Jump to content

Talk:Czech Republic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 280: Line 280:
*'''Support''' per nom. As for the common objection regarding frequency of common usage, I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree, tainting the data. Surely many writers out there look at Wikipedia and decide - ah, look, Wikipedia calls it Czech Republic, surely that must mean that's the most common name, I'll use it as well. Thus, cementing the usage. Basically, the argument by common usage boils down to circular reasoning. That doesn't make sense. As for "naturalness", the guideline says "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" - not necessarily *most* likely. And of course there is no worry that someone searching for Czech Republic might conceivably not find the article if named Czechia - obviously there would be a redirect. [[User:Vashekcz|Vashekcz]] ([[User talk:Vashekcz|talk]]) 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. As for the common objection regarding frequency of common usage, I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree, tainting the data. Surely many writers out there look at Wikipedia and decide - ah, look, Wikipedia calls it Czech Republic, surely that must mean that's the most common name, I'll use it as well. Thus, cementing the usage. Basically, the argument by common usage boils down to circular reasoning. That doesn't make sense. As for "naturalness", the guideline says "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" - not necessarily *most* likely. And of course there is no worry that someone searching for Czech Republic might conceivably not find the article if named Czechia - obviously there would be a redirect. [[User:Vashekcz|Vashekcz]] ([[User talk:Vashekcz|talk]]) 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That is a very valid concern, as it not only impacts Wikipedia directly but other sources pulling from Wikipedia e.g. knowledge graph snippets or AI training models. [[User:Cashew.wheel|Cashew.wheel]] ([[User talk:Cashew.wheel|talk]]) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That is a very valid concern, as it not only impacts Wikipedia directly but other sources pulling from Wikipedia e.g. knowledge graph snippets or AI training models. [[User:Cashew.wheel|Cashew.wheel]] ([[User talk:Cashew.wheel|talk]]) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree}} To accept that argument would rely on the premise that people, when on the verge of saying or writing the name of a country, routinely check Wikipedia to see if they need to update their understanding of what the country's current name is. As though, every time I were going to say something about Germany, I checked Wikipedia to see if Wikipedia was still calling it "Germany" and not "Deutschland" or "Germanland" or "Germania". Unless they are in that habit, how would such a change on Wikipedia have a material impact on what people name people use for a country? [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:17, 2 October 2024

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




Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

Change {{Redirect-distinguish-for|Czechia|Chechnya|other uses}} to {{Redirect-distinguish|Czechia|Chechnya}}{{Other uses|Czechia (disambiguation)|Czech Republic (disambiguation)}}

Reasoning: Changing the orders of such notices can make it more understandable, and there is less complexity in the template coding/parameters for the matter. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Ngrams_updated

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect, the new data doesn't show that much of a difference from the previous... still a massive lead for Czech Republic in usage: [1][2][3] I can't imagine there being a case for moving this any time soon, at least based on this evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I sense a malicious joy in that message? Well, firstly, it's clearly up to 2022, even though we know that in many sports (the main driver of usage) it started being used much later. And secondly, I followed the case of renaming Cote d'Ivoire, and there the dominance on Ngram for the renaming wasn't enough, they even mocked Ngram saying it only contains books, which is insignificant. Ngram is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. The decreasing trend of the republic and the increasing trend of the non-republic can still be seen there, although at a linear pace it would take a long time. It's enough for the BBC and CNN to step up and it's done... Which might be tomorrow, maybe never, nevertheless, the case can be built on other foundations besides Ngram or two news sources. Chrz (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think I'm not malicious on this issue, but I did find it ironically humorous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to know what kind of ngram sources are being combined. If these are 2+ year old books (and not online news), it's unlikely that they will contain a name that has only been used regularly since around 2022+. Especially in sports, you can expect phrases like 'Czechia wins' or even just 'Czechia'. Chrz (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just Google, last year, English
"Czechia wins" 776x, "Czech Republic wins" 1040x
"Czechia won" 911x, "Czech Republic won" 2730x
"Czechia has won" 340x, "Czech Republic has won" 691x
The sources would still need to be weighted, but the results are better, if you absolutely must use that phrase. Chrz (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another angle:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"maybe never". Remember that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and CNN would be helpful, but I suspect it wouldn't satisfy you anyway. The argument can be made even without their involvement. I'm not sure why they would continue to stubbornly decline indefinitely. Unless, of course, the Czech Republic were to reconsider and no longer pursue it. Chrz (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Czech Republic pursue it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the state registered it in as ~ many places as possible, I'd say it's true. A couple of years ago, you (not you you) mentioned here how 'Visit Czech Republic' hadn't been renamed yet, and how you still saw 'Czech Republic' on jerseys. So, the situation is different now. As an example. The transition to the new name is gradual, which was one of the complaints back then - that people don't like sudden changes. And they don't. It's not like other renamings because, as you know, this isn't a complete name change for the country and the 'old' name is still valid. Chrz (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

odd use of english

It is a welfare state with a should be 

It has a welfare state with a

or even 

It has an advanced welfare state with a abelljms (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. It is a welfare state. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 October 2024

Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage.

Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this.

Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics).

The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n 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."

I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic.

  1. recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia.
  2. naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move.
  3. precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness.
  4. concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too.
  5. consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier.

So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one.

I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong:

  1. The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others.
  2. Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers.
  3. Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes.
  4. Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia.
  5. Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing.

I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts.

Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move - I agree with everything that has been said. It should have been moved a long time ago. I find it strange that for other countries the transfer was automatic regardless of the WP:COMMONNAME rule (for example Eswatini or North Macedonia), which is not the only rule regarding names, but we have to come back to these debates every year regarding Czechia. The country is appearing more and more internationally under its geographical name, but due to pressure from a few select Wikipedians (still the same ones), Wikipedia continues to resist this. It's about time to finally take that step here on Wikipedia. Unloose (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - it makes sense. Nuvolet (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move other sources like the United Nations and various international organizations have increasingly adopted "Czechia," and a Wikipedia article name change could align the page with this broader shift. Helveticus96 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's absurd that this debate has gone on for so long. The distinction between Czechia and the Czech Republic should be clear by now. Wikipedia should consistently use the short form, Czechia. 78.80.80.192 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's absurd is that people have raised this issue so many times for years while the prescribed conditions for making the change had clearly remained unmet. And all that mostly because they disagreed with the prescribed conditions and refused to be persuaded that if they don't like those conditions, the place to take that up is on the relevant guideline talk page, not here over and over and over. Largoplazo (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and move Türkiye while we're at it. The nanosecond a person changes their name the article gets moved (correctly) because of NAMECHANGES, but when a country does so we always drag our feet. And it's not like it's a snap decision made by the country, it's an intentioned move by people with much more at stake than we do.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the nanosecond a person changes their name, the world picks up on the new name and uses it everywhere. If you're unhappy that the world doesn't similarly pick up on countries' new names, then go pick a fight with the world, not with Wikipedia for going by worldwide usage. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree, there's been many cases where someone has changed their name and it doesn't become their COMMONNAME (even for years), and we tend to move the page anyways. Ortizesp (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also cases where we don't - see e.g. Varg Vikernes or Anders Behring Breivik. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat Stevens, Kanye West. But WP:OTHERCONTENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per nom. I don't think we need to wait another year or two for the editors at CNN or BBC to finally switch to Czechia. Qertis (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Awareness and use of Czechia as a common name has reached the point that this move makes sense now. Cashew.wheel (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets all WP:CRITERIA and is better than the current title in terms of concision---obviously more concise---and consistency---we use short forms of country names not official long versions eg. French Republic and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are both redirected—blindlynx 15:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In my opinion, the previous attempt was promising. The name 'Czechia' wasn't denied its positive characteristics, but the objection was that the state itself didn't use it enough. Since then, many things have changed. The government has registered the 'new' name wherever possible, it's used in sports, so it has completed all (most of?) these "homework" assignments. So the only thing that can probably be pointed out as a disadvantage is whether it has actually caught on. Although Google Trends or Ngram are aware of 'Czechia', usage rates have not yet exceeded 50%. While these tools provide valuable insights, I don't believe we should rely solely on them to determine the success of the name. Ngram data only goes up to 2022 and is primarily based on books, which may not reflect current usage. Moreover, major news outlets like CNN and BBC often have limited coverage of smaller countries, making it difficult for them to consistently promote the name (I won't even mention the conspiracy theories that some correspondents simply decide they don't like the name and that they should ruin it for everyone else).
Overall, the new name is being used more frequently than during the last attempt. Has it surpassed the vague threshold of a 'common name,' where supporters often overestimate the sources using the new name, while opponents place greater emphasis on sources that are lagging behind? Let's see what the discussion brings. Certainly, adopting the name 'Czechia' on Wikipedia would not lead to any denial or deep distortion of sources.
Chrz (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more notes. 1) I hope the evaluation and the potential move won't be rushed. Otherwise, we can expect a 'move review' and possibly unnecessary back-and-forth moves, which would leave a veeery bad impression, especially among supporters. 2) Although I support the move, it doesn't mean I agree with all the arguments made by all supporters. Or that all have an effect (such as an appeal for all states to have a non-political name). 3) As I mentioned, I would base this on the outcome of the last attempt, what shortcomings mentioned in the conclusion have been addressed since then, and what shortcomings were not actually counted among the shortcomings in the conclusion last time, even though opponents thought so. 4) If we discard Ngram, Trends, CNN, and BBC, other indicators will be required. Although I don't reject them; I can see progress in them, but I don't wait for 50% -- We have better metrics than just counting 'hits', the weigth of sources matter. Who is to say whether one chapter in a world-renowned encyclopedia is worth more than 100 fleeting mentions on the BBC? Chrz (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After one day, it seems we're going to have the same old discussion as always, instead of objectively evaluating the changes since the last attempt. No, Google Trends won't tell you what news sources are saying. And ngrams won't tell you either, those are books. If there's a graph that shows the situation in the media year by year, I don't know, it would probably have to be created manually.
Since last time, it's become "more official" and the media are reflecting it more, especially in sports. In the case of a common name, it should not be overlooked how more official sources refer to the given state (even though there will be objection again about how it doesn't apply because they are obliged to listen to the government of that country), but it should have its weight. Opponents have been objecting for the past few years that it's not yet at the UN, that it's not yet on a sports jersey, etc., and yet they will eventually cling to their CNN or BBC and give absolute weight only to that. (And there again I can say that it doesn't apply because they have a style guide that forces them to do something). Chrz (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm already noticing that some of the contributions here have a tone of irritation, exasperation whatever. I know that in the past this topic has raised hackles, but I would ask you all please to remain scrupulously objective and not get into personal conflicts. If we stick to the issues, assume good faith, and keep our eyes on the policy criteria, we can have a mature conversation. So please avoid anything even implicitly ad hominem. Doric Loon (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. --Sakakami (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see lots and lots of rhetoric in the above but there is not a single external source or even a diff giving evidence of anything being claimed.
I note that the request tries to move away from WP:COMMONNAME to the five WP:CRITERIA. But its arguments are mostly little more than assertions that Czechia is better.
It is claimed that both options are equally recognizable. If both options were equally recognisable then mainstream media outlets wouldn't feel the need to write articles about why the Czech Republic is being called Czechia at the Euros, reporting that fans were "confused" by Czechia. It is claimed that Czechia is good enough because people will find us. That article rather implies the opposite that people more naturally think of the Czech Republic and will be surprised by Czechia.
It is claimed on precision that The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. First, not necessarily, in the general sense. The Czech government does not have the right to dictate points of English language to English-speakers. Second, even if that weren't the case, the Czech government recognises Czech Republic as the name of the state. Third, this argument has nothing to do with precision. Both Czech Republic and Czechia are equally precise.
The other "biggie" is on consistency. We are told I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Well firstly, Czech Republic is no more long and official-sounding than Dominican Republic or Antigua and Barbuda or Equatorial Guinea. Second, there are actually several countries with short names but where our article uses the long one, for WP:COMMONNAME and other reasons. The fact that you can't think of them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
What I want to see before I support is evidence that mainstream English-language media outlets in English-speaking countries are using Czechia in preference to Czech Republic when not discussing official usage and without clarifying that they mean Czech Republic. My experience is actually that if they use it at all, they feel the need to immediately clarify by referring to the Czech Republic. I look in the above and this is brushed off with I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. Which newspapers? was it this news source? Or perhaps this one? This one?. Except, those three mainstream English-language media outlets in English-speaking countries all just used Czech Republic and didn't mention Czechia once.
And finally, I go to Google Ngrams and Google Trends and find that Czech Republic dominates both metrics in all English speaking countries.
Give me better evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed and I'll reconsider. But the arguments to move here so far are either evidence-free speculation, or boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, or boil down to WP:OFFICIALNAME. That really shouldn't be good enough for us. Kahastok talk 17:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the reason we use WP:COMMONNAMEs is precisely because they typically best fit the five WP:CRITERIA (from WP:COMMONNAME: [wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used [...] as such names will usually best fit the five criteria)—blindlynx 18:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I discuss above, the more recognisable, more natural, equally precise, marginally longer and equally consistent WP:COMMONNAME, Czech Republic, is a better fit to the criteria than the less-recognisable, less-natural, equally precise, marginally shorter and equally consistent Czechia. Kahastok talk 18:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is your personal opinion that that the Czech Republic is more “natural” because you are used to it. If it was more natural to use formal country names than their short names in English, we would not use short names for 150 countries that use the word republic in their formal name. Geog25 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of 'natural' is provided here: WP:CRITERIA. It is what is likely to be searched for or used by an English speaker. The Google search data alongside scholar and news hits is evidence that Czech Republic is a more natural term than Czechia Traumnovelle (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok: A quick search immediately returns innumerable sources calling it Czechia (as the nom notes), so I'm not sure what you mean. See European Union, CIA World Factbook, US Department of State, World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation, the World Bank, UNESCO, CDC, International Energy Agency, World Meteorological Organization, NATO, NHL, US News & World Report, Freedom House, European Environment Agency, Google Arts & Culture, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Government organisations typically use what name a foreign government tells them to, assuming they are on good terms. This has little bearing on what name is recognisable to our readers.
That Google page for example uses Czech Republic in the descriptions for the organisations: [5] [6] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. A load of official sources reflecting diplomatic usage tells us very little about what the WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name used by the man or woman on the street, is. I will note, however, that Huwmanbeing's examples of official usage are actually still the only evidence anyone has provided in support of this move so far. Kahastok talk 20:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok Just to be clear, WP:COMMONNAME has nothing whatsoever to do with the name used by the man or woman on the street. If you would look again at my introductory comments, you will see that I took time to explain this. Those comments, that you dismissed as "a lot of rhetoric", are in fact the most careful engagement with Wikipedia's policies that has to date been attempted on this page, and what I am missing from you is a similar engagement with them. Because common name is about expert consensus, identified through things like international usage (speaks strongly for Czechia), press usage (you have an argument there), academic use (seems to be more on our side), but definitely not the man in the street as measured through Google hits. Doric Loon (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The plain text of WP:COMMONNAME disagrees with you on that.
One key point of WP:COMMONNAME is that it is determined by independent, reliable, English-language sources. Official sources are not independent in this context - if they're using Czechia it's because the Czech government has told them to. Hence WP:OFFICIALNAME, which is clear that we do not blindly use the official name.
The reason I call it rhetoric is because you cited no evidence at all to back up any of your claims. You still haven't. Some supporters have provided links to official sources, but nothing that suggests that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed.
I've told you what I want to see. It's clear evidence that mainstream English-language media sources based in English-speaking countries have made the switch systematically. I contend that the reason you cannot provide any such evidence is because as a rule they haven't made the switch. Kahastok talk 17:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned article states that people ‘would have been confused’. It does not provide any information on how many people would have been confused or if someone was really confused. From my point of view, it is not a good idea to count this sentence as a relevant argument. Ad the second statement, Czechia (and its government) uses the term Czech Republic as the formal (political) name. It is similar to France – French Republic. I think you have not understood properly the point with the short name. It is necessary to construe this colocation as terminus technicus used in geographical nomenclature when referring to countries' names. The term ‘short name’ is perceived as the opposite of ‘long name’. As to give an example (I took the liberty of using one of your examples) – Equatorial Guinea (short name) and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (long name). In the case of Czechia, such a doublet is Czechia (short name) and the Czech Republic (long name). Ad Google NGrams – this tool covers the development until 2022 only. Newer data are not presented so we cannot see the current usage of the mentioned names. Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newer data are not presented so we cannot see the current usage of the mentioned names. So we wait, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Brainiac242 (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the data for 2024 (if we get them) will be outdated when we get them. We can see there has been a trend. But we don't know what the odds are in the current situation. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact we can’t have real-time data is no reason not to use the data we do have. Whichever name is more commonly used in the most recent data available should be considered the WP:COMMONNAME. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That's OK, many of the same people - Martin Tauchman included - were making the exactly same kinds of arguments in 2022 and before, as a brief look through the last discussion on this before 2022 will demonstrate.
Now, if there were some reason to believe things had changed since 2022, maybe it would still be a good argument. But nobody's provided any evidence of that yet. Still. And when I say that, bear in mind here that the WP:ONUS is on those who support the move to demonstrate that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. So far, they have not even tried. I'd add that the diversion on the meaning of the phrase "short name" is totally irrelevant to this.
I'll add that I find Martin's argument on this source to be essentially an argument that black is white (because you see if the word "black" is changed to mean "white" then...). Trying to wriggle out of the fact that Czechia is less well known through semantic trickery is not going to change the fact that Czechia is less well known. Kahastok talk 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The media are required by the Associated Press Style Book to clarify that they are referring to the Czech Republic when using Czechia. This is why they do it.
You also argue: “There are actually several countries with short names but where our article uses the long one, for WP:COMMONNAME and other reasons. The fact that you can't think of them doesn't mean that they don't exist.” I assume you mean that we are using formal names for countries that officially have short names listed in the UNGEGN and UNTERM databases of internationally recognized country names. Can you please provide examples of these countries? Geog25 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No media outlet in the world is required to follow the AP Style Book if they don't want to, and many do not. And if the AP Style book says that you need to clarify that you are referring to the Czech Republic whenever you use Czechia, there is a reason for that recommendation. It's not just there for the sake of it. It's reasonable to conclude that that's telling us that Czech Republic is the more commonly-understood name, and therefore the most appropriate name to be using on Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 17:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of the Congo, for example. We also use Republic of Ireland even though the official name is actually just “Ireland”. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Both cases are controversial and do not easily compare with Czechia. In the case of Ireland, the page name has been controversial because of the existence of Northern Ireland. This is a completely different issue compared to Czechia. Furthermore, in the article about the Republic of Ireland, Ireland is mostly being used when referring to the country. In the case of the Republic of the Congo, the obvious problem is with a potential confusion with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This case does not apply to Czechia either. Do you have any other truly relevant examples? Geog25 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These ARE relevant examples. The Czech Republic, the Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of Ireland are three different countries that, for three different reasons, are referred to by a “long name” in their article’s title instead of by an official “short name”. And I didn’t mention them because I thought the reasons to use their long names were similar to the Czech Republic’s, I mentioned them because you asked for examples such countries.
If you had asked for a similar case to this one, I might have pointed to Turkey. “Czech Republic” used to be the official short name of the country as well as its official long name. The country then changed its official short name to “Czechia”, just like Turkey changed its official short name to “Türkiye”. In both cases we continue to use their previous official short names because that’s the way most English speakers refer to the countries. In the Czech Republic’s case, it just happens to be the same as its official long name. Brainiac242 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kahastok and the Google data which shows that Czech Republic remains the common name. Czech Republic has twice the scholar hits when limiting results to 2024.
The government still uses 'Czech Republic' in official communications in English: [7]
The comments about consistency are moot because no one writes French Republic, they say France. People still say Czech Republic and less people use Czechia.
No one has demonstrated that either the common name or public recognisability of the name has changed. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, usage by major orgs and media is paramount for assessing the common name of countries. We don’t call the United States the US even though that’s the clear common name per Google trends. Likewise The Vatican and Vatican City
Kowal2701 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half the search results for 'US' aren't even about the country. Czech Republic is the more common term in academic papers and in news hits. Reuters [8], AP [9] [10], BBC [11], Al Jazeera [12], New York Times [13], and AFP [14] all use Czech Republic too, so this isn't the result of low quality sources overwhelming the high quality ones. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Czechia is used by global companies, such as Google, Apple, Microsoft (Bing and LinkedIn), international institutions (e.g. EU, UN, UNESCO, IATA, World Bank, NATO, OECD, Council of Europe); renowned maps and navigation services (e.g. Google Maps, TomTom, Waze, Apple Maps, Mapy.cz); international statistics (e.g. Statista, Eurostat, WHO, Worldometer, Our World in Data, CIA World Factbook); international sports associations (e.g. International Olympic Committee, International Ice Hockey Federation IIHF, International Federation of Association Football FIFA, Union of European Football Associations UEFA, International Basketball Federation FIBA). Geog25 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. If you look at the interest over the past 30 days, you’ll see the recent spike was actually three individual (progressively smaller) spikes on the 18, 22, and 26 June, the days “Czechia” played at the UEFA Euro 2024. The trends after the 26th, however, look pretty much the same as before the 18th. The spikes were, no doubt, the result of the country being referred to as “Czechia” throughout the tournament. We’ll almost certainly see a similar spike during the Olympics (where the country will also be referred to as “Czechia”), the question is whether or not that trend continues after they are over. I certainly think we should wait at least two months before making a decision.

Well, if you look at the interest since the beginning of the Olympics, you’ll see that not only did that trend not continue after they were over, but that the spike during the Olympics didn’t happen at all. The spikes on the 7 and 10 September coincide, once again, with “Czechia” playing football, this time the UEFA Nations League. I can already predict a new spike on the 11 October when people use Google to find out what is this “Czechia” that’s playing against Albania. Doric Loon argues we can’t use the name that ”is statistically most frequently used” because “we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia”. Yeah, no, “Czechoslovakia” is even less common than “Czechia”. Brainiac242 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are giving numbers of searches. Not appearances in sources. This should be used much more as a guide. Not as a source we should base our argument on. Martin Tauchman (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should absolutely (partially) base our argument on it. It says so in WP:CRITERIA: Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. Brainiac242 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it says just likely. Not more likely. And according to WP:COMMONNAME: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. Martin Tauchman (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no evidence that Czechia is more recognizable or the common name. About the only thing that's going for it is the conciseness, but that is not enough to outweigh other factors IMV. Not when Czech Republic is several times more common (google trends) to just over twice as common (Google Scholar this year)[15][16] A lot of the support !votes don't engage the policies and should be disregarded by the closer. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move Czechia is commonly used. Czechia is overwhelmingly used over Czech Republic in English speaking media in Czechia: https://english.radio.cz/search?fulltext=Czechia https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/search?s=Czechia Apart from a few nearly bankrupt legacy media, Czechia has been majorly adopted in diplomacy https://www.international.gc.ca/country-pays/czechia-tchequie/relations.aspx?lang=eng, in politics https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/eu-countries/czechia_en, in government https://www.czechia.eu/, in travel https://www.visitczechia.com/en-us, in sports https://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/450/czechia https://www.uefa.com/european-qualifiers/teams/58837--czechia/ https://www.nhl.com/search/?query=Czechia https://olympics.com/ioc/czechia , in art and entertainment https://eurovision.tv/country/czechia, https://www.artrabbit.com/places/czechia/prague https://www.atlasobscura.com/things-to-do/czechia . Books, maps, atlases, travel sites, apps, social media and many more have now been published using Czechia instead of Czech Republic. In the past, my contribution has been censored on Wikipedia when I was asked and then provided examples of Czechia usage in travel, so I will not be posting any example links that could be misconstrued as advertising. An argument has been raised that the Czech government has no authority to dictate English speakers how to call our country. This is completely false as it's precisely the governments who decide, codify, register and ask the world, including English speakers, how they wish to be called. It was precisely the respective government who asked English speakers to call our country Czechoslovakia in 1918, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1939. Czechoslovakia in 1945, Czech Republic in 1993 and Czechia in 2016. It has always been respected. Please respect Czechia now. Danda panda (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided some evidence that Czechia is in use, however, no evidence that it is in more common usage than "Czech Republic" at this time. Also see WP:OFFICIALNAME. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe Since common name is defined by tests like what is most common usage among international organizations, that is actually a lot more evidence than has been provided for Czech Republic. The burden of proof is on both sides equally. Doric Loon (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing in that comment shows that usage is more common than "Czech Republic" which would require comparing usage of both. Nor is there any policy based reason why international organizations should be favored over other types of sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe With the greatest of respect, I think you need to look again at WP:COMMONNAME. It gives us clear criteria for deciding what the common name is, and the usage of international organizations is the first of these. The comment above gives ample evidence of them using Czechia. No comparable evidence has been given for Czech Republic, not I think can it be, because it is very hard to find a major international organization that still uses it. This is an important, policy-based argument. Doric Loon (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the wording that suggests the order of the items means anything, if it were the case it may as well as just only list international organisations. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. First of all, there are some incorrect representations of titling policy given in the nomination statement above - the OP said "it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria" but this is not true; WP:AT says that "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used [in reliable sources]" and that we should only consider the five criteria directly when "there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources". If it can be demonstrated that one or other title is clearly the most common in sources, then the individual criteria are not relevant. And then the nominator urges us to "please concentrate on these kinds of authorities", having listed a restrictive set of sources which allegedly favour the name they support. But that's not how the policy works either. Anyway, on to the actual merits of the case, let me point out that I'm not dogmatic about this. If and when the time comes where sources are predominantly using Czechia, then I'll be very happy to support a move... we saw similar cases at Kyiv and Myanmar where after long years of sources not using those names, it became clear that now they were. However, I am not at all convinced that anything at all has changed since the last RM in 2023 and you can pretty much refer to my comment there. The major media outlets and encyclopedia that I cited still haven't made the switch - [17][18][19][20][21]... and as noted in August in the section above on this page, the updated ngram figures running to 2022 still show very large leads for the name Czech Republic, albeit with some increase for Czechia usage.[22][23][24] In summary therefore, all the evidence suggests that reliable sources in the world at large still favour Czech Republic by some margin, and the support votes are attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than being based on the evidence at hand. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Kahastok and Amakuru.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As for the common objection regarding frequency of common usage, I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree, tainting the data. Surely many writers out there look at Wikipedia and decide - ah, look, Wikipedia calls it Czech Republic, surely that must mean that's the most common name, I'll use it as well. Thus, cementing the usage. Basically, the argument by common usage boils down to circular reasoning. That doesn't make sense. As for "naturalness", the guideline says "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" - not necessarily *most* likely. And of course there is no worry that someone searching for Czech Republic might conceivably not find the article if named Czechia - obviously there would be a redirect. Vashekcz (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very valid concern, as it not only impacts Wikipedia directly but other sources pulling from Wikipedia e.g. knowledge graph snippets or AI training models. Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree To accept that argument would rely on the premise that people, when on the verge of saying or writing the name of a country, routinely check Wikipedia to see if they need to update their understanding of what the country's current name is. As though, every time I were going to say something about Germany, I checked Wikipedia to see if Wikipedia was still calling it "Germany" and not "Deutschland" or "Germanland" or "Germania". Unless they are in that habit, how would such a change on Wikipedia have a material impact on what people name people use for a country? Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Czech_Republic&oldid=1249042280"