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

The result of the move request was: No Clear Consensus on this one Name changes almost always result in these type of discussions. Those patient for change and those impatient for change contesting evidence of WP:COMMONNAME. The reality is however that both the current title and the proposed title are valid monikers for the article and readers are very unlikely to fail to find the article, regardless of which title prevails. I encourage editors to FOCUS on article content, quality sourcing and NPOV prose instead of the title. The suggestion of a moratorium on future title change requests is a sound one. Article is move protected for 6 months. Please refrain from initiating RMs until the protection is removed. Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic → Czechia

Per recommendation from WP:RM I will now attemept to close the discussion started in February concercing the name of "Czech Republic / Czechia"

My own opinion is that a name change is necessary. When you look at the discussion I'm referring to, I would find a total of 2 editors who expressed a stance against the move, whilist there being 9 editors who expressed a stance favoring the move.

Let's start by taking a look at the 2 editors who are against the move. One of those expressed a disagreement with the move, by arguing that "Czechia is no more common name than the Czech Republic". However, I don't agree with him/her about this, as IOC, EBU, EU, UN, NATO, and UEFA all use "Czechia". It's probably also worth mentoining that this argument was presented back in February, possibly before a lot of these organizations made the name change.

The other arguemnt is "the Czech government has not recommended using Czechia, but just declared "Czechia" to be a legitimate "short form" name for the country". I have not found the article this argument stems from, of course however that doesn't mean it's not true. But I do not believe this argument is stronger than the arguments favoring a name change, especially when I can't seem to find a verification of what the government exactly said.

Now the arguemntations for why the name should change are fairly homogenous because they take their starting points in what other (large) organizations call the country. So here is a list of some of the large organizations that use "Czechia".

IOC - https://olympics.com/ioc/czechia

European Union - https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/country-

European Broadcasting Union - https://eurovision.tv/countries

UEFA - https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/country/seasons/#/yr/2023

UN - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoC

NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm

IIHF - https://www.iihf.com/en/associations/337/czechia

World Bank - https://data.worldbank.org/country/CZ

WHO - https://www.who.int/countries/cze

My personal opinion based on the info we have avaliable, is that a change is occuring in accordance with how the country is being referred. I believe it is just a matter of time before the last organizations follow up and change their name to "Czechia", and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be ready to eo that here. There has also been editors who have been critical before but is now positive to the change.

Right now I just think it's confusing having the big organizations referring to the country as "Czechia" while Wikipedia refer to "Czech Republic". We also call it Slovakia and not "Slovak Republic", depsite the latter being used somewhat regularly. The same goes for a lot of countries where we don't call them their full name, and I don't see why the same logic shouldn't be used for "Czechia".

This is why I hope a move can be run through :) Thomediter (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you misread the recommendation from WP:RM, but what happens, happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, haha. I was a bit confused but saw Primefac (talk) originally posted here, but sorry for my misunderstanding. What should I do instead? Thomediter (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the text I used in the original nomination, as that one was reverted/removed. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per previous arguments, but what really sold me on it was googling "Czech Republic" and finding that many of the results used "Czechia" in the title or as the primary name. I know that's a silly criteria, but I feel like it's a good sign that the new name has overtaken the old one. casualdejekyll 13:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support mostly per wp:modernplacename but there has been a clear shift in usage amongst new outlets—blindlynx 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per others, the more formal Czech Republic is increasingly supplanted by Czechia and I strongly oppose any moratorium. Recently, the city of Allahabad was finally moved to Prayagraj and that had been stonewalled for years by stubborn editors whose concern trolling keeps pushing for more goalposts. --Killuminator (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move for the same reasons as always. The request was made as a "personal opinion", and no evidence was provided that the public at large has switched over. A quick Google Trends search shows that most results in the last 12 months are for the long-form "Czech Republic", and even if limited to news, "Czechia" was only prevalent for one week of the last 52. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Google Trends do not show us what reliable sources use. I find the reliability of the sources as a significant criterium. Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Quick close, opening RM is literally a list of WP:OFFICIALNAMES links, which is particularly weak. An RM with such a weak opening is a waste of community time, and an own goal liable to set back any move requests further (assuming it might be moved at this point). Suggest withdrawing, lest this spin out into another moratorium. CMD (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  At least a new moratorium may save the community some time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still new to editing on Wikipedia, so please help me learn, or do what is necessary to take the next step. Thomediter (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  So: It is not allowed discuss this issue because it could succeed. It is necessary to figure out some bogus reason how to avoid Czechia happen on Wikipedia. Weak opening? Since last attempt a lot of new and important sources switched. Chrz (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Chrz, that's both false and probably inappropriate. Please remember to assume good faith in situations such as this - there is no evidence that anyone's attempting to "figure out some bogus reason" to stop this RM. casualdejekyll 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well there's evidence someone wants to close it quickly quickly, and with a moratorium, longer the better, without a chance to add missing things to the application (if there really is something important missing). Chrz (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming this oblique comment is meant to refer to me, it's an odd misreading of what I said. CMD (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  You wanted to quickly withdraw to avoid moratorium. GGS liked the idea of another moratorium. Adding better than "official" sources was not suggested. I am not against reasonable moratorium but after proper failed attempt, not after 5 hours. Max 1 year, as we can see now, a lot can change in one year and I value those, who are against, but acknowledged the changes. Not the ones who say, oppose, nothing change, forever against. Chrz (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  You should show that these so called "official" changes have some effect on "unofficial" sources. IMHO newspapers and such. Chrz (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Last attempt in 2021 was nearly successful. Since then a lot of high profile organizations switched (listed above). Another changes: AP style guide acknowledged Czechia; Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses Czechia a lot; #VisitCzechRepublic campaign renamed to #VisitCzechia, official site czechia.eu... So on "official" level the "homework" is nearly done. Maybe newspapers are little behind, but sport results change it. Who is "the public" we are waiting for? 51 % in Google results in last... year or what? And the attempts to close it for technicalities is... sad. Chrz (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  How did you get "51 % in Google results in last... year or what?"? That's not what you got here:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  It means "Who is "the public" we are waiting for? Are we waiting for 51 % in Google results in last year". Chrz (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, now I get it, thanks. Well, that will depend on the Wikipedians who discuss it at the time, and if they think a namechange is motivated per WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). I guess you could start a "Can we all agree that when [2] shows X numbers for X time, this particular article will be moved?" Rfc at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Google Trends is a website by Google that analyzes the popularity of top search queries in Google Search across various regions and languages. Yeah, one way how to approach it - give people what they search, and somehow balance it with how it actually is now called and spelled by the media. Chrz (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nice numbers in Canada though. It's mostly thanks to hockey, peaks during world championships are clearly there. So there you have it, official names (here IIHF) matter, people see it during the match and then search it. Chrz (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  The main reason is not that the organizations made it official in their databases. The main reason is, that they are using it - in their press releases, during sport events etc. and thus influencing English language and citing newspaper (except a few sources which are able to translate press release/sport results from "one English" to "different English"). Chrz (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support because we have transitioned to a new atmosphere in which a majority of events use "Czechia" and the old-fashioned opponents of this natural name have already lost most of their motivation to fight against this word which is guaranteed to spread further, albeit slowly. Most recently, it is the World Ice Hockey Championship and Eurovision 2023 in recent days. Some viewers indeed remain ignorant or confused about the meaning of "Czechia" but that is exactly the reason why the legitimacy of "Czechia" should be highlighted in an up-to-date encyclopedia whose real purpose is to inform. I have used Czechia systematically since 1993, also during my 10 years in the U.S. and in geographic posts among the 9,000 posts on my blog which have had 40 million views in total. I haven't really encountered a significant problem with "Czechia". --Lumidek (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The official presidency of council of the EU page calls themselves the Czech Republic, and only mentions Czechia once [3]. Additionally as per the United Nations, Czechia is the official short name for the Czech Republic [4].Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The Wikipedia article should be called Czechia, because Czechia is the official short name for the Czech Republic, just like Slovakia is the official name for the Slovak Republic or France is the official short name for the French Republic. Wikipedia should be consistent and up to date. Danda Panda (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

But it's not universal yet. As I pointed out only one mention on an official Czech government website, as well as the likes of ESPN [5], The Guardian [6] [7], Reuters [8] CNBC [9], ING [10], Washington Post [11], NASA [12]. As i said Oppose for now, when it becomes universal then change. Secondly Slovakia is used because it is historical, Czechia is not so as it was previously known as Bohemia. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

These sites use both, sometimes the first, sometimes the second, sometimes both in one article. Czechia is now everywhere, somewhere prevalent, somewhere rare, now how to do some kind of decision, weighted average of significance and frequency... Chrz (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

When we see major and official use of the title widely by respected organisations like The Guardian and the Washington Post, and even their own government?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

All of those using Czechia, some more, some less, in average OK :) So move per WP:new and modern names are better. The Government uses Czechia, then the official site Czechia.eu, on site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, #VisitCzechia campaign, completely different picture that in 2021. But you must decide, someone says that government is WP:OFFICIALNAMES and does not matter and want to quickly stop RM because of it. Chrz (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The articles I put forward only use Czech Republic. If you search the Washington Post or The Guardian it comes up with Czech Republic but not Czechia in its searches. Yes some news channels are, like The Times, but it is still not universally used. As I pointed out the Presidency of the Council of the EU, which was held in 2022 by the Czech Republic has one use, while Czech Republic is used frequently - these pages are managed by the nation state and not the Council. Czechia is new (2016) as s short name which is being slowly used, but as per Google Trend data, people are searching the official name not the short name, so there WP:COMMONNAME is not really met - yet. Once it has become commonplace then we should change it.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you picked one article per source proving your point. But there are articles from the same sources proving my point. What does presidency page prove? Nothing. EU pages use Czechia and it is considered useless or WP:official names, ministry of foreign affair is overlooked, etc. so what. The "old" political name is here to stay (unlike other name changes where both changed, political and short, like Eswatini) and of course politicians incline to use it more. Don't create obstacles which other countries did not have, some kind of need for universal agreement and dominant use in every single source. Sport, culture, tourism has switched significantly and it affects everyday news in newspaper. And especially don't say (plural) that the situation is the same as in 2021 during the last attempt. Chrz (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not creating obstacles. As I quote from Wikipedia rules on Article Titles If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well. At the moment there is still a clear divide of usage across the media, though one which we should look at again next year. It's not if it should be changed its when.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Czechia based English language news outlets have switched to using Czechia and it has become ubiquitous and nearly exclusive term to refer to the country:

https://english.radio.cz/search?fulltext=Czechia

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/search?s=Czechia

I now see Czechia absolutely everywhere in Canadian, Australian, British, American press, twitter, sports events, Eurovision, etc. Canadian Anglophones keep telling me "You're now called Czechia". The official websites of the country have switched from czech.cz to CZECHIA.EU and visitczechrepublic.com to VISITCZECHIA.COM

The Czech Republic Wikipedia article should be moved to Czechia and standardized to the typical intro Wikipedia uses for every other country: Czechia (Czech: Česko), officially the Czech Republic (Czech: Česká republika), is a country in Central Europe. Danda Panda (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support It is time for Wikipedia to finally make the move. There has been a lot of changes recently.The evidence supporting the move has been provided above from all major sports, international institutions, media etc. Millions of people have been watching Eurovision featuring Czechia this year. Also, CzechTourism switched from VisitCzechRepublic to VisitCzechia despite failing to change the web address so far:

https://www.visitczechrepublic.com/en-US How long do we want to wait? Using official short country names is normal in English. Czechia should not be an exception.Geog25 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Davidstewartharvey and User:Old Naval Rooftops. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, common usage of the name has clearly shifted in the last few years. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I much prefer "Czechia" over "Czech Republic", and look forward to its eventual substitution. But outside a few official outlets, I don't see it as the common name yet. Widespread usage is still overwhelmingly "Czech Republic". I am afraid I must oppose for now. Walrasiad (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Let discussion run its course there is absolutely no reason for a quick close here. There is actual discussion and there has been over the past few months, and there's no moratorium. I have no opinion yet on which way the move should go, but a quick close would be a bad idea here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with @Skarmory.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Let's do it. Czechia is here to stay! Helveticus96 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a question of "let's do it", this isn't a vote, and the decision isn't made on whether you like it or not. Comments need to focus on whether the proposed name fits the policy at WP:AT better than the current name.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I honestly don't know, I'm curious how the community will decide. I got used to the name Czechia and my objections from the last big discussion no longer apply; an abbreviated name is used in the largest sports organizations. Compared to the previous discussion, a shift in other fields is also noticeable. But it's hard to decide if it's finally a commonname. Unless you live in a social bubble of young and/or educated people, you may find that the name Czechia is not as popular as you think. Google Trends search, presented by User:Old Naval Rooftops, tells the most about it. And the interesting thing is that the term 'Czechia' is most often googled from the Czech Republic. There is no doubt that there has already been a change in majority of official and popular websites, but to balance the scales, here are a few examples who still uses 'Czech Republic': OECD, Council of Europe, Tripadvisor. FromCzech (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Next time in one or two years the discussion would be: Yes, since the last time OECD, Council of Europe and Tripadvisor switched, but now I found these popular pages which hasn't switched yet which I find important now... Tell us these indicators in advance and we'll nag them to switch ;) Chrz (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Chrz: I just contributed my research and thought processes to the discussion. Your post is a misinterpretation and the ironic tone is inappropriate for this discussion. Given your history, I warn you as a precaution that commenting on every dissenting opinion may be considered WP:BLUDGEON and is therefore undesirable. We already know that you don't agree with some of the opinions of others, and you don't need to remind us. FromCzech (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ironic unironic, experience. Last time there were some sources soooo important, now Czechia has won them and magicaly new superimportant sources to conquer occur. Chrz (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  No one has more experience of this talkpage than you:[13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  And that is the answer to my remark? 442. Chrz (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the section above. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  As an example of what I mean, I've just been to skyscanner to look up flights from Prague to London, and the point of departure was given as "Prague, Czechia". This kind of thing is becoming more and more common and will not reflect in cursory google searches of news and book results. No one who regularly encounters the name of this country in English in their daily life can honestly claim that "Czechia" is not commonly used in 2023 - it is, and is clearly becoming more common, so we really may as well just go with the trend and move the article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose.

  As always with these discussions, the principal thing we are here to determine, is which of the two proposed titles fits with the Wikipedia policy WP:AT, which advises us that in general, the WP:COMMONNAME is the one which best fits that policy's intent. More specifically, we have the WP:NAMECHANGES clause, which advises us to switch the name if reliable sources do so, but "if, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". So the question boils down to what recent sources say. The indicator we use most often in determining this is the Google ngram, measuring usage in English-language books, and as we can see: [14], this shows a huge lead of at least an order of magnitude for Czech Republic, all the way up to its latest date of 2019. Now obviously that was four years ago now, but if I had to guess at a trend since then, I'd find it highly unlikely that the Czech Republic usage has fallen off a huge cliff since 2019, with Czechia climbing massively to match. Most likely ngrams will still show a strong lead for Czech Republic when 2023 data is eventually made available. Another thing we look at is recent news sources, and although it's hard to make a quantative assessment thereof, it's clear that Czech Republic is still very widely used in such sources, e.g. [15][16][17][18][19]

  Now, regarding the list of organisations supplied as evidence in the nomination header, that's an impressive list, but as CMD points out, these almost all international organisations of which the Czech Republic is a member, and which therefore to some extent reflect the wishes of the country's government and officials, rather than independent secondary common usage. To counter that, I can cherry pick a similarly impressive list of independent reliable sources in English, which continue to use Czech Republic:

  • BBC News
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica
  • The Guardian
  • The New York Times
  • Sydney Morning Herald

  And curiously, this page about the Czech presidency of the European Council, also uses Czech Republic almost throughout, despite presumably being strongly connected to the Czech government itself!

  So, in summary, I am far from convinced by the argument that usage has significantly shifted in English, and moreover the evidence seems to strongly point to Czech Republic remaining the common name, therefore I think the policy argument is that this move should not go ahead right now. I'm not dogmatic about this, I argue only the evidence, not personal opinions, and of course if this situation ever changes (as it did with the name changes at Kyiv and Myanmar) then I would support the move at that time. Would also support a moratorium at this time, because I don't see this changing quickly enough to make another RM worthwhile within the next year.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are technically wrong. The member of the International Olympic Committee is not the state it is the Czech National Committee as well as national sports unions are members of IIHF and UEFA. The members of the European Broadcasting Union are Czech Television and Czech Radio, not the state. Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per O.N.R. and Amakuru. Also support a new one-year WP:MORATORIUM on article-name discussions, apart from this RM there have been several threads (now archived) on it since the last moratorium ended in August last year. It can rest in peace for awhile, saving editors some effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I second the argument above. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the posts preceding this, particularly Amakuru, and my own posts in the previous discussion. Credible and palpable indications that the overwhelming use of Czech Republic over Czechia is becoming less overwhelming, and enthusiasm for the latter term, which I share, do not overturn COMMONNAME. I have no doubt that the advance of the usage of the term is likely to progress to the point of dominance in coming years but it is in no way supportable to make the change now. The evident prematurity and poverty of the claim of the bulk of supporting posts will set back the case, as the tedious recurrence of this never-endum is likely to invoke another year’s moratorium. When this RM is rejected again, I support such a moratorium as the tide will not have turned in the space of a year and we could all spend our time more profitably in the interim. I welcome the time we can reflect the reality that Czechia is the common name but that is some stretch in the future. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's a very good point. Even if "Czech Republic" is less of a common name than before, it's still the common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support the change to the name ‘Czechia’. I have to emphasize that according to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) there are plenty of sources that use the term Czechia: GNS, CIA World Factbook; as provided by Cambridge University Library: GeoNames, The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use; and from their maps list: Google Maps. I would also add Eurostat as a major statistics authority. Since I have included Google Maps on the list, I think it is necessary to mention Bing Maps as well. I have to mention other technical giants as well: Apple or Nokia. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Naming convention is just a guideline. We must base it upon the rules i.e. WP:Article Title, which has been quoted above by myself and Amakuru.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And it clearly says: ‘It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow…’ Martin Tauchman (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - this article will eventually be moved to Czechia. I think as more and more sources use Czechia, a move becomes more and more reasonable. Interstellarity (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support – I support this step and consider it a shame that it has still not been taken. Czechia officially adopted the name in 2016, and since then more and more institutions (including the UN, NATO, EU, WHO, World Bank etc.) have adopted the shortened name. It is understandable that this is not happening as fast as it could - after all, Wikipedia serves as an important electronic resource that influences the discourse. Within the EU, Czechia is the only country where the full political name of the state is spelled out everywhere on Wikipedia, and this is completely unnecessary when the state has an official shortened name, which is becoming commonly used within the institutions of which Czechia is a member. –Unloose ^(talk) 12:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - In the last two years, the IIHF has been using "Czechia". GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  And it is already used in the articles about IIHF Champioships. See: 2023 IIHF World Championship. And it works quite well. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support in line with Wikipedia's article titling policies. WP:CRITERIA states that 'a good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics':
  • Recognisability – Both possible titles are recognisable to 'someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area'. Following the Czech Republic's request Czechia is now used by the UN ([20]) and European Union ([21]) and has now been used in popular culture, for instance, in Eurovision and the Olympics (https://olympics.com/ioc/czechia). Both names are recognised.
  • Naturalness – both possible titles are ones that 'readers are likely to look or search for'. Again, given its increasing use in popular culture, one would expect that readers may search both Czecihia or Czech Republic. Both names are natural.
  • Precision – Again, both 'unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects'. Nothing else is called Czechia or the Czech Republic and Czechia already redirects redirectly to this article.
  • Concision – However, Czechia wins on conscision. WP:CONCISE gives the example of Rhode Island, which is more appropriate than the official name State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
  • Consistency – Finally, nearly every other sovereign state uses its official or common short name rather than its official long name. The only exceptions are the DRC and Republic of the Congo, which for obvious reasons need separate titles and also need to be disambiguated from the river and basin, and the Republic of Ireland, which needs distinction from the island. Czechia has no such issues. Contrastingly, the two Koreas use their short names, e.g. South Korea, despite the fact these countries use their long name officially at the UN and elsewise.

Additionally we can review WP:PLACE for specific conventions around geographic names. It states to use 'a widely accepted English name'. Advised sources to glean a widely accepted name use both Czech Republic (e.g. [22]) and Czechia (e.g. [23]). Clearly there is no longer a widely accepted English name, so 'the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) ... should be used'. The modern official name, as requested by the Czech Government, is Czechia.

Jèrriais janne (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support for many of the reasons listed above. Czechia is certainly the most common name for the country in English. I agree with @Jèrriais janne that it's not the widely accepted name, and that there isn't one. The shift to Czechia has, however, been going on for a very long time, and it's most certainly a matter of when, not if, the article will finally be moved. I say, why not now? The average English speaker will now encounter Czechia much more often than the long-form Czech Republic, in the a similar way as they encounter France more than the French Republic. Czechia is the most used form by everyone except for some news sources (BBC, CNN, New York Times), and I imagine they too are constantly having the same debate that we are. I wonder if some of them are looking at us and seeing that we haven't changed our name for the country yet, so they're not changing theirs. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 21:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that "Czechia is certainly the most common name"? The Google Trends numbers I gave above show the reverse by a large margin. Even if I limit it to news only, "Czech Republic" is far more common over the past year. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And I can limit it like this and Czechia is the winner :D Chrz (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And it is 50 % : 50 % in the United Kingdom. [24] Martin Tauchman (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Summer ^talk 22:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it is not the most common name yet. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it was the only form to be seen in last night's Eurovision Song Contest. Doric Loon (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So what? Nobody denies that some sources use "Czechia", and that it appears quite often, but the question we're asking (and which nobody supporting the move seems to directly address) is which name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Although we don't have conclusive data, my !vote above gives clear indicators that Czech Republic remains the common name. If you have arguments against that, please provide them, but cherry-picking sources isn't going to help us here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru It's not exactly cherry-picking to note the continuation of the tsunami of major institutions changing their usage. That is absolutely an indicator of a shift in common name. Doric Loon (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Czech Republic is still the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Even on the Eurovision Song Contest it was pointed out several times that it was the country commonly known as the Czech Republic but that it was appearing as Czechia because they requested it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Who pointed it out? When was it done? Could you provide a source of it? Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm guessing it was on British tv. Not much of an issue where I live:[25] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. The BBC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  But you have not provided an exact reference, so other people would be able to review it. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  See here, for instance. And it was also in the commentary. That fact is, we've called it the Czech Republic in English since the end of Czechoslovakia and we're not going to stop any time soon. Any more than we're going to change what we call Turkey. And appeals that it's the WP:OFFICIALNAME never go down well on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It says that Czechia is ‘also known as the Czech Republic’. The source does not use the word ‘commonly’. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think it even says it? Because most people in the UK have never heard the name Czechia, so will be wondering why a new country seems to have entered! Trust me when I tell you that this is the case. Most native English-speakers have never heard of Czechia and would probably think it was a mistake for Czechoslovakia! And then wonder why the old name had come back into use again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  And this nicely sums it up anyway. If using Czechia, clarify in the story that the country is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, wanting it to be so does not make it so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  So do you want to suggest that BBC uses the AP Stylebook? Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  And does not it mean that BBC is already in the "transition phase" and includes both, new one to be accurate with the current state of things, and the older for old times sake? It would be point for Czechia, not against. It would mean The change is here, just how long do we want to wait?! One solution would be to use similar dualism as sourced from the news here on Wikipedia. But it is not allowed (rename everything to Czechia and stuff it with "also known as the Czech Republic" in every article. Chrz (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstand. The only reason they called the country Czechia in Eurovision was because that's how it asked to be referred to in the competition. It officially competed as Czechia, so the BBC had no choice but to use that name (but still pointed out that it was the country we all knew as the Czech Republic). But, as we should all know very well, official name and common name are not always the same thing and on Wikipedia we use the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, and here was BBC bold enough to manage it without the Czech Republic altogether. Of course that the wish for the new name begins with registration, officialization, and then there is a phase of getting used to the new thing. And I would say that the world is getting used to Czechia just fine, no big bang, just gradual change which IMHO crossed the point where the change on Wikipedia is thinkable. Much better odds than during last try in 2021 where it was all "Oppose: not even Eurovision/NATO/UN/whatever use it"... And 2023 attempt shows no one really cared about these "official" places Chrz (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support to change to Czechia Well, we should do it this way: The way of counting the majority is not provided. So let's look at the fact, what people actually use: [26] The most people use Google and Google uses Czechia. I would exclude Wikipedia because we discuss about the Wikipedia. Let's not include porn - it actually is not a reliable source. Bing Maps do use the term Czechia as well. So, using this method, we can say that the majority of reliable and significant sources do use "Czechia". From my point of view, we should not count newspaper that affects only a part of the world same way as those global actors and it would be a nonsence to think that people use just things like newspapers. The world has changed and we use mobile apps. Everyone uses Google Maps to find a restaurant or a mall. Wikipedia should reflect such a thing. --185.58.42.223 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - As per reasons presented above, the majority of organisations now refer to the country as Czechia, and Wikipedia seems to be lagging behind with this change. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  How did you conclude that a majority of organisations now refer to the country as Czechia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I stated that just based off of the organisations already mentioned above. I will say I will re-phrase what I said as I meant a lot of prominent organisations now refer to the country as Czechia, that would make more sense. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 11:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Jèrriais janne. Czechia is common enough already. We don't have to wait another year to finally move it. Qertis (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Next to this: Czechia is a country with much longer history than since 1990s, when it started to be called Czech Republic. Horaljan (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Amakuru. Folks, this is not a contest. We look at usage in reliable English language sources, primarily secondary sources (and not OFFICIAL names), and follow their lead. Amakuru listed half a dozen major English news sources, and they're all using Czech Republic. Maybe the change will come; maybe it won't. But it certainly has not yet. WP is not the leader on such matters; we reflect what the outside world is doing. --В²C ☎ 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because Amakuru has listed sources that use the Czech Republic only. What about Google Maps, Bing Maps, CIA World Factbook, … They all use the term Czechia. And you can see Czechia on TV during Eurovision, IIHF Championships, … Martin Tauchman (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mapping apps, some bureaucrat at the CIA World Factbook, and sports organizations, do not carry the gravitas of the New York Times and other serious news publications listed by Amakuru. Please. --В²C ☎ 06:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  CIA World Factbook is serious publication. As provided in WP:PLACE. Martin Tauchman (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - a debated topic among the Czechs, but a legally justified name for the state. Cepice (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Cepice: Sorry, do you support the moratorium or the move? It is not clear from your comment. Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I do support the move.Cepice (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. According to WP:AT, crucial are WP:CRITERIA, not solely WP:COMMONNAME. In our case, some of the five criteria are better fitted by the title “Czechia“, especially WP:CONSISTENT (the title should be “as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects“) and WP:CONCISE (the title should be “no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject“), but also WP:PRECISION. (The topic of the article is “landlocked country in Central Europe“. Bearing in mind that this country has a long history, the name “Czechia“ is more unambiguous than “Czech Republic“, at least in historic sections.) --Horaljan (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per voluminous other RM discussion. If and when a change happens, it will be because the nominator reads and understands Wikipedia policy, and then constructs a common name argument. International organizations will go along with whatever official titles desired out of courtesy like Turkiye, so a nomination that presents this list as if it was evidence of anything new is not convincing. SnowFire (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, other arguments are presented later in the discussion. Usage by large internet giants is a quite good argument. Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, Google is so large and so potentially vulnerable to government action it's much closer to the diplomatic organizations case. Maybe in 2005 Google's opinion would have been relevant, but not after Google literally had to start creating different versions of Google Maps to display in different countries to comply with contradictory naming & boundary demands. Anyway, fine, let's do a simple check of the media: searching for "Prague" and site: naming various media organizations, past year only. I got https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/world/europe/prague-protests-economy.html , https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/28/czech-election-results-pavel-babis/ , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62130083 . 3/3 use "Czech Republic", 0/3 use "Czechia." Nothing has changed. SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's because of AP Stylebook. I don't think that we could count NY Times and Washington Post as independent in terms of naming convention. And it should be prevalence in reliable sources. Not only media. PS: Bing uses Czechia as well. (Same with local Mapy.cz.) Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Media, books, and scholarship are by far the most important sources for COMMONNAME. There are cases where this is deviated from, but involve factors that aren't in play here - like an out-of-date term on a topic the media has stopped covering very much. But the Czech Republic still features in English language news frequently, so that's not the case here. Neutrality? Nah, not a problem. Imprecision? Nope. So COMMONNAME - the very first and most important criteria listed on WP:AT - should dominate, and COMMONNAME is decided by the sources I just described, not stuff like Bing. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, no. Wikipedia:PLACE says that there are more types of sources that you should consider. And those sources are not only media but also maps, databases, and other reliable sources. Martin Tauchman (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is not how statistics work. Your reasoning is: I found one Czech Republic on that page in the last year, that's why Czechia is not a 100 % winner. I found one "French Republic" there, maybe France is not so sure like we all thought, right? Chrz (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  On the contrary: Czech Republic was the 100% winner. I didn't see *any* use of Czechia in media, very far from it "not being a 100% winner", and English-language media is exactly where this debate should be centered around. And if checking three random recent news articles referred to France as the "French Republic", then yes, it might be time for a move there. But hey, searching for "Paris" comes up with an article from last week that just uses "France": https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/05/11/paris-best-baguette-competition/ . Looks like this test confirms that "France" is correct, which is indeed what Wikipedia uses. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  You have searched in a very limited amount of sources. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] PS: I would consider the usage of the capital city in the prompt as wrong. 185.15.110.102 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Eg. BBC has several articles about Czechia, sure, mainly about the renaming, about Eurovision, about the soccer, but anyway who wants to see, see. No cherry picking, but fair search.

  English-language media sure, but why BBC, CNN and done? Canadian sources are English too and those use it a lot, mainly due to "official" IIHF change, but here you can see the influence - officials change, secondary use without change from one English to different English.

  Does even WP:OFFICIAL apply to all the organizations, or just UN and ISO? Eg. Press releases of IIHF (and tweets :)) are just plain useless, not relevant sources?! Because they are "forced" to use it, but news media are completely free (and ignorant)? Chrz (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

(de-indent) Extended reply: First off, back to first principles: I am absolutely a "gettable" vote. I don't care one way or the other about the title. I do care, however, about COMMONNAME, which is generally the most controlling titling policy - I've voted in quite a few RMs, and I consider it the "default" policy to rely on.

However. The way you determine COMMONNAME for "popular" topics is different from obscure topics. On an obscure topic, you might well say "This 2012 scholarly book is the only recent piece of literature that cares about this topic, we should prefer its nomenclature over the 1958 book that was previously the main work on the topic." But for common topics? It's trickier. That's where we use things like ngrams to get an overall sense of which word is more popular. If you do a Google search, you can always find what you're looking for if you search for it directly (i.e. searching for "Czechia" or "Czech Republic"), but that doesn't mean much. Imagine a movie has 500 reviews, 400 positive and 100 negative. You can trivially cite 5 negative reviews in a row, but that's not really due weight to the balance of the sources. I presume that 185.15.110.102 's list of sources was attained by just such a direct search for "Czechia", and thus isn't meaningful, similar to citing the 5 worst reviews on Metacritic / Rotten Tomatoes. (It might mean the hockey team should move to Czechia hockey team, though!) It's much better to just arbitrarily check sources with a "neutral" search, where in the movie example, it's much less likely you'll see 5 negative reviews in a row by accident, or 5 uses of the minority term for the country whose capital is Prague in a row.

Anyway, fine, let's look up some more sources - no cherry picking - to see if our initial dip was just unlucky. Since someone complained about Prague, let's try "Petr Fiala" instead. "Petr Fiala site:cbc.ca" - https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/czech-presidential-election-petr-pavel-1.6729672 , "Czech Republic," no Czechia. site:news.com.au - https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/czech-politics-in-doubt-with-president-in-hospital/news-story/cf0d5749a67bcc5b8c5d9c8253500f58 , "Czech Republic," no Czechia. site:timeslive.co.za - https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/2022-03-19-czechs-will-look-after-ukraines-wives-and-children-says-pm/ "Czech Republic," no Czechia. We are now 0/6 on Czechia with "neutral" searches. When a sample of random news sites starts returning mixed results, then it may be time to relitigate this matter. SnowFire (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

You devised a method and then it gives you some results. I may look for hockey+Czechia and it can give me totally opposite results than Prague+Czechia or nature+Czechia, or "name change"+Czechia, why even do this coupling? Does it have some kind of relevance of "shared popularity"? It would be relevant if we want to use different names for different topics (Prague, capital of the Czech Republic, Fiala, prime minister of CZE, Czech hockey team, nature of Czechia). Wikipedia does not want that, it wants one name for all (at least for modern usage one, for historic it may use another). Only filtering you should do on Google is: English language, last year (or whatever) and maybe "News" versus "All" etc. Chrz (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support: I'm mainly basing this off of the WP:CRITERIA. I don't know how exactly to analyze whether the common name has shifted or not, but I think it's close enough where other factors come into play. The Concision and Consistency criterias, as mentioned by Jèrriais janne, clearly go to Czechia over Czech Republic. I think that's enough for a move, especially when people are going to continue switching to Czechia down the line – it's more a matter of when rather than if, even if this claim may be WP:CRYSTAL. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The official name may have changed but it's not clear that the common name has, and it may never change. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. Nice to "see" you, Andrew. It's been a minute. --В²C ☎ 06:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Seems to me "Czechia" is now common name. The difficulty is that we have many different possible metrics for deciding what is most common. I think that institutional use is critical, and we have now reached the point where it is very hard to find any international organization or international event at which Czechia participates which does not use "Czechia" (except of course in contexts where the long name is used for every country). Anecdotally I can also say that in my own university circles I now only ever hear "Czechia". Others commenting here have measured this in other ways and come to different results, so it's possibly a moot point, but the case for "Czechia" being the common name is certainly not weak. That being so, other criteria come into play. The mantra that we keep hearing about common name being Wikipedia's only criterion is simply wrong: we have other well-established criteria too, like conciseness (a one-word title is better than a three-word title) and consistency (if possible it is better to treat Czechia the same way as Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria). If both names are reasonably common, these other criteria should swing it. Doric Loon (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support: WP:CRITERIA lists five criteria. Two of them (Concision and Consistency) are unequivocally for Czechia, one criterion (Precision) is neutral and only the remaining two (Recognizability and Naturalness) are contested. If those who favor Czech Republic based on alleged more common usage are correct, that makes it a tie. If they're not correct, Czechia clearly wins. That should be enough to make the decision.
  Further, the various measures of common usage are generally flawed in that Wikipedia itself drives common usage to some degree, so the argument is a bit circular. Vashekcz (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  But as WP:Criteria states These should be seen as goals, not as rules. As per WP:NAMECHANGES If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well The oppose group, which I am one, have shown that this is the case, that In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals are still using Czech Republic, and people are still searching Czech Republic in far greater numbers than Czechia. Until major english speaking media use Czechia as the de facto, we should not change. However I yiu think it should please ask for an RFC on Article Title policy to be changed.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. The CRITERIA are examples of some of the things people typically look for, but in most cases it's not appropriate to try and score them in this fashion. In particular, COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria but is the overall guiding principle on which to assess names, all other things being equal.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  You see only the lines which suit your opinion and "goal", only your selection of rules is the right one, other rules are unimportant... Same with the sources, your are reliable, the Czechia-supporting sources are all bad... Very convenient. Let me do it, let me twist it:

  From WP:COMMONNAME - Places:

  North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

  BOOM, Republic is unwanted when there's an alternative without it. Recognizable, shorter, consistent with other countries, already used and the numbers are growing.

  Maybe it is like this (numbers to be properly examined, just an example to start with): 80:20 for Czechia among organizations, sports, maps, academia, country's own wish. 80:20 for the Czech Republic among newspapers and what people search on google.

  Me: So it is 50:50 but the trend speaks for the new name.

  Opposing party will say: It is 80:20, only the newspapers and google trends are realiable, only journalist and googlers are to say what the country is called. Chrz (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Chrz: we've been discussing this issue on this talk page for years now, I thought you had come around to the Wikipedian way of thinking on this. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to set trends, but simply to reflect the world the way it is. I have given solid evidence above as to why Czech Republic remains in common usage, greatly exceeding Czechia (unless some huge huge change has occurred since 2019, and nobody here has given evidence of that so far). What else is there to discuss? Seriously? I have no skin in this game, I will happily move to Czechia when the time is right, but you and I have both been here long enough to know that such a time still hasn't arrived. I'd appreciate if you could point this out to newcomers such as those above, who are not so familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Where? You chose 4 random newspaper and one encyclopedia and celebrated victory and you would like RM to be over just because your point was the best and decisive. Or maybe it is not as easy as you think, RM should go on and then someone will close it. Are we really waiting for CNN and BBC and virtually nothing else matters? Two three news correspondents decide the name of the country for the whole world? BTW would not be it a nice experiment to see, what change on Wikipedia does to BBC and CNN? Popular meaning is that those are completely independent, we might hope, but we would see :)

  Wikipedia now "confuses" its readers (recall to that proposterous title of one of the sources about confused Welsh Eurovision viewers without any base to such claim) with articles like "Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023" when there was no such competitor. So we will see LEDE like "The Czech Republic, presented as Czechia, ..." in a lot of pages, same as oddities like "Music of the Czech Republic comprises the musical traditions of that state or the historical entities of which it is compound, i.e. the Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia)". Both easily replacable with simply: Czechia. Point for Czechia.

  And regarding Türkiye (recall to another thread) - longer, awkward, unenglish, too fresh to decide, and that's different name change: geographical to geographical. Czechia is name change of: political (30 years of history) to geographical (can describe whole history of several political entities). And also Turkey is presented more in English sources as a country, with longer history than "the Czech Republic" name, so harder to switch. Some unknown minicountry would be switched in a day. Chrz (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Explain how we are confusing our readers? The page is called Czech Republic but as the lead says it is known as Czechia. We are following wikipedia policy not gut feeling. As pointed out the majority of google searches are for the Czech Republic, by some margain, which shows Czechia is not yet the common name. The vast majority of English speaking media (which this is enwikipedia) are still using Czech Republic which matches the policy on article titles. There is no picking out by oppose editors, in fact I pointed out that some English speaking media are using Czechia (The Times), but search others and there is no use of the term (Washington Post, NYT). If you dont agree with the policy raise a RFC at Article Title or ask at the policy board on the Village pump.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Now it is media, a post before it was Google Trends, last time there were reservations about sport and NATO and Eurovision...

  I am not against the Wikipedia rules, I am against favoring one rule above the other just because. I am against some of misinterpretations of the rules. Rules are general, RMs are concrete.

  Explain how we are confusing our readers? Explain me why were Welsh people confused. They weren't, it was just a silly title. Or they were confused, because they read on Wikipedia about Czech Republic on ESC and there was no such thing. Chrz (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was just a clickbait. I think more people would read it when there is the word ‘confused’ in the title. They just don't want to be confused or want to feel better that they aren't. Martin Tauchman (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – fundamentally, it comes down to whether WP:NAMECHANGES is met. The momentum behind the switch to "Czechia" as of recently is such that I believe it has been. Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While in this survey there is more support than not for "Czechia", there is no indication yet that it is the common name for the Czech Republic. Ngrams, Pageviews analysis and Google Trends search indicators still point to the "Czech Republic" as the common name. Since WP:COMMONNAME is a Wikipedia policy, that means that community consensus also opposes this page move. No local consensus may override the consensus of the Wikipedia community. See also article title policy at WP:CRITERIA, where the precision, consistency and recognizability of the "Czech Republic" article name is supported by the community. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

N Gram is outdated and Google Trends don't show appearance in reliable sources. -89.24.32.30 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support of the change. The majority of significant and reliable sources do use "Czechia" (as provided before). I would add eg. J.Allen, C.Sutton: A Student Atlas of World Politics; Tolasz, Radim: Atlas podnebí Česka Climate atlas of Czechia; ICHG 2012. -89.24.32.30 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose not (yet) the common name in WP:RS. Google News results are now really close over the last week, although still favoring "Czech Republic" slightly[36][37] but on Google Scholar there's still several times as many publications using Czech Republic as Czechia. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - It's what the people use. As well as reliable sources. [38] --78.80.123.209 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - Sources use it. See: [39] [40] --37.48.50.255 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and per the fact "Czech Republic" is still heavily used in sources. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you think so? Martin Tauchman (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

This article just came out and it nicely sums up how much "Czechia" is really used: What is Czechia and where is it? Czech Republic confuses Eurovision viewers with different name Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cimmerian praetor Thanks for that source. The main takeaway from that is that most people in Wales don't think about Czechia from one year's end to the next. Anybody who is actually talking about the country will know what is meant. And of course, anyone who is NOT talking about the country is making no contribution either way to the question of what the common name is. Doric Loon (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a very odd way of looking at it. Everyone's heard of the Czech Republic, while many people haven't come across the Czechia name yet, which makes the proposed name dubious on WP:RECOGNIZE grounds. And why don't they recognize it? Because the new name isn't the most commonly used yet, and doesn't qualify for NAMECHANGES. It really is that simple.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, they don't present the source of information or the way they got the information. So I would not count it as valid. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Normal title would be "Czech Republic competed under the name Czechia". Journalistic bombastic title: Everyone was toooootally confused and noone know what Czechia is. Who was confused? How does the "senior reporter" know it? Did she read some posts on facebook or not even that? We don't know. The content of the article is moreorless true, but the title is pure clickbait. Chrz (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Just an example of yellow journalism. Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Google Trend data just backs this up the Wales Online article as pointed out earlier in this discussion! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Doric Loon Quite the contrary. This article - like all Wikipedia articles - is geared for people in Wales - meaning, the general public who is not talking about the Czech Republic all the time. They, the casual readers, are our audience, they are the ones who must recognize the article, "common name" is for their benefit, not ours, nor the Czech government's. Walrasiad (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And the web euractiv.com uses rather Czechia than the Czech Republic. Choosing one random article in live style section is not optimal. Martin Tauchman (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The article provides no evidence. It just says that something is true but without any background. So we can reject their statements without any background as well. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Youtube break: CZECHIA OR CZECH REPUBLIC: (What do English speakers say?) (2020) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the background of the video is great (special thanks to RNDr. Šulista and Prof. Pavlínek), but I have not understood your point. Three years old social media poll is not included in the Wikipedia naming convention. Additionally, I would count the poll results as possibly outdated in this case. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It wasn't intended as an argument for this discussion, just something the Wikipedians in it might find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  And Wikipedia already does contain an article that describes the problem. See: Name of Czechia Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Martin Tauchman: given that you're rightly making sure people are following the article title policy properly, I hope you'll also have words with those above who've said things like "I've heard this name used a lot lately so it must be the right time to move this page". Nobody has yet shown any evidence that Czechia is now the most common name in recent reliable sources, or even equal with Czech Republic, and as you and I both know, that's all that really matters. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do not have any obligation to react to everything. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Moratorium

I don't see a need for a moratorium after the debate will be closed. The last regularly closed debate happened in 2021. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

And between that RM and the ongoing one there has been 9 or so threads about renaming this article. Timesinks. So IMO a one-year break would be good. Also, it is by now TRADITION! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Btw, when this RM has had no comments for 3-4 days or so, I intend to ask for closure at WP:RFCL. It may take awhile until we get there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Support moratorium. Rename article proposals here are returning ad nauseam with no added value.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that's because the situation, quite objectively, is changing so fast. Every couple of days there is new information suggesting increased use of "Czechia", and people are obviously going to keep asking, is it enough yet? I think we all know that sooner or later it will be. So this is not exactly a situation where the static same data is being redebated. I think you have to live with the fact that the conversation will be on-going. Doric Loon (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't visit my doctor for an examination every week just in case something might have turned up during the previous week. That would be disruptive. I go once a year (other than when I'm sick).

There is no need for the article's title to change within, say, 5 minutes or even 5 weeks of some arbitrary tipping point being reached. Wikipedia isn't going to win a prize for promptness. The question doesn't need to be reevaluated constantly. There is no "fact" that the conversation will be ongoing, we can have a moratorium. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is obligated to participate in the discussion. I don't see the disruptive effect. (On the other hand, the doctor has to provide medical action) Martin Tauchman (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds and hundreds of posts about the same topic over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again drowning out any possible other topic that somebody might have to talk about, particularly when people who are absolutely sick and tired of seeing this page come up in their watchlists just stop looking and therefore never notice that somebody has a question or concern about a different matter. That's disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about adding a picture of Božena Němcová. Your statement is untrue. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There have been 7 comments in that discussion over the last 8 days. I haven't counted the comments about naming in the same time period, but it is obviously a much higher number. Largoplazo's statement is essentially true. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

And what's the problem? Other discussions can be led as well (as I have demonstrated). Martin Tauchman (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that people keep on coming here over and over and over and over with no evidence that ACTUAL USAGE has changed. People keep coming back with variations of "but it's official!". And that is something that is of no interest to Wikipedia. Asking "is this organization making it official" is enough misses the point. Every organization in the known universe could make official recommendations to use Czechia and it would mean exactly two things: diddly and squat. What matters, the ONLY thing that matters, is English usage. As long as the general English speaking public, press, etc use Czech Republic, Wikipedia will continue to do so as well. The Eurovision and the Welsh populace story is a perfect illustration. Eurovision used it and the Welsh (an English speaking population) were confused enough that someone wrote about the confusion. It obviously hasn't entered general usage. And your counter point about other news organizations used a company run out of Belgium that operates mostly in French and German. The usage of that company is totally irrelevant here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

1) Usage grew. Organizations officialized it, use it in press releases and during sport and singing contests and thus influence other sources and "general public". Just the way it should be. Sources were presented that eg. newspaper "buy" it. 2) Welsh confused public is just repeated nonsense. Just a title without any basis, nothing. Confused author of the article maybe. 3) Irrelevance and "clear obviousness" are not better arguments than presented sources. For me it is clear and obvious that fear of Czechia and panic among opposers grew. Unfollow this and you won't be bothered with new comments ;) There, solves. Only result of opposition will be that in a week or 2 years you will look back and say: I was able to stall Czechia on Wikipedia, it was my accomplishment, good job, indeed. 4) Cherrypicking sources for and against help nothing, look at the big picture. Chrz (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, organizations like the European Union and the United Nations do produce materials in English. And those materials are reliable sources. So I don't see a reson to not include them. Additionally, you have not And I don't know what do you mean other the term ‘general English speaking public’ and how you would quantify it. Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no one is obligated to participate in the discussion, just when those opposing don't, they might wake up to a renamed article due to them failing to participate. Is that a strategy to change the name just by tiring out everyone opposing?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If the arguments of the opposing people are so strong, they could be expressed by other people as well. If not, the change would not be a loss. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Support moratorium. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, in the hope that in the meantime 80% of the talkpage sections won't be about this. CMD (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support moratorium. There's little chance of the data changing significantly from where it is now (which is still quite clearly favouring Czech Republic) in the immediate future, so I see no benefit in us doing all this again until some time has passed. Suggest at least one year, maybe two.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Two years is too long. The 2024 Olympics may force publishers to begin using the term Czechia much more than in the present. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Now that's an interesting argument, it seems likely the Olympics might have some sort of effect on the ngrams. It could be reasonable to take a look 6-12 months after the olympics, then perhaps hypothetical temporary change and hypothetical bounceback could be seen. So it may be reasonable to set a hypothetical moratorium end to around then, early-mid 2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the last update of Ngrams is 2019. I don't think they would upgrade it to 2025. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of [41], not ngram. But who knows, maybe ngrams will see an update too. 2019 was sometime ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's annoying we don't have more up-to-date ngrams. Hopefully they'll at least produce a dataset to 2022 or something soon. We're operating a little under supposition at the moment, but as I said above, I don't think the usage has changed so much in four years (given that the switch in recommended usage was made much longer ago than that) to carry any suggestion that Czech Republic is no longer the common name. 2022 and 2023 data will be very informative about the general trend which might enable us to make another call by 2025.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Btw, here's an org that use "Czech Republic", you should probably talk to them about that: [42] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  In articles, they use the term ‘Czechia’. See: [43] The linked text may be a bit older. (And I see a grammar mistake as well, so I'll write them. Thanks for the information.) Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since they asked the IOC to change it[44], the continued use of CR was probably an oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Probably. I have already written to Mr Vacek, that administrates the digital media of the Czech Olympic Committee. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Martin Tauchman, I hope you'll chuckle with me. They updated! Instead of the "the Czech Republic" it is now "the Czechia"! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Has its own charm. CMD (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I support two years. So that there is a chance to get final stay/change, and not to change it to Czechia during Olympics only to be back to discussion about Czech Republic six months later. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

As I have written: ‘The last regularly closed debate happened in 2021.’ There is no need for moratorium. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We should put up with constant relaunchings of the same debate because the last time a "regularly closed debate" happened was in 2021? Non-sequitur. Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't see my point? The moratorium is not necessary when the debate is not led so frequently. Martin Tauchman (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

RMs and indeed other discussions about the name have been started far too frequently on this page. When we had the previous moratorium in place there were at least one or two attempts to start another RM during that time, which we were able to procedurally close down. This isn't designed to stifle debate, but simply to avoid spending all our time rehashing the same arguments over and over.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And after the moratorium came out, there has been no RM until now. Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Moratorium discussion should be started AFTER failed RM, not during. It seems that someone is already pushing the result during discussion, which should last AT LEAST 2 WEEKS. Do not try to shorten the RM, do not treat with long long moratorium and then mercifully allow short short RM attempt. BTW anyway it won't stop various people to start new and new renaming threads, it is not the same Czech people, it is more and more people from all over the world wondering: WHAT GIVES, Wikipedia?! Chrz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support moratorium, preferably two years because of the Olympics concerns raised above. Coverage of the country during the Summer Olympics may not match coverage of the country as a whole. O.N.R. ^(talk) 06:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Olympic games last 2 weeks. Usage and trends are evaluated for RMs in much longer time periods than 2-week-long fads and excesses in statistics. That's why the fear of Czechia & Olympics is unsubstantiated. Chrz (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that this RM started right after Eurovision, another major international event. O.N.R. ^(talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's quite acceptable to discuss a moratorium in the RM. The closer will do what the closer will do. The template says one week (hey, that's now!), but that won't happen, the thread is far from dead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No need for moratorium. When the discussion is closed and the article´s title is changed to “Czechia“, I do not see any need for a moratorium. I do not expect anybody would like to move it back to “Czech Republic“.Horaljan (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Possibly other editors will do things you don't expect. It's even possible your prediction doesn't come true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that other editors will add texts that promotes Adolf Hitler into articles about Germany. But it does not give us a reason to lock all these articles. It is not possible to prove that something will not happen. So, if you want to set a moratorium, you should provide a much stronger evidence that such a situation will very probably happen. Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a current ongoing situation where a full RM was opened with an argument based entirely on a list of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, after at least two other discussions still on this page where these were already posted and where it was already explained that these were not what Wikipedia bases titles on. CMD (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The last regulary closed discussion happened in 2021. So a moratorium is not needed. And other sources were provided by other users. So I do not see a problem. Martin Tauchman (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, the problem is as I laid out. As for closing, discussions do not need to be "regularly closed" to be discussions, the vast majority of discussions on en.wiki are not closed in such a manner. CMD (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But moratorium cannot prevent other disussions. It can prevent regularly closed discussions only. Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A moratorium on discussions about changing the name of this article can prevent discussions about changing the name of this article, formal RM or no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. De facto, people can discuss regardless of a moratorium. Martin Tauchman (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear on my support above, de facto such conversations at this talkpage would be closed as there is a moratorium in place. CMD (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I will support a moratorium on this discussion being closed for at least a year, though I don't think it will have yet met policy to change the article title in that year.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wait until after close: We don't know what this'll be closed as? I'd most likely want a shorter moratorium, if any at all, in case of a no consensus close versus a not moved/moved close, but I'm also curious to see what is said between now and the close. I'll chip in after the close with my opinion then. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  A moratorium is good here no matter the close-result, IMO. Post-close, people can go WP:MRV if they want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mostly added "if any at all" to cover all my bases, but yeah, I don't really see a scenario where a no consensus close should be closely followed up by a new RM. To me, however, that signals that basically anything could tip the scales in one title's favor; I don't think a year-long (much less two year-long) moratorium is as good in that case. I'd be willing to add a clause of some kind which states "evidence must be provided to show that usage has shifted since the last RM", but I don't know how enforceable that would be. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  What kind of evidence should it be and how much big the shift hast to be? Martin Tauchman (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's why I'm worried about the enforceability. To me, that's a situation where you just use common sense; I'd say procedurally close any noms that don't make a significant claim to a change in evidence (sort of similar to WP:A7?), but that may still be too weak considering small changes in evidence could still start new RMs under this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't it a given that starting RM a moment after last unsuccessful RM is not recommended/allowed/polite//is disruptive? Especially without any new argument? Chrz (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Unless there's a new argument or a procedural reason (usually a bad close), yeah, it pretty much is. I don't see why this can't be dealt with using common sense, but if a moratorium is what consensus decides, a moratorium is what will be in place. I just really don't see a reason to be deciding on the length before we even know which title the article will be at during that moratorium, or what the close will give us (a no consensus close is by definition looser than a moved/not moved close, and therefore in my opinion the moratorium should be shorter). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support moratorium (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)