you should call me this way" but "country IS called these two names, which one to choose for Wikipedia - from maps, newspaper, authorities, you know, encyclopedia type of sources to write encyclopedia, or elsewhere". Czechia happened, it already is in English, so I do not get comments whoich suggest that I want to implant something into English. It already IS there. Chrz (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha we shouldn't be devaluing the contributions of other editors purely because they do not have English as a mother tongue. The English wikipedia, for better or worse, is the 'main' wikipedia that most people are going to look at, and with English being the global lingua franca most people are going to know and care what their country is called in English. @Chrz you are entirely right in bringing up that WP:ENGVAR got a mention in the Eswatini RM discussion, and I think a similar argument could be made here:
A significant proportion of the population of the Czechia can speak English (good luck finding a statistic for that), but I can imagine that this article not only has WP:TIES to Czechia but also Europe as a whole, particularly Brussels where a great deal of Czech governance today occurs because of the European Union. Therefore, when looking at common usage we should avoid discriminating against Euro English in favour of American or British English (per Wikipedia:ENGVAR), and we should really be looking at continental pan-European publications and English-language Czech publications, not the Guardian or Washington Post. Of the three that come to mind, namely Euractiv, Politico, and Radio Prague International, Euractiv and Radio Prague International use Czechia, while Politico.eu uses Czech Republic, meaning that by my quick survey more than 50% of relevant news sources use it. If anyone could expand upon this short list, please do! Hentheden (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR does not apply to non-native usage. As for your "most people are going to know and care what their country is called in English", again I don't understand the care. If you tell me that the name for my country in your language is "Smedlap", that would affect me no more than the word for anything else. I'd simply say "Cool, nice to know" and use it. --Khajidha (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one does not get importance of English in the world and why "Republic" name is clunky. Of course it would improve work, one name for all instead of all that constructions. This is where it is different from Cote d'Ivoire - there already was one term for all without need of another unification, it already was unified. Also ENGVAR may apply, as Czechia being part of union where English is language of the EU. And also EU documents use Czechia predominantly, look it up. Czechia is present in style guide and is used as choice no.1 like France or Germany. 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I get the importance of English in the world, but when you decide to use a foreign language you just have to accept the way that they do things. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a matter of English, but matter of English Wikipedia and how it does its thing. English language uses synonyms, English Wikipedia chose to bend English and use only one proper noun for each country (and one period) and throw away up to 49.9 % of English usage. So there, there's difference between English way and English Wikipedia way. Yes yes, your reply will be "And you want us to throw away about 90 % usage of Czech Republic in favour of Czechia and bend English more than we do here." Well not exactly. It is a matter of what you leave out. Do you follow encyclopedia sources and throw away newspaper or the other way around, but something ends under the table anyway... Prioritization of sources etc. Chrz (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same arguments as last failed attempt. It is quite foolish to expect different outcome. Two things can help: 1] more and more reliable sources (and declining usage of Czech Republic) 2] change of Wikipedia policies. Neither happened. Chrz (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is what it is. If you disagree with the guideline, take it up and attempt to seek consensus at the guideline's talk page. Until it changes, our discussion now is based on the guideline as it is now, which is, after all, the point of having guidelines.
As for "The majority of countries are referred by their short (geographical) names": If sources most commonly refer to most countries by their short names, but most commonly refer to this country by its long name, then Wikipedia titles should be inconsist in exactly the same way. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources are doing, it doesn't fix what they're doing as though we know better. Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times uses Eswatini, Associated Press uses Eswatini, Euronews uses Eswatini, Reuters uses Eswatini, The Telegraph uses Eswatini, The Sydney Morning Herald uses Eswatini, Deutsche Welle uses Eswatini, Encyclopædia Britannica uses Eswatini, The Hindu uses Eswatini, Haaretz uses Eswatini, The Irish Times uses Eswatini, The Japan Times uses Eswatini, Wall Street Journal uses Eswatini, Die Zeit uses Eswatini, the CIA World Factbook uses Eswatini, The Straits Times uses Eswatini. These are all major national/international news sources. I'm not seeing that Swaziland is still widely used in reliable sources.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to show that "Czech Republic" should be renamed "Eswatini", or have you wandered into the wrong discussion? Largoplazo (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Never mind, sorry, I'd missed Bait30's intent as stated below. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He reasoned that Czech Republic should be moved to Czechia because Swaziland got moved to Eswatini. I'm showing that Swaziland got moved because reliable sources show that Eswatini is the COMMONNAME. Czechia does not have the same level of usage.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 11:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. Sorry! Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it is worth being clear that, in the RFC the OP (presumably) refers to, there was "overwhelming (near-unanimous) consensus against" the OP's proposal. If this represents "a shift in viewpoint on this matter on Wikipedia" then it is a shift away from Czechia and toward Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 19:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see ‘a shift away from Czechia and toward Czech Republic’? --Martin Tauchman (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 November 2019, there was no consensus to move. On 7 March 2021 the RFC was closed with overwhelming consensus against this change. One might argue that drawing any conclusions from the RFC is difficult because the proposal was so vague. But the OP claims that, "as seen by the balance of consensus in the recent RFC there has been a shift in viewpoint on this matter on Wikipedia". This can only conceivably refer to the shift from no consensus in 2019 to an overwhelming consensus against the change in 2021. Kahastok talk 20:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was not sure. I do not think that it is possible to statistically evaluate arguments. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resounding agreement from me. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RM open at least for 2 weeks, it is summer vacation time, maybe someone has an ace in pocket, some kind of precedent or whatever. I said it, now we see it, this RM is badly timed and serves effectivelly only as an excuse to prolongate moratorium. Let's hope it was not Hentheden's intention when he started this... Chrz (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There are holidays until the end of August in Czechia and other countries (see). --Martin Tauchman (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please cite the policy that says that we systematically leave requested moves open for longer than normal in July and August? In the absence of such a policy, I see no reason why we shouldn't treat this RM in the same way as any other. Kahastok talk 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And olympic games are in TV, distracting editors :) I do not need everything written in policies, otherwise I would starve to death because none of wikipedia policies say I should eat during my wikipedia editing :P Chrz (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, Wikipedia remembered this but it does not think of vacations. OK... Chrz (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that vacations allows more time for editing, at least it doesn't necessarily prevent it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big difference, Eswatini and North Macedonia changed names of their countries, the Czech Republic only allowed use Czechia as the short form. UN and EU use Czechia because they have to, they use short forms required by the Member States. On the other side, Wikipedia uses what is the most common name. FromCzech (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am talking about Eswatini and North Macedonia not being WP:COMMONNAME on the first day of their name change. They were moved anyway. Geog25 (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They changed their whole names so I assume that since day one they are their "commonly recognizable name", ergo WP:COMMONNAME. FromCzech (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Czechia but this is not valid analogy. North Macedonia was true name change, old name became obsolete from day 1. Both long and short. Ewatini was debated for some time and also helped that official language of Swaziland is English. Also - sources changed. Only reason of delay was eSwatini-Eswatini pickle.Chrz (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim Eswatini and North Macedonia were moved on the first day of their name change without being WP:COMMONNAME is not correct. The move from Swaziland to Eswatini was made official on 19 April 2018. RMs were opened on 19 April 2018 and on 16 June 2018, and were rejected because there was no evidence common usage has changed. The final RM on 12 October 2018 - six months after the official change - went through on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME given WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:ENGVAR. For North Macedonia? It was a lot more involved because of the history of the dispute on Wikipedia. But that also took a few months to go through.
And remember these are actual name changes, whereas in this case we are not talking about a name change. The name of the Czech Republic has not changed. It's just that some wish to promote Czechia in its place. Kahastok talk 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czechia 5+ years after officialization and counting. Chrz (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivory Coast announced in 1986 that its name was not to be translated, but that "Cote d'Ivoire" was to be used in all languages. The English speaking world promptly said "yeah, right, not gonna happen" and has blissfully ignored them for the last 35 years. --Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know that THIS should have been the answer number 1, right? To show that "Cote d'Ivoire" has same set of sources in favour and ... nothing. Or is Czechia already ahead of Cote d'Ivoire? Chrz (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was correcting a specific inaccurate claim by another user. This claim was about Eswatini and North Macedonia, not about Ivory Coast or anywhere else. Also, per WP:TALKO, please do not break up my talk page comments by by answering points between paragraphs. Kahastok talk 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who are you talking to or why different person answers when I asked someone else. Nevertheless I checked 19 presented sources and most of them uses Czechia and Cote d'Ivoire. So valid point here, these are not sufficient for one, should not be for another. Anyway Czechia is more English-friendly, without need of ' and ^ Also, older, 5 years since officialization but roaming in English for centuries already :) Chrz (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people moving for change are the ones with the burden of justifying it with, for example, recent surveys or sources. Largoplazo (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone who wants to article to be renamed conducted a balanced search of recent reliable sources and demonstrated convincingly that the guidelines have been met, the title would quickly be changed and this would be over. Largoplazo (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about the nation-state/political entity, not a geographical region. Your argument implies you meant to say oppose.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Person who placed move request vanished. Other supporters quite know now is not the right time and would wait until some big break emerges in a month od 10, but they try it now since someone started this year attempt it and this will be the last attempt in a year (or two). What do you want anyway? Google search results or what? Bacause sources presented are quite stationary without growing potential (meaning: maps, text books and encyclopedias, where it is used once or more-- but on prominent places). Chrz (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't disappear, was just busy for a few days :) In response to @Amakuru, I'm not Czech, and nor should nationality play any role in this. I think the problem is that in this case we're ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is effectively determining what the common name is. When anyone does a google search for the country, this article, with the title Czech Republic, shows up in the sidebar and as the first option. People wondering what the name of the country is will search the name, find the wikipedia article with the name, and assume that is the correct name. Responding to @Chrz, if you look up at the talk page there is a litany of relatively new users asking why the article name is not Czechia, being bitten and told "this is a terrible idea, read the top of the talkpage, or do an RM" by more experienced users. Of course being new they are not going to do that, and are instead never going to edit Wikipedia again. I would also argue that maps should be the most important, not least, sources of geographic names, as that is where most people will interact with said name. Even though certain editors will almost certainly suggest a moratorium after this, whatever the result is (which should be opposed in the strongest terms possible as being entirely counter to Wikipedia:Moratorium), that doesn't mean that if/when that ends it won't be possible to have this discussion again. Furthermore, even the geographic naming conventions argue against using google search results for a long list of reasons. Hentheden (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people are aware of the country but not what it's called and come in droves to Wikipedia to look it up, so that Wikipedia drives what people think the country is called (as though, before Wikipedia's birth, no one had ever heard of it), is outright absurd.
When newcomers ask why the title isn't "Czechia", they're told why it isn't Czechia. You call that "biting". How would you have it—someone new comes to a page, asks why it isn't called something else, and, boom, to be nice to the newcomer, we immediately change the title to make the newcomer happy? Also, your account carries the implication that the question is asked innocently. On one or two occasions, at least, it's been more like, "Hey, you idiots, it's so offensive that the article is called 'Czech Republic'. How dare you not have already changed it to this name that the country has instead of keeping this other name that the country also has. You must all be a bunch of anti-Czech bigots." I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if not new, please provide sources opposers so desperatelly want every time :) You saw that trying to undermine commonname policies never worked... Chrz (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was debunked earlier. Other states uses different names for such sport events and it does not shift it - source - like Laos or Iran. But it would certainly help, no doubt. At least baskatball players stoped using Czech republic on jerseys and now use Česko, it does not help much, but hey, progress... Also earlier someone wrote that Wikipedia won't follow some kind of government wishes, so what? Now it is important that government push it? Make up your mind, opposers. We can't do both. UN just hasn't updated all the pages I guess.... Chrz (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia is not bound by government pronouncements, if the government refuses to use it itself, no one else is going to. --Khajidha (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case look how far takes you ignoring your own registered name in UN and ISO. Quite far, doesn't it? With all the sources so far. Well, Czech government does not boycott it completelly, ministry of health and ministry of foreign affairs use it in decent numbers, but what would help is ministry of sport and education and travel agency, it is sure thing. But let's not act like we want to undermine Czech government here on Wikipedia with some covert actions, in that case Google and all the others did the same anti-government thing :) Follow ISO or Czech government, that's we question. On Czech wiki we had our deal of state names disputes, usually textbooks and encyclopedias and maps versus newspaper and usually newspaper lost. Chrz (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"usually textbooks and encyclopedias and maps versus newspaper and usually newspaper lost" Which seems backwards to me. Encyclopedias should be describing real usage (ie newspapers), rather than newspapers being guided by encyclopedias. Is this a general difference in mindset between "regulated languages" an "unregulated languages"?--Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: This applies only to questions of language usage, not questions of fact.)[reply]
I don't think it has anything to do with regulating the language per se. But to have "office" for keeping geography names. Chemistry terminology in English comes from newspaper first too? I don't think so. So in Czechia, geography is considered as science too :) No, it does not mean newspaper must follow it otherwise some fine or something, no, hence the discrepances and room for disputes, but I think geography textbooks and maps usually does follow the experts. Nothing much surprising there, most of the names comes from the past. Usually small thing like Papua-New Guinea or Papua New Guinea (without "-") etc. Or if to adopt "Eswatini" or not. Czechia did not, so using Eswatini in newspaper may occur, but it should not affect Czech textbooks nor Czech Wikipedia. Simple logic on Czech Wiki: Don't write something your kids learns differently :) Exceptions allowed, as always :D
Ministry of foreign affair has its own list of coutries and it differs. Few and small things, usually order of words in formal names (Wikipedian Republic versus Republic of Wikipedia), so it is not super-super-regulated, so the full unwritten truth for Czech Wiki would may be: Use the name from (respected) geography sources unless newspaper/magazines boycott it completely. So it does not have to be 51 %. Would Czechia win if Eglish Wikipedia applies such policy? Who knows :) Let's dig into English geography textbooks :) Chrz (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrz, small piece of advice. At this point you're coming across as bludgeoning the conversation by trying to reply to everyone (I know it's not your intention.) It may be better to just let the posts and conversation take its, course one way or another, instead of responding to everything. Canterbury Tail talk 19:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Advice all the people with multiple posts then. Supporters, opposers, both. I think we led solid argument-counteragument evidence-counterevidence type of debate with interesting pieces of backstage information. Most of the people stayed in their prearranged positions "ah, this again, no no no", I on the other hand accepted, that Cote d'Ivoire has similar sources without any luck so in search for precedents, Czechia is now more like Ivory Coast than North Macedonia or Eswatini. And I also know that now was the worst possible time to open this discussion, but since someone else opened it and it is once a year chance, right, I took a shot. Anyway I will try to stay shut, missing or slow answer does not mean I don't have one :) Anyway, I did not say it loudly, but you guessed it, I Support it mostly by applying Czech Wikipedia unwritten standard - textbooks and maps and ISO beats newspaper. No need for 51 % usage allover for terms "blessed by standardization", the threshold is lower. Not on 1 %, but not 51 %. Yes, here we are on English Wikipedia, but anyway.... Chrz (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, we can see a difference between Czechia and Côte d'Ivoire. Czechia has a long tradition. We can found the word ‘Czechian’ in English in the early 17th century. [1] The word ‘Czechia’ is found in Latin in 1602 and in English in 19th century. [2] The name Côte d'Ivoire comes from French and became the official English name of the country in 1986. The big difference is that there was a short name before Côte d'Ivoire. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha I do not think that real usage = newspapers. Statistics and other sources are not real usages? --Martin Tauchman (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was using newspapers because that is what Chrz mentioned. It probably should have been "eg" instead of "ie" to indicate that newspapers are a type of real usage and not the only real usage. That said, when you speak of statistics I think of aggregations of data, not sources of data. And aggregations of data, like encyclopedias, should follow the usage in their own sources, not be trying to control usage.--Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the recent sources and events, we can mention the major COVID-19 statistics (Worldometer has been already mentioned)[20][21][22] and also Google COVID-19 statistics.[23] --Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, whichever way this goes, I support the idea of a moratorium. We can't return to this every month. I think I am in a minority in sensing that Czechia is now common usage - well, we all move in different circles - but I agree with Largoplazo and others that common name is what matters. Supporters of this move would be better not to be emotional and not to argue for what is "best" but instead to chart actual usage. And if that hasn't changed yet, well, it won't change next month. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not trying to discredit your claim; but the evidence you provided, especially the one about the New York Times, works against your argument. The search you used only brought up 23 results, but if you type Czech Republic you get about 600 times more results. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. If you search for "Czechia", you shouldn't be surprised if your results are all "Czechia". Kahastok talk 21:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR, my memory of the BBC's coverage of Euro 2020 is that they used Czech Republic. So I checked. Here are the match report against England and the match report against Scotland. Both use Czech Republic. If you're in Britain - and possibly elsewhere - you can still watch the highlights videos. The commentators consistently say "the Czech Republic". In tables where space is short? They say Czech Rep. I cannot account for the claim At the European football cup, in the BBC's coverage it was always Czechia. So far as I can tell it was almost never Czechia. Kahastok talk 21:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to mention that SK Slavia Prague (one of the biggest football clubs in Czechia) used ‘Czechia’ at EURO 2020.[24] --Martin Tauchman (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And English news sources continued to refer to "the Czech Republic": https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-euro-czech-prospects/soccer-czech-euro-2020-bid-boosted-by-slavia-prague-influence-idUKKCN2D808E --Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with any policy or guideline page (as is the nature of the organization of the text of any law, regulation, by-law, etc., both inside and outside of Wikipedia!), WP:Article title starts with generalities and then delves into paragraphs and paragraphs of more supplemental details, including exceptions and overriding considerations, to be applied in cases where they're relevant. Your suggested approach to applying a guidelines page amounts to treating everything after its introduction as though it's there just for show.
Furthermore, the fact that most sources still use "Czech Republic" contradicts your notion that they aren't finding it recognizable, natural, or precise. Your comment on precision mystifies me because the name "Czechia" has been around for less of the country's history than "Czech Republic" has. Largoplazo (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo:‘…because the name "Czechia" has been around for less of the country's history than "Czech Republic" has.’ I do not think that this is true since we can find the name Czechia in texts from the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century in English. We can find it in Latin since the beginning of the 17th century. And we can also find the word Czechian used at the beginning of the 17th century. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: You can't be serious arguing "the name "Czechia" has been around for less of the country's history than "Czech Republic" has." The first recorded use of Czechia was in 1541 in Latin and in 1795 in English. U.S. newspapers commonly used Czechia between 1918 and 1960 to refer to the western part of Czechoslovakia (as opposed to Slovakia, its eastern part). The Czech Republic has existed since 1993. Geog25 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the country is better known as Bohemia. Shakespeare called it "Bohemia. A desert country near the sea." (A Winter's Tale, Act 3, Scene 3) 99to99 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Bohemia is one of the historical lands only. And I would not count Shakespeare as a reliable source since Bohemia has no sea (and I would not describe it as a desert country). --Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, it's been around, I see—but how meaningful is it for a word to have been around if barely anybody has ever heard of it? How "precise" is the name from the point of view of people who've never encountered it? See the statistics from Google's corpus of books in English, for example: [4]. I mean, Eboracum has been around an awful lot longer than York, but which title do we use for the article about that city in England? No one is going to argue that Eboracum is more "precise" because it's older and it's what people nearly 2,000 years ago called it. We're writing Wikipedia for people who are alive today. LLargoplazoargoplazo (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, you're missing the point I was trying to make; for the sake of precision it does not matter how old the name is. What matters is what the name means. Czech Republic describes an entity founded in 1993. The article (also) talks about past kings - Czechia would be a more precise title, since it is a name for the place throughout history, not a name for what we have now in this place. Jiri.bohac (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning the article on the United States of America can only cover material since 4 July 1776. It doesn't work that way. The article for any current state will cover its history throughout time, from the first human habitation to today, regardless of what name may have been used at the time (or even if any state existed there at all). --Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha: I would like to mention that the United States of America do not have the geographical name. Czechia does. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LLargoplazoargoplazo: I would like to argue that Google might not have to access text for plenty of books at that time and could list their titles only. Additionally, we have to mention that in the 19th century, Czechia was part of ‘Cisleithania’ (or ‘The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council’ if you like the formal names) divided into three lands (Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia) so there was no big need to use a special name for it (but there was still name Czechia, as mentioned before). --Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't used at the time, then it might as well not exist. Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia are all names that are familiar to any English speaker who has at least some interest in/knowledge of the history of the region. "Czechia" is something that no living English speaker seems to recall ever coming across before this campaign to change English usage began. Maybe a very few specialists in the history of the region would have recognized it, but no one else. --Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have been silent long enough :) Commonname says: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles." My interpretation: No need for 51% usage. The trend is more important, to catch the wave in the right time, not to be far behind, last one to change. Is Czechia there yet? Weeeeeeeeeellllllllll.... In the end this all is only stalling, Czechia will win and only accomplishment of opposition is not to have it on Wikipedia a day or a year sooner than it would normally be. Is it worth the effort to block something unevitable? Yes yes, crystal ball, importance of following the rules, no activism, I know. 18:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
"if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources" And most of those sources haven't changed. That's the point. --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter what sources you want to see and what to block. Maps changed. Once. Definitelly. What is "the usage" there? Was 0 %, is 100 %. Am I counting it correctly? :) ISO changed. Such sources can't change more. Done deal. UN changed like 50 % (name registered, recognized, not used on name plates - Russian Federation same deal without effect on wiki article title). Geography book sources - who knows, everybody is just googling news titles and watch sport :) Chrz (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC){[reply]
Yes, because that's how most people will encounter the name. You only encounter the name in an atlas if you search it out. You hear it in stories about soccer, or NATO, or the EU, or trade agreements, or whatever without having to seek it out. That is natural usage. That is what we follow. --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's check what children encounter in their textbooks. Of geography, of history (current history :). Such sources aren't in vast numbers but with great effect :) EU is not considered as English standard setter or influencer? Now with UK being out? EU is Czechia-ing. Also like from 0 to 100 momentarily - because of its style guide. 19:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, checking maps online and online geography texbooks from both middle schools and colleges I am seeing lots of uses of "Czech Republic"and a few of "Czech Republic (Czechia)" and a few of "Czechia". --Khajidha (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2016 plusChrz (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For a couple examples, the current National Geographic originated middle school curriculum uses the "Czech Republic (Czechia)" form and a 2019 published free access text from the University of North Carolina uses "the Czech Republic". --Khajidha (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many textbooks are there in English for all the English speaking countries but - not bad. That "Czech Republic (Czechia)" seems to be a way for not completely bold sources. Some kind of interim period, but not applicable to Wikipedia. Until Czechia is before the brackets and Czech Republic hiden inside them, I guess you wouldn't count it as source pro Czechia. ....
The EU thing too, we have not solved it - does EU-English count or not. Is it considered same as NATO, UN, US department of state? Meaning not a source for common people to decide what common name is? Chrz (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the EU is not an authority on English. There are no controlling authorities on English. --Khajidha (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMON: "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change." Ngrams since 1900? Since 2000? And only to 2019? More like 2016-2021! Yes, Czechia was here before 2016, but not for our intentions and purposes. Is this really a change of name of subject of an article? Another states mentioned in this discussion abondoned the old name and introduced the new one. Czechia is more like introducing a nickname while formal name still exists. So playing a game of precedents is tricky or misleading. Chrz (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2016, it's fifteen times as common as Czechia. (See same data, unscaled.) If it's shot up since 2019, you could be right, but I haven't seen any evidence for that. Here's Scholar again:
▻ Since 2017: Prague AND (Czechia OR Czech Republic OR Czechoslovakia OR Czechoslovak Republic) (since 2017) Mathglot (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea when Ngram Viewer "release" 2020? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2020-2021 might be the same, but we should be precise in our statements. Sources from 2019 won't tell us what the situation IS, but WAS. That's to RfCs ago :) Does also sources say that Czechoslovakia might be the option here? Hardly, it is just mixing current sources about current event with current sources about historic events. Chrz (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Czechia / (Czech Republic + Czechia) is also interesting. 0.5 % in 2010, 1 % in 2016, 5 % in 2019. Chrz (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Trends does not represent USAGE in sources, but what users search for on Google. First it must be used then users know it is searchable. Chicken - egg. Quick RfC count shows 15:15 pro:against Czechia now.... 10:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
You've made 30+ comments in this thread so far. Just sayin'. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please send this "friendly warning" to chatty opposing editors too (Khajidha - 24, Largoplazo - 28) or let this friendly discussion flow. No need to stop only suppporting party this way when it is tied on votes. Just sayin'. Chrz (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I make it (Khajidha - 23, Largoplazo - 18, using the ctrl-f Largoplazo (talk) method). That gives you a commanding lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you make me to reply again. I dont't know how you count that, Talk:Czech Republic: Revision history, since 25 July 2021, any change goes, and me 46 edits already. Mostly infomative and up to the point. These last 2 - wasted on discussion about discussion. Go Czechia. I'm out. Chrz (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to Czechia. The political name of a country (the Czech Republic) is transient and ignores the historic continuity of a given state territory because it is limited only to the existing state form. In the case of the Czech Republic, it is incorrect to use its political name for various state forms that had existed on its territory before 1993. As such, the political name can never fully replace a permanent geographic name Czechia that does not change in response to changing state forms in a particular territory. The use of a contemporary political name for a period before the existence of the current state form is incorrect and impractical. The need for a short name is demonstrated by the fact that the Czech Republic is often erroneously shortened to Czech, Czech rep., CR, C. Rep., Czecho, and similar nonsenses. Other countries, such as Egypt, Greece or Poland, use short geographic names despite the fact that they experienced major territorial changes in the past (as well as Greeat Moravia, Duchy of Bohemia, Kingdom of Bohemia, Lands of Bohemian Crown, Czechoslovakia, etc.) and had various names throughout their history. Being a neutral, apolitical country name, Czechia can be used in historic, cultural and spiritual contexts. The transparency and relative simplicity of a short country name will facilitate its international acceptance. Czechia in English, perfectly fulfils this requirement, and it is quite irrelevant whether or not I like it: this name does the state a good service because it bridges and welds together its various forms in the course of time, which some "republic" cannot substitute.AKWCZ (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 31 July 2021[reply]

I say "weak support" because there is still genuinely a lot of usage of "Czech Republic". But the arguments from volume just strike me as people looking for something easy that confirms their preconceptions, rather than actually taking the sources on merit.
Sources I personally find meritorious: Reuters uses both forms, sometimes in the same article ([5] [6] [7]). The EU uses both but seems to lean towards "Czechia" ([8] [9] [10]). The UN uses both; "Czech Republic" is inscribed on their list of member states, but they mix long and short forms in a seemingly haphazard manner ([11] [12] [13]). The WHO uses both but seems to lean towards Czechia ([14] [15]). The Olympics uses "Czech Republic", though I note the official team name is "Český olympijský tým" (Czech Olympic team)/"Czech Olympic Committee", sidestepping the issue. ISO uses Czechia. The CIA World Factbook uses Czechia. -- Perey (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference in meaning? Is Czechia somehow less specific in time than Czech Republic. I'd argue, if anything, the opposite. The earliest that Czechia could reasonably be argued to apply is 1993, and it's not obvious that a later date wouldn't be more appropriate. The Czech Republic has existed as a political entity since the Velvet Revolution. If you're referring to the historical territories associated with the group we now call Czechs, the words used by modern historicans are Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia as appropriate. We have rules that deal with this, that allow articles like (for example) Central African Republic and History of the Central African Republic to cover the periods when that state was not a republic, using the names that are historially-appropriate in context. Kahastok talk 19:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We can find Czechia in Latin much earlier. We can find it in the dictionary of Daniel Adam z Veleslavína (1598).[26] You also mention that the Czech Republic and Czechia are both political names. The fact that there are two types of names is described in the article Country#Country_names (with references). I would like to argue, that there is no geographical name of the Central African Republic.[27] (You can see that the name ‘Czechia’ is used.) --Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is use in Latin and use in a Czech dictionary at all relevant to English usage? Whether there is a "geographical name" or not for something isn't the point. The point is that English often employs such "political names" in ways that you say are nonsensical. The English phrase the "history of the Czech Republic" is quite appropriate for describing the totality of the history of the country, whatever its name may have been at the various times covered. Each period may be described using the name at the time, but the totality is still the "history of the Czech Republic". --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant since ‘Czechia’ is a loanword from Latin. And English has taken on the role of lingua franca and language of science and education. The dictionary of Daniel Adam z Veleslavína (Silva quadrilinguis) was a Latin-Greek-Czech-German dictionary. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear. You are claiming that the presence of a word in a 422-year-old Latin-Greek-Czech-German dictionary demonstrates both (a) that that word is in fact the word used by modern English speakers, and (b) that it is the word used by modern English-speaking historians in historical contexts. Have I got that right? Kahastok talk 22:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I argue against the statement that ‘Czechia’ is more ‘time-specific’ than ‘Czech Republic’. You can find modern usage in references (see bellow). --Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are making even less sense than before. So it was borrowed from Latin. So what. Lots of words have been borrowed from lots of languages. But, once they are in English, the usage of the prior language is no longer relevant. And the fact that English is the lingua franca doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question at hand. Which is simply: what IS the common English usage? --Khajidha (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok: I have to note that, and you probably know it very well, the Czech Republic as a political entity has existed since January 1, 1969 (then part of Czechoslovak federation). And as for historical names of Czech/Bohemian lands: historians usually use the name Bohemia. It is just as umbrella and at the same time "inaccurate" term as, for example, "Austria" for the Habsburg monarchy before 1804 (which did not even have an official collective name at the time!) or "Poland" for the Polish-Lithuanian(-Ukrainian) commonwealth before 1795. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Velvet Revolution you'd probably refer to the Czech Socialist Republic. I can't imagine that there was huge discussion of Eastern Bloc national subdivisions during the Cold War, so most usage will be discussing the history of the modern Czech Republic, as in our article. Kahastok talk 18:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But not at its all history since 1948 constitution describes Czechoslovakia as a unitary state (Article III) ([16]). I can also mention 1960 constitution that describes it in Article 1. ([17]). Federalisation came in 1968. ([18]) --Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, and separately, I'm also of the opinion that English-language Wikipedia is very bad at taking account of its own influence on this debate. You cannot have it both ways: if Wikipedia is as much of a success story as it claims to be, it must recognise how its wide-adoption and high search engine ranking (often the first result for many subjects) means that both by acting and not acting it is influencing this debate and is not merely an observer. I have not seen any attempt to deal with this problem here, and there may be no good answers, but neither is it okay to pretend this is not an issue or downplay it. Simply stating WP:Commonname as an argument fails to recognise that this is a flaw with that guidance altogether. Luxofluxo (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the first point is that we need WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. common English usage. That is not the same as usage by governments or international institutions, which will often be coloured by the niceties of international diplomacy.
The answer to the second point is first, that you almost certainly massively overestimate our influence on common English usage. But to the extent that we do influence common usage, that influence is irrelevant to this discussion. In this as in everything else, the aim of an encyclopedia is to follow the real world, not to campaign for a change. If you disagree with this - if you think our guideline is flawed - then the way to fix it is to change the guideline, not to flout it to make a point. Kahastok talk 18:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to address this point you raised earlier. No, WP:IAR does not mean just we should just ignore every rule willy nilly. If there are good reasons, specific situations that could not reasonably have been foreseen by the people who wrote the rule, then there are times when everyone will agree that it is better to set the rule aside. The fact that you happen to prefer "Czechia" over "Czech Republic" does not count. Kahastok talk 18:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll choose to look past that rude and condescending tone, so, no, WP:IAR is pretty unamibiguous in stating that rules should be ignored where there is a valid case, and at no point did I ever suggest that this move should be done either to make a WP:POINT or to "campaign for change". I believe there is a valid case for at least a softening of the interpretation of WP:Commonname here, in favour of other policies that other editors in this discussion have mentioned more eloquently that I can, and I've provided evidence in my original voting comment: there is literal legislation, enforced in EU member states with the supporting English language documents using Czechia as the shorthand name in appropiate circumstances throughout. Czechia has also been used in the documentation of the processes. This documentation will, naturally, only increase. Moreover, after learning of cases like Kyiv/Kiev, I think the reason for certain editors so dogmatically sticking to WP:Commonname on this is either to make a WP:Point about how "rules are rules", as you have done, or just frankly, personal preference. Because there is precedence, and that, cannot be ignored. I don't think some wishy/washy argument about how Kyiv was all about perceived offensiveness really cuts the mustard.
I'll take the point on Wikipedia influence separately, because I think it's digressing a bit. I think frankly for any website that repeatedly comes in the top 5 or so searches on almost any search engine, for almost any search entry, denying its influence is frankly bizarre, and, in fact really contrary to reality. Wikipedia does actually understand this on a legal level, hence the concern around WP:BLP, because individuals can and have attempted legal action for what they may claim is lible using Wikipedia's influence and public prominence as an argument to pursue such action. Someone up above flippantly dismissed Wikipedia's influence on naming debates like this, but I disagree vehemently: EN Wikipedia has far greater global reach then some of the media outlets we are using to influence our own debate here. I don't have time to number crunch, but the data is readily available I'm sure. And with that said, Wikipedia, in debates like this, quite frankly needs to realise that its choice is endogenous to the outcome of usage. It is not an observer, and wikipedia does not exist in a vacum. To repeat, deciding to stick with the status qou WILL have an effect on the pace of adoption of the Czechia as a common name. WP:Commonname, perversely, does not recognise this, and is actually written as if the encylopedia exists in a vacum. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we did have the influence you claim we do it makes no difference. Because, Wikipedia as an institution should not, as a matter of policy, be promoting names like Czechia over the established common name. Even if you are entirely right that Czech Republic remains the WP:COMMONNAME for the country in English solely because of our decisions here - and I don't believe that for a moment - that isn't a problem from Wikipedia's perspective.
Overall what we should all be doing here is starting from the naming conventions we have in place, and going through them and reaching a conclusion on what the rules say the name should be. This is different from starting with a desired conclusion and trying to find policy justification from it, which appears to be what you and several other people here are doing.
The most important of our naming conventions is summed up by WP:COMMONNAME. Unless there is a good reason not to, we should use the common English-language name as article title. The common English-language name here is still Czech Republic, and I've seen no good reason in this entire thread, including in your comment, that suggests that we should not use it. If, in the future, EU legislation or other governmental usage affects the common name, then we will see that in the sources we use to judge the common name. But no such change has occurred as of yet. Kahastok talk 22:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the most important of Wikipedia's naming conventions. It may be your and some other editors interpretation that it is the most important one, but as others have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, there are five, equaly important criteria for article titles. Deliberately limiting the use of criteria to obtain an outcome you desire is not in good keeping with the spirit and ethos of Wikipedia.
But I just want to pick up the whole Wikipedia influence debate, because again, you have deliberately misinterpreted my comments. No one would suggest a decision either way would instantly translate to society, nor can they predict how much of an influence we have, but to deny Wikipedia has some form of influence in this regards, I think is just ludicrous and a sign of some editors being out of touch with the web traffic data rankings. To give you some idea, according to external analytics tools Wikipedia ranked no 5 in web traffic listings in the US for the month of June, with 3.16 billion visits for that month alone, not too far off Facebook at 3.62 billion (and I don't think you'd deny that Facebook has some tangible influence on society at large). Do you want to know where the first available media source that Wiki would classify as an RS is for the purpose of influencing this debate here? It's the NY Times, at rank 37, with nearly 12 times less visits. So let's be absolutely clear once again: a decision to keep the status quo on Wikipedia will undoubtedly have some form of effect on the pace of adoption of the term. This is not accounted for in things like WP:Commonname for rather absurd reasons. Luxofluxo (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok: I think that we can consider the official websites and statistics as a significant commonly used source. My arguments for that point of view are:
  • The civil service has gone online. You can find plenty of usable information on its websites.
  • It can serve as a way of communication. If you want to find the e-mail address of your politician, sent your petition or communicate in plenty of other ways, the official website is the best place to do that.
I would like to emphasise that ‘Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles…’ as the Wikipedia policy says. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason why WP:COMMONNAME is the most important is because the common name is generally the name that meets the goals of the naming criteria best. If a name is established enough to be the WP:COMMONNAME, then that rather implies that it is recogniseable enough, natural enough, precise enough, concise enough and consistent enough to be used as an article title. And we need a good reason to go against that. We don't have one. The best most of those supporting change can seem to muster is that they prefer Czechia, and therefore that if there's a way of getting out of following WP:COMMONNAME then we should use it. That's not good enough. Kahastok talk 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the text says that it usually fits best. So it does not have to fit best the criteria (eg. conciseness or consistency). The authors have thought about situations like that. Please, read what is written and not what you want to be written. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read it yourself: "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." This is explicitly saying that the 5 criteria are only considered if there is no demonstrable common name. As there is a demonstrable common name in this case, the 5 criteria never come into it. Until you can demonstrate that Czech Republic is not the overwhelming common name, there is no point to these discussions. --Khajidha (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Trends is unreliable in the Gambia case, because the only difference is a definite article. O.N.R. (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To counter your point on constitutions, using the long form name of a country in a constitution is the norm, because it reflects the nature of the polity. As can be seen here, where the official site for Germany's constitution is headed as the "Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany", as opposed to "the German constitution" or "Constitution of Germany". Similarly, using long form names as headers on official government websites is also not too unusual. Luxofluxo (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. — Guarapiranga ☎ 12:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At the very least, it should be added as a shortname alias at template:Country data Czech Republic (the template used by ((flaglist)), which in turn is the template generally used in country lists and tables). — Guarapiranga ☎ 10:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one page was moved doesn't mean another should be. There are certainly similarities between Czech Republic/Czechia and Kiev/Kyiv; in both cases there are two valid names and we had to choose one. However, reliable sources used Kyiv far more often than they use Czechia. O.N.R. (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those other countries' new names were found to meet the guidelines for article naming. Do you believe that people should be issued a driver's permit just because all their friends, who passed the tests, were issued driver's permits, rather than having to pass the tests themselves? Largoplazo (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think fundamentally this comes down to how much weighting we put on different sources within the application of WP:Commonname and how much weighting do we give to WP:Commonname amongst the 5 naming criteria. It's clear to me that Czechia has become common within the realm of public institutions, both national, regional, supranational and international, but that some media outlets are further behind. I also concur with Jiri.bohac and other users point that the other naming criteria are worth considering, and perhaps on balance Czechia triumphs according to their ranking. I also, as I've said, separately think Wikipedia needs a very serious conversation about WP:Commonname: as I demonstrated, according to US web traffic data for June this year, Wikipedia ranked fifth, just shy of Facebook, and had over 12 times as much web traffic as the New York Times, which is the first Wikipedia considered reliable source on that list of the kind we are using as a proxy for common usage. In an age where Wikipedia is optimised to be at the top of every search result on virtually every search engine, and where almost every online data service uses Wikipedia in some form, our own influence on common terminology is far greater than you or others are probably aware, though obviously hard to quantify. But to put it this way, we hold common web traffic rankings to Facebook - and I don't think you'd get very far stating that Facebook hasn't had an impact on language via its widespread adoption. This creates an endogeneity problem whereby both acting and not acting may impact - though again hard to quantify - the outcome of what is a common name. We are not just observers.
That said, I'm leaning towards a possible compromise: official co-existence. What does that mean? On articles to do with say, the EU, that will cite legislation, documentation, press releases, voting results that use Czechia as per the new official protocols, we are permitted to use Czechia without reversions to Czech Republic. This avoids confusion and inconsistency (I've already demonstrated that since 2016, the Council ahs published nearly 1,000 legislative documents, etc that use Czechia), and it also goes someway to mitigating the endogenity problem. One might think of it in much the same way as Britain and the UK are used as synonyms throughout the encylopedia (although of course they actually really do differ in meaning). However, I do still strongly support renaming the article to Czechia for all the aforementioned reasons, and I think the case of Kyiv is a clear precdence here. Luxofluxo (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this:

In an age where Wikipedia is optimised to be at the top of every search result on virtually every search engine, and where almost every online data service uses Wikipedia in some form, our own influence on common terminology is far greater than you or others are probably aware, though obviously hard to quantify

Thanks for pointing that out. That is a strong argument for not making the change, per WP:NOTLEAD. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is anything but that! If you came to that conclusion from what I wrote, I would hesitate to suggest you weren't engaging in good faith. What it actually says is that in maintaining the status quo, as a first reference tool for many people, (as has now been demonstrated by traffic tools showing EN wikipedia to be in the top 5 sites by traffic each month) a decision to keep the status qou here, on a site seen by many members of the public rightly or wrongly as authoritive, may have a disproportionate effect in halting or slowing the pace of adoption of the term. I'm suggesting that in both courses of action you are taking a side. Luxofluxo (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving way too much weight to the prominence of Wikipedia in Google results on what people call things that are article subjects. Most of us get through our daily lives talking about things that we already know about all day long without looking them up in Google, let alone reading the Wikipedia articles on them, let alone letting the Wikipedia articles influence what we call those things. Unless someone is hearing about either "the Czech Republic" or "Czechia" for the first time, the percentage of the time that they choose to run a Google search on it every time it comes up in conversation or they read a reference to it in a written work is, I wager, very, very small. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you're coming up with a strawman of how such influence works and how people process generalised information they come across on the internet and apply it to their lives. You've done it twice now. You can't seriously believe that this is the way Wikipedia, or for that matter any site, platform, or even offline cultural medium disseminates influence and knowledge? You know full well that if people come across the name on the site, or via, as repeated many times now, the vast number of data services and online search engines that either use or list wikiepdia prominently, it will reinforce over time that this is the new name, whereas sticking with the status quo will simialrly reinforce the idea that it is proper (against the wishes of the country's government itself, as well as conventions now applied by all national, regional and international public institutions) to refer to it in a conventional setting soley by its longform name. You also know full well, because I've provided you with the data, that to call into doubt Wikipedia's influence on society is to call into doubt sites, such as Facebook's influence on society, with both sites sharing similar monthly US traffic, around 3.2 to 3.6 billion visits. I think denying that wikipedia in choosing to keep the status qou will not be influencing usage is absolutley daft. Luxofluxo (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, you aren't making an argument specific to this country but a general argument about Wikipedia naming conventions, so it's out of scope for purposes of making a decision here. Here we merely apply the guidelines. To contest them requires a discussion at their talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Though in fairness, Luxofluxo's argument doesn't really even try to fill in the logic between Wikipedia has influence over the WP:COMMONNAME and we should rename the article away from the WP:COMMONNAME. That's because, as Mathglot pointed out, the only plausible way of linking the two is by arguing that we should be using our influence to try to change the WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. to try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Which is not our job.
I'd suspect any attempt to change the guideline on this basis would therefore be doomed to failure. Kahastok talk 13:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why attempting to change the guidelines?! Experience showed us that exceptions and shortcuts ARE possible. Consistent decision making dictates to exploit such precedents. Similar case -> similar outcome. One way is to follow strictly the guidelines point by point. Other way is to show that this case is similar enough to other cases where it was successful without need to be "overwhelmingly" used, to score high numbers on trends and ngram and whatever is demanded here. Chrz (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you believe that there are other articles that have been moved in a way that breaks policies and guidelines, then you are welcome to propose to revert those moves. That's not an excuse to move this article in a way that breaks policies and guidelines. And we certainly should not be in the business of trying to find excuses to get around our policies and guidelines. Kahastok talk 20:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good faul. I don't consider it wrong. Loopholes, shortcuts or exceptions are not "wrong", or breaking. They are embedded within the policy. No policy, no law, can ever think of everything, so "common sense" is allowed. And it is a good thing. Other way is to write policies long as books and robotic decisions without need of people. So policies are short, precedents rule. Precedents are more powerful, they show us previous application of fairly general rule on concrete topics. So why are you saying I consider precedents wrong. I don't. Chrz (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not only is the precedence there with Kyiv, demonstrating the meaningless of this argument, I think we can now conclude from this latest comment by Kahastok that his whole purpose here is to make a WP:Point about how the amendment from Kiev to Kyiv should have never have happened. This is not our job, and his comments in that vein should be disregarded. It is clear he is a purist on this issue, and against a wikipedia that is able to recognise that rules are there to serve the community and the encylopedia and that they may decide to apply the rules how they wish within the community spirit of wikipedia, rather than both serving the rules. I also have noted, during some edits I was making the other day to a couple of EU themed articles, that he has a long history, spanning years, of going through articles, particularly newly created ones, that may use Czechia, and removing all references to it. I would suggest he is way too partisan to be involved in this discussion. Luxofluxo (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ad "Do you believe that people should be issued a driver's permit just because all their friends, who passed the tests, were issued driver's permits, rather than having to pass the tests themselves?" - Let me work with your analogy. We all, me and my friends took the test. We all made the same mistakes in written and practical part of the test. For their 10th attempt they finally got easy going examiner who let the minute problems go. On the other hand I am still getting the meanie who gets me on pressure of tyres or angle of car mirrors :) If it is possible to pass the test with the cool examiner, let me have him/her :) Would I be better driver if I pass the test with stricter examiner? I don't know, I just know it is possible to drive already had I more luck ;) Chrz (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, you won't find "Česko" there either. Czech football and Olympics associations are boycotting the short name even in Czech – due to (pseudo)patriotic reasons.[32] As I already mentioned, even the name of the article in the Czech Wikipedia (cs:Česko) has a long history of disputes (cs:Diskuse:Česko/Název). --Unloosek (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you want to chant "who does not jump, is not a Czech Republican, hop, hop, hop"? " Well, now I kind of do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked cs:Diskuse:Česko/Název, and had a good laugh when I google translated it to English and saw what "Česko nebo Česká republika?" became. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Czechia". Google Maps.
  2. ^ "Find Vaccine centers". www.bing.com.
  3. ^ https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/czechia_en
  4. ^ "UNData app". data.un.org.
  5. ^ "IATA - Czechia Customs, Currency & Airport Tax regulations summary". www.iatatravelcentre.com.
  6. ^ "Essential World Atlas - - Oxford University Press". web.archive.org. 26 May 2021.
  7. ^ "Czechia". www.euro.who.int.
  8. ^ "Czech Republic (Czechia) COVID: 1,672,409 Cases and 30,357 Deaths - Worldometer". www.worldometers.info.
  9. ^ a b "K peripetiím vývoje názvů našeho státu a postojů k nim od roku 1918 (Příspěvek k 80. výročí vzniku Československé republiky)". Naše řeč – Ústav pro jazyk český Akademie věd ČR.
  10. ^ www.iso.org https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:CZ. Retrieved 2021-07-25. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. ^ unterm.un.org https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/Display/Record/UNHQ/NA/4275087d-4018-4082-899d-95f37efeda65. Retrieved 2021-07-25. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  12. ^ unstats.un.org https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/geonames/. Retrieved 2021-07-25. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ Čižmárová, Libuše (2016). Jak se jmenuje naše vlast (PDF) (in Czech). Akademie věd České republiky (Vydání 1 ed.). [Praha]. ISBN 978-80-270-0966-4. OCLC 970636223.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. ^ "Skype to Phone plans for low cost international calling | Skype". www.skype.com. Retrieved 2021-07-25.
  15. ^ "Czechia - Administrative Region -". HERE WeGo. Retrieved 2021-07-25.
  16. ^ "Economy Czechia". www.erstegroup.com. Retrieved 2021-07-25.
  17. ^ "Czechia - The World Factbook". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2021-07-26.
  18. ^ "Czechia - CIA". www.cia.gov. Retrieved 2021-07-26.
  19. ^ "Czechia - Countries - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2021-07-26.
  20. ^ "COVID-19 Map". Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
  21. ^ Ritchie, Hannah; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban; Beltekian, Diana; Mathieu, Edouard; Hasell, Joe; Macdonald, Bobbie; Giattino, Charlie; Appel, Cameron; Rodés-Guirao, Lucas; Roser, Max (2020-03-05). "Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)". Our World in Data.
  22. ^ "Weekly COVID-19 country overview|ECDC". ECDC. Retrieved 2021-07-27.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  23. ^ "covid-19 statistics czech republic - Google Search". www.google.com. Archived from the original on 2021-07-27. Retrieved 2021-07-27.
  24. ^ "Uživatel SK Slavia Prague EN 🏆🏆🏆 na Twitteru: „Three Red-Whites - Bořil, Masopust and Holeš - on the pitch for 🇨🇿 @ceskarepre_eng against 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @England! Starting at 9 pm CET!". Twitter. Retrieved 2021-07-28.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  25. ^ https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=CZ&q=%C4%8Cesko,%C4%8Cesk%C3%A1%20republika
  26. ^ "PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines". www.pressreader.com. Retrieved 2021-08-01.
  27. ^ "Country names - GOV.UK". assets.publishing.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 2021-08-01.
  28. ^ "Czechia". European Union. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
  29. ^ "Search results "Czechia"". www.consilium.europa.eu. Retrieved 2 August 2021.
  30. ^ https://video.consilium.europa.eu/event/en/24814
  31. ^ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search/advanced?name=&countryCode=CZ. Retrieved 2 August 2021. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
  32. ^ https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/glosa-proc-nikdy-nebudu-fandit-ceske-republice-168897
Categories