Hi FromCzech! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).
As per your recent revert, the intro is quite vague and doesn't explicitly exclude "partnership" agreements. It is my understanding that any association, if formalized by two local governments (as in the case of the Tuscan Region & Yerevan) would qualify Tuscany/Yerevan to be on the list. Would it not? Please explain. Thanks!
Archives908 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Archives908: I didn't write the intro, however, the title of the page clearly says "twin towns and sister cities", so it is defined what should be on the page and what not. Twinning is much closer and more complex link between local governments than partnership. You can mention partnerships and friendships in the designated section on the Yerevan page.
All the twin towns lists and all the municipalities on the list (and on theirs individual pages) are made with same methodology so it would be unsystematic and confusing if there would be some random partnership. And the lists would be three times longer. I hope this explanation helped! FromCzech (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, thanks a lot for explaining the difference! Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without any discussion, you did a major reformat of the whole list. Intermixing the county divisions and only listing alphabetically is a very poor choice for this Ireland list. Please revert and take it to the talk page for further discussion. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ww2censor: Can you be more specific why do you think it is "a very poor choice"? As said in the edit summary, the list was unificated with other twin towns lists. It is confusing for readers to have one page in the same topic in different format. It is also very impractical to navigate for readers outside Ireland (or British Isles), who have no idea which town is located where. If you think it should be discussed, take it to Talk:Lists of twin towns and sister cities for further discussion, it would be illogical to deal with this particular list separately. FromCzech (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you obviously know countries are geographic places and an alphabetical list give readers no sense of where any of these towns are located. Most countries have some political, historical or administrative divisions, so using the 4 Irish provinces as the basis sections for this list seems the most sensible. These could be subdivided or not into the counties or towns within the provinces. So using that together with an Irish provinces map, like this one File:Provinces of Ireland location map.svg with the province names, provides readers with contextual information that an alphabetical list can NEVER do. Considering another country; France, for instance, has 96 departments which I think would be too many sections, but there are only 18 administrative regions which, if used as sections, makes such a list more meaningful to me and to the reader's understanding of the list. Was there ever a discussion as to the formatting of such lists? When and where did that take place? ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ww2censor: Before I reformat the layout of the England list, there was this discussion, which shows why I lean towards this point of view. To orientate easily in every list, you need to know this divisions for every list. How could the average user quickly find information about what Sligo or Cork is twinned with? I have no idea in which administrative division they are, and so do every average user outside his home country. But I know that Cork is under "C" and Sligo under "S".
Why should any list of twin towns give contextual information based on location of individual municipalities? What is that contextual information you are writing about? It's just a list. If there are some informations to this topic, they should be listed for example here. It is natural that Czech and German municipalities near the Czech-German border are more often twinned with each other, but otherwise there is no need to sort it on the basis of their regions, especially at the cost of worse orientation for those who are not interested in the regional jurisdiction. Ireland is the same case. And who needs it, can take a map or list of municipalities in that particular region to hand while browsing the alphabetical list. So, as I wrote previously, if you want a discussion how to format these lists, feel free to move it into Talk:Lists of twin towns and sister cities. FromCzech (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thank you for continuing the good work on English twin towns. Keep it up - I am sure it will all be totally finished soon! <g> Looking at this edit, I followed the Haringey link and was surprised to read that it is twinned with somewhere in Sweden in addition to the places we have listed. If the LBH link is our main source, should we also list the Swedish twin? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Hello! I use the principle of mirror comparison for veryfing as much as possible. So as this Swedish article says, the twinning was terminated and Alūksne and Kirkkonummi are the only Sundbyberg's twin towns. So despite what the LBH source says, Sundbyberg is not its twin town anymore. Thank you for your support, however the English list, similar to French or German lists, will probably never be totally finished. I have about 50 towns and cities in my personal database for potential addition, and there is plenty of English-French twinnings between small municipalities, but I think there shouldn't be every small village as the list is already long enough. But time to time I will add few more just for fun, especially twinnings with some less common countries. FromCzech (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you for the brilliant explanation and for your amazing thoroughness. I went and read the Swedish link in translation: it's interesting, and means I shall not be packing my bag for a nice trip to Sundyberg any time soon! Thanks again for all your hard work. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Can you update this. I am updating some of Balkan cities and sometimes find some official sources that are better than those used in articles. Thanks in advance </nowiki>Bes-ARTTalk 18:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure know what exactly you want from me. The current source used for Pécs is also pretty official, list the same cities, and is in English so it is more preferred. If I'm looking right, there is nothing to update. FromCzech (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the source I have put are 14 cities listed as twinned, 6 are "Partnervárosok" meaning partner cities. Shkodra is also not listed, although Albanian sources give it as twins. Bes-ARTTalk 20:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still no answer what you want from me, still no answer why your source is better than the current one in Pécs and Hungarian list; I'm confused. Shkodër is a new twin town from late 2018 so that's probably why it's missing, Lyon and Namur are on the websites but they disappeared with website updates of these cities, so the relationship most likely ended, and all the cities listed by Pécs as Partner cities list Pécs as their twin town, which cannot be coincidence, so I left them among the twin towns (probably losts in translation, for example partnerská města or miasta partnerskie are Czech resp. Polish terms for town twinning). FromCzech (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bes-ART: Please, before adding any new twin town links, double check sources if any are available. It doesn't make me happy at all that I have to revert you edits. For example, if you add Eger and Krujë link, you have to see that the list on Eger's website from 2019 does not include Krujë and the source from 2015 you used mentions only review the possibilities of twinning, not the start of twinning. Btw. thank you for adding Përmet you just forgot to add it to the Kosovo list too, but I already fixed it. FromCzech (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I took the issue to WP:ANI as I prefer to err on the side of caution with regards to WP:INVOLVED. No idea why the AIV report was removed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: Thanks for help! After months here on wiki, I'm still quite lost in how and where to deal with similar things. FromCzech (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. Yeah, if your AIV reports are declined, there's always ANI. BTW, you can install Twinkle to make reverting vandalism easier. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. I'm new to editing pages on Wikipedia so I am not really used to it, and I'm working to get my skills improving. I have searched deeper for the informations about the sister cities and you were right about the reverts you made, so I have to apologize for my wrong informations. I have found this website from Japan which is official and it says the total numbers of sister city per country. I think you should take a look at it: http://www.clair.or.jp/e/exchange/shimai/countries/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by RO Andrey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RO Andrey: I know about this database, but I take it carefully because there are mistakes, and what municipalities publish on their websites is more reliable. For example, I if look on my country http://www.clair.or.jp/e/exchange/shimai/countries/detail/16, there is the twinning with Uherský Brod which ended years ago. FromCzech (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FromCzech: Maybe the list shows the all the sister city that the country has/had. The list has been updated in 2021 thus. In this case, Takayama-shi is listed as a sister city of Sibiu. It's kinda confusing and I don't really know if it's considered to be. What's even more confusing is that the city's website (Tamayaka) listes Sibiu as a friendship tie-up city, so I don't know what would be the final answer in the end. What remains is Kawasaki.
@RO Andrey: Both Breaza and Kawasaki don't mention each other on their websites, maybe they are not twinned (anymore). But both are minor towns are there is no reason to deal with it. Many municipalies are missing because the sources are not reliable, I have more than 100 Romanian municipalities in my personal database which I could hypothetically add to the list, I'm just waiting for a good source (it's not good to cite individual relationships individually) and I will definitely add some of them one day. But and there is no reason to cling to a specific city or relationship with speicfic country. FromCzech (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is because the cite you used refers to the twining of Congleton in the past tence, when the page says this “This is a list of places in England which have standing links to local communities in other countries known as "town twinning" (usually in Europe) or "sister cities" (usually in the rest of the world).”.
Due to this wording twinning in the past tense can’t be used from what I can tell.
I have sadly been unable to find a source saying that Congleton is still twined with Oosterhout, so that had to go.
The cite you used also contradicts the fact that Congleton is still twined with Trappes, my source backs up the fact that Congleton is still twined with Trappes.
It was due to the source you used which I found earlier today that I even found out about Congleton having any twin towns in the first place.
@Maurice Oly: Hello, you are right, this twinning ended in around 2018, and there was also Congleton–Kopřivnice twinning which terminated in 2018 too. From what I found, since the administrative reform in 2010, the twinning has been responsibility of Cheshire East County and Congleton stopped its activities. It is probable that the twinning with Trappes is at least inactive or also terminated and Trappes' website is outdated, based on the Congleton Heritage Festival reference. But for lack of further evidence I will not deal with it and leave Congleton on the list, although it is an unnecessary controversy. FromCzech (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't remove sourced information, that I meticulously added years ago for places in Cieszyn Silesia, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%A0enov&diff=1063857092&oldid=1051942032Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis is one of the most important medieval sources of Silesia, it has gone through a lot of research and deserves a direct link to it. Even the lack of precise number of land to be taxed can give a valuable hint to the history of the place, that it was in the early phase of foundation as is the case of Šenov. D_T_G (PL) 07:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D T G: Hello, what sourced information exactly was deleted? Only the reference was replaced for easier verification of information, because the current ones didn't allow it. I know it is possible to keep all the references, both the municipal website and the books, but imho it is unnecessary and kind of WP:TOOMANYREFS; not user friendly. The books belongs more directly to that work Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis, where the user would expect them, and there are too many of them on the municipalities' pages. Link to Liber fundationis episcopatus Vratislaviensis is a de facto reference and does not need to be repeated, like when a birthplace and birthdate of a person is solved by a link to that person and shoulnd't be referenced extra on other pages. FromCzech (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You deleted "It meant that the village was in the process of location (the size of land to pay tithe from was not yet precised). The creation of the village was a part of a larger settlement campaign taking place in the late 13th century on the territory of what will be later known as Upper Silesia." which was a general observation of Idzi Panic from an article about Liber Fundationis ... („Iste sunt ville circa…”) D_T_G (PL) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D T G: This information wasn't sourced. The source you just cited wasn't used. And btw, how can I verify the information with the source you sent? There is only the option to download a file in an unknown format. If you have a better source (ideally either in English or one that can be machine translated), you can restore the information. FromCzech (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't know how to open DjVu files you can open this pdf online to the book that you removed ref to. From the page 528 there is an english summary
At the turn of the 13th century, another phase of settlement can be observed in the region. In this period, another 71 villages were established. The settlement process was initiated by the first Duke of Teschen, Mieszko I.
The mentioned 71 villages are precisely from Liber Fundationis. More in Polish from the page 295 in chapter "„Rewolucja osadnicza” przełomu XIII i XIV wieku" about the settlement revolution in the late 13th century, it's copyable so it can be put through translators. D_T_G (PL) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I restored the statement myself there, incl. reference. FromCzech (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding possible hat-notes in the articles abot the two villages named "Lety", could it be suitable with a hat-note to the disambiguation page Lety? /Anhn (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anhn: This would mean that any two places with the same name need a hatnote, even if they are already distinguished in the name by specifying the location. But that is not the practice. That potential confusion probably came from the poorly worded disambiguation page Lety, but I already solved this. WP:HATDAB would apply in the case if the page of one of the municipalities was named just Lety. FromCzech (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please restore the citation style. Citations don't belong in the lead. I am so tempted to just revert, but I'd hate to do that. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. There are no citations in the lead at all. And the citation format has been cleaned up to that usually used on ENG wikipedia. Nothing controversial. FromCzech (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I read the diff wrong. There are no citations in the lead. When I'm angry, I don't see well ;) - Citation style: I don't like citations within the prose, and always have them in a separate section. I learned that from Franz Kafka. Please restore. - The sources say that he was born in Reichenberg, Bohemia. No claim to any state, just what the sources say. Please find a way to tell our readers why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like you are writing that article for yourself, not for other users of Wikipedia. As I said, this is the usually used format, and the fact that a different format is used on some pages, which is historically given, is not an argument to restore it on Bulirsch's page.
Reichenberg is a German exonym of Liberec that is probably used to this day in German, but this does not mean that it is the official name of the city. But even if it wasn't official, it's still easier for users to read the current name than the historical one. You got the name Reichenberg from a German-language source and it only belongs on the German Wikipedia. FromCzech (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi FromCzech, you and I are butting heads way too much, and it's making me uncomfortable. Whenever I see your username now, I feel dread, which sucks, since we're supposed to be working towards the same goal. I'm sure you're a normal, decent person, and I think I'm pretty awesome too. I do good work on Wikipedia, and I have no doubt that you do, as well. For some reason, we have some idiosyncratic differences that always lead to a clash between us, and it just seems so petty. I want to be able to work with you, not against you. What do you say? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I can sign the first three sentences. I don't understand why you randomly choose one municipality and then return to it in such a way. I take care of the pages of Czech municipalities and I have destubbed many of them, and I have never had such disputes with anyone as with you. I'd rather our paths didn't cross because you're just demotivating me to do more work. It's really terrible when I spend so much time on the site, and then you come to correct crap, and in most cases unsystematically and against established practices. Don't be offended that I feel that way, but it's really just a provocation. I explained to edit summary edit by edit why I'm reverting the changes, hopefully it is clear now. FromCzech (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't quite the response I was hoping for. My intention was to extend an olive branch to you, in the hopes that we can put our differences aside and work together. It seems you are not interested in that, as you've instead decided to paint yourself as a poor victim of my senseless actions, make unfounded accusations, and even suggest that I act in bad faith in trying to provoke you. Besides being flat out wrong, this is a ridiculous claim based on nothing but your own apparent insecurity. I'm not going to fight with you over technical stuff like date and external link formatting, but when I see errors in the work you do, I will correct them. If you have a problem with that, go get a third opinion. I find it disappointing to deal with people like you, who, rather then trying to find common ground with their peers on a collaborative platform, are so convinced in their own rectitude, they would rather fight a pointless battle over every tiny hill. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on your actions, the idea of collaboration is apparently that I'll write something and you'll correct it to your liking, including things that aren't wrong. That's not the kind of cooperation I'm looking for. Look at your last edit at Loděnice. I reverted it to its original form with a detailed explanation as to why it is so, but you just revert it with a meaningless Edit summary "copyedit". You have no interest in verifying the correct spelling of "late Baroque" and you disrespect my sentence formulation although there is nothing wrong with it. How am I supposed to take you seriously then? FromCzech (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have requested a third opinion regarding our dispute. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, in case you're interested to know where I was hoping you and I would end up, in terms of any disagreements, present or future, please see here: Talk:SadhguruRevirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You reverted this list my edit which had added Caucasian cities Baku and Yerevan. The reason was "no consensus". But there is consensus on another Caucasian city - Tbilisi (considering its inclusion). I feel safe to assume that the same consensus is inclusion of these two cities as well (there is no ground that would support inclusion of Tbilisi and exclusion of Baku and Yerevan in the talk page).
Finally I'd like to mention my own opinion on this topic: I'd prefer the list even without Tbilisi (as it used to be in the past).
So I'm asking for better explanation of the revert. --Pan Někdo (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pan Někdo: There was extensive discussion about whether or not Tbilisi should be on the list. Caucasian cities as a whole were not discussed. Some arguments were related only to Tbilisi (e.g. culture ties). I don't think any of them belong on the list, but Tbilisi made it there based on the last discussion. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't find any argument supporting inclusion of Tbilisi only. I'll start new topic in that talk page with more extensive arguments (originally I thought that it would be only short discussion between us two so I started writing here). --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geographically, all capitals of the South Caucasian states are located out of Europe. None of them should be included. And if Tbilisi is included, then all three should be included. Calesti (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't understand why you removed the quote I added, the source is considered reliable by the site and most of the source url's are taken from the same (in different languages), but it doesn't mean you should remove it, if you explain it to me I appreciated it Raimund Sigma (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the list of twin towns, it is definitely unreliable source. This website is not the originator of the data, it just took it from somewhere, it doesn't quote from where nor the date on which it is valid. It could easily have been from Wikipedia. Twin towns are also not updated there and invalid relationships remain there. Just look how much nonsense there is in Rio de Janeiro's list: apart from Jeddah also Sydney, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Osaka, Seoul, Paris, Los Angeles, and probably other. FromCzech (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of Twin Towns and Suster Cities (Jordan)[edit]
I'd like to add the city of São Paulo that was stipulated as a sister city of Jordan, according to the law enacted. Any suggestions on how I can do this that does not violate Wikipedia's policy? Ric Aries (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order for a pair of cities to be considered twin towns, they must consider each other to be twin towns. However, most of the cities listed in your source do not consider São Paulo a twin town. I am not familiar with Brazilian laws, but according to my experience in the field, the term "cidades-irmãs" is also used for lower forms of cooperation and relationships, although some of the cities listed do not meet even that. Few examples of cities that are definitely not twin towns of São Paulo based on the official lists, despite being listed in your source: Hamburg, Chicago, Lisbon (São Paulo is listed there as a friendly city), Beijing, Buenos Aires, and Amman. I also don't understand why several cities that are definitely twin towns of São Paulo are missing from the list: Abidjan, Barcelona, Miami-Dade County, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, and Shanghai. FromCzech (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hey, I understand why you reverted my edits to multiple Czech districts, but I feel like even though the districts were established in 1960 the small Sudeten German community still deserves to be represented, because even though most Sudeten Germans were expelled after WW2 a small minority still remained in their ancestral land, even though now a tiny minority, because they have strong historical and cultural ties to the region. Crainsaw (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. You say you understand it yourself, so surely you will also understand that your feeling is insufficient reason for it to be there. The German names belong to the historical defunct districts and do not apply to the current ones. No benefit to readers. The German names of the district towns are listed at these pages. FromCzech (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historically defunct maybe, but uninformative to the readers? No! These names are the remnants of centuries of Sudeten Germans living in those areas and represent history, they show what the Sudeten German minority calls them and since they have such a strong connection to the land of those districts surely they deserve to be shown Crainsaw (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remnants of ethic German past are names of individual municipalities, and they are properly listed in the pages of Sudeten German municipalities. They have nothing to do with the modern administrative structure. FromCzech (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No! You fail to understand what I am trying to say. I wanted to that there are still some sudeten Germans living in the area (I myself have Sudeten German heritage and a cousin who lives in Cheb) Crainsaw (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that perfectly, but the current minority has no influence on the name. Wikipedia is not a place for the passage of ethnic feelings, and there are some rules and consistent approach. Btw according to Census 2021, there are more Slovaks, Ukrainians and Vietnamese people that Germans in Cheb District. Similar in other districts. So according to your logic, names in these languages should be preferred; which is, of course, nonsense. FromCzech (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might be more Slovak, Ukrainians and vietnamese then Germans but the germans are the only ones to have a historical connection to the land. And this wasn't about ethnic feelings, this is just showing the history which deserves to be represented in all administration level of Czechia Crainsaw (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So go to Czech Republic and add the German name into the lead, if you believe this. This is not about what is deserved or not deserved, but about a uniform approach across Wikipedia. FromCzech (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn’t mean the highest level but below that there are a lot of districts in Czechia that should have the also show the german name. And on uniformity, I am trying to do this to all Sudeten regions but it will take a week since I am working alone, uniformity doesn’t come in a second, it takes time Crainsaw (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean uniform approach across all the Wikipedia, not Sudeten. Read MOS:LEADLANG. Read this recent discussion. This has been addressed before, adding extra language variations in such cases is contra productive. Since the German name does not apply to the current districts, it is nonsense, and even if it weren't so, it would be against the rules. If you don't believe it, start your own discussion there yourself with a link to this one, but you'll see that it's pointless. FromCzech (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which also gives the minority language to have billingual streets, public building and spaces and administritive units Crainsaw (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is unrelated to the dispute. There are 14 recognized minorities in the CR and their languages, but only one recognized official language. According to Czech law, billingual geographic names are allowed in municipalities where the minority forms 10+% of the population. This concerns several dozen municipalities in the Czech-Polish border region.
I consider the discussion closed. If you are not open to arguments, even though you already expressed understanding in the first sentence, move the discussion to the above-mentioned page so that you can hear it from someone else. FromCzech (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry, I should've read the policies better, I am new to Wikipedia and prone to mistakes, thank you for improving my knowledge over Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will revert all my edits about Czech districts Crainsaw (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw please, the next time you make a similar edit, follow the typographical rules (separation with a space, double brackets) and use the correct formatting (ideally using the lang template) so that it doesn't have to be fixed after you. Thanks. FromCzech (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @FromCzech, you and I haven't interacted directly for a while, but I know we've clashed in the past. Recently, you made some improvements to an article I created (Baba (ruins), and you supported my vote to keep the Tři sestry (Czech band), providing links far superior to the ones I offered. Anyway, my point is that, we're both working to improve Czech content on enwiki, and as such, we are pulling on the same end of the rope. For that reason, I'd like to extend an olive branch to you, as I believe that rather than arguing about small details, we would do better to work in tandem—and who knows, maybe even be friends 😀 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I cleaned up Baba page because it was needed, not because you are the author (I didn't even register that at the time). I participated in the Tři Sestry debate because I felt it was right based on my own research, not because you were involved. They are just coincidences. I'm not interested in being in tandem with anyone, either a friend or someone else. Don't take it personally. A quiet coexistence and trying not to meet much will be completely enough for me. Peace. FromCzech (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I'm Fumikas Sagisavas. I noticed that you recently removed content from Praděd without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 22:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fumikas Sagisavas: Hello, it's the exact opposite. In the edit summary, I summarized the changes and I also wrote an explanation directly in the text, but you never filled the edit summary out, and you always entered the wrong section that you edited. The data in the table are extremely outdated and does not reflect changes in the 21st century. The averages, maximums and probably some minimums do not fit. Until it is updated it is redundant. FromCzech (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked the meteorological data available at this site, and the site stopped making meteorological observations in 1997. In addition, I still don't recommend that you hide the climate chart completely, or use the collpased=Yes parameter to hide it (only for the PC version, the mobile version will still be displayed) ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, the lack of data update is not a more appropriate reason to delete/hide weather data. For example, the climate data scale of Rome is 1971-2000. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 04:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the climate data of Praděd, I think it is better to keep it as it is, because the data of this weather station stopped updating in 1997, and it is difficult to use it in the short term.
On the contrary, I strongly recommend that you update the data source of some articles (such as: Liberec and Lysá hora) (although it is the latest 1991-2020 data scale), but his source is infoclimat.fr and not the official chmi.cz. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 04:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I returned the table emphasizing that this is historical data. FromCzech (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks! Of course, if you have time, you can update the data of other weather stations, although it is time-consuming. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 04:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. I just came across Evžen Korec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) whilst removing some unreliable sources and it screams of being an autobiography. Their notability also looks questionable, but it's tricky for me to judge when most of the sources are in Czech. I noticed that you'd made some edits to the related article Tabor Zoo so wondered whether you might be able to take a look at this and check whether WP:BIO is met? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biographies criteria are not my cup of tea, but I think he gets enough coverage in the independent media (Forbes, E15, Seznam Zprávy). FromCzech (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking - Yep those are three sources which look good to me. Clean up it is. Na zdraví! SmartSE (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you can to post the results of the preliminary, first and second round of the Czech Cup from 1993 to 1997 to that seasons's articles, from these links: [1], [2], [3], [4]? Jolicnikola (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone can post there result, including you ;) FromCzech (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi FromCzech, thanks for your edits on articles I created!
I have a question to you who are a Czech-native speaker: do you have any idea on the etymology of Mičan ? Does it mean anything in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! It doesn't mean anything specific, but it sounds very Czech. In some Czech sources it appears written as Míčan (with a long pronounced i). In my opinion, it will be derived from some place that no longer exists. There is a very small pond called Mičan. There is a street in Prague called Na Míčánkách (literally "at Míčánky") and from a linguistic point of view, Míčánky is a diminutive of Míčany. Although these two examples certainly have nothing to do with the family, they indicate the geographical origin. FromCzech (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi; I see, interesting, thanks for the explanation. I wonder whether -an is a common suffix in Czech names and if it does indeed indicate geographical orign? I know that, for example, in Romanian name it does, so Mican would be Mic+an, thus from a place called Mic. The -an suffix indicating geographical origin is also used in many other languages, if seldom, even in English (Rome + -an → Roman). OTOH, I know that in South Slavic languages they use -an to make adjectives from verbs, and I wonder weather this also happens in Czech and if it could possibly be the case here? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S., in some South Slavic dialects mić means "small", which is ultimately from Latin miccus. Do you also use mic, or something similar, to say "small" in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The suffix -an means a demonym (e.g. Praguer = Pražan in Czech). A common suffix of geographical names is -any (Grammatically it is plural; probably a lot of people from the place before the suffix lived there. See Říčany, Rokycany, Vodňany.). I searched further, and there are villages Míčov and Mičovany. Accoridng to Antonín Profous (a linguist who in the 1950s wrote an extensive four-volume work on the origin of 15,000 place names in Bohemia), both of these villages derived their names from the personal name Mič, which originated from the name Michal.
We don't use mic in Czech, only the prefix mikro- (micro-). In Czech, only the word míč is similar, which means "ball". FromCzech (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, wow, so much information, thank you so much! The place name origin makes most sense, and the ultimate origin from Michael as well.
There is a similar surname in Romania (Mican, in which the "c" is read "z") which is definitely a place name as well, but probably unrelated IMO.
According to Forebears.io, the only other European countries where Míčan is present today is Croatia, in the forms Mićan and Mičan. There are about 60 families in total, all concentrated in the Osijek-Baranja County (which is on the border with Hungary). Since this Croatian surname appears only in this Croatian region it definitely has a common origin. Considering that Mican surname (and variants) does not appear in any other Slavic country (beside Czechia), and the only European countries with hubs of Micans are Czechia and Romania, I think it possible or even likely that this Croatian branch has Czech or Romanian roots. Wonder what you think about this and thanks again for all info. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what to think about it, I don't want to think about it anymore... my brain hurts :) I am much more interested in the origin of geographical names than the origin of personal names, although it sometimes overlaps. FromCzech (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers for that, that had been bothering me for years. Definitely the weirdest error I've ever seen in Britannica and completely unsupported by any actual examples of usage. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this message. When I deleted it, my hand was shaking in fear that I would get scolded by someone for it :) FromCzech (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I just saw that you reverted my edits to the list of twin towns and sister cities, removing the state the US sister cities are in. I was working on updating all of the US sister cities/twin towns to include the state since it's not immediately clear where the US sister cities/twin towns are in the US. Especially since some of the towns I came across have the same name but are in different states.
I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia articles, but I thought that this would have been a helpful update to anyone who came across the lists. I suppose I'm just a little confused about why you reverted my changes?
Hello! Let's assume that the user is not completely stupid, and in the few cases where he needs to distinguish cities with the same name (and I don't know why you apply it only to US cities), he looks at the preview or the page in question. Many of the twin town pages are extensive, and expanding it with additional information (subregion, population of the town, etc.) would not be beneficial for their clarity. This is what the wikilinks are for. In the current state, twin town pages are in a uniform format not only among themselves, but also with twin town sections for individual cities in most countries. FromCzech (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re [5], this is just a question rather than an objection, but is there a standard way of measuring distances to/from Prague? For example distances to London on roadsigns are always measured from Charing Cross, so we apply the same standard on Wikipedia when measuring distance to/from London. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about any standard and I haven't been able to google anything. If there is one, I apolozige for that correction, but the 84 km seemed to me to be against common sense. Perhaps it would be sufficient to use a rounded value of 80 km. FromCzech (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick survey: cs.distance.to calculates with Old Town Square, mapy.cz calculates with Prague main railway station and maps.google.com calculates with Míru Square.So there is probably no standard. FromCzech (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear FromCzech, I would like to ask you not to delete ((British English Oxford spelling)). There is no such rule that would prohibit to use of it in the case of articles that describe cities, towns, and villages located in the Czech Republic. I do add such a template after a spelling unification, so it's clear to anyone what spelling system I have used in the unification. Best regards, Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! British English is used in all Czech municipalities and is generally default for all topics primarily related to the Czech Republic, no need to draw attention to it. Within Czech topics, the spelling template is only used very rarely, e.g. on larger sites where there have been disputes in the past or which were historically written in AmE. Perhaps there could be a note about it somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic, but there's no reason for that on the pages you've been adding it to. And excuse my possible ignorance, but Oxford English and Oxford comma are two different things, right? Oxford comma does not make English Oxford English. And I can't think of any Czech topic where the Oxford English template was used (except for those where you put it). FromCzech (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, because there is only a limited number of pages written using the Oxford spelling (that's the standard used eg. by me, Nature, or the OUP). Martin Tauchman (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @FromCzech, can you clarify how the image of Irish Pub on Lanzarote was disruptive? It was placed specifically next to the "Worldwide" part, and I believe it really nicely illustrates the concept of a "non-Irish Irish pub". Actually it illustrates it better than any other image in the article, as it juxtaposes the Irish pub with ostensibly non-Irish weather. podstawko ●talk 22:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, there were unnecessarily many pictures illustrating the same fact in the section, and they extended into the References section. So I threw away the one that was taking up the most space. But you're right that otherwise it's an OK image, so I'm returning it and taking out two other instead. FromCzech (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @FromCzech, makes sense. I think the selection of images is well balanced now. podstawko ●talk 08:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding AfD of Michal Vacek and Jan Vrba bobsledder[edit]
Have you also checked other bobsleigh athletes, including Dominik Suchý and Dominik Dvořák? I just expanded both articles not long ago. Considering both athletes participated at the Olympics three times (together in the same tournament twice: 2014 and 2018), I think they meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Looking at the sources, Dvořák seems to be more notable of the two. Can you analysis the news sources on both articles of I added for clarification? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. It's more of a coincidence that I got involved, otherwise, I have nothing to do with bobsledding. I'll see :) FromCzech (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]
Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Celia Homeford: I'dont understand it. The text says his name is Prince Ernst August of Hanover, his father is "of Hanover", and they come from House of Hanover. There is no notification that there is a discussion underway. The move was perfectly logical. FromCzech (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if there has been any past debate about the best title for the page". There has been past debate, as indicated on the article's talk page. Therefore, the page should only be moved by following the requested move process. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Ernst August von Hannover (born 1954). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)