Talk:Czech Republic

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)

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

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)

You're mistaken. It is a welfare state. Largoplazo (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2024

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. With 28 supporters and 22 opposers, there is not enough support to overturn the long-standing consensus, which is to use the full name "Czech Republic". It was a well-attended, civil and well-argued discussion, with both sides providing good arguments and evidence to support their choice. There is no question both names are widely used but there was no consensus on whether either the proposed or the current title meet WP:COMMONNAME. Supporters argued "Czechia" was more commonly used in intergovernmental organisations and by the media when reporting on some team sports. Opposers claimed outside those two relatively narrow cases, the current title was more widely used. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

---

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) — Relisting. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• 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)
  • North Macedonia's previous name was Republic of Macedonia, which already wasn't the WP:COMMONNAME because of a well-known dispute with Greece. In Eswatini's case, the change was made in April 2018 and the article wasn't moved until October - on the third RM - precisely because we waited for evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME had changed. In that case it helped that Eswatini is a small English-speaking country. Kahastok talk 17:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Should what the general Czech population say about it hold any weight? I know a Reddit discussion isn't exactly the most reliable source but I believe it should also be considered. Going back to the France example, when France refers to itself in English (in France, e.g. signs, billboards, names of places, etc.) the Czech Republic uses at most "Czech", never "Czechia". While, yes, some of their national media outlets will occasionally translate it to Czechia, I can attest to the fact that in the Czech Republic, the preferred term is "the Czech Republic". MartinNaj (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you know what the word Czech means in English? It is an adjective. It can be also be a noun in a meaning of a person or a language. You do not want us to believe that local people call their country like that, do you? It would be something like people living in France calling their country French. CzJan2 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support move - it makes sense. Nuvolet (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Cat Stevens, Kanye West. But WP:OTHERCONTENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

Following days: The proposer tries to interpret the rules differently than is "commonly" done, at least in the case of Czechia. It means: Official sources (the state itself or organizations it is registered with, including sports) - no interest. Expert sources - no interest. What people say to each other, even if it's "Czech" - even if they don't know how to find out, huge interest. Google Trends (where it's not important what people don't know, but what they think they know) - huge interest. Ngram (where sources are books, often describing history or a historical perspective, and where Czechoslovakia(!) almost defeats Czech Republic) - huge interest. News sources (AP, CNN, BBC), where you can't draw a trend graph and where a single style guide changes everything - huge interest.

An appeal to the approach of 'It's official and in addition, other sources listen to it to a reasonable extent' - difficult to achieve. The same names that have been opposing the name for a long time, and even with the idea of good will, I'm not sure with some of them whether they would even be able to acknowledge the name Czechia, even if they meet their changing requirements (some were previously wondering, for example, why it wasn't on the signs at the UN, but it was actually an empty argument, because as soon as it changed, the signs at the UN were not a significant argument at all!!! Strange) Ultimately, they narrowed down the search for a common name using only popular news sources, which I believe is a gross oversimplification. Chrz (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Re "because there is no policy reason why Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team could not have been moved early, if Czechia men's national ice hockey team were a better fit to the WP:CRITERIA in context" below in the text. This is an interesting shift for me, something I wouldn't expect to hear from the opposition here. So I would assume that it will be officially recognized as a conclusion even if the attempt to move this article fails. And it will be possible to follow up with attempts at an 'early move' there, in the context of which the name Czechia has more support than when it is evaluated in this way, generally and for the entire country." Chrz (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Google hits year by year. Czechia, Czech Republic, percentage. All languages --- English only.

2016 5,970,000 50,900,000 10 % --- 4,400,000 28,200,000 13 %

2017 7,910,000 153,000,000 5 % --- 5,770,000 105,000,000 5 %

2018 10,400,000 76,500,000 12 % --- 8,040,000 45,000,000 15 %

2019 13,500,000 94,700,000 12 % --- 9,370,000 51,900,000 15 %

2020 17,000,000 118,000,000 13 % --- 12,600,000 64,700,000 16 %

2021 25,300,000 106,000,000 19 % --- 15,400,000 60,800,000 20 %

2022 25,800,000 123,000,000 17 % --- 19,000,000 72,900,000 21 %

2023 40,000,000 162,000,000 20 % --- 30,000,000 96,700,000 24 %

2024 49,300,000 137,000,000 26 % --- 33,800,000 90,700,000 27 %

These Google hits are a rather unreliable method; I had to do it manually and I can't easily link to it. But why should Ngram or Google Trends be more significant? ::We have Google hits, a source as a source, officialities and informalities, how people talk to each other, how states or sports teams are referred to, and it's not so much about exact numbers as about a clear upward trend. In other words, the new name is "official" and at the same time its usage is growing and is at a sufficient level. If someone wants to delay the move further, it would be necessary to start weighing the sources. And if the entire state couldn't be moved, one could start with a salami slicing tactic, moving some contexts, such as the Eurovision Song Contest. Chrz (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Because Google Hits will categorise the exact same low quality website that has 50 alternate domains as 50 unique hits. Trends shows what people are searching for, Ngrams shows the frequency in books, scholars show how much it is used in (mostly) reliable academic sources. Hits includes this Wikipedia thread, some guy's blogs, random comments etc. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also I got 51 million for Czechia when limiting to 2024 versus 177 million for Czech Republic when limiting to 2024. So I'm not sure what you even searched for. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I searched for Czechia, only in English (or all languages, both statistics included), 1/1/2024- versus "Czech Republic" - like this, in quotation marks. You probably did last year search, so three more months and without "".

But that's what we want, general usage, not just news sources that strictly adhere to one style guide. Yes, Google will contain a lot of useless junk, but why do you think there will be any significant difference in their ratio? If you know how to refine Google hits to 'more substantial and important' sources, please share. Ngram, scholar, trends, none of this monitors the main thing - how the country is actually written about in general. Not just manually selecting a random few units from favorite newspapers and claiming that the situation is not changing. The fact that even today there is an article explaining the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and that the Czech Republic is something else, cannot be used to say anything about the name, just as an article explaining that the country recently changed its registered name with the football association cannot be used. Chrz (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Google shows far more hits for Czech Republic than Czechia without specifying a language.

>If you know how to refine Google hits to 'more substantial and important' sources

[1] 200 million for Czechia versus 1 billion for Czech Republic. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be argued that we're solely interested in an English name, so why bother with statistics across all languages? I'm unfamiliar with the reliability and credibility of the link you provided. Moreover, I can't see a way to accurately measure the trend, specifically the number of results relative to the year they were found. If a billion results were obtained up until 2023 and the remaining 200 million were gathered in 2024, this search engine wouldn't be able to provide that breakdown, and you might stubbornly insist on using the old name in such a scenario. Chrz (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How many non-English languages use 'Czech Republic' as the name? The only non-English languages that use 'Czech Republic' as the name on Wikipedia are chichewa, tsonga language, and Scots. Whilst I imagine Czechia is used in far more non-English languages.

The Google Reference search I provided is just a filtered Google Search to focus on reliable sources. Every single metric I have used has shown Czech Republic to be the most common name by a good amount. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the difference in the number of found records, it is a significant number. You can see how often "Czech Republic" appears on non-English pages. It doesn't even have to describe the state, it can simply appear somewhere on the page, whether it's a company name, an embedded tweet, or something else... We could limit the search to the title of the found pages, but no one has tried that yet as relevant measure technics; everyone is focusing on casual mentions rather than the title. Your source, when clicking through to subsequent pages, drops from billions to just 28:23. Not miilion, not thousands, just 28 to 23. Chrz (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would we limit ourselves to titles? We have Ngrams and Scholar to limit results to reliable sources and they still show Czech Republic ahead. I also went through all sources on RS/P under the letter A and all of them used Czech Republic with one using both. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Because if it's in the title, it's likely a genuine description of the country and events within it, rather than just a casual mention once in the middle of the text, like a list of countries or something. But it's not limited to that, and it could end up not being about Czechia at all, but about a company called 'Xyz Czech Republic', which shouldn't influence how we name an article about a state.

And I'll repeat it a few times: Selecting just one single article from the last 5 years from a source and saying that this source supports one side or the other has nothing to do with relevant research. It doesn't say anything about the frequency of occurrence in that particular news source, but by randomly selecting a single sample, it immediately and definitively assigns the source to one side of the dispute, even if the source may proceed differently in different articles (but may also strictly adhere to a style guide and have only one variant). And it says absolutely nothing about whether the practice has changed over time for that source. That's not statistics, that's a purposeful selection, and as such, it's unacceptable. Chrz (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good thing I've done a manual search of reliable sources listed on RS/P in alphabetical order to avoid any potential bias I might have and specifically checked the mentions themselves.

All this sophistry is tiring, if you think Scholar hits and Ngrams trends are not reliable then go look through reliable sources and provide an analysis. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't care what you consider tiring, when you don't do proper research, but instead pick one instance from a given source that supports your claim and overlook another instance from the same source that doesn't support it, and the source simply doesn't have a unified practice and uses both. Why is it then categorized as a supporter of only one of the variants? Ngram isn't bad and shows an upward trend, but it's two years behind and the number of sources it draws from is really very small. Scholar isn't bad and Czechia has a very good ratio and trend in it, but on the other hand, as I see it, it's mainly Czech authors who use the short name (and I can already imagine how it will be criticized here). Google finds us what is really commonly used, even if it's often junk, and it's not weighted, even there is an upward trend.

How can 5 randomly selected articles tell me that nothing has changed since the last move attempt at a move, as some of the opposition here claim? How can 5 articles prove that? If they're waiting for absolute dominance, so that the "original" name is completely wiped off the face of the Earth, then let them say so directly, at least we'll know that their expectations are completely absurd and their opinion has a miserable value no matter how much they sugarcoat it. Chrz (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to it btw. I am going to update the list since if they use both then it should be specified they have no static preference. I'll do that tonight. Conyo14 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no column for both so I wasn't sure what to do. I did all reliable sources on RS/P starting with A, might help if others can do other letters to ease the burden on individuals. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The research is rather pointless when conducted superficially (by flipping a coin once and concluding that it will always land on heads, thus ending the statistics) and if it's not clear whether any of the disputing parties will accept it as being conducted in a relevant manner. What if, using this method, you were to find that most sources 'can' use (here and there) the name Czechia? The opposition would simply say that it's insignificant and that such an exhaustive study was a waste of time -- if they are waiting for such dominance that the original name will cease to be used, which is an absurd expectation, because unlike other country renamings, the original name still applies as a longer political name. Chrz (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

After a week, I see these misunderstandings in the opposition: 1) Unlike real renamings, one cannot expect the 'old' name Czech Republic to completely disappear from use in the case of Czechia. It remains a valid political name, so it will forever be used in some contexts or as part of some proper names. 2) The situation in sources is evolving, the trend is upward, so after the moratorium expired, there was definitely an opportunity to make a new attempt. Some people are simply fed up with it and are giving Oppose just for that reason. 3) For the common name, all relevant English-language sources should be examined and given appropriate weight. The opposition here usually just generally throws in that, in their opinion, everything is still the same in news sources and therefore nothing should be changed. Why only in news sources? And does one link per year show that nothing has changed statistically? Chrz (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support per above. --Sakakami (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Striking blocked sock. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

" the Czech Republic is more “natural” because you are used to it" That's the point. We are discussing this country only. What is done for other countries doesn't enter in to it. The only question is "what is the average English speaker used to for this particular topic?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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: [2] [3] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Although Czech Republic (the) was listed as a short name in English for several years by UNGEGN, it was put there by default because the Czech foreign ministry failed to officially submit the short name Czechia, which was nationally standardized in 1993. Czech Republic (the) does not meet the definition of short or geographic names. It is a formal name. The fact that it was listed by UNGEGN as a short name for several years by default does not make it a short name. Geog25 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons described by the nominator. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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: [4]

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)

• 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)

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 [5], AP [6] [7], BBC [8], Al Jazeera [9], New York Times [10], and AFP [11] 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)

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)

• Oppose. Last time, I wrote:

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)[12][13] 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

Then you have not clicked a single link I posted. Just because you say it's not in common use doesn't make it so. So please go back to the beginning of my post and click the links I provided.

You'll find out that the English speaking media in Czechia are using Czechia with utter ubiquity bordering on near exclusivity. Can't give you a better proof of common use.

The fact that a sprinkle of individuals in foreign failing media decided for themselves to ignore the name the country asked them to use is not an argument that their outdated usage is somehow supreme over those who use it correctly.

Google Trends is not a reliable source for determining if Czechia is more frequently used, because Google uses AI algorithm that has a bug which changes every compound search with "Czechia" to "Czech" and records "Czech" in Google Trends.

Try googling any two or three words including Czechia and you'll see it's searching for those two three words but with the word "Czech" instead of Czechia.

If after this you still insist Google AI algorithm is reliable, just ask it how many letters 'R' are there in a strawberry. It'll tell you 2.

Look, the long names Czech Republic has its proper usage, just like all other long names of other countries that have them. Incorrect usage by some users didn't make it correct. Wherever there's France or Slovakia ought to be Czechia. Wherever there's the French Republic or Slovakia, they're ought to be the Czech Republic.

While Czech Republic used to be both the long and short name, the short name has been updated to Czechia.

Thus, Wikipedia must move Czech Republic to Czechia, because it's the correct usage, whether we like it or not.

Everything else is sowing confusion in people's heads who have been told million times to use Czechia and yet when they look at Wikipedia and a sprinkle of legacy media, they don't understand why they still use the discontinued short name Czech Republic. 2604:3D09:6C79:1400:FC72:6281:2C4:6233 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your dismissal of the most well regarded news sources (AP, Reuters) as 'foreign failing media' in favour of websites like 'artrabbit.com' Atlasobscura and 'expats.cz' is worrying. I hope you don't treat the latter sources as reliable outside of this discussion. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• 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 - [14][15][16][17][18]... 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.[19][20][21] 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)

  Hi @Amakuru, you and I obviously have different understandings of the policy. Since you strike me as an honest seeker after truth, let me invite you to take another look at it with me, and give WP:AT a close reading. There are several things that strike me, that I'd like you to consider again. First, the lede of a policy page usually sums up the policy pretty well, but the lede of this page doesn't mention common name at all. Rather, it says that when RS gives multiple possibilities (no mention of them being equally common - just multiple plausible candidates) the decision is to be made on the five criteria laid out in the first section. The next thing we see is that the body of the policy page begins with a section on the five criteria, and then a section on common name. I do a lot of writing professionally, and I would never start with the exceptions before coming to the rule, so the layout of the page suggests that the five criteria do not only kick in when common name fails. Next look at the section on the five criteria ("Deciding on an article title"). This opens by saying that if there is more than one appropriate title, the five criteria are used; not only if the candidate titles are equally common - there is still no mention of common name here. After that we do come to the common name section. Here, there is nothing to suggest common name is paramount; on the contrary, this section still urges us to keep the five criteria in mind. What it does say, though, is that the best title is usually the one that is most common in reliable sources, but the reason given for this is that the name most common in reliable sources is usually one that fits the five criteria. In other words, "common name" doesn't trump the five criteria, it is a tool to get us to them. Of course this would make no sense if "common name" were understood as what Sally and Mike on Twitter most often say, because lay usage is seldom precise and consistent. But the section goes on to give us tips on how to find "common name", and these focus on international organizations, quality publications and academic use (not a restrictive list, just really good tips). In other words, "common name" is about expert consensus, not google hits (which are nowhere mentioned), and once you see that, it makes sense that common name can be a route to get to the criteria, because experts usually are quite good at getting precise, consistent terminology. After that, the policy page continues with more sections delving deeper into some of the five criteria. It doesn't really return to "common name" much after that, and it nowhere mentions statistically "most common name". Now, I know I'm asking you to do a pretty big rethink from what you have always assumed about this, but can you see why I think this is the most natural way to read the policy page?

  Incidentally, I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not out to right great wrongs. I do think it is courtesy to call people what they want to be called, and that the definition of precision in the criteria allows us to take that into consideration. But the title Czech Republic is not wronging anyone, and I'm not on a crusade for Czechia, any more than you are motivated by an agenda against it. Let's assume good faith; we're all doing our best to match the evidence to the policy. Doric Loon (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a wall of text.

  The thing is though, while you argue that in general terms the criteria override WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see an argument in this message that the criteria imply Czechia, other than by precision. The definition of precision is The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. It has nothing whatsoever to do with subject preference, and Czechia and Czech Republic both meet this criterion equally well.

  On the other hand, when the evidence is that Czech Republic is clearly more recognisable and more natural - the latter being "what the subject is actually called in English" - and the argument made that the WP:COMMONNAME is preferred because it is generally the name that meets the criteria best, I find it difficult to see any conflict at all between the WP:COMMONNAME and the WP:CRITERIA here. Both seem to support Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 07:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Kahastok, sorry if it was a wall of text, but I'm getting a bit frustrated with people expostulating cursorily about the "plain meaning" of common name, when if they really took the time to read the whole policy page carefully, they would see that it intends something entirely different. You are quite right that even if you accept my understanding of the policy, I still have a job to do to persuade you that it supports Czechia. But here's the thing: I actually care more about the policy than about the name change. I won't cry if this rename proposal fails, but I will be disappointed if it fails on the basis of a wrong understanding of policy. So can we agree as a basis for discussion that 1. The five naming criteria take precedence over the common name principle, and 2. Common name is about expert consensus, so that search engine statistics, which measure the usage of people who couldn't find the country on a map, are entirely irrelevant? Doric Loon (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Question 1 is largely irrelevant to this discussion because it doesn't make a difference which we choose, they both favour Czech Republic. Question 2, I note that in 2018, Prague was one of the top 25 cities in the world by number of international visitors. I think you significantly underestimate what the general public knows about the Czech Republic. I certainly do not accept that the names by diplomats are a better reflection of what is recognisable and natural to the general public - of what the common name is - than the names we know that the general public see every day in books and news media, and that they search for on the internet. Kahastok talk 15:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let’s look at the five criteria:

Recognizability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Meaning, we absolutely do have to consider the people that know about the country but “couldn't find the country on a map”.

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. Basically, what readers, not experts, are likely to “search for”. How do we measure this? Search engine statistics.

These two clearly favour “Czech Republic”. Naturalness is not subjective, far more people search for “Czech Republic” than for “Czechia”. And, as others have pointed out, if the two were equally recognizable, no reliable source would have to specify that by “Czechia” they mean the Czech Republic, or write sports articles explaining that “Czechia” is the Czech Republic’s team. Neither rules out “Czechia”, plenty of people search for it, and even more would recognize it, but they do favour “Czech Republic”.

Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. This has nothing to do with what the Czech government has asked anyone to do. Both “Czech Republic” and “Czechia” precisely identify the article’s subject, the European country. Neither could possibly refer to anything else.

Concision: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. I agree with you on this one, “Czechia” is very slightly more concise than “Czech Republic”.

Consistency: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. This one is a bit tricky. It’s true that the title for most countries is the official short form of the country’s name, which in this case would be “Czechia”. But it’s also true that the title for most countries is the most recognizable and natural name of the country, which in this case would be “Czech Republic”. The reality is that for most countries there is a “single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used” by “a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources”. When there isn’t one, we prioritize recognizability, naturalness, and most of all, precision, and seemingly never pick the official short name of the country. The article is called Republic of the Congo, not Congo, which could also mean the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is Republic of Ireland, not Ireland, which could also refer to the island. In both cases, we are also going against concision. A more similar case to this one might be Turkey. The Turkish government adopted “Türkiye” as its official short name in English just like the Czech government had done with “Czechia”, but, like “Czech Republic”, “Turkey” continues to be more recognizable and natural.

All in all, the criteria seem to favour “Czech Republic” over “Czechia” and will continue to do so unless “Czechia” becomes the more recognizable and natural name. One way we could determine this has happened is, yes, search engine statistics. Brainiac242 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Ad ‘far more people search for “Czech Republic” than for “Czechia”.’ But the criterium of naturalness states, that it is about a name that people are likely to look for. Not most likely. And people do frequently search both terms. Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So concision doesn’t favour “Czechia” because, even if “Czechia” is shorter, “Czech Republic” is also a short title? If a title is natural when “readers are likely to look or search for” it, then the more likely readers are to search for a title, the more natural it is. Just like the shorter a title is, the more concise it is. “Czechia” is slightly more concise than “Czech Republic” because it is slightly shorter, and “Czech Republic” is far more natural than “Czechia” because far more people search for it. Brainiac242 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Doric Loon:, I don't know what your understanding of policy is, but the clause that says WP:COMMONNAME is a proxy for the five criteria is not a new one, and it is very rarely deviated from. I assume you're reasonably familiar with RM discussions and AT policy generally, hence you'll also have seen that this guides almost all discussions. This makes sense not just because Wikipedia seeks to reflect the world not to try to shape it, but also because evaluating the five criteria directly is almost always subjective and difficult, hence why we defer to sources where that option is available rather than attempting to evaluate them ourselves. Just to give an example, you state that the "RECOGNITION" part of the criteria is a wash, yet as stated several times in this discussion, with direct evidence from sources covering "confusion" among football supporters, Czech Republic is leaps and bounds more recognised than Czechia. That's not to say a lot of people don't know Czechia, but ultimately it's a subjective judgement. That's my interpretation and you hafve yours. Consistency also isn't that cut-and-dried... I could say the consistency is that we use the most common name for every country in the world, because generally we do. If this move goes ahead, the Czech Republic will become an outlier, using a name that is demonstrably less used across all sources than the alternative. I think if you read through the oppose votes you'll see the policy and evidence arguments that are being made to say this move isn't ready to be made yet, and I hope you'll have an open mind to consider changing your mind about this one to oppose the move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru Well, I always have an open mind, and I have acknowledged some of the points made by opposers. What I said was that common name is a tool to lead us to the five criteria, and I suspect that is not so very different from what you mean by a proxy, so we are not that far apart there. Wikipedia does reflect the world, and I agree with you about not trying to shape it. But I hope you also agree with me that Wikipedia follows authoritative voices, not the chatter on the street. In all matters of content, we prefer Prof. McBrain of the Royal Society of Brainy things over Sally on Facebook, even though the apparent army of Sallys sometimes get a lot more Google hits than the professor does. It would be odd if article titles were different, and that's why WP:COMMONNAME tells us to derive the common name from the usage of international organizations, quality publications and academic discourse. In other words, it's about seeking expert consensus. My main point is that when you understand the policy the way it is intended, the case for Czechia is a lot stronger. Doric Loon (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - No other country has a Wikipedia article which uses its official name, except for the RoC and DRC, which is necessary for disambiguation.

Hexalogical (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support move, Czechia is a simpler name and is less complex than "Czech Republic".

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support move While “Czech Republic” is still widely used, many linguistic and diplomatic contexts now lean towards “Czechia” for brevity. The general public now recognizes Czechia, especially after seeing its use in the olympics, Eurovision, and on maps, and as reflected in the increased social media usage of Czechia. Following the common name policy, Wikipedia should aim to use the term that is both practical and increasingly widespread. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• Found this on reddit:Do Czechs prefer Czechia or Czech Republic?. Another article from June this year: Here’s why the Czech Republic has changed its name to Czechia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mostly off-topic, but interesting: Why do countries change their name? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Kahastok and Amakuru.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:52, 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. 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. Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'd argue that Wikipedia itself drives what is common usage to some degree To accept that argument would require accepting 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 name people use for a country? And, anyway, so what? If there are people who follow Wikipedia with bated breath in wait for such changes to occur here and who then change their own usage in lockstep, that's their concern. It isn't for us Wikipedians to take pity on those poor people and change the title here so they can change their usage and breathe again. Largoplazo (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not just any country. Specifically a country whose name may be a matter of some discussion. It's not crazy to imagine writers checking Wikipedia - and not even specifically for the name, perhaps just to research some factoid, but they notice the name. And please, don't make a farce of the discussion with your "take pity on those poor people". I'm just stating an opinion about the validity of the "data about common usage" argument, that's all. Vashekcz (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  And I was just stating my opinion of the premise that your opinion relied on. That's how debate works. Largoplazo (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, you're saying that a reference work can't reflect reality because people might trust it? That is what really doesn't make sense. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is another old chestnut. The logical failure is that there is no sensible way of getting from Wikipedia influences the common name to the article should be renamed without going through a position that Wikipedia is not allowed to take, such as the common name in the real world should be changed. Wikipedia describes the outside world, it is not our job to try to change it. Kahastok talk 21:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  No. I'm saying that the validity of the "data about common usage" argument is limited, and shouldn't be taken as the overriding - and certainly not the sole - decision factor. If other factors speak for the rename - and I don't think there is reasonable doubt about that - then this, sole remaining argument, should be weighed more carefully than just comparing two numbers from Google Trends. Vashekcz (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  And the trouble with that is that it isn't limited in this way. The argument that says Wikipedia affects the WP:COMMONNAME must be discarded in full because even if the real-world WP:COMMONNAME of a place is solely determined by the name of the Wikipedia article, it doesn't make a difference to the question of what that Wikipedia article should be called. Kahastok talk 07:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, it's perennial. No, nothing has changed. English-language sources still have a very clear preference for Czech Republic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which ones? News organizations rely on the AP style guide which uses Czech Republic. Most other sources such as maps and atlases have switched to Czechia. Sports organizations now also

  use Czechia, and social media use of Czechia has increased considerably. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom

Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per buidhe and amakuru. The case for moving is given in exhaustive detail, but it doesn't seem to be supported by much actual evidence. I'm unconvinced by the claims that Czechia is more precise ("Czechia" and "Czech Republic" refer to exactly the same entity and as such are exactly as precise as one another; "more official" and "more precise" are not the same thing) or that "Czechia" would be more consistent with e.g. the example of North Korea (one might equally argue that choosing "North Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is favouring the name people actually use in English over the one that country's government would prefer, and therefore "Czech Republic" is in fact the more consistent option here). Similarly, I think it remains to be proven that "Czechia" is equally as recognisable or natural as Czech Republic: the fact that most people now know what is meant by Czechia does not mean that is now as recognisable or natural as Czech Republic. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Doric Loon has made a thorough and exhaustive case, making sure to remain neutral and analytical.

What's more, I would note that Wikipedia must be aware of the effect it itself has. We talk about how certain foreign media or ordinary people do or don't use the short name. But why? It's hardly everyone holding the firm belief that the formal name is correct. As someone mentioned here, Czechia is not a prominent country. People and media don't often mention it and when they do, they call it by what they see first online - this Wikipedia article. Where will those BBC journalists go for quick info on a country they are tasked with reporting on? Wikipedia. Where will casual internet users who encounter this country go for more details? Wikipedia again. The government is making an effort for the short name to be seen. Their effort and intention is clear. But if the main source of casual information for most internet users (Wikipedia) refuses to change? Then the supporters of using the formal name argue using a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own making. "We won't change unless most people use it. Most people won't use it because Wikipedia won't change". Rinse and repeat every six months while actual state authorities fight an uphill battle against Wiki's influence. It is a long-established fact that Wikipedia has this kind of power. This *must* be taken into account when making this decision. Do consider all the surrounding data available on this topic, that goes without saying, but don't discard or ignore the fact that Wikipedia itself is at the moment likely the greatest single hindrance to the short name adoption efforts. Retaining the country's formal name as the title of this article isn't unbiased or simply an observation of reality, in effect it is taking an active stance against the informal name and fighting against it on the front lines. Avenflight (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If BBC writers are so ignorant as to rely on us for country names, then the BBC is not fit for use as a reliable source. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You think your average western journalist knows much about Czechia? Ofc they use Wikipedia. Avenflight (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think most Western journalists will have heard of the country. As the Czech Republic. Which just proves the point that CR is the common name.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They don’t. News organizations rely on the associated press style guide, which currently recommends using Czech Republic. Hence looking at newspapers as a guage for common usage of Czechia is not that useful as they all follow the AP. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, you're arguing over whether the guidelines regarding this should be what they are or they should be something else. That's to be argued at the talk page of whichever page contains the guidelines. As long as the current guidelines are in effect, they are what we should be following. That's the whole point of having guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey of this discussion as this no consensus page move was affected from these discussions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's perhaps worth mentioning that the common names of sports teams do not have to have to use same names as the countries they come from. The ice hockey project seems perfectly happy to allow the Great Britain men's national ice hockey team, for example, even though the country it comes from is called the United Kingdom. The notification claiming that this is a proxy RM for Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team is not accurate based on policy because there is no policy reason why Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team could not have been moved early, if Czechia men's national ice hockey team were a better fit to the WP:CRITERIA in context. Kahastok talk 07:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah...... I'm pretty sure that discussion only had no consensus for this discussion. So, policies aside, I don't agree with that analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Kahastok: Please don't make confusion here. The team names are in the format "Fooland ((wo)men's) national foosport team", where fooland is the country/territory they represent, as this is the title of an encyclopedia article and not an explicit team name. According to the Consistency point of WP:CRITERIA, the territory binds to the common name (the name of the article about the territory). This is the common approach, see national football teams or Olympic teams like Ivory Coast (although the team name is Côte d'Ivoire) Turkey (Türkiye), East Timor (Timor-Leste) and others, including Czech Republic national football team (Czechia). The Great Britain ice hockey team does not use United Kingdom because it does not represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but only Great Britain. Each of the exceptions in team names differing from country/territory has its own specific justification, but the split of what is a common name is not one of them. Your approach would lead to half of the articles on wikipedia using "Czech Republic" and half of the articles using "Czechia", and nothing like that happens with any other country. So far, I have not commented here whether I am for or against the proposal to change to Czechia. But whatever the name will be after this debate is over, I request that the names of the other sites remain consistent with the name of the country here. Hopefully we can agree on this to avoid long pointless discussions under every page containing Czech Republic in the title. We know from experience that these are long discussions and have never led to a consensus, i.e. to moving pages. FromCzech (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  So Czechia will have a similar special exception as Great Britain or Chinese Taipei, big deal. The worries and fears about many discussions for each article are also unfounded. There will simply be dualism - the country and the sports team. There would be many discussions only if someone didn't want to admit that if it's hockey, then also football, if it's football, then also basketball, etc. However, since standardization has already taken place for (almost?) all sports, such long discussions for each sport separately would be precisely that unnecessary step. And we don't need to worry about the situation with Türkiye or Ivory Coast. Each country is evaluated individually, as the supporters of the name Czechia are constantly being reminded. The only example we can take from other countries on Wikipedia is the one I mentioned - i.e., exceptions exist when they are supported by the outside world, and Wikipedia then does not force unification if it would simply contradict sources in such contexts. Chrz (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  If that were true, these teams would have been moved long ago, but that practice doesn't work here. I have already explained Great Britain; Chinese Taipei has a special position due to its (in)dependence, both are not comparable to the case of Czech Republic/Czechia. Some lobbyists would like to get the country's name changed by moving the other pages one by one, but luckily that's not how it works on wikipedia. I just want to save us time and avoid unnecessary debates. FromCzech (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  And Czechia can also deserve its own exception, because there is no absolutely identical case. There is no other state that had only a long political name and only later added a shorter name, for example, more suitable for sports, while the "old" name still applies and is used more in political contexts. All other "analogous" cases like Türkiye or Ivory Coast relate to a state and a name, but that's about it, it's too big a generalization. I say no to moving article by article, I clearly say that the goal should be to move all sports articles where the use of the name Czechia is proven. Ideally centrally, although I don't know where such a central discussion about renaming sports-oriented articles about CZ should be held.

  But why bother with dualism when a simple solution is on the table: unification on the name Czechia. It is official, the sources use it more and more, so that's it. As I wrote the numbers above, purely based on Google hits, it would currently be around 27:73%, if someone doesn't come up with a better way to measure and weigh the numbers. 27% may still seem too little to some, but the trend is also visible, so even if the opposition manages to stop it now, it will happen later, so the resistance is essentially futile and unnecessarily delaying. Chrz (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  (ec) The answer is surely that we follow MOS:GEO - i.e. we default to Czech Republic - unless there's some good contextual reason not to. So on pages like Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team, an argument claiming that Czechia is the most appropriate name for the country in general terms must fail, no matter how good it is, because that's the wrong forum for that discussion. Instead, those wanting to move that article have to show that Czechia is the most appropriate name for that article even if it is not the most appropriate name for an article on the country in general. That's a different standard from the standard here. And, it may be a harder standard to reach given the WP:CRITERIA preference for consistency. But it is a standard that can theoretically be met in hte general case (i.e. if there really is a good context-specific reason to differ). And that means that the link between this article and that article is not as unbreakable or automatic as the notification implied. Kahastok talk 19:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think FromCzech put it perfectly. Never have we had to deal with this for national sports teams since those names for both Great Britain and the Chinese Taipei were named and solidified prior to Wikipedia's existence. Yes, an exception could be made, but as Chrz pointed out, it's a hell of a lot easier if the main article were to change. Conyo14 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe the current name of this article does make it harder to change that article. But the change is not intrinsically desirable or undesirable, so that isn't necessarily a problem. Sometimes if it proves too hard to make a case for a given change, it is because policies and guidelines do not support it and so the correct outcome is that the article stays where it is. My point is not that that article should be moved indepedently of this - international ice hockey isn't my thing, so I don't know if there is a good reason to move it - only that in principle it could be moved independently of this article. And that therefore this is not just a proxy RM for that article, and people shouldn't be making arguments here as though it were. Kahastok talk 12:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - In the sports world, the NHL & the IIHF are using "Czechia". GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Doric Loon, thank you for your excellent job of setting up your proposal, putting the relevant guidelines front and center and laying out thoughtfully the context leading up to this discussion. Especially after reading, in the last few months, prognostications over the impact this year's Olympics would have, I looked forward to seeing statistics in the aftermath that would finally lead to a legitimate conclusion that "Czechia" (which, at the time of the partition of Czechslovakia, is what I thought they were going to call it, and what they should have called it) has burst forth and overtaken "Czech Republic".

But, reading everything above, all I can see is that, actual statistics show that "Czech Republic" is still substantially ahead, and that the Support votes, sadly but as usual, predominately consist of (a) insistence that "Czechia" has pulled ahead of "Czech Republic" in use but with no evidence to back that up and (b) arguing with the guidelines. That should be done at the talk page associated with those guidelines, and the perennial participants should have done that a long time ago if they were that earnest about changing the guidelines to go by whatever each country's official short form name is, or whatever the UN is using, or whatever Google Maps is using, or whatever's being used in international athletics (because, for some reason, the entire world revolves around sports), or whatever else. If they had done that and prevailed, then they wouldn't be wasting time and space in this go-around telling us what they wish the guidelines said and how much contempt they have for the current ones and begging for the guidelines to be ignored. Instead, the guidelines would be leading to their desired conclusion.

Supporters, you have to support your case. The burden is on you. Largoplazo (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Largoplazo, thanks for your kind words. I agree that some people on both sides of this argument are a bit slapshod with the policy. If in doubt, read WP:AT again.

One of the key metrics for common name, according to WP:AT, is the usage of international organizations. Would you agree that at least on that metric, the supporters of this move have successfully proved their case? Because we have listed dozens of examples including all the most influential political alliances in the free world, and it is very hard to think of a single counter-example. (References for a lot of this were given in previous discussions and are to be found in the archives, so haven't been repeated here, but are easily trundled out if anyone needs them; but I think when I point out that, say, the European Parliament now uses Czechia, nobody doubt it.)

I'm not sure what statistics you are referring to, but please check with the policy page to be sure you are using a metric that is supported there - counting google hits, for example, is not. Doric Loon (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• I cannot think of any precedent on Wikipedia for an article on a country to be moved based solely on diplomatic and official usage, in cases where there has not been a similar shift in media usage and other indications of usage by the general public. Your argument seems to be that WP:COMMONNAME in the case of countries is by definition the same WP:OFFICIALNAME. It isn't. Kahastok talk 15:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'll just summarize what I've written above: That argument is that it's official and already used to a considerable extent, by media (especially in sports) and generally on websites that don't describe current events. What I see here, however, is an attempt by the opposition to place enormous, almost definitive emphasis on online media, and even then only a few selected favorites, and this is proven by choosing one random article! I suspect that in general, the media is not more than 50% in favor of the name Czechia, but I know that they can use it and are becoming more and more willing to do so. The fact that they sometimes add in parentheses that it's the same as the Czech Republic is not decisive, it's simply a transitional period. And the fact that usually both names are used in the article is also not decisive, because unlike other state renamings, this is not a complete renaming, as the original name still applies as the political counterpart. But why is the evaluation of the common name reduced only to the media and does not look at the overall fact that the name is successfully asserting itself in all directions, has settled in encyclopedias, it is behind in some types of sources, more advanced in others, but overall it's increasing every year. If the basic weight were given to all kinds of officialities, then it would have been renamed already. Wikipedia doesn't have such a policy, but the solution is not to give absolute power and weight to BBC, CNN, and AP, where it depends on their style guide or maybe one correspondent. If it were evaluated honestly and evenly, and also taking into account the direction of the trend, Czechia has a great chance on Wikipedia. And if not in general, then at least for the sports context, where the change is spreading the fastest Chrz (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral I am going to remain neutral, but for the evidence of the supporters I have created a quick user page with the following information, User:Conyo14/Czechia usage. Opposers may absolutely blast the page as well. I don't care. I have my thoughts only on their national ice hockey team, not the main article. Supporters are welcome to add to it, Opposers, please add to the criticism section of the ones I've found. Conyo14 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

By that definition, every country should have its official name used, such as 'The Fedederal Republic of Germany', 'Republic of Guatemala', etc., which are all commonly used by the media, but aren't their shortened, less formal names. Hexalogical (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The exact same thing happened when Kiev moved to Kyiv. Wikipedians will certainly end up moving this page one day, it's just stubborn dinosaurs are going to keep pointing to policy instead of common sense. Ortizesp (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is abundant usage of Czechia in maps, as well as television and sports. Unless you only consider “media” to be news organizations, which all rely on the AP style guide which has not been updated. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@A Nebraska Cornhusker:. You've made this claim in several places across this discussion. There are a couple of points to make.

• This quote was a response specifically referring to the BBC. Please could you provide a source demonstrating that the British Broadcasting Corporation relies on the American English AP style guide. Because I don't believe that for a moment.
• More widely, you claim that all news organisations - unqualified by country or language - use the AP style guide. Again, I don't believe that for a moment so please provide a source for this claim.
• The latest AP style guide quote I found in a quick search says: Both Czechia and the Czech Republic are acceptable as names for the central European country with its capital in Prague. Czechia is preferred by the Czech government. If using Czechia, clarify in the story that the country is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic. Please explain, given your evident familiarity with the AP style guide and your support vote, how this is not a good source to demonstrate that the country "is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic", i.e. that Czech Republic is the WP:COMMONNAME and hence the most appropriate name for this article.

Thanks. Kahastok talk 20:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been more clear - only American news organizations (at least most of them) rely on the AP, but we are talking about english here, not other languages as you mention. Wikipedia pages in other languages such as Czech and French already use the equivalent of Czechia. Still, the AP guidelines do affect a large number of english language news sources, affecting their "independence" in this regard. The BBC style guide makes no mention of Czechia or the Czech Republic. They do however use both names on their profile page about the country e.g. "Czech Republic or Czechia". My point was it is important to consider all usage of Czechia, not just by news media organizations, of which a (large) subset is not independent with respect to naming conventions. I believe that Czechia is commonly recognizable and as others have argued, it fits the WP:CRITERIA article naming criteria. Czechia fits criteria such as consistency with similar articles better than Czech Republic. A Nebraska Cornhusker (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Independent" in this context means independent of the subject, which AP clearly is. If many news outlets choose to use AP (and it is a free choice whether they use the AP or not), then that doesn't reduce the credibility of those sources. Rather, it lends credibility to AP. And that includes AP's explicit statement that the country is better known as Czech Republic, which is good reason to keep the article where it is given the recognisability and naturalness WP:CRITERIA and per WP:COMMONNAME.

But regardless, we have no evidence that non-AP-using media sources are more likely to use Czechia than equivant sources that use AP. Kahastok talk 12:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth adding also that the claim The BBC style guide makes no mention of Czechia or the Czech Republic is not accurate. It mentions the country twice, once when defining "Central Europe" and once when defining "Eastern Europe". In both cases it refers to the Czech Republic. Link here. Kahastok talk 16:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, for just about every reason listed by the nominator. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons set out by the nominator. Ieatseatbelts (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Czech Republic still more common name. Following official preference would be inconsistent with Turkey and Ivory Coast. Mewulwe (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• I do support the move per Chrz and Helveticus96, and I also believe that it could be viewed as one of the predominant names used for the country. From my point of view, the current opposers are too online media biased, so I will focus on the fact how it is used on the Internet – one of the most significant ways of communication of our times (that is also relevant for Wikipedia since it is an online encyclopedia). Let's find out, how many of the most visited websites use the term ‘Czechia’ and how many ‘Czech Republic’ (I know that reliability and number of visits is not equal reliability but it is possible to conclude that this will cover at least some of the reliable sources). Let's begin with the most visited one – Google. Google Maps as well as a title shown in Google Search use the term ‘Czechia’. I have found the short name also in settings. Therefore I would count this source as one that uses ‘Czechia’. According to the List of most-visited websites, the second one is YouTube. Because I have found the country name only in settings (it uses the short name) and the platform is closely associated with Google, I would exclude it from this evaluation. On the other hand, Facebook uses the formal name. The same is true in the case of Instagram, but I would count it once (analogically to the case of Google and YouTube). X uses the term ‘Czechia’ on its trending page, so I would count it as a ‘Czechia user’. In the case of WhatsApp, I was unable to find a mention of Czechia therefore I have to exclude it. The next one I will exclude as well is Wikipedia for an obvious reason (this talk page discusses this topic). In the case of Yahoo, it is not so obvious to decide, which one should I count. The search page uses the long name, but it most likely takes it from Wikipedia. Its weather forecast uses ‘Czech Republic’ in a heading and ‘Czechia’ in a map. Because it is not so clear, I excluded Yahoo from the evaluation. In the case of Reddit, I failed in a similar way as in the case of WhatsApp and therefore I have to exclude it as well. Yahoo Japan is unavailable in Czechia and therefore I did not check it. Amazon uses the long (formal) name. I also failed to find such a mention in the interface of TikTok. Netflix uses the short name. Bing uses the short name in its Maps. In web search, it shows ‘Czech Republic’ but it is very possible Bing uses it just because it is used by Wikipedia. Because of ambiguity, I will exclude it. LinkedIn uses Czechia (try to write the location in your profile). Microsoft.com uses the formal name. So does Twitch. I have also failed in the case of VKontakte. Pinterest uses the formal name (as you can see in account settings). Samsung.com tends to use Czechia more, so I'll count it as Czechia. Weather.com uses ‘Czechia’ in its map but ‘Czech Republic’ in a description so I exclude it. I excluded Fandom as I failed to find any mention in the main interface. In the case of Quora, Czechia seems to be the name used in their databases (see their settings). In the case of DuckDuckGo, the name used in the settings is ‘Czech Republic’. I failed to find a mention on telegram.org. Roblox uses the formal name in its documents. Temu uses the formal name as well. Canva somehow uses both names so I will exclude it. When I tried to visit lazlogistics.ph, it ended by error 404, so I could not evaluate it. I have also excluded non-English language sites and sites with pornographic content. To summarize this, 6 websites (Google, X, Netflix, LinkedIn, Samsung, and Quora) use the short name and 8 websites (Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft.com, Twitch, Pinterest, DuckDuckGo, Roblox, and Temu) use the long name. There is no significant difference in the number of pages that use the formal or geographical name (p = 0.7905; exact binomial test). I have to emphasize that this analysis has limitations – I have excluded sites that use both names, so it could influence the result to be much more likely statistically significant. Since there is no significant difference, I would neglect such a limitation. The next one is that inclusion is sometimes based on a limited number of appearances, but this analysis contains frequently used online maps (like Google or Bing – both use the short name). If we conclude that both names can be considered as predominant, we should use the five criteria: 1. Recognizibility – I would argue that both names are somehow recognizable, you can find both of them when searching for information about this country. 2. Naturalness – As per recognizability, people search both terms, and both terms are in use. 3. Precision – Both are unambiguous. But I have to mention that the term ‘Czechia’ describes the topic better since it describes also the history of previous states on the territory of the country (previous countries were not necessarily republics). So both names are unambiguous but Czechia fits the topic better. 4. Concision – Czechia is just a shorter name. I do not think there is more to explain. 5. Consistency – Wikipedia uses the short (geographical) name unless there is a would make it practically impossible (lack of the short name, unambiguity with another term). This should favour the term ‘Czechia’. Based on those five criteria, I would think Czechia should be the title of this article. At the end, I would also like to mention that this title influences plenty of other articles. I have also experienced that other users systematically rewrite the term ‘Czechia’ (also in cases when a short name allows the sentence to be more concise and understandable – eg. in an article Via Czechia, see diff). --Martin Tauchman (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth addressing the historical point, which is new to this discussion (I won't address the others as I feel it would become repetitious). There is an element to which words can mean whatever you say they mean. But in a historical context English-speakers - unlike (I understand) Czech-speakers - tend to near-exclusively use historical names, such as Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia and Czechoslovakia. The use of Czechia to refer to the relevant area in a historical context would appear no less anachronistic than using Czech Republic. Kahastok talk 09:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That's untrue since the word ‘Czechia’ is much older, see the page at Wiktionary with examples. Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

None of these quotes are modern English-speakers using Czechia to refer to historical Bohemia or Moravia or Silesia or any part of Czechoslovakia. Kahastok talk 11:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by the term ‘modern’ in this context. It clearly is Modern English. If you mean contemporary English, I can give you those examples I found after a brief search: [22], [23], and [24]. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the title 'King of Czechia' has a chance of being retroactively established without committing some sort of an anachronistic crime. But 'King of the Czech Republic' is utter nonsense. Czechia has a greater capacity to encompass the entire history of the state, including non-republican periods spanning over 1000 years, with its many transformations. 'Czech Republic' can only be retroactively applied to non-republican periods with lengthy preambles. It is one of the advantages of a non-political name, but of course, it is not the main argument in its defense. Chrz (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No that is ridiculous and would not be accepted. No one calls Richard III the King of Britain and no one refers to Peter of Castile as King of Spain. The Czech Republic is not a continuation of Bohemian lands nor the Bohemian state. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that as soon as this article is changed to 'Czechia', I will start rewriting all 'Bohemia' as well. Not at all. But Bohemia belongs exclusively to Czech history (Czech history -> History of Czechia -~~-> with difficulties History of the Czech Republic). Chrz (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What I mean that eg. this article List of disasters in the Czech Republic by death toll. Articles that cover the entire history up to the present day could be appropriated by Czechia without any problems, and perhaps the long explanatory comments at the beginning about what is meant by the term 'Czechia' and its territory would become unnecessary. Chrz (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to change this article to make that change. If you think History of Czechia is a more apt title than History of the Czech lands you can make the case there. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. The article 'History of the Czech lands' is a small victory for the non-republican wing. If a hasty unification had taken place, the title would also have included 'Republic'. The fact that at least 'Czech lands' was preserved, given that 'Czechia' is controversial, is a significant point in the argument that 'Czech Republic' is insufficient to describe and encompass earlier events in Czech history. Chrz (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That article has already withstood two attempts to unify it under 'Czech Republic' and one attempt to introduce 'Czechia'. So I know that the "History of" article can maintain its independence from the main article about the (current) state, but on the other hand, it is not allowed to be a driver of change. Any change on Wikipedia would either be led by a change to the main article about the state itself, or some other contextually appropriate article (as mentioned above, it could be hockey or sports in general, where 'Czechia' is spreading the fastest, or even the Eurovision Song Contest), but I doubt it would be in a derived article like 'List of rivers of the Czech Republic'. Chrz (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

But there is a continuity. Even the Constitution mentions it. And I do not expect changing those historical terms. But it's like History of Germany/History of the Federal Republic of Germany. In an article titled Federal Republic of Germany, I would not expect a paragraph about Frederick III. Martin Tauchman (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As Chrz knows well, because we've discussed this before, there are lots of countries out there whose history articles use names that strictly only apply to the current iteration of the state. From the United States to Malaysia, from Tanzania to the Dominican Republic to the Central African Republic (these last two both "Republics" whose history articles covers periods of monarchy). Referring to the History of the Czech Republic including periods before 1993 is no more wrong than referring to the History of United States to include periods before 1776 or referring to the History of the Central African Republic to include periods before 1979. Or, given that in modern parlance Czechia refers to the post-1993 state, History of Czechia to include periods before 1993. Kahastok talk 11:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And as Kahastok certainly knows, the title 'History of Czech Republic' for the article was not approved, so it does not represent a general truth, but only his opinion. On Wikipedia, anything can be voted on and exceptions can be made everywhere, it could even be called 'The Future of the Duchy of Bohemia' if people voted for it here with relevant arguments. But they voted against using 'Czech Republic' for articles about a rich and largely non-republican history. The name 'Czechia', once introduced here, will obviously not only apply to the years 1993+, but will retroactively be much simpler than the term 'Czech Republic' used for non-republican history. As I have already written, this does not mean rewriting names like Bohemia or Czechoslovakia, but it certainly means using the non-political name 'Czechia' for title of comprehensive articles like 'from the beginning of the Czech state to the present'. Similarly, it can be freely used as a replacement for general terms like 'Czech state', 'Czech lands', or 'Czech part of the Czechoslovak federation'.Chrz (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And here's the problem in a nutshell. Even those official sources that use Czechia only use it to refer to the current state, generally in the present tense. As a rule they don't use it for history at all. So what you are proposing is a significant expansion on the meaning of Czechia compared with even those sources that use it. Wikipedia would essentially stand alone as the only major source using Czechia in this way. Fundamentally, this is a proposal to use Wikipedia to campaign for a change in the English language, and that is not our job.

You claim that Czech Republic is a "political name". But if it is then so, equally is Czechia. If anything Czechia is more constrained in time than Czech Republic, because Czech Republic is strictly correct from the fall of communism, whereas the official sources that use Czechia are unlikely to use it for anything before 1993. Kahastok talk 13:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's primarily a political name because of the political regime directly embedded in the name. This gives it a political connotation and makes it more difficult to transfer to a different political era than a name that doesn't have this explicit association. I'm not saying you can't say 'History of the Czech Republic in the 11th century', but I doubt many sources would say that. They wouldn't even say 'History of Czechia in the 11th century' either, but it would still better fit under the overarching category of 'History of Czechia'. I would be more than satisfied if it were used (for now) for the years 1993+. And in the titles of derived articles that currently use 'Czech Republic'. Eventually, Wikipedians will themselves realize that 'Czechia' beautifully replaces terms like 'Czech state', 'Czech lands', and 'the Czechs', because they will soon miss the unification they managed to achieve with other states with purely geographical names. One viewpoint is as follows: Find a 'common' name for a given state and use it for absolutely all derived articles on Wikipedia. This means that there is no longer any need to check whether the occurrence of this name can be proven in a given context; it is simply unified without hesitation on the name that has been found for the most general use. The other extreme is to seek support for the name of each article in sources, which could potentially result in situations like 'Rivers in the Czech Republic', 'Mountains in Czechia', and 'Lakes in the Czech lands'. The reasonable approach will lie somewhere in the middle, and Wikipedia will be able to use a unifying name even where it does not follow so clearly from the sources, because it will desire consistent unification. Chrz (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Great Britain and Spain were new monarchies created through unification. Czechia is just another name of Bohemia, used extensively in Latin since the 16th century. Czechia is nothing but a Latinized endonym. The Czech name of Bohemia and the basis of the current English name of the country is "Čechy" or "Cžechy" in its orginal spelling. The current name of the country is "Česko", which is just a modern form of "Čechy", which is still used as the name of Bohemia proper. If you are looking for a fitting analogy than it would be Siam changing its name to Thailand or Persia requesting to be called Iran. Qertis (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the 16th century Latin Wikipedia, nor the Czech Wikipedia, so the words that Czechs or 16th century Latin-speakers used are irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia. We use modern English names used by modern English speakers. Kahastok talk 13:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. I was merely pointing out that the analogy with Britain and Spain is wrong as is the notion that the Czech Republic is not a continuation of the Bohemian (ie. Czech) state. Qertis (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

But there is a continuity. Modern Czech state claims the continuity of a Czech state in the beginning of the constitution. There is also a continuity in language, literature, and culture. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In contemporary English, there is a difference in meaning between Czechia and Bohemia. Bohemia is just a part of Czechia. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find it very analogous. I consider the main obstacle not to be the change of name (although 'Czechia' is not a real change-change) but the political name, which can be used for periods with different state systems, but not without long introductions and many compromises (or dividing the article into several shorter articles). For example, there is the List of heads of the Czech state, which clearly shows the continuity of the Czech states (contrary to the aforementioned belief that they are not related in any way) and does not venture to cover all Czech states under the name 'Czech Republic'. The name 'Czechia' would have such power, but for now, I would be more than satisfied if it were used only as a modern name. Chrz (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC) I hope you're not trying to argue that the name 'Czechia' is artificially politically imposed, while names like 'Czech Republic', 'Czech Socialist Republic', and 'Czechoslovakia' appeared out of nowhere, spontaneously emerged in English, and therefore have greater validity. Historical sources reveal how ugly articles were written 100 years ago against the name 'Czechoslovakia', which the country voluntarily coined and 'imposed' on the English language. This is just a discussion point for one - the historical aspect when looking for a common name. The name 'Czech Republic' repeatedly failed in the discussion about naming an article about history. The name 'Czechia' also failed there for now, but it was a long time ago when the opposition was afraid that the genie would be let out of the bottle and that it would be necessary to start from the main article... Chrz (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not up to Wikipedia to be the trendsetter. No evidence has been presented that 'Czechia' has surpassed 'Czech Republic' in English. The arguments presenter by the requester are incomplete; they are a series of assertions: I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers; A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia; the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. Where is the actual data? If we are doing it based on the 'vibe of the thing', then 'Czech Republic' clearly wins out still. GeebaKhap (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kahastok. No evidence the suggested title has overtaken the current title. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Whoever doesn't want to see the evidence will never see it. Anyway, there may be one point that most people do not realise. Even an ardent supporter in this matter does recognises both names of the country - Czechia and the Czech Republic. Of course it depends on what I want to search. Then I use both names accordingly. Czechia is geographical name and the Czech Republic is political name. I use those names accordingly. No opponent in this matter, however, does recognises Czechia. The name the Czech Republic is solely recognised by all the opponents as the geographical name. No wonder that opponents adhere to this evidence. That is the only evidence they have got left. That means that even Google Search is not a telling criterion for the use of these words. CzJan2 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia now has a unique chance to stop pretending that the Czech Republic is the only country in Europe that does not have an internationally recognised geographical name. CzJan2 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Quit lying. Wikipedia does no such thing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Khajidha Please avoid that kind of language. Personal insults and ad hominem assertions have no place in this discussion. You can disagree in a civil manner without accusing anyone of lying. Doric Loon (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Khajidha Quit lying? It is rather bold statement. Wonder why you are so convinced about it? It is simply the fact that the internationally recognised geographical name for this country has been avoided here. No doubt about it. We are talking about the only country in Europe that has to have its geographical name "corrected" to its political name in all instances here. CzJan2 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this is a blatant falsehood. The name Czechia is in the very first sentence. So, no Wikipedia is neither pretending that it doesn't exist nor is it being avoided. Which makes 2 statements you have made that are false. When you make statements that are contary to easily verifiable reality, it is not out of line to say that you are lying.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right Wikipedia states that the Czech Republic is also known as Czechia. No dispute about it. However, that's it.

  It is a common practice on Wikipedia to alter every single source correctly using geographical name of the country into incorrectly used political name of the country. Then the meaning is being shifted by this practice. By AVOIDING of the geographical name in such instances the non-existence of it is PRETENDED. Deeds speak loudly.

  It is simple. In order to make the right decision one should ask these questions:

  Is this article primarily about the government? (political term)

  Is this article primarily about the country? (geographical term) CzJan2 (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Based on what I've read here, a reader of English text can understand when a country is renamed from Bohemia to Czechoslovakia and then to the Czech Republic. However, an English reader is not able to grasp the concept of two names being valid at the same time (Yes, a geographic name should be more commonly used, and a political name should be more of a rarity, but this should also be evident from the sources.) Wikipedia supports this by assigning one name to a state and suppressing alternatives in favor of unification and, supposedly, better understanding of the text. Anything else would be considered undermining the consensual name of the state. So, this is the justification for rewriting mentions and links about Czechia to Czech Republic in articles. The fact that these names do not exclude each other (like Turkey and Türkiye or Kiev and Kyiv) is not considered "exception-worthy" for Czechia, but using Czechia is seen as a partisan action to bypass the discussion about moving the main article about the state. Chrz (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is even simpler. We use the term most commonly used in English. Whether that is a political term or a geographical term is irrelevant. If the common name in English for a particular country is a "geographical term", we use that. If the common name in English for a country is a "political one", we use that. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  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) - So there is still a lot of room for discussion, for example, what to imagine under that and what weight those individual independent sources should have, or is it 1 google hit = 1 point. And how to examine whether a given source is 'fully' on your side, or whether over time it at least partially, but already sufficiently, leans to the other side. The colleague's point was also that Wikipedia (well editors) actively deletes almost all mentions of the alternative name, even if it was a close second, and in an effort to unify, distorts the proportion found in the sources into an absolute dominance of one name on Wikipedia. Which can also be seen as an advantage, because once the main article is finally moved, there is almost an unassailable claim to delete the 'old' variant from the surface of Wikipedia. Chrz (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  So? If that is common English usage, then that is what we SHOULD do. English usage is all that matters. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  @CzJan2 I guess it was an unacceptable overreaction to a misunderstanding. Your opponent probably understood it as you claiming that Wikipedia is completely omitting any information about the name 'Czechia'. That's not true; it's partially mentioned in this very article, then there's a whole article about the history of the state's naming, and several sports-related pages have a note at the beginning like 'Since 2021, the team has been officially known in English as Czechia.' Although there was also a fierce battle against such a statement. What's true is that no article has yet been allowed to use 'Czechia' in its title. It was always stated that the change must start with the main article, otherwise it would be bypassing consensus. This is somewhat contradicted in the current discussion, where it's said that some contexts CAN have a different name (as confirmed by, for example, History of the Czech lands or List of heads of the Czech state). Also I assume, that it is true that this is the only state that has a non-conflicting non-political name available and it is not being used for naming (conflicting non-political names Ireland and Micronesia, instead of using a "(country)" in the article nme went the route of the long political name on Wikipedia). Other states with move requests have always dealt only with how to replace one non-political name with another non-political name. Not Czechia's case. But of course, no importance is attached to this.

  @Doric Loon I would ask you to try to prove the claim that is being doubted here. It's hard for you to prove that the name 'Czechia' prevails in news sources (which is what many have reduced the search for a common name to). The only thing that can be proven is that 'Czechia' meets the criteria for a good article title and is 'sufficiently' common. To claim it's 'prevalent', you would have to emphasize officialities, and Wikipedia is not ready to do that. Chrz (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  PS: I don't count Via Czechia as it's a standalone proper noun, and if someone were to transcribe that as well, it would be completely insane. That's also the only way to "enable" the name 'Czechia' on enwiki now - to embed it in other proper nouns that cannot be arbitrarily changed :P Chrz (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  And in this case, FromCzech changed the term Czechia to the Czech Republic, so the text is less concise. Martin Tauchman (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. For all of the reasons mentioned above. Also: THIS AGAIN? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Personally I find Czechia confusingly similar to Chechnya. So I don't think this move would improve Wikipedia. I can see it can be argued both ways policy-wise. Andrewa (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I find the Czech Republic confusingly similar to the Chechen Republic. So this argument makes no sense. CzJan2 (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  How does Chechen Republic confuse you? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are replying to me not to U:CzJan2, despite the stringing. If so good question! To an English speaker they sound similar. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  What is your own linguistic background? I ask because that may explain why you do not understand the argument. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Same could be argued for Austria and Australia but "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia" WP:5P2 Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  This could be argued iff that was the experience of editors. But there is no evidence of that. And I think that you are misquoting WP:5P2, which is about articles. This discussion does not belong in an article. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  See Australia - Not to be confused with Australasia, Austrasia, or Austria.

  See Austria - Not to be confused with Australia, Asturias, or Austrasia.

  Your solution: Rename them to Commonwealth of Australia and Republic of Austria to "avoid the confusion"? Even for very well-known countries, there's still mention of confusion here. Iran and Ireland sounds similar to me and what? Nothing. Chrz (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  And also the Czech Republic not to be confused with the Chechen Republic. CzJan2 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Czech Republic and Chechen Republic aren't as easily confused, in my opinion. But then I suppose you don't consider that relevant? Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it is see the video here. Martin Tauchman (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's not my solution. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Of course not, things with the same or similar names are handled differently than by avoiding such names. Chrz (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  A subjective point of view of ANY participant in this dialog is not relevant on Wikipedia. It really doesn't matter that some people are confused by similarities like these.

  Please see the link below.

  https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/ts8coy/i_present_you_ramzan_kadyrov_the_head_of_the/ CzJan2 (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support move - I agree with the arguments, especialy

• Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

It aligns with the country's officially recognized short name, promotes consistency with international usage, and reflects the trend of using shorter, more accessible country names in encyclopedic entries. It is not more common yet, but I think it is common and recognizable enough. Stapaben (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: While there is a clear preference in the discussion to this point, I am taking into account a concern raised by a supporter that this process not appear rushed. There is still much live discussion ongoing, and there is no deadline. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. No actual evidence has been provided that Czechia has become the common name. Most of the bumps in usage appear to have come from the national sports teams, not from discussion of the country as a whole. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @O.N.R. The evidence has been provided by @Doric Loon at top of this talk. Please read all his entries if you are really eager to know the evidence.

  Perhaps there is a different approach on this topic between supporters and opponents. While the opponents seem to consider the talk to be going against the name of the Czech Republic the supporters do not see it this way. The Czech Republic as a political term is very important aspect of the country for the supporters too. What the supporters are saying is that the geographic name of the country - Czechia - fits the five criteria better then the political name - the Czech Republic. The supporters are not trying to rename the country on Wikipedia. That would be silly. The supporters are trying to rename the article about the country in order to better reflect the reality. CzJan2 (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  "The supporters are not trying to rename the country on Wikipedia." vs "supporters are trying to rename the article about the country" Ummm ... I'm not seeing whatever distinction you are trying to make here. If you "rename the article", then you have "rename[d] the country on Wikipedia". Please clarify. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Khajidha I suppose you do not want to deny that Czechia as a geographic term for the country is used worldwide in English language. 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. The term exists. It is used not only by the Authorities. No doubt about it.

  Geographic terms of any country are used predominantly for non-political matters. However, political terms are not to be replaced by the geographic terms where it make sense. They coexist. The political names supplement the geographic ones. As the Federal Republic of Germany supplements Germany similarly the Czech Republic supplements Czechia.

  Therefore the supporters are not trying to rename the country on Wikipedia as it already exists. The supporters are trying to rename the article about the country in order to better reflect the reality. 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  1) Are you CzJan2? 2) "Used worldwide" is vague. One usage on each continent would be "used worldwide". How much is it used? And how much is Czech Republic used. 3) Diplomatic usage is not general usage. And there is no such thing as "authorities" as far as the English language goes. 4) "Geographic terms of any country are used predominantly for non-political matters. However, political terms are not to be replaced by the geographic terms where it make sense." Those are your rules, but they aren't binding on English language usage. We aren't here to dictate English usage, we are here to record it. 4) Again, your last paragraph about renaming the country on Wikipedia vs renaming the article is contradictory. The two are the same thing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not interested in official names. What is interesting is that we learn that there are no authorities for the English language. So even the UN, UEFA, etc., should be considered a relevant source and not be excluded just because they complied with what the state 'dictated' (as some undermine them). That's not an authority, it's just another - significant source. Chrz (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  If their policy is to simply follow what the country says, then they are not independent sources and are thus irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  "The starting point for a change in English language usage is for the country in question to start using the name in its English communications. Change the name plate at the UN, field sports teams under the new short form (I THINK this is starting), make press releases about events in the country (something like "Czechia seeks bids for construction of new railways"). Don't TELL us to change, SHOW us the change. --Khajidha (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)"

  Fast forward to 2024: We've delivered exactly what you requested. However, it seems that what you once demanded is now deemed insufficient, even irrelevant, as it's being labeled as a dependent source. This contradiction raises questions about the evolving criteria for evidence. Chrz (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you reading the same thing I am? Because at no point in that quote did I say that the country's own usage anywhere would be enough to cause a change here. I said that usage by the country itself could inspire change in English language sources, and those changes could lead to change here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're suggesting things that don't interest you at all as evidence, but which supposedly could interest secondary sources in order to start calling the country by a different name. Other previous messages (not necassarily yours) were along the lines of 'Dear country, how can you have the audacity to suggest anything in English? We'll give you whatever name we choose, and we don't care about your ideas or inspirations. We're not interested in your language, so don't interfere with ours. And what business is it of yours anyway what we call you?!' I've been growing tired of these conflicting reports for years, and I hope we're finally reaching the end of this road. Chrz (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you two can continue your arguing in the Discussion area? Also, CzJan2, I've updated your comment to correctly ping Old Naval Rooftops, aka O.N.R. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the 11th (yes, 11th!) request to move this article to Czechia, and the 10th since the de jure name change in 2016. There is little evidence to suggest that the common name has changed (a lot of major organisations use Czechia for bureaucratic and political correctness reasons) while most people (and thus most RSs) still either use Czech Republic or both interchangeably. Aydoh8^[contribs] 05:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  This RM is going to keep happening, and then as soon as it moves back no one will ever request this page to be moved back. That's how I know this page move should just be finally done. Ortizesp (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  While I am certain that as soon as this page moves, the usual suspects who have always been against it will immediately call for a move review with the aim of reversing the outcome, because it would be just like them to lose after so many years of completely pointless opposition. And that's me assuming good faith.Chrz (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Press Usage In my original bid for this move I put a lot of emphasis on showing how WP:AT encourages us to derive the common name from things like the usage of international organizations or of the press, which reflect expert consensus, rather than on things like Google hits, which really don't. This was a strange new idea to some here, but I have the feeling that in the course of the above discussion, several of the most vocal opponents of this move have come round to accepting that this is what the policy means. I then went on to give evidence for the usage of international organizations, and I think that must have been pretty conclusive, because none of the opponents have doubted that Czechia wins overwhelmingly on that metric. However, I admitted that I did not have an overview of press usage, and the opponents of this move have largely focussed on that, claiming without strong evidence that the press has not changed its use since before 2016, and honestly I was beginning to believe them. So today I spent several hours researching this.

I have now done searches of recent news content of around 40 news outlets. Some important ones were behind firewalls, but I did get data on most of the highest-circulation papers from Britain and America, as well as a broad sampling of other countries. To my astonishment, about 80% of the outlets I analysed are now using Czechia in at least some of their reporting, without feeling the need to explain what is meant. The following list, with links to a couple of random articles at each source, shows just how widespread this is.

1. The (London) Times [25][26]
2. The Independent (UK edition) [27][28]
3. The Financial Times [29][30]
4. The Sun (UK edition) [31][32]
5. The Mirror (UK edition) [33][34]
6. The Daily Express [35][36]
7. The Evening Standard (London) [37][38]
8. Metro (UK) [39][40]
9. The Daily Star (UK) [41][42]
10. The Scotsman [43][44]
11. The Herald (Glasgow) [45][46]
12. The Irish Times [47][48]
13. The New York Times [49][50]
14. The New York Post [51][52]
15. The Wall Street Journal [53]
16. USA Today [54][55]
17. The Boston Globe [56][57]
18. Newsday (Long Island) [58][59]
19. The Globe and Mail (Canada) [60][61]
20. The Toronto Sun [62][63]
21. The Toronto Star [64][65]
22. The Sunday Independent (South Africa) [66][67]
23. The Sowetan [68][69]
24. The New Daily (Australia) [70][71]
25. The West Australian [72][73]
26. The Australian Financial Review [74][75]
27. The New Zealand Herald [76][77]
28. Hindustan Times [78][79]
29. Greater Kashmir [80][81]
30. The Jerusalem Post [82][83][84]
31. Aljazeera [85][86]
32. The Kyiv Independent [87]

These links include articles on sporting events, on economic policy and trade links, on Czechia’s role in the Ukraine war, and on topics quite unrelated to the country that just happen to mention that someone is “from Prague, Czechia”. Now we can discuss whether this list is enough. But I hope nobody is going to continue to claim that nothing has changed since past discussions. Doric Loon (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 Had started a similar list above.[88] Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cashew.wheel Yes, you have done a similar survey with an even bigger sample and have come up with results not unlike mine: of 70 news sources you list, only 14 do not use Czechia, and the rest are split evenly between those who use it sometimes and those who use it always, i.e. around 80% are now using it in at least some of their reporting. Unfortunately, your survey has not received much attention here, probably because you posted it on a user page. Maybe you can highlight it here a bit more - it is solid research and highly relevant. Doric Loon (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, it would be necessary to check the chapter for 'Czechia' as well, as most of them likely also fall into the category of sources that use both names, even in the last year (even though the research there considers mentions up to five years old). Chrz (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna say, I've got something going that shows either the opposite, the same, or who knows what. Conyo14 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This dishonesty is ridiculous. You've clearly just searched for articles that confirm what you want instead of randomly selecting sources. You've ignored AP News and BBC for works like The Sun which is deprecated and used The Athletic and labelled it as the New York Times, if you actually searched for 'New York Times Czech' or something to that affect you will see it uses Czech Republic: [89]. Al Jazeera may have used Czechia in a 2021 headline (whilst using Czech Republic for the actual article) but all their current articles use Czech Republic: [90]. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle Be careful of the ad hominem remarks - why do you people need to make things so personal? It sounds like you're unsure of your position. There is nothing dishonest here. Read what I wrote - I was very careful not to make bigger claims than my evidence supported. I said these are news outlets that are now using Czechia in at least some of their reporting. This is a big change from the position last year, when most of these sources only used Czechia in articles about the name change. Most of the articles I have linked above only use Czechia, though a couple do also use Czech Republic for variety - we do that when we have synonyms to work with - but none of them give the impression of glossing Czechia for people who don't understand it, so they are all using it as a natural form in its own right. You would do yourself more credit, my dear Traumnovelle, if you were to concede a point instead of casting aspersions on other users' honesty - then we would take you more seriously if you have counter-evidence. Doric Loon (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What you have presented is dishonest and does not accurately represent the usage of these organisations. The Times uses 'Czech Republic' far more often than 'Czechia'. In the past week they have 7 articles with 'Czech Republic' and just 1 with 'Czechia'. In the past year it is 260 versus 22. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

His research was, of course, aimed at disproving the thesis that 'Czechia' is not used at all, or if it is, only with an explanation of what it means. He successfully debunked that. There was no requirement for a frequency analysis source by source here, and it would first need to be agreed upon how long a time period to study, how to do it, and whether the opposition would be able to accept that we would dismantle their old assumptions Chrz (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No one claimed it had 'no use', it was that it was used less, which is true. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There is definitely evidence that the new name has been commonly used recently in various sources, including news outlets, and in a wide range of contexts. It is also used independently without the "republic" variant. If someone wants to argue that it's not the most common, not common enough, or not the most widely used, they should tell me what metric and weighting they won't dispute. Only then can we dive deeper into reviewing the sources. But in that case, I would ask them not to claim something about the most widespread version in those sources if they haven't provided any evidence to support such a claim. Chrz (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between claiming that it has "no use" and that it has less use, or - what has actually been argued - that there wasn't evidence that it has more use than Czech Republic. Looking through the sources listed, I found some actually using Czech Republic in most instances, some reserving Czechia for direct quotations and one even saying in so many words that the country is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic (and note that that's a non-US outlet that's unlikely to use the AP Style Book). That's the third source we have that makes that point, with none arguing the reverse position.

What would be better in terms of evidence would be (a) a review of style guides (these are better because they are the considered views of the outlets concerned), and (b) a review that considers the relative frequency of both terms, including those outlets that are not newspapers (such as broadcasters) and those that seem not to use Czechia at all. Tne methodology you've used above leaves you open to the charge of cherry picking sources rather than attempting to provide a balanced review of what the sources actually say. Kahastok talk 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, the website mzv.gov.cz suggests 3 sources for learning about the country in English:[91] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Czech Republic, also known as Czechia

BBC: the Czech Republic or Czechia; CZECH REPUBLIC/CZECHIA: FACTS

CIA (the link is broken, but on the moved page): Czechia, Czechia, Czechia

I don't see any paradox or joke here. You can learn about the name 'Czechia' from all of these sources that the London embassy has pointed out to you as examples of where you can find a comprehensive summary on Czechia in English. Chrz (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I love Irish Independent's [92] styleguide 2023: "Czech Republic is what we write (formerly Czechoslovakia), not Czechia", but used anyway :) Chrz (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your point about how the sources were selected: I began with Wikipedia's lists of newspapers from different countries, which are arranged by circulation, and simply started with the largest ones, skipping those where I encountered firewalls etc, and continued until I had 40 titles. I did hesitate to cite The Sun, but it is large circulation and having chosen my method, I decided to stick with it. So they are not random, and are also not selected to give me the result I wanted: they reflect the influence of the source. I then searched for Czechia using the websites' internal search engines, and 32 of the 40 produced hits showing at least some use of the term. Doric Loon (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish you had included this list in your initial post. A lot of opposing comments wouldn't have been posted, or would have been proven to be uninformed about the current situation (or outright lies).

Czechia has become established in various news sources and contexts (not just describing the name change, not just in sports, and not always accompanied by an explanation). If someone posts a single article from a source to prove that the old name is still used, it can be countered exactly as you've shown - by posting a single counter-example showing that the new name is also used.

The only thing that can be examined is the frequency of occurrences, but did it really bother most of the opposing voices? How can the frequency and trends be examined in specific sources? And how significant is it for studying common usage? So far, there have been only general condemnations that Czechia is not used at all. If this is now refuted, we can either close the discussion with proof that 'Czechia' is trending, or proceed to a real and careful examination of the frequency of sources, and definitely not just news sources. Chrz (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chrz. You are right, and I apologize - I should have done this two weeks ago. It would indeed seem that some of the opposing comments have been over-confident in their assumptions about the infrequency of Czechia in news reporting (but let's NOT accuse anyone of lying).

Most of the sources I cited above appear to be using Czechia by preference in all of their reporting, though this is very recent, and if you go back before the Olympics, the picture is less clear. A few of the sources I cited are still using Czech Republic a lot, and the example from the Wall Street Journal may be an outlier, but at the moment I'm not sure how we would go about doing a meaningful frequency study without putting weeks of work into it - we all have lives. Doric Loon (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for approaching the move request with such composure. And for managing to dismantle many of the opposing arguments, even if not from the very beginning, it's at least clearer now, when it is present in the same request. Now I would wait for the opposition to regroup and tell us if they feel convinced, or if they will prepare new obstacles for the name Czechia. Or a more precise interpretation of how to prove that Czechia is not "common enough" for Wikipedia. Chrz (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. I don't think there's much doubt that Czechia, while not universally used, is now demonstrably common in English and is the appropriate choice for an encyclopedic article title, particularly when considering the superabundance of other significant, non-press sources that have already been shared. As such, opponents' loud and repeated claims that there's "no evidence" should be given no weight. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Providing no evidence then waiting until the last minute to provide a cherrypicked list should not disregard other user's comments. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Suddenly, we're talking about frequency. Until now, the opposition was satisfied with a single article from a given source as proof that the given source doesn't use 'Czechia' at all. Cherry-picking. Chrz (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually the case against the move has not significantly been based on such articles. We do see quite a few quotes for instances of usage - but they're generally coming from supporters of the move making the case, arguing, effectively, see, someone actually uses Czechia.

The sources raised by those opposing the move have frequently been those that explicitly or implicitly compare usage of Czech Republic with Czechia and find that Czech Republic is more common. The Google Trends and Ngrams data. The article written to explain what Czechia means to football fans who might be confused by it. The AP style book, which says in so many words that Czech Republic is more widely known than Czechia. Sure there are Amakuru's individual instances of usage - but even these are explicit country profiles, which are more clearly representative than individual articles that might happen to quote someone who said Czechia.

I found only one source found by a supporter of this move of this kind - but it's the style guide you raised earlier today for a publication that says they use Czech Republic (even if some of their articles say Czechia). Kahastok talk 20:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You see that 'Czechia' is commonly used. So okay, many opposition voices haven't noticed. Then it's a candidate for a common name. The fact that Google Trends shows what people search for and not what sources use was discussed. The fact that Ngram is two years behind and doesn't contain the recent increase was repeated many times. Building the entire rejection of the name 'Czechia' on the fact that someone wrote an article for football fans saying 'please note, there has been a change' is not at all important to me, when sources, especially in football or hockey, switched and use it in huge numbers, without subsequent repetitions of which country is meant by that. Building it on style guides is IMHO also a bad idea. I sent that one example mentioned, that such information can be useless when the source itself doesn't follow its own style guide and violates it on a large scale. The AP style guide is also such a circular evidence. It's almost like saying 'We won't use Czechia on Wikipedia because we found out from Wikipedia that it's not used'. Truly brilliant. Moreover, AP style guide is also two years old and now it should honestly admit that the name 'Czechia' in sports contexts has already managed to establish itself without the need to add auxiliary wheels with an explanation of how it was 'called before'. And the rest of the opposition's demands are unrealistic expectations that the original name will completely disappear, when the renaming actually had the ambition to push the older name out for more political contexts, but not to abolish it (unlike complete renamings). Chrz (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Another style guides: 'Czechia (not the Czech Republic).' (with BuzzFeedNews considered reliable according to WS:RS/P), then of course the EU style guide deemed dependent on country's wishes and included in the lead of the article, it was already discussed that BBC SG does not directly contain it, only indirectly hidden in description of Eastern Europe, not as a definition, Guardian 2021 the Czech Republic, and I haven't found more (yet), either it's behind a paywall, or it's a book and not always up-to-date.... Chrz (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And now you're making a mistake noted above. Wikipedia as an institution neither wants to move the article nor wants not to move the article. Wikipedia as an institution doesn't care what the article is called. Wikipedia's rules don't take any account at all of why a name is the most common. Our rules are only interested in whether it is the most common.

Even if the fact that Czech Republic is more commonly used is directly due to the AP stylebook saying it's more commonly used, that still means that Czech Republic is more commonly used. Even if it's Wikipedia itself that makes the difference, it doesn't matter. What matters only is that Czech Republic is more commonly used. And the fact that it is more commonly used has been demonstrated here in the normal Wikipedia way, using multiple independent reliable sources that say so in so many words, without significant rebuttal. Kahastok talk 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"I admitted that I did not have an overview of press usage, and the opponents of this move have largely focussed on that ... I have now done searches of recent news content of around 40 news outlets. ... I did get data on most of the highest-circulation papers from Britain and America, as well as a broad sampling of other countries. ...about 80% of the outlets I analysed are now using Czechia in at least some of their reporting, without feeling the need to explain what is meant"

This was written by the proposer. He admits that 8 news sources don't use it at all, while others use it quite commonly. Either their style guide doesn't forbid it, or they don't have one, or they happily violate it. The opposition must now shift from 'it's not used at all' to 'it's not used the most'. While a case for renaming would be simpler with overwhelming newspaper usage (we can now add information about the frequency there), the recommendation for a common name doesn't require limiting ourselves to newspapers and examining only the most frequent variant there. Czechia is present in many different sources, it is 'common enough' and as the proposer points out, where it might lag in frequency, it makes up for it in other criteria. Chrz (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain your sentence: What matters only is that Czech Republic is more commonly used. I thought that what matters is only WP:CRITERIA. And there are more criteria to consider. If you have two common names (and you agree that 'Czechia' is common now, but not more commonly used), the rule below should prevail.

• Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)

Stapaben (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Concision means avoiding titles like The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not having titles as short as possible. USA and US are both redirects and neither are the article title despite both being more concise. Concision exists to avoid needlessly long titles for the sake of brevity, not choosing the shortest possible title. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Conciseness is one of the qualities where Czechia triumphs, and there's no way around it. Nobody here is talking about abbreviations, nobody is suggesting CZ, CZE or "CR", so don't turn it upside down. Chrz (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

By the standard articulated by Stapaben the correct name for this article is actually probably CZ. Unless we can come up with a suitable one-letter name. Unsurprisingly, Stapaben's standard is not supported by policy. Kahastok talk 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Policy: Concision is, of course, mentioned as one of the decisive factors for WP:Article title. CZ would obviously be even shorter, but other characteristics from "Deciding on an article title" would be significantly worse, so such an abbreviation is not even on the table. We are not looking for the shortest possible label, but for a "somewhat" commonly used name that is as short, as precise, as consistent, etc. as possible. It was said here that Czechia is only one word shorter, so it doesn't make a difference. But you also forget about "the", which must be prefixed in most mentions according to grammar. That's three more letters and a space ;P Chrz (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I just mentioned one of the wiki rules in response to your "What matters only" comment. I know there is more than one rule, but do you?

For example, "CZ" is out of the question as it doesn't comply with the rules:

• 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.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)

For Czechia the last and only challenge is the rule:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

And there is no "most common" just "someone familiar with will recognize." I think Czechia complies with that as well, as was proven in this discussion. Stapaben (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the importance of Google Trends or Ngram: The Swaziland move happened in October 2018, and look how the situation looked there. [93] [94] Swaziland was still not defeated on Ngram until today! Google Trends started favoring Eswatini only years after the move! So it's not a dealbreaker. If you have solid numbers and trends in all sorts of metrics, it is enough for the move, you can't cling to Google Trends, or to the occurrence in popular newspapers, but generally across sources and across evaluation criteria. Chrz (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Eswatini had a number of differences in this case, notably including WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:ENGVAR (as it is an English-speaking country).

But, again, you seem to be trying to reverse the burden of evidence here. It is for supporters of the move to demonstrate that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed, not for opponents of the move to demonstrate that it has not.

I note that I've had at least two of you telling me that I think Czechia is "common". I don't believe I've said that. That's you putting words in my mouth. My experience is actually that it isn't particularly common in normal life and is likely to trip people up in a way that would not happen with Czech Republic or Slovakia or France or Greece. My experience is that even those using the word more often than not mispronounce it (generally by trying to turn the /k/ into [x] or [h]), which would imply a lack of familiarity with the word.

Now, if supporters had provided evidence that would imply that my experiences are unusual, that's fine. Wikipedia looks at the evidence, not editors' unsourced experiences. But the evidence we have suggests that my experience is not unusual, and that Czech Republic remains considerably more recognisable, more natural - and yes, more common - than Czechia. Kahastok talk 16:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Eswatini managed completely without Google Trends and ngrams, so let's not make a big deal out of it. That was the point. Czechia has its own qualities that can make up for what might be missing in frequency. Many in the opposition won't even admit to the name Czechia as much as it has really succeeded in promoting itself lately, even if mainly through sports. Some are not able to admit that Czechia is shorter. They are afraid to admit anything nice about the name Czechia, lest it win by any chance? But subjective judgments like "nobody around me uses it, so it's not common" should be decisive or what. Chrz (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it should have been changed, but I wasn't there to voice my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious, at what specific point in time would you have considered the renaming of Swaziland appropriate, if not in October 2018? Or do you believe the old name should still be used now? Be aware that your answer will reveal your standards, as some of the local opposition supported that move of Swaziland in 2018, so even with the case of Czechia, they might become supporters sooner than you. Chrz (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle: I've provided numerous citations above, as have others. You're making my point, now please desist. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right that the opposition has essentially gotten stuck on frequency in newspaper sources. As has been said many times here, all the characteristics used to evaluate the article title, according to the recommendations, should be fairly assessed. Something along those lines. THE NUMBERS SERVE ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE AND IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED HOW IMPORTANT EACH CHARACTERISTIC IS.

• Recognizability 25 %
• Naturalness 25 %
  • Frequency (news in general) 20 %
  • Frequency (sports context) 33 %
  • Trend 75 %
• Precision 60 %
  • International Institutions 85 %
• Concision 90 %
• Consistency 75 %

Chrz (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doric Loon Could you please emphasize or give a concluding speech? As I read the opposition's voices, they constantly demand that this be predominantly used in newspapers and a) ignore any sources other than newspapers, and b) understand examples from newspapers that were supposed to prove that Czechia is already well-established in them only as cherry-picking. I am not capable of that, their repetition of arguments that have been discussed and explained a hundred times convinces me that they haven't even read them and came to tell us their opinion that it's not common and that's it. Chrz (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not convinced that Czechia has become the common name in English. Khiikiat (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. I'm not convinced the common name has changed and the evidence presented that it has seems to still be cherry-picking. SnowFire (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Fails in WP:COMMONNAME, appears to be a forced change. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The evidence doesn't show the common name has changed. The walls of text and cherry-picked sources presented by the support camp aren't helping. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Summing up I have the feeling that for the moment everything has been said, and it’s time for somebody to move to close this. I’ve been asked to give a summing up, so here’s my final word.

My argument has been based heavily on the fact that WP:AT tells us to judge common name mainly on the use of authorities like international organizations and the press. International organizations now overwhelmingly use Czechia, which is a big shift since previous discussions. We laid out the evidence for this at the top and none of the opposers have challenged it, so we can take it as read.

In the press, use is changing fast. At the beginning of this discussion, opposers cast doubt on my observation that I was seeing Czechia in the papers, claimed that the press only use Czechia with an explanation for readers who might be confused by it, and opined that nothing has changed in press usage since our last discussion six months ago. So I did a survey of top-selling papers (based on circulation, so not cherry-picked) which showed that 80% of them use Czechia at least occasionally, and suddenly all those claims have disappeared like snow off a dike. And amusingly, some of the opponents have already persuaded themselves that they never said those things in the first place. So we are winning this argument by little steps. However, what my survey did not do (and was never intended to do) was say anything about how frequently these news outlets use the word. We have documented a massive change in press usage, but the opposers don’t think this is enough, and some of their points are fair.

The other aspect that I still think is key is the emphasis that WP:AT puts on consistency with other articles. Although some of the opposers have quibbled about this, Wikipedia policy would be to treat Czechia like Slovakia unless there is overpowering reason not to, and I just don’t see anything overpowering in the opponents’ arguments.

The closer should be someone who has not been involved in the debate so far, and they will have to decide if this evidence is enough. If the answer is no, I would ask for a moratorium on the topic for a year. There is really no doubt that this move will eventually be made, but if it is not now, we should sit back and watch the dizzying pace of change for a bit longer.

One final point, and I’m sorry to have to say this, but I’ve been disappointed by the amount of sniping, sarcasm and failure to assume good faith that I’ve seen here. If everyone had kept soberly to the facts, this could have been a much shorter discussion. Doric Loon (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note that the reason opposers stopped responding is probably because there is only so much point in repeating oneself. Those who have been around for a while know that certain editors will insist on getting WP:THELASTWORD, and that if you try to join them you just both end up repeating yourselves, generating lots of heat and no light.

Given that I have no wish to repeat myself, I will restrict myself to the new claims here. That the use of Czechia by international organisations is a big shift since previous discussions. That's actually not true. Go through the previous RMs, and you'll find that exact argument made in most of them. It wasn't persuasive before. Why would it be now?

And I'll add. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Czechia might meet the standard in the future. It might not. It was a Czech government that preferred Czech Republic over Czechia in 1993, and a future Czech government might take the same view. It is appropriate, even if we anticipate a name change based on a trend, that we not jump the gun. Kahastok talk 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just comment on this information that wasn't mentioned earlier in the discussion (if I understood you correctly): See Name of the Czech Republic. In 1993, it was standardized at the national level (terminology experts, who are legally authorized to do so, have recommended a English language name under which the country will be presented internationally.) But this was not communicated internationally... So all occurrences between 1993 and 2016 were despite, not thanks to, the efforts of the Czech government. Chrz (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So I lied when I told the CR-people that discussion was dying down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_1_October_2024 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment On a side note, can we all agree that the same moratorium for this article be in place for another year regardless of the outcome? Conyo14 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Probably not, but I'm fine with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I hope for a more detailed justification for the closure. Even if Czechia is successful, to avoid a move review. What exactly decided and how the common name is measured. Whether it's through ngram or Google Trends (although in other successful moves they were well below 50%), or that newspapers (and why only media sources have weight?) are not sufficiently "trained" on the new name (the opposition has not presented any frequency research in newspaper sources, only personal beliefs that it is simply not common, the supporting side has only presented examples that high-profile media can use the new name independently - should the frequency be added now, or next time?). It would also be nice to know whether or not it is possible to attempt a move at least in sports articles, if Czechia is more established in a sports context (how it was also briefly discussed). A one-year moratorium is a reasonable default value, but if the closer says that only a little was missing for success, then six months :) Chrz (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Eventually, it will be changed to "Czechia". So no problem with moratorium. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I was going to close this RM before noticing I'd participated in the 2023 RM, thus making me WP:INVOLVED. Anyway: I'm personally convinced by the argument that the increased adoption makes "Czechia" an acceptable article title, and honestly, I'm not really convinced by the arguments against moving (especially the "sports don't count" arguments; it feels like putting your finger on the scale a bit too much). Sceptre (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I noted the jump in sports-related usage is that we're looking for the name of the country, not the country's sports teams. (Same with how the Turkish team went by Türkiye at the Olympics, but we continue to refer to the country as Turkey.) O.N.R. ^(talk) 05:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  If the same opponents were to say 'but I support the move for sports articles', such a negative argument would sound more sincere. If the increase in occurrences were only in primary sources, such as sports organizations' results lists, which 'must' use the new name, perhaps the opposition could be understood, but if secondary sources also accept it, you cannot reject such sources. Secondary media sources are not obliged to copy official results lists, and indeed some actively rewrite the name to Czech Republic. "However, it is recommended to opt for the short form in situations where formal country names are not required such as sport, cultural or business events." - This is precisely why short, non-political country names are used - including in sports presentations. Yes, it is the name of a sports team, but representing a specific country. I don't know the situation with Türkiye in this regard, but the sports usage is just one piece of the puzzle arguing for Czechia, for example, concision speaks in favor of the shorter Turkey ;) The successful move to Czechia does not create new arguments for the move of Turkey. Perhaps it will only complete the picture of how common name is evaluated and Turkey will gain a clearer understanding of precedents, but IMHO Türkiye is in many ways behind Czechia, moreover, it is a replacement of one short for another, slightly longer short name. The case of Czechia is a supplement of a short name, while the long name remains valid (for different contexts). Chrz (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At the top of the talkpage. The link needs to be fixed/updated to show that the RM is closed. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, will need an update when the thread is archived. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Moratorium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that some kind of moratorium is desirable, as it would give time for sources to develop without constant discussion here, but the actual length is a bit unclear. 12 months was the original proposed length, but there has been support for a shorter term. Six or nine months was mentioned. Nine months seems short enough to be reasonable, but also long enough for something to actually change. That also acts as a good mid-length consensus compromise. So, there is a nine-month moratorium on further move discussions, until 26 July 2025. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 14:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Now that the discussion has been closed, I propose a one-year WP:MORATORIUM, as both supporters and opposers of the move, including the OP, spoke in favour of one, and no one spoke against it. Brainiac242 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• The supporter of the move demonstrated its use in the media in various contexts. The conclusion only mentions proven institutions and sports. Should the moratorium therefore apply to general use, or can a discussion about the move of sports articles be immediately initiated? Once I know this, then I can say how long the moratorium should be and by what it can be prematurely terminated for fundamental changes. One year is long enough, many things have definitely changed since the last attempt a year ago. Chrz (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The moratorium would only apply to this article. If you, or anyone else, would like to move another article, that would have to be discussed in that article’s talk page. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I know. Here, it will be stated that the moratorium applies only to this article and that the sport team name is not relevant to the country name. And in the sports article, it will be argued that the move request circumvents the moratorium on the main article of the country and that the title of the sports article is directly dependent on the article about the country, therefore, the main article needs to be move successfully before anything else. Been there, done that. Chrz (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. I shall proceed with an RM there when this moratorium is in place. Conyo14 (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Where there? The ice hockey mentioned in the discussion? Or football? Or any other sport? Although you presented yourself as neutral and there was such confident talk among several opponents about the sports team name and the country name being independent and unrelated things, I'm still not sure they would give you their support there :) and that it wouldn't be perceived as a defiant act. Chrz (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

*ominously* there. ahem Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team Conyo14 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• That's fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I am not convinced by the non-admin closure explanation, not only because of what @Chrz mentions, but also because it states that the usage of Czech Republic is a "long-standing consensus", which is clearly not true. That is why these discussions take place every year, over and over. If there were a long-standing consensus to use the political name, discussions like these would look different, and the current state would have fewer opponents. Thus, I am against the moratorium, and I want to have the opportunity for another discussion soon. -- Unloose ^(talk) 15:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Since you mentioned me: I'm not looking for a monthly debate. My question is, what specific evidence would satisfy the opponents? Google graphs, which was not considered relevant in similar cases? It has been demonstrated that 32 out of 40 of the largest media outlets use the name to a reasonable extent and in a variety of contexts, with two links provided as examples. This was deemed insufficient. Are they demanding a detailed frequency analysis, or are they simply waiting for BBC, which heroically resists? After all, some people here will still insist that nothing has changed since 2016. How can you have a discussion with people like that until you get some kind of measurable unit from them, not just their personal beliefs? Chrz (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself, it would be good to see a news articles using "Czechia" in non sports contexts, because for whatever reason the name has caught on more in the sports world than elsewhere. It would be helpful if said articles were about the country itself instead of just a passing reference to it. Maybe also look into what other encyclopedias are doing. EB still uses Czech Republic for example [95]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  IMHO, larger British sources seem to keep each other in check, perhaps they are all linked to Britannica as their style guide. Change comes more from smaller "actors". Chrz (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus isn't changed because people repeatedly bring up a move request... That'd be like saying anything that has repeated ip comments/new user comments can't have consensus because it is challenged by them. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, if Wikipedia had been created today, it would be a completely different 'contest' and both sides would have to make an equal effort (not just and say that 'they are not convinced of a change'). But it was created ages ago, the supporters have to make the main effort, while the opponents have a 'long-term status quo' on their side, a consensus reached when there was only one choice. Chrz (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The first time this move request was proposed was in 2005, it may have even been informally proposed earlier. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The article was created in 2001 under the only conceivable name, thus establishing a long-term status quo. The first attempts to compare this name after years with a weak competitor ended with the conclusion that 'the result of move request is that Czech Republic is the common name'. (If I understood correctly) the latest result is there is no consensus on which name is common, so we will keep the current state. This would imply that if the article had been created today and could not rely on any history, it might have come down to a simple vote, which Czechia won. Chrz (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Chrz Absolutely right. The discussion is constantly moving forward in little steps, with arguments that the opposers quite rightly used six months ago now being untenable (e.g. that the press often used the word but then felt the need to explain it - was true, now patently is not), and the formulation by the closer makes this development very clear indeed. Note also that Sceptre was about to close in the opposite direction, until prevented by a technicality. So we're now neck-and-neck. But ultimately the closer came down against the move and we should accept this result with good grace now and wait. Doric Loon (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Doric Loon Yes. One closer was prepared for Czechia, the other said that the common name is unclear and therefore we will maintain the current name. So the trend is changing on Wikipedia as well, and we are just waiting for the date. In such a situation, I do not consider enforcing the status quo with long-term moratoriums to be honorable. Chrz (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• A moratorium seems a good idea. I'm not convinced it would be useful to hold another RM in even a year's time - there's nothing to suggest usage is shifting that rapidly and honestly these discussions are quite draining, having to constantly explain to people why the naming policy is as it is, and why sourcing evidence is key... but I know it's unlikely anyone would support longer than a year so a year it is. Some people above hinted that this might be a case similar to yogurt or New York (state), where there are repeated move requests and eventually one will stick, but I wouldn't see it that way. Unlike in those instances, there's nothing substantive in policy or guideline to favour the proposed name over the current one.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• I would oppose a year-long moratorium, but a shorter pause might be OK. As Unloose rightly points out above, the fact that the Czechia issue keeps bubbling up so persistently (and with considerable support and evidence, as the closer notes), suggests that there's something problematic — or at the very least non-optimal — with the status quo. This is why there are repeated requests, and simply barring such requests does nothing to address the underlying issue. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Given how omnipresent of a move request this is, one year sounds fine. If the situation has substantially changed by October of next year, there will be a new group of sources to show, and this process will begin once again. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Six to nine months would be more preferable to a year. I don't think a pure headcount was the best way to go – I would personally have discounted the "it sounds too much like Chechnya" !vote, and put less weight on the "this again?" !votes – but the trend for these RMs is that the result is that they just fall short of the consensus line. I don't want to go straight back into the fire, but neither is there a settled consensus against moving; it's very much a "no consensus either way, default to status quo ante" closure. Sceptre (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think the moratorium should be general (applied to all pages with Czech Republic in its name) and if not, it has to be short (for example 6 months). WP:CRITERIA and WP:CONSISTENT applies, if enough users say that it applies, not by a specific user's statement here, and nothing has changed in that since the last discussion on this topic. We should agree on this here, and not encourage dozens of fragmented debates. As I wrote in the debate above, I am neutral about the name of the country, but to circumvent the result of the discussion by turning over individual pages is unconceptual and unpracticed within Wikipedia. FromCzech (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see the need for a general moratorium. If someone suggests Politics of the Czech Republic be renamed there are competency issues and that would get quickly shut down I imagine. But for proper nouns that use Czech Republic or Czechia an individual case can be made e.g. Volt Czechia. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Volt Czechia is an example when the country name is part of the name. But names of the pages like Politics of the Czech Republic or Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team (not Czech Republic Men's National Ice Hockey Team) are derived from the name of this page. So I say: let's come to an agreement and hold out for half a year, and then (most likely) move everything at once and with less work. FromCzech (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Because of the no consensus here, I do feel that a year would still be good to grab more data. However, I do think the moratorium should not extend to other pages. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CONSISTENCY is not as strictly enforced as you claim, even now. I disagree with the assertion that Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team means Men's national ice hockey team of the Czech Republic. It means Men's national ice hockey team which is called Czech Republic. I propose the following changes:

  • Volt Czechia (and similar cases) → remains unchanged, as it is a separate proper noun
  • *** of the Czech Republic → remains unchanged, as it is derived from the country article
  • *** in the Czech Republic → remains unchanged, as it is derived from the country article
  • Czech Republic at *** → change to Czechia at ***
  • Czech Republic *** team → change to Czechia *** team (as well as flagicons)
  • *** of the Czech Lands, *** of the Czech state → this can be (for the time being) under *** of the Czech Republic (as a gesture of goodwill to define a clear dividing line and reduce number of terms)

  The boundary is defined so sharply, that it's not that complicated, and you can divide the future big renaming into two steps. And the reason? The conviction that Wikipedia is already behind in the sports team context. Yes, there would be an article 'Sport in the Czech Republic' and 'Czechia *** hockey team', but there is no contradiction in that. Chrz (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  When you allow the use of both terms within one page, it's a big contradiction. I do not agree with your interpretation of the creation of the page name – and in case of doubt, it should be resolved for example on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, and not within a single country. FromCzech (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why it should be a contradiction in the case of Czechia. Team Czechia, place Czech Republic. Great Britain, GB, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain, UK, United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; USA, United States of America, US, United States, America – these countries use their "synonyms" within the same article, and nobody questions it. And yet these non-unified countries would demand that Czechs have only one name for all contexts? Why? :) Chrz (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  And what about cases like 'Czech Republic at the 1996 Summer Olympics' where the 'team name' WAS 'Czech Republic'? I would respond that I don't see a problem with retroactivity, when others don't see it either. Chrz (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you make a good point that not every article title including “Czech Republic” is equal. The moratorium should probably apply to articles like Politics of the Czech Republic and Sports in the Czech Republic, but not necessarily to articles like Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team. I’m not sure this last one should be moved, but I’m willing to have a separate discussion on the topic. I do ask that, if any discussion to move an article including “Czech Republic” in its title is started, a notification is posted to this page. Brainiac242 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'd prefer to have a general discussion about how we handle sports contexts here, like a Request for Comments subpage or whatever. I think we could move all sports and sports event participations together; separate discussions for each article seem unnecessary. Do we need to notify every single sports wikiproject about this? I'm not sure.

By the way, here's simplified rule for naming articles:

the Czech Republic → the Czech Republic

Czech Republic → Czechia Chrz (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that rule. This article’s title is “Czech Republic” not “the Czech Republic”, and the move to “Czechia” was just rejected. The default name should definitely be however this article is called. But we don’t need to have a separate discussion for each article. There’s no reason closely related articles can’t be discussed together. As far as sports teams are concerned, before forming a position in favour or against, I would ask for examples of articles currently using a different country name in the title than the country’s own article. Brainiac242 (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've prepared an unfiltered list of all articles and even redirects where the name appears, so that we can clarify what is a country and what is a team: User:Chrz/Czechia Chrz (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant examples of other countries. In the discussion above, someone mentioned the Great Britain men's national ice hockey team. The more examples like this you can provide, and the more similar those examples are to this case, the more likely I’ll be to support moving articles like Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There won't be many such examples, each of those I'm writing about here has different reasons, but each is original in its own way, just as Czechia is original with its approach of 'a shorter name later, but the longer name still applies in other contexts':

• Great Britain men's national ice hockey team - the justification is that it doesn't represent the entire United Kingdom (for similar reasons, Northern Ireland national football team and England national football team are needed)
• Chinese Taipei national baseball team, Chinese Taipei at the 2020 Summer Olympics - the justification is political, or there might be a separate rule for this, moreover, Taiwan is not 'fully' independent
• Russian Olympic Committee athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics - doping

Maybe someone knows other examples. Chrz (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chrz: Great Britain men's national ice hockey team - the justification is that it doesn't represent the entire United Kingdom

@FromCzech: The Great Britain ice hockey team does not use United Kingdom because it does not represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but only Great Britain.

Do either of you have a source for that? I don’t doubt it’s true, but it does contradict the article: The Great Britain men's national ice hockey team (also known as Team GB) is the national ice hockey team that represents the United Kingdom.

Are Northern Irish players not allowed on the team? Is there a separate Northern Ireland men's national ice hockey team? Brainiac242 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Great Britain at the Olympics "Athletes from Northern Ireland can choose to compete for either Britain or the Republic of Ireland. In Northern Ireland most sports (such as basketball and hockey) are organised on an all-Ireland basis. Athletes in these sports are therefore effectively compelled to represent the Republic of Ireland." - so very special case.... Chrz (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, special case, Ireland men's national ice hockey team confirms that The team has had members from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Chinese Taipei national teams are also a special case, and are bounded with Chinese Taipei. There are many countries where the team name does not match the country name (Côte d'Ivoire x Ivory Coast, Türkiye x Turkey, Timor-Leste x East Timor, Republic of Korea x South Korea, Brunei Darussalam x Brunei, etc.), but there is no precedent for what some here want to try. That is also why it is so important to discuss it at a higher level than just the Czech Republic and than just hockey. FromCzech (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, there are many countries where the names registered with sports organizations (primary sources) differ from the 'common name'. But if we want to compare - does it also happen with these countries that secondary sources, when referring to a particular sport, accept and use this name, as is often the case (although not always) with 'Czechia'? Chrz (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of countries whose teams were named differently from the common name for the country at this year's Olympics. (Hopefully complete.) Czechia has managed to get into secondary sources. If this is also successful for others of these, they might also consider a different name for their sports team on Wikipedia. List_of_sovereign_states#UN_member_states_and_General_Assembly_observer_states versus Paris 2024 Olympics: Full list of country names and codes for IOC National Olympic Committees

• Brunei - Brunei Darussalam
• Cape Verde - Cabo Verde
• Czech Republic - Czechia
• East Timor - Democratic Rep. of Timor-Leste
• China - People’s Republic of China
• Iran - Islamic Republic of Iran
• Ivory Coast - Côte d’Ivoire
• Kingdom of Denmark - Denmark
• Kingdom of the Netherlands - Netherlands
• Laos - Lao People’s Democratic Republic
• Moldova - Republic of Moldova
• North Korea - Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
• Republic of the Congo - Congo
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• São Tomé and Príncipe - Sao Tome and Principe
• South Korea - Republic of Korea
• Syria - Syrian Arab Republic
• Turkey - Türkiye
• United Kingdom - Great Britain
• United States - United States of America

Chrz (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles in which the title is the proper name of an organization should be titled according to what that organization calls itself (as given in that organization's own English-language website). So if the official English name of an organization is "xxx of Czechia", it can be moved now, no matter what happens on this page. However, I don't see many cases where that arises. Obviously the corollary also applies: the Football Association of the Czech Republic is still using the protocol form in its official title, and as long as that is the case, it cannot be moved to Czechia, even if we do agree to move this article. Doric Loon (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A one-year moratorium seems reasonable. Khiikiat (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The justification for a moratorium is twofold, it seems to me. First, it gives an opportunity for things to change. If there is a trend toward Czechia, it will have more time to continue or reverse. New sources may appear. Existing sources may change. If someone reproposed this in the short term, you'd expect the same outcome. A wait before the next one gives time for sources to change and for minds to change.

Second, it means that the article gets a break from continual discussion. The break from discussion allows the article to develop and improve in other ways.

Despite what some might claim, repeated discussion is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong in policy. It may mean that policy requires a conclusion that is unpopular with a certain segment of the editors, but that is not the same thing. We would not delete 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre even if pro-Beijing editors took it to its hundredth AFD. Even if it was a different editor taking it to AFD every time.

I've noted a couple of people above claiming not to understand what those opposing the move want to see. I find this odd because I told you what I want to see. Quite clearly and explicitly. Several times. And I did not see it in the above.

And finally, on other articles, there's a simple answer that, procedurally speaking, editors at this talk page can't enforce a moratorium on other articles and there's not a lot of point in pretending that we can. But MOS:GEO is a thing, so discussion elsewhere should focus on why an exception should or should not be made in a given case. Kahastok talk 16:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeated attempts evaluate new sources since the last attempt, so they make sense; it's not an eternal, repetitive discussion over the same inputs (well... recalling of old and presenting new ones). To allow for new inputs and sources to be gained and avoid re-evaluating each new one individually, a pause in the discussion is a reasonable solution. However, we need to know what to get, so that it makes sense to even attempt a move and thus waste one chance per year. It has been repeatedly stated that one thing is what the opposition needs to finally join the supporters, and another thing is whether their demands are reasonable. If similar demands ever had to be met in similar RMs, if it cannot be replaced by another evidence, why should the media have the final say, and whether these same people were not eternal opponents of moves that were eventually carried out without their support and without meeting their excessive conditions. Demanding a style guide is nice, but we don't have access to them and we suspect that the media can violate them anyway. It has been proven that the name Czechia is now used independently, without explaining that it is another name for the Czech Republic, one of the objections of the previous RM. Google graphs is a nice thing, but it's also not a deal breaker, just as it wasn't for other moves, and it can't summarize usage in the media for us. And demanding an article that explicitly tells us "Czechia is more common" is ... let's say strange, as is elevating an article like "Football fans are confused" to some linguistic research and evidence number 1. The discussion ended with "no consensus" on what the common name is in this case, so the next discussion, after a reasonably long pause, can start without repetition where it ended. As for MOS:GEO, we know about it, and that's why we're not even talking about the possibility of trying move requests for articles obviously derived from the title of the main article. This probably hasn't even happened in the past so why worry about it now... Chrz (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.