Category talk:Czech Republic

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:History of Czechia

Gryffindor has been moving categories from "YearX in the Czech Republic" to "YearX in Czechia". It would surprise me if these moves were uncontroversial, so I'd like to ask you not to do any more until after some discussion has taken place. Thanks. Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note that english wikipedia has has multiple discussions of this move [1] [2] [3] [4] dating back to 2011 with a rather consistent result of no change. I accept that English wikipedia should not be the only factor in the decision at commons, but in this case, where it reflects common usage in English, it would seem especially relevant.- Themightyquill (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mormegil: , who I see has already commented on this issue elsewhere. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

See corresponding English article History of the Czech lands for naming guidance, also note that the name has been changed by the government to simple "Czechia", which makes more sense now as well. Commons does not have categories named "History of the French Republic". Gryffindor (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There might be some merit when discussing history, particularly pre-1993, but is less convincing for recently moved categories like Category:Companies of Czechia. France is obviously the common name for the country in English. Czechia is far less so. Also unlike France, Czechia is not the name of the country in the language of the country. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add, I'm not dead-set against the move, but I'm rather disappointed in the users who started a mass move without discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• When I saw that Czech Republic Categories are being moved I have check this fact on web. In Polish newspapers we are told, that the Czech Ministry had officially changed the official English translation for the name of their country. I saw nothing to discuss => this is not a change of the common name, which can be discussed, but a Czech's government official press state.

In each case when I was mistaken -- I had always reverted my editions. If the community of Commons decides to reject the official position of the Czech government, I will, of course, revert all of my edits.

Please accept my apologies for this move: I just do not even crossed my mind, that the official government change of the English name, may be discussed and rejected on the Commons. I'm really sorry. Wieralee (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Wieralee. It did seem rather out of character for you, and your explanation is perfectly reasonable. Thanks for offering to help make it right if the move is ultimately rejected.

From my understanding, they have created an official short name for their country, though not actually changed the old official name. I don't know if other countries even have "official short names" - I assumed they had "official long names" and "commonly used short names" - but I could certainly be wrong on that. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean this move is strongly controversial and I disagree with it. First thing is that this is new official short name. Second thing is that nowhere is written we must use short form instead the long form. Third thing is that very big amount of people hate and boycott this form. The fourth thing is that nobody uses new short form. It means that this short form violates as minimum two rules: NPOV and expectability. --Palu (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Primarily, names "YearX in the Czech Republic" were absolutely inappropriate for the years before 1969. "YearX in Czechia" is an acceptable solution, maybe more universal and neutral than a possible alternative "YearX in Czech lands" which evokes the defunct land system of government.

However, the way of creation of this category "History of Czechia" is a bit inconsistent. Either should be the original category History of the Czech Republic MOVED to the new name History of Czechia, or should be kept as its subcategory (because the Czech Republic is a period of the history of Czechia since 1969, as an independent country since 1993).

I personally support the revived old Latin-based word "Czechia" as an expectable equivalent of similar non-political names of other countries. However, the name is objectively not sufficiently established yet, and thats why it can be felt as controversial.

Btw., the sentence "the name has been changed by the government to simple Czechia" is not accurate. The full name of the state was not changed. Nothing was changed. The governnemnt only "sanctified" the geographical (non-political) name of the country to be used also officialy as the short name of the state. But geographical authorities used the short form before it officially.

Czechia (defined by the common history of Czech lands as well as by the Czech language) and Slovakia existed continuously during the period of Austro-Hungarian monarchy, almost-unitary Czechoslovakia and federative Czechoslovakia, but the problem comes from the fact, that the English language mainstream ignored the existing identity of Czechia before 1993. That's why mainstream English seems to have no established word for Czechia before creation and independence of the Czech Republic. As we can see in discussions at the English Wikipedia, some "native speakers" are able to consider "Czechoslovakia" as a synonyme of "the Czech Republic" and to advocate it even in edit wars. No wonder that such ignorants never heard about Czechia before 1993. IMHO well-educated English-speakers and specialized and proffesional English texts should be taken into consideration rather than a poor knowledge of common people. And last but not least, the official statement of the Czech government should be also reflected seriously. (Even though the inertia of habits and knowledges tends to preserve the past and overcome and to resist the new and present.)

I realize that the revived traditional word "Czechia" can be felt as a controversial neologism. We should be not too hurry with renaming of categories, but I agree, that the historical categories (Czechia by year, historical events, personalities etc.) should be renamed preferentially (Comenius or Jan Hus are surely not from the "Czech Republic"), while categories focused to the today photos and events can bear the "republican" name some time further. --ŠJů (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I understand that Czech's people get used to the old name... Until now Czechia had not got an official short name, so it was the only solution. But now? Other countries use their short names on Commons -- and it is easier for all... Just look at Category:Categories of countries We use

- France (French: ​[fʁɑ̃s]), officially the French Republic (French: République française),

- Germany (German: Deutschland), officially the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland)

- Greece (Greek: Ελλάδα [eˈlaða]), officially the Hellenic Republic

- Poland (Polish: Polska [ˈpɔlska], officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska), etc.

In all cases we use official shortnames on Commons. I see any reason (excluding habits and emotions) to break this rule for Czechia... Wieralee (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, one might argue that we use common names. For most countries, common names are the short names. For the Czech Republic/Czechia, this is not the case. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not in this case... We have the Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names as a part of The United Nations. There is an official list for official country names and their official shortcuts. Untill now Czechia hasn't got an official shortcut, but the Czech's government decided to establish it now.... Wieralee (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure understand your statement here, Wieralee. Are you saying that commons *does* use the official list of the UN Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names as a part of The United Nations for naming all locations, or that is *should* ? - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean its not about short name, but about common name. And even if it would be about short name, it will not be about controversial, unusual short name, neologism. We have also "Category:History of the Dominican Republic" and nobody care. And vice versa, the Czech republic sounds naturally, Czechia sounds like "we quickly need short name! any short name!". --Palu (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Dominican Republic is a good equivalent, since afaik, there's no official short form. If that country's government decided that English speakers should start calling it "Dominicia", we're have an equivalent, but for the moment, I can't find any parallel situations. We do sometimes use official long titles like Category:Republic of Ireland but that's for disambiguation purposes. The Czech government's action here seems unprecedented in history. Maybe the United Arab Emirates will follow their lead before long and we'll have to debate change everything to Category:History of the Emirates - Themightyquill (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, but Czech government didnt decided that English speakers should start calling the Czech Republic "Czechia". They decided, that if you want use short name, it should be "Czechia". Nobody said, that we must use short form. Especially in controversial case like Czechia (which is not so controversial like Dominicia, but still strongly controversial and in the same way controversial - controversial through its unnaturalness and its neologycity). --Palu (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think, "Dominican Republic" is used to distinguish the country from the capital city, which has a name identic with the original name of the whole colony of Santo Domingo and even with the old name of the whole island of Hispaniola (including todays Haiti]. As said in the article en:Dominican Republic#Names and etymology "for most of its history (up until independence), the country was known as Santo Domingo and continued to be commonly known as such in English until the early 20th century." "Dominicia" would be a neologism, while Czechia is verifiably not a neologism but an old word which was revived in 1930s and 1990s and officially supported recently, but even before it and meanwhile used continuously by many acquainted people. "Czechia" was not invented nor created by the Czech government recently, but accepted, certified and promoted. As well as by geographic authorities who accepted it in 1990s already. Yes, Commons should use a "common" name. But "common" in learned and expert people, or "common" in ignorant, unaware or uninformed and belated people who are not able to distinguish between Bohemia and Czechia, between Czechia and Czechoslovakia or between the country and the republic and whose language sense is formed rather by habits than by real and deep understanding of the language and its principles, history and evolution? Yes, Czech Republic is the most official (and maybe still most common) name, but only a name of the republic, not of the country itself. The Czech Republic is very, very young subject, one of the youngest states in the world. However, Czechia existed ages before it, even though some of its names can be felt as controversial or unfamiliar. --ŠJů (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Czechia (or Česko in Czech) is the official name of the country, which has been promoted by the government for the last years. It means now there are probably two official names of the country at least in English. Its to be derterminated in proper resources. In this point I would say it is more controversial the Czech short name of the country than the English one.

But also the point of ŠJů is important and should be considered. Three examples "1905 in the Czech Republic" (at that time the country was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire and not a republic), "1956 in the Czech Republic" (still no Czech Republic, but Czechoslovakia). The question here is if we respect the history or we assumed that everything in the means of actual Czech Republic is covered by the most recent name.--Juandev (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Juandev, I'll accept that Category:1905 in the Czech Republic is anachronism and does present one reason to use Czechia (or Czech lands, or something else) for those pre-1991 history categories. On the other hand, as you can see at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:1800 in Canada, this problem extends beyond the Czech Republic, and we don't have a good solution. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Juandev and Themightyquill: Regrettably, English language doesn't distinguish clearly between a country and a state regime and use the word "country" for both meanings. I think, to use the (non-political, but possibly national) country name retrospectively is more acceptable then to use the state-regime name this way. The country itself exists countinuously (even though its names, inhabitant nations and borders can change from time to time), while the states (regimes, republics, monarchies, federations etc.) arise and perish. Czechia (as an area) existed from everlasting, even though first Czechs as a nation appeared ca. in the 10th century and the word Czechia or Česko in the 17th century and even though some people refuse this its name. On the other hand, absolutely none Czech Republic existed before 1969. --ŠJů (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with these changes, even without prior discussion. There is no change at article name on enwiki, "new name" is not yet widely accepted (see [5] for example). --Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply said, Czechia is horrible word and is not commonly accepted. And it's NOT official name of this country as Juandev suggesting! --Ragimiri 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Ragimiri: I know, that some Czech people are in opposition with their government. But on the official list for official country names and their official shortcuts we see "CZECHIA". Untill now Czechia hasn't got an official shortcut, but the Czech's government decided to establish it now. Look at The Commission for Standarization of Geographical Names of The United Nations official list [6]. It is just a fact, even if the Czech opposition doesn't like it. Wieralee (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • According to Czech constitution one and only official name is the Czech Republic. Even Czech government cannot change it. Government can propagate "shortcut", but new government can easily revert this in two or three years. Commons should respect official name of country. --Ragimiri 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Czech constitution doesn't use "the Czech Republic" because Czech constitution was approved in Czech language only and use no English names. Czech constitution says nothing about foreign names of the country and of the state. :-) Btw., the Czechoslovak constitutions didn't contain the word "Československo" (not even "Czechoslovakia"). And many people can feel this artifically glued word as "horrible". Is it a valid reason to ignore and sabotage this country name? --ŠJů (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote it above: for all countries we use official English shortnames on Commons. I see any reason (excluding habits and emotions) to break this rule for Czechia... Wieralee (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You are oficial representative of Commons, that you decised it? You should really read Guardian article about it. Nobody is using it, just a few officials that will be replaced in next elections. --Ragimiri 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If the Commons comunity want to use official shortnames, so lets do it, nobody care. But dont do it in the case the shortname is strongly controversial. Maybe official, but strongly controversial. Official name of Lenin is not Lenin, but on Commons it is Lenin. So dont think that "official" is some dogma. Palu (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • However, the existing aberration of Czech-related categories (which deviate from the general rule to use the geographic names of countries, not the political ones) is also very controversial. We should not overvalue an irrational resistance of ignorant people. Official opinion of several most qualified institutions should be taken as more valid. --ŠJů (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I am also quite reserved about using the neologism Czechia, it has one big advantage. While Slovaks can call their categories 1998 in Slovakia or 1771 in Slovakia, Czechs can also have 1998 in the Czech Republic, but 1771 in the Czech Republic is no good, because the country was not a republic in that time. So it would be better to use such a name for the country that avoids using the form of the government. Sometimes it is avoided by the term "Czech lands" for pre-1919 era, but it would be better, if all the categories used consistent terminology. Similar problem is with general categories like Culture of the Czech Republic. Can images connected with Czech culture from the pre-republic times be added to such a category? Somebody might feel they can, others not. Neutral expression like "Czechia" could be a solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes? And for example prehistoric times were in Czechia or in Czech republic? I mean that not a single one. --Palu (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking about by "yes?", but I will react to the second part of your contribution.

There is no difference with how to deal about prehistory in the area of today's France and in the area of today's Czech Rep./Czechia. But while contributors have very easy task with building the categorization tree for the whole French history, they face problems with building the tree for Czech history, which is one (but not the only one) reason, why it is so unsystematic. Sometimes the pre-1919 pictures are added to the Czech Republic categories, although it is a non-sense, sometimes "Czech lands" categories are created, and so on. Accepting the form Czechia would solve the problem. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Palu: As explained above, the name of the country (meant as the land, the area) can be used also in retrospective (the area existed even when no people lived here) but the state as a regime, a national corporative organization, has its beginning. That's why we prefer generally the non-political country names for category titles. --ŠJů (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, that problem extends beyond the Czech Republic. Most modern countries have had different names in the past, and we're not sure what to do about it. "Czechia" may partially solve that problem, but using a neologism for history isn't ideal either. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Yes, any neologism would be not the ideal solution. That's why our geographical and political authorities prefer and confirmed the old and traditional word "Czechia" - even though it is a bit archaic by his Latin origin. Some real bizarre neologisms as "the Czechlands" or "the Czecho" (used or proposed sometimes by unknowing people in English-language discussions) were rejected, as well as use of the adjective Czech as a neologistic substantive for the country. "Czech lands" would be also acceptable and correct atemporal alternative (even though the 2 + 1/10 lands are not self-governing yet, they still exist), especially for historic contexts, but it is a bit obsolete now.

"Czechia" was established not in the ancient nor in the medieval Latin but in the modern baroque 17th century Latin which use "cz" for "č" in this case, influenced by Slavic digraph orthographies – Cechia was also used, se la:Cechia). However, "Czech Latin" used by Czech scholars through many centuries used sometimes also diacritics: see Phytotoxicologiae čechicae tentamen, exhibens plantas venenatas Čechiae indigenas from 1837. Btw, the adjective is also in the name of the spider Dysdera czechica in the binomial biological nomenclature. And a 1605 book described an image: "Simon de Budecz poeta czechicus aetatis LII1 anno 1605". Czechia (Cechia, Čechia) and czechicus are really not neologisms, if we don't call 17th century by the "neo". --ŠJů (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Czechia is neologism, im sure. Older use is obsolete and abandoned many tens of years ago. The same story Čechia/Čechie - its only for poetry today and very old word. Čechia is dead and new use of Česko is revival neologism. And with another meaning - first Česko is "Bohemia or Bohemia and Moravia" and our neologism is "Czech republic". And - and this is very important difference - we are talking about the word Czechia and not Česko nor Čechia. Czechia is neologism which is old maybe 2 years. --Palu (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the words Czechia and Česko were "revived" among "common people", but among learned people, it was used almost continuously, at least since 19th century. ("Common people" are those who confuse "Czechoslovakia", "Czechia" and "Bohemia" and have no deep knowledge about their distinctions, as well as the distinction between the country itself and its state-constitution form.) And the revival has several waves: around 1918 (some English-language sources were cited), before 1938 (by the Moravian bohemist František Trávníček), around 1968 (when Czechia became his first own republic) and around 1993 (and continuously since then). Said simply, each time when there were some discussions about Czechia, the word Czechia surfaced from the expert language to the common language. Btw., past 1989, many "forgotten" or "obsolete" words were revived, as "městys", "spolek", "pacht", "obecní úřad" etc. But obviously, none of them are neologisms. As well as "Česko" and "Čechia". --ŠJů (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So if you want, it is not neologism. It if far times dead word which is resuscitated in the present. So it is like the neologism. --Palu (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dead only among those people who had no need to use any geographical name of Czechia. And no need to distinguish Czechia from Czechoslovakia, Bohemia, Czech Republic or other related but different concepts. If I did notthing about the chemistry or mathematics, all chemical and mathematical concepts are "dead" for me. But not for learned people. Czech Republic is very young, but Czechia needed to be named even before 1969. The Czechoslovak legislature used the term "české kraje" (e.g. the act. no. 40/1956 Sb. contained words: "Tento zákon platí jen v českých krajích". "Czech regions" would be an interesting alternative to the older term "Czech lands". However, the word "Czechia" is more understandable, more systematical (compared to names of other countries) and more suitable to designate the entire country, not to emphasize its division. In this meaning, the word Czechia was used continuously in fact, at least since the late 19th century. --ŠJů (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "Czech Republic" shouldn't be used at all for categories before 1992. Use "Czechoslovakia" instead. As far as I remember, there has never been an independent Czechia before 1992 (Austrian Empire then part of Czechoslovakia)... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally, "independence" is not the main criterion for sorting of photos. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia, Slovakia etc. are distinctive and well defined areas, even though they was part of some broader unit in some periods. Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia have their continuity for centuries, while Czechoslovakia was a short-lived political patchwork. Czech Republic was established in 1969 but Czechia existed ages ago. Even the nowadays Czech Republic is not independent, it is part of EU as well as the 19th-century Czechia (Bohemian Kingdom and Moravian Margraviate) was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. --ŠJů (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that the Czech Republic wasn't independent because it's part of the EU. I'll have to ask to my Government whether we are an independent country or less because of the EU. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Try to study the Lisbon treaty instead of needless questions, EU is really a quasi-federation. Btw., the member republics of Czechoslovak federation were also formally "svrchované" (sovereign) according to the 1968 constitution law about federalization. And some limited federalization existed even before the formal federalization - e.g. 1950s nature conservation law was different for Czech regions (Czechia) and different for Slovak regions (Slovakia). --ŠJů (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Use "Czech Republic" for anything post-Velvet Divorce. "Czechia" doesn't have significant English use; we routinely speak of it as the "Czech Republic", and when we're not using circumlocutions like "the region that's now the Czech Republic", we typically use the historic regional names, e.g. Bohemia and Moravia. I'd suggest that categories for this part of the world, when they need to reflect something other than the current name, use instead "X in Bohemia and Moravia", or just "X in Bohemia" and "X in Moravia" if you'd rather not have them use the same categories. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  However, the post-divorce Czech Republic is legally and territorially identical with the pre-divorce Czech Republic existing since 1969, within the federation. And the territory (the country itself) of Czechia had its definite identity continuously before Czechoslovakia was federalized. The adjective "Czech" was undoubtedly derrived from the substantive name of the country. Only an ignorant person can use the derived adjective without recognition of the original substantive name. Should be the people who ignored Czechia before 1969 or even before 1993 really the main benchmark of the "significant English use"? We need firstly timeless geographical names for countries, if possible independent on transitory political regimes and their political names. When we categorize people and places, atemporal or long-standing geographical units are more proper as the basic level of modular categorization. When a person is from Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia or a village or a city is in Bohemia, Moravia, Czechia or Slovakia, it can apply for more periods of history, even for the period of Bohemian Kingdom within various empires (Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire), even for Czechoslovakia in various periods (land system, regions, a federation), even for the Protectorate of B&M, even for the sovereign Czech Republic, even for the Czech Republic under EU. --ŠJů (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@ŠJů: More out of curiosity than argument: The "Czech" in "Czech Republic" necessarily comes from Czechia not Čechy? I always figured Moravians were being subsumed into the adjective. Moravia & Silesia were (at times) part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Země Koruny české) and the Czech Lands (České země), right? Or maybe I've misunderstood you. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: The Czech adjective "český" is really ambiguous, it is homonymous for "Čechy" and for "Česko" (Czechia including Moravia and Czech Silesia). Note that there is "Czech Silesia" (not "Bohemian Silesia"), Bohemian Crown (not Czech Crown) and Czech Lands (not Bohemian Lands). Polish language has even identical word for "Čechy" and "Česko". However, the Latin and English word for "Čechy" is undoubtedly "Bohemia" and the adjective "Bohemian". It is homonymous with the adjective related to the common word "bohemianism" but we need to be reconciled to it, it's a historical language fact (Bohemia is derived from the Celtic tribe of Boii, "bohemianism" probably from ex-Bohemian Gypsies, none of the two meanings has original relation to Slavic Czechs. Yes, the word Czechia is originally derived from Čechy and the oldiest ocurrences used the word Czechia really for Bohemia. However, even though the meaning of the words "Czechia" and "Česko" a bit drifted, the adjective "Czech" is utterly undoubtedly derived from the word Czechia (although maybe in both meanings). Generally, Moravian dialects are very various but even though they have some common characteristics or elements, they are considered as dialects of the Czech language (and the "artificial" uniform standard Czech language was codified also by Moravian linguists). Differences between Moravian dialects is so big that they can be hardly considered as a "Moravian language" together. The one tenth of Silesia is a bit different case: Silesian language has aspiration to be considered as a separate language (even though its dialects mix Polish, Czech and German) and is perceived (by Czechs) rather as a dialect of Polish than a dialect of Czech, even though Lach dialects are considered oficially rather as Silesian dialects of the Czech language. Nowadays, Czechia can be defined as the area of the Czech Republic or the home area of the Czech language in all its variants, as well as the area of Lands of the Bohemian Crown from the last Austro-Hungarian period. However, both Lusatias and the rest of Silesia belonged also under the Bohemian Crown once, but they are not count under "Czechia" – the modern historiography mentions them as "vedlejší" (side, secondary) lands of the Bohemian Crown, while Moravian Margraviate is mentioned as an integral and hereditary part of the Bohemian Kingdom (but not of Bohemia). --ŠJů (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@ŠJů: Thanks, very interesting! If we use Category:History of Czechia do we still have a problem? Will Lusatias and the rest of Silesia be included? They were historically part of Czechia, but no longer are? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Lusatias and Polish (Prussian) Silesia belonged to the Bohemian Crown long ago, but hardly can be considered as parts of Czechia. Nowadays, Czechia is understood unambiguously as Česko, i.e. area of the current Czech Republic (which is roughly identical with the area of the 3 (exactly 2 + 1/10) Czech lands as known since 1742, when most of Silesia became part of Prussia (see War of the Austrian Succession). The core "Czechia" can be roughly conceived as the home area of the Czech language (even though German prevailed in Sudetenland before 1945 expulsion). "Czech lands" and "Czechia" are almost synonymic terms, but "Czech lands" has more historical undertone, while "Czechia" is mistakenly considered as a 1990s neologism (especially by people who never heard and never talked about Czechia before 1993) and is still not videly used among unknowing people. That's the main problem, there is any resistance to the words "Czechia" and "Česko". But the words are irreplaceable because "Czech Republic" is not a synonyme, there was no Czech Republic before 1969. The word "Czechia" can be applied even retrospectively for the area, "Czech Republic" can not. Who has a bit of grammatical sense, can feel that "Czecho-" in the word Czechoslovakia is obviously derived from Czechia and Slovakia just as Austro-Hungarian Empire is derived from Austria-Hungary and Anglo-Saxons are derived from Anglia and Saxony. The joining adjective and adverbial grammatical ending "-o" is known in many languages influenced by Greek and Latin. It is a bit different from the Czech substantive ending -o" (-sko, -cko in Česko, Polsko, Německo), which is an analogy of the English ending "-ness". "-ity" or "-land" or the Latin "-ia", even though it is also adverbial ending in essence. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, but Czechia has a different meaning today than it did in the past, no? Could Category:Czechia in the 1630s‎ include files that might also be in Category:History of Silesia or not? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It could be Category:Bohemia in the 1630s and also for Moravia if we want to be correct. Gryffindor (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Bohemia in the 1630s and Category:Moravia in the 1630s is surely correct. Seen from the today's historiographic view, they can be retrospectively subsumed under "Czechia" (but surely not "Czech Republic"). As regards Silesia, I would not categorize all Silesian categories under Czech categories (as well as Lusatias or Carinthia). But rather under Czechia or Czech lands than under the Czech Republic. Because Czech Silesia (and Austrian Silesia) has not specific categories of history by year, historical images can be categorized paralelly under both the Czech history and the Silesian history by year. --ŠJů (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely support the usage of Czechia, Czechia has more than 1200 years old history with only a very short period being associated with the republican political system. The history of Czechia is thus much longer than that of the Czech Republic. Czechia is a short (geographic) name, which is independent of time and changes in forms of state and political regimes on its territory. As such, it can be used for our country in both historical and contemporary contexts. The Czech Republic is simply nothing more than the name of the current state formation on the territory of Czechia. It is important to know that CZECHIA has been the official English equivalent of ČESKO since the very beginning of modern Czech statehood and it is appropriate to use this term just as the one-word equivalents of Česko are used in other languages. Insufficient dissemination (particularly) of the English one-word term for Česko has been caused by the representatives and professional promoters of the new Czech state (often neither professional nor promoters), who badly underestimated the importance of the English one-word name in the international field. The allegation that Czechia "has not caught on" in the world and so "let us forget it and accept the widespread Czech" (such talk can sometimes be heard in political and economic circles) is again nothing but confusion of cause and effect. Those who are in a position to do something have done nothing; they only try to hide their own incompetence and shift the blame on "adverse circumstances" Attaching nice article by our leading expert on this field http://www.radio.cz/en/section/letter/from-bohemia-to-czechia .Helveticus96 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You are speaking about land which was named Czech kingdom for 1200 years. The name "Czechia" is old maybe few months. I understand what you mean, but what i want to say: the name Czechia is neologism which is inopportune in the same way like "Czech republic" (because its nowhere used, very young neologism) - with one more problem - its controversial. Palu (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, the word Czechia is still unfamiliar to uneducated people but surely not a neologism. If the "neo" should not mean baroque times or 19th century when the word appeared. Btw., the kingdom was Bohemian, named after Bohemia, the associated lands were (and are) Czech, which is an adjetive derrived from Czechs and Czechia (Moravia is Czech but not Bohemian). "Czech kingdom" is very unusual name. --ŠJů (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the use of Czechia going forward as it is the official short form name of the country and does not cause a conflict with another sovereign state (such as Dominica/Dominican Republic or the two Congos). Czechia has steadily been replacing Czech Republic in sources since the official adoption of the name. There is no reason for categories about Czechia to retain the long form name at this point, any more than Slovak Republic or any other country. Josh (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think that would be the easiest solution. And use "Bohemia" and "Moravia" for history until 1918. Gryffindor (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Bohemia" can be used for Bohemia in all its periods, "Moravia" for Moravia (not only until 1918, Bohemia and Moravia sill exist). And Czechia can be used as umbrella and timeless name for Czechia in all its periods, republican as well as monarchist or occupation, while temporary power structures can be named by their specific names. Bohemia, Moravia as well as Czechia or Silesia have their timeless national identities, unlike Czechoslovakia which didn't exist before 1918 nor past 1992. Generally, todays countries and nations are used also for retrospective categorization (Italy, Germany, Romania...). But really countries, not passing state regimes and forms. And historical parts with their own national identity should have their own subcategories for some items. --ŠJů (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

But what about rejoin Slovakia and recreate Czekoslovakia, just to stop all those problems? that apart, something must be done because we have been discussing this topic for more than 6 months. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Could we wrap up this discussion? There are many good reasons to move to Category:Czechia, and no good reasons except a general "people dont like changes" against it. Eventually one could keep Category:Czech Republic as a subcategory, like Category:Czechoslovakia, but I doubt that would be very useful. --Joostik (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid, it will take several years to ripen this question. Nobody has a courage to decide it definitively. (Btw., to Blackcat: the restoration of Czechoslovakia would not solve the problem how name the categories for Czechia and for Slovakia – both these countries existed a long time before Czechoslovakia and existed during the whole period of Czechoslovakia, even though they were never republics before 1969.) --ŠJů (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem, Joostik, is that Czech Republic is the official assessed esonym in English (and also in my language it's Repubblica Ceca, not Cechia, in French language is République tchèque). While it might be ok to use Czechia for the categories related to cultural topics (i.e. Antonín Dvořák, who was a Czech composer - well, apart that he was an Austro-Hungarian national like Freud - but not from a non-existent Czech Republic) we must not use it for those related to the administrative entity known as "Czech Republic", thus politicians, sportspeople after 1994, and so on. You can't have "Czechia" covering all aspects related to the Czech Republic. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the full oficial name of the republic (distinguish the republic from the country itself) is "officially assessed" (by who?) doesn't mean that the name of the country itself is not asessed and cannot be used as timeless geographical name of the country (area of the republic) and as the short name of the republic. Most of republics and kingdoms have their assessed full political names, but are called by their short and timeless country names commonly. Btw. "Austro-Hungarian nationality" is a pure nonsense, Austria-Hungary was a multinational empire, and emperors explicitly respected this fact. The full name of any republic or kingdom is necessary for items which have a close relation to the specific state form. However, most of Commons items are categorized geographicaly by country, i.e. changes of the constitutional power form are irrelevant, as far as Czechia has its country for centuries, while their state form varied. Even constitution of Czech Republic in 1969 or dissolution of Czechoslovakia (strictly, of the last form of Czechoslovak Republic) changed nothing on the existence and identity of Czechia - as well as Germany or Italy existed as countries even in those times, when they were not unified under a common state. -- ŠJů (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

ŠJů, as long as the official esonym in English is "Czech Republic" we must use it, as well as the assessed esonym for the USSR was Soviet Union, not Union of Sovietic Socialist Republics. Whatever you call yourself is irrelevant as long as it's not intersubjectively accepted and assessed. One day probabily the esonym "Czechia" will enter into the common language. For now Czechia is, for everyone who uses English as lingua franca the Czech Republic. It's not the case to raise on Commons a cultural battle. Commons follows the uses, doesn't anticipate it or engages in avant-garde battles for changing the language. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 08:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: Czechia is the country, Czech Republic is a republic ruling the country. Although a country name is often used to name a sovereign corporation (a state) and the name of the state is used to name the country itself, the distinction between the geographically-ethnographical subject and the political subject is indisputable. As Commons categorization prefers geographical names to the political names, this principle should be kept even for the case that the correct and official geographical name is not very known among uneducated or ignorant people. Many unacquainted people in the world maybe didn't register dissolution of Czechoslovakia or didn't understand distinction between Czechoslovakia and Czechia, but it is also no reason to follow such belated and confused majority and ignore this distinction. "Czech Republic" is absolutely inappropriate and unusable especially for pre-1969 Czechia. Commons categorization should be based rather on long-standing geographical subjects (as countries) rather than on transitory political forms. Similarily, Catolonia or Crimea or Kosovo have their long-standing clear identity independently on the current political conflicts. Their geographical names ar long-standing and politically neutral, that's why we prefer them. Czechia has (within monarchic Czech lands and republican Czechoslovakia) its longstanding identity which existed for centuries, long before the Czech Republic (while Czechoslovakia or Soviet Union were utilitarian conglomerates which arised and vanished with their republics - there existed no Czechoslovakia before 1918 nor past 1992, there existed no country of "Sovietia" ever). --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are now 790 categories whose names include the word "Czechia". (A few are redirects.) I saw one just now that was named that way from the beginning "to match upper categories". Are we ready to close this yet? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I'm afraid, the shift to unification to the geographical name can raise a wave of strong resistance, and the backward change to Czech Republic can be also very controversial (and absurd and disrupting especially for historical items). IMHO only the first of the two possibilities is promising and defensible for the future, but its implementation needs big courage and readiness - and maybe also still some time to keep the change to become more ripe. --ŠJů (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@ŠJů: , the problem with the Czech Republic is that substantially it has never been an independent country until 1993 (and, as a matter of fact, the line between "Czech" and "Czechoslovak" is very blurred. Mucha was Czech but a strong promoter of Czechoslovakia for example. Sigmund Freud was technically Czech but we consider him Austrian); that said, in English anything related to the current Czech Republic pre-1918 is called "Bohemian". If we want to make it a matter of Czech nationalism fine, but the term is not assessed in historiography and geography in English language pre 20th century. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Blackcat: As i wrote, while Czechia has its long-standing historical identity within various state forms, since the Middle Ages, Czech Republic is very young political form. That's why the category tree of Czechia should be named rather after Czechia than after the Czech Republic. Czechia in the form of Czech Lands was relatively independent, even it was a member of various empires during the time. Bohemia is only one part of Czechia. Czechia consists of Bohemia, Moravia and small part of Silesia (affilation of Silesia is more weak and was changed during the War of the Austrian Succession, but Bohemia and Moravia are stable and agelong integral parts of Czechia. To confuse Czechia with Bohemia is unacceptable especially past this long discussion where it was many times explicitly explained. The line between "Czech" and "Czechoslovak" is absolutely not blurred, as well as the distinction between Bohemia and Czechia is not. I can understand that a foreigner needs not to be acquainted with all the facts, but ignorance of unknowing people should be surelly not the final clue for us. --ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I'm starting to see duplicate categories being created or used because people don't know that there's a dispute over this. We need to resolve this. As far as I know, "Czech Republic" is the standard name in English, which is the standard we use to name categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Common-sense suggestion: we can use "Czech Republic" for every administrative-official related content and Czechia for the rest. Could be a fair deal? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Everything in "Czech Republic" should just be moved to "Czechia". It's not "Slovak Republic" either but "Slovakia. Gryffindor (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There may be a valid argument to be made in favour of Czechia, but I don't think this is it. "Slovak Republic" yields more google results than "Czechia" does. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• However, Slovak Republic is not identical with Slovakia and Czech Republic is not identical with Czechia. The countries existed for centuries (even though not always as a separate state), the republics are young. That's the main problem. We should prefer timeless names of countries for categorization. --ŠJů (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that "Czechia" is the easy and obvious solution to the cultural and historical continuity of the Czech people and country while under many different political regimes (Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, etc.) Czech lands is ridiculous when we have an easy and officially sanctioned alternative. Political and governmental issues should be categorised under the respective political regime. So Edvard Beneš would not be in a category called Politicians of Czechia or something silly like that. Catrìona (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: Edvard Beneš really was from Czechia and he was Czech politician, although he represented the whole Czechoslovakia. Similarly Gustáv Husák or Vasil Biľak were Slovak politicians (of Czechoslovakia). To categorize Edvard Beneš, Comenius or T. G. Masaryk by "from Czechia" or "of Czechia" is not silly. What is silly is to categorize them "of the Czech Republic" because there existed no Czech Republic before 1969. --ŠJů (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some months ago I tried to propose a common sense solution that involved a fair compromise. I also would like to add, shouldn't it be clear, that still insisting for renaming the whole tree in "Czechia" is not a common sense solution, is a cul-de-sac that will never find consensus, thus let me retry, because this discussion is starting to take its toll after almost 2 years.

1. the official exonym in English of Česko is Czech Republic. Czechia is only the alternative, short name (it's not me, it's the UN that say so). I too would like to write Italia but my country has an exonym in English which is Italy so I respect it because here on Commons we use as convention to adopt the official exonym in English of the current sovereign countries.
2. the country is young, existing as sovereign state since 1993
3. because of the above:
   1. the mother category keeps on being Czech Republic as the official exonym says;
   2. categories related to culture (art, music, literature) could be Xxx of/from Czechia;
   3. categories related to sports are only Xxx of/from the Czech Republic or Xxx of/from Czechoslovakia or both (in case of sportspeople that represented both countries i.e. Tomáš Skuhravý)
   4. categories related to people are from Czechia (where necessary as child categories of People of Czechoslovakia for the Czechs and the Slovaks from 1918 to 1993) until XX century and from the Czech Republic from 21st-century onward.

Hope that this helps to reach an end because a debate like this cannot last almost 2 years. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ad 1) Czechia is the country itself, as a geographical entity. Czech Republic is the current political subject in Czechia. Political subjects (states) are commonly called by geographical names of the countries but that doesn't mean that the concepts are identical. Czech Republic is an exonym for Česká republika, Czechia is an exonym for Česko. (Regarding your example, Italy is an exonyme for Italia, Italian Republic is an exonyme for Repubblica italiana. The geographical and ethnographical entity of Italy has some relation to the political entity of Italian Republic, but the relation is not absolute identity of the two concepts, eg. Kingdom of Italy can be also called by the short geographical name of "Italy", but the present political name "Italian Republic" is not applicable for it.). Czechs were continuously Czechs and Czechia was continuously Czechia, independently on the fact what kind of state regime and what specific federation or administrative organization was applied to Czechia in various periods of the history. Core Czech lands had their common and continuous identity through centuries. Maybe, Italy is a bit different case, it has some kind of their national identity before 1861 but never a common statehood. However, Italy or Germany were perceived as countries (in national sense) even in the periods before their political unification in the second half of the 19th century. As i know, English language has no better exonyme for Czechia in the apolitical, geographical, timeless sense. For that meaning, the word Czechia i used since 19th century. Btw., every intelligent user of English language feels that the name of the Czech Republic is derived from any primary substantive name of the country, as well as all similar names of various republics.
• Ad 2] The country of Czechia is not young, it existed countinuously since medieval times. What is young is the Czech Republic, it exists since 1969 and was independent in 1993–2004 (EU is de facto a federation similarly as Czechoslovakia was: also the 1968 Czechoslovak Federation Constitutional Act defined both member republics as sovereign states, as well as EU declares formal sovereignity of their members).
• Ad 3) For the consistency of Commons categorization system, especially toward historical items and pre-1969 and timeless facts, geographical names of stable countries should be preferred to short-lived political names of short-lived political entities (most of European countries changed from monarchies to republics, keeping their national identity). However, this principle is more acute in category trees related to the history (history by year, categories of personalities etc.) and less acute for categories used mainly for new items and photographs. As a compromise, we can tolerate (for now) the "republican" political name in such category trees where such a name dosn't cause absurd anachronisms. For the future, the geographical name of the country should be used, as for all other countries which have such a timeless apolitical name. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: , you're not helping the discussion. I don't care if there was something called "Czechia" before. Even before 1861 there was something called "Italy" but was not an administrative entity. Italy as sovereign country exists since 1861, the Czech Republic is a sovereign country since 1993. The current official exonym in English of your country is Czech Republic, deal with it. You cannot demand to baptize everything from 1992 onward as Czechia. As you've seen, you have no consensus to do. I offered a compromise. Whatever comes before the independence of the Czech Republic refers to Czechia except for those aspects where country of citizenship prevails over ethnic nationality (ie sports, official politics roles and so on). Whatever comes later is related to the Czech Republic. Is out of question to name everything "Czechia", and you should have noticed by now. That apart, you can petition the UN for they change the Czech Republic's official English exonym. Please, I'm sick and tired of nationalist issues, and there's no room on Commons for these matters. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS and Czechia is the country itself, as a geographical entity. Czech Republic is the current political subject in Czechia.. No. A country is what their political boundaries define. You're confusing a "nation" with a "country". Even Italy had boundaries sometimes wider, other times narrower than what we thought it should have been. The Austrian-Hungarian empire created a mess in our Northern regions because of that, and left unsolved problems with local language minorities.
PPSS 1969 is not a watershed, since the Czech Republic became independent in 1994. Unless Antonín Panenka became European champion playing for the Czech national team?

If you "don't care" about reality and real identity of countries, we need not to adapt to your ignorance. Geographical categorization of Commons should come out of stable and long-standing entities, not of fleeting and artificial ones. That's why we generally prefer names of countries to names of republics, kingdoms and other regimes or "administrative units". Republics and kingdoms are arising and vanishing, inhabitants are coming, leaving or become extinct, while the country itself remains. Bohemia and Moravia were always parts of Czechia and Czechia was always a country in Europe (always = since the medieval times), independently on the fact which of them have in which moment its separate state, land assembly or was united with some other country. "Czech Republic" (Česká republika) is a name of a political entity which existed since 1969, while Czechia (Česko) is a timeless name of the country itself, which existed continuously within a kingdom, within a common state with Slovakia, with a protectorate as well as within the republics. A writer from Czechia was always from Czechia and a city in Czechia was always in Czechia, independently on the fact which state formations existed in Czechia during their duration. Similarly, if we categorize people or places from Italy, we need not to distinguish who of them experienced Italian kingdom and who of them some of Italian republics or ununified Italy. To categorize them by transitory political entities would be very impractical and insuitable. Overwhelming majority of countries have their categories by country, not by their today's constitutional form or regime. The proposal to made Czech categories analogous to categories of other countries was motivated besides other things by the need for continuity and timelessness of geographical and national categories. You propose to deepen and expand the problems, not to solve them. Btw., Czech Republic is named after Czechia, as well as French Republic is named after France and Kingdom of Belgium is named after Belgium. Czechia was surely not "invented" nor created with federation or dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Naturally, for some items we need categories of Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia or Silesia, Czechoslovakia or Austrian Empire, and the categorization tree should reflect a hierarchy and other relations of such items. Btw., nation is the people which live in the country and state is a power entity which rules the country. Do not confuse nation or state with the country.

I can paraphrase you: "I'm sick and tired of political and administrative issues, and there's no room on Commons for these matters." Such a proclamation is just as absurd and nonsense as your, but we use geographical, politically neutral names of categories for most of countries, and is very unpracticall to impractical and pointless to deviate from this convention just in case of Czechia, and just for ignorance of some people who never heard about Czechia and nothing know about Czechia. The Czech Republic exists since 1 January 1969 and is legally identical with the current Czech Republic: the current constitution of the Czech Republic was approved by its own parliament in 1992. And even unitary Czechoslovakia before 1969 federalization was defined as a republic of two brotherly nations and two countries, as also its name indicates. Naturally, even a federalization and creation of two national republics was not a creation of Czechia and Slovakia: the countries existed continously, only their constitutional form a bit changed. Czech sportsman was always Czech sportsman and Slovak sportsman was always Slovak sportsmen, no matter he represents a federation, his country, his home town or a foreign team. Antonín Panenka was undoubtedly a Czech, as well as Alexander Dubček was undoubtedly a Slovak, although they both represents Czechoslovakia in some times. Some people can have mixed nationality, just as some people can have double or triple citizenship or more home countries. --ŠJů (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment It is almost three years, but nothing changes. Simply “Czechia” failed to come to wider use - see Google Trends or media ([7] [8]). Using both “Czechia” and “Czech Republic” is confusing for Commons users. A final decision needs to be taken. Jklamo (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Conclusion: Czechia has remained a nice try that never grasped or catched the public. The official exonym in English keeps on being Czech Republic and this discussion has lasted too much. It can be submitted in 10 years from now if something will have changed meanwhile. This CfD demanded too much, it should have been about renaming to "Czechia" only those items related to non-administrative aspects of the life of the country (like ie culture, literature, music, and so on). Of course was not thinkable to extend the name "Czechia" to anything related to the Czech Republic. CLOSED for lack of any consent to rename to Czechia. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

---

@Gryffindor, Themightyquill, Mormegil, Wieralee, Palu, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, and Blackcat: @Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joostik, Auntof6, and Buidhe: The Neverending Story continues at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion of CfD

I just closed the latest CfD as no consensus to change the name at this time. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Czech Republic for a longer summary. Adamant1 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)