This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCzech Republic article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Discussions on this pagehave often led toprevious arguments being restated, especially about the article's title. Please read recent comments, look in thearchives, and review theFAQ before commenting on this topic.
Q1. Why is the article's name "Czech Republic" and not "Czechia"?
In 2016, the Czech government adopted the short name "Czechia" for the country, and since then some other sources haveadopted the short name. "Czech Republic" remains the full official name of the country and is still commonly used. The question of whether to move this article to "Czechia" has been extensively debated, most recently in October 2025, and the consensus is that even though some other sources have adopted the short name, Wikipedia should retain the name "Czech Republic" as it is more widely used, including in sources such as journalism, literature and scholarship, which indicates that it is still the more widely recognized of the two names in English. This question may be revisited again in the future, but any future RM rationale should be based on an understanding of arguments put forth in the previousrequested move discussions, and include substantial evidence to demonstrate that this situation has changed.
Q2. Is this the correct place to discuss whether to use "Czech Republic" vs. "Czechia" in other Wikipedia articles?
No, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article "Czech Republic", the same goes for other article talk pages.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Czech Republic is a formerfeatured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check thearchive.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theCzech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theEuropean Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcountries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
I think it's now time to switch it, since Czechia has already become the official name that is being used everywhere, in the UN, in sports, in the EU, and the Czech Government pushed it almost 10 years ago. Also, I'm beggining to hear in my daily life more "Czechia" instead of "the Czech Republic", and the second one sounds artifitial. So, I think everyone would identify Czechia as the Czech Republic when searching on Wikipedia about this country, and therefore the article should be named Czechia, and not "Czech Republic"88.7.158.109 (talk)23:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion from just three weeks ago, three sections above, and contribute there instead of carrying on a parallel discussion here. At this point, if someone wants to formally propose a move following the path prescribed inWP:Requested moves, let them do it.Largoplazo (talk)23:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on keeping the name is becoming absurd. Clearly you are not able to understand the will of the people of the country who want it called that way. A very imperialist line of thinking, if I might add too.
Start theWP:RM#CM when you're ready, but do it right. Afaict, most of the people don't give a tiny rat's ass what en-WP does in this matter. Being sensible people, they probably don't see changing the title of an en-WP article as any significant progress worth their time. On this website,WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies, so when you start theWP:RM#CM, you should use other arguments. But sure, this article-title must be a remnant from that time the British Empire ruled Bohemia.
Indeed, it seems like it's not the Czech government getting worked up about this, both Czechia and Czech Republic are valid English names according to them. Anecdotally, like Timor-Leste and Myanmar, the Czechia name is gradually coming more into day to day usage by sources, so probably it's correct now to predict that we'll changeat some point. I don't think we're there yet though. Either way, hyperbole about "imperialist lines of thinking" is completely uncalled for. Who exactly is trying to establish an empire over the Czech Republic?! It's just a name used in a language that isn't the local language there. In the Czech Republic they call the UK "Spojené království" apparently, but I'm not taking that as evidence that the Czechs are going to be sailing am invasion flotilla up the Thames any time soon... — Amakuru (talk)09:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the question iswhen. Thewhen will be such time as a consensus is reached the the criteria for the change have been met. "The will of the people" is not one of those criteria. Besides, can you show any evidence that what English Wikipedia's title is for this article has even entered the consciousness of a substantial portion of the Czech population, let alone that they've devoted any mental energy to questioning it? Let alone that their passion over it is on the level of"Do You Hear the People Sing"?Largoplazo (talk)15:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well. The Google Map led me to here. Czech and Turkey are named "Czechia" and "Türkiye" currently. The another disputed name change goes to Myanmar, which Google Map marked as "Myanmar (Burma)". However, Ivory Coast, which English Wikipedia is still using, is already named as "Côte d'Ivoire" in the Google Map. I think we have to consider more situation here.KyleRGiggs (talk)03:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for not enough. However it fell intoWP:COMMONNAME basis again. So what is the common name in English language? "Türkiye" may be not common at this moment, "Côte d'Ivoire" is further not common. However, I don't see "Czechia" is not common, only because no one knows how to interpretate this state when Czechoslovakia disintegrate as "Czech" is at the first one making into "Czecho". When the word "Czechia" comes, wow.KyleRGiggs (talk)23:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, anonymous IP addresses, do not attempt to re-open a topic that was extensively discussed recently. Some over-eager users may use this as a reason to extend the moratorium. We are aware of the topic and will revisit it at the right time. For now, these messages are quite counterproductive.Chrz (talk)15:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2005: 'do travel books use the term "Czechia" (Lonely Planet, etc)? Do major news media use the term "Czechia" (the Economist, etc)? Do airlines use it? Do Czech government institutions even use it?'
2025: Lonely Planet does, some news media do, airlines do, Czech government and sport do... Of course those were examples that the name was completely unknown at the time; now we're mostly arguing about whether it's common "enough"... And out of all those listed "conditions," weight is given (only) to the news media, the largest ones.Chrz (talk)22:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very funny, you can go back and look at all the old discussions and the anti-Czechia folks were saying "it's not common enough yet. Look, source x and source y still call it Czech Republic". Now you open source x and source y and both have been changed since then to say Czechia. 90% of the time this is the case. But when the discussion reopens, the anti-Czechia folks will dig up a couple more sources that still say Czech Republic, and by the time the next discussion comes up those will now say Czechia and they'll have to find new examples yet again. Eternally moving goalposts, I don't think the page name will ever change so long as a single source on the internet still uses the Czech Republic name.67.200.228.170 (talk)17:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume those sources "x" and "y" were just an example showing that the name isn't/wasn't even used in the lowest-level places, which themselves don't guarantee a successful move. Do you think the outcome would be different if this were the very first attempt at the move? Some opponents vote with 'Oppose, not this sh.... again,' but let's assume that has zero weight in the evaluation.Chrz (talk)22:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on previous given points. The name is now in wide and official use as the short name and there is little to no point to use the official long name instead of the common name.Slovakia isn't "Slovak Republic",Switzerland isn't "Swiss Confederation" and such and such.PLMandarynka (talk)09:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Czech Republic →CzechiaCzechia – I believe that after almost 10 years it is time to move this article to Czechia, which is what the country actually calls itself. Looking at the 5 criteria:
Recognizability - Czechia is now just as recognizable as the Czech Republic. Google Maps uses it, many events like the Olympics use it, and Czech Republic now fells slightly clunky.
Naturalness - Just as natural as the Czech Republic, if not more
Precision - While the Czech Republic is the official name, the country has asked for the English-speaking world to use Czechia. As Czechia is the officially requested name, it scores slightly higher here.
Concision - Czechia is more concise than Czech Republic
Consistency - Czechia matches with the general pattern of using short names for countries unless absolutely necessary. We call it the United Kingdom, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Oppose and speedy close. While I'm happy to engage with a substantive fresh RM on this topic, it would need to explain what's changed since the last time we discussed this, barely a year ago. It needs to be evidenced that something has substantially shifted such that the shorter name is now clearly theWP:COMMONNAME as opposed to the longer name. The nomination statement here does not explain this at all, it merely repeats points that have been made ad infinitum. I suggest proponents close this one, coordinate their efforts and present the best evidenced case for us to consider properly. — Amakuru (talk)09:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason the United Kingdom article isn't titled "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is that it isn't normally referred to in full in sources. So for your analogy to be valid, we need at long last a demonstration that "Czechia" now prevails in sources, yet that's the one thing you haven't addressed.Largoplazo (talk)11:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the situation has changed, but citing data that can't tell us whether it has and then asking "what's changed?" is an invalid argument.Largoplazo (talk)17:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, speedy close, and renew moratorium. The nagging is annoying.Ngrams continue to support the current name as the common name, and no new evidence was presented. — BarrelProof (talk)14:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A glance at those curves is enough to show that unless something dramatic has happened recently (and it hasn't), the current article title remains more common today. Also, Wikipedia does not try to lead the way in speculative up-to-the minute status. It intentionally lags behind. A few years is not a big deal. There is no urgency here, andno deadline. — BarrelProof (talk)23:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A user who hasn't participated so far is starting his own (though possibly well-intentioned) effort to initiate a move. Maybe the request could be quickly closed and treated as if nothing happened, otherwise it unnecessarily wastes an opportunity to attempt the move with properly gathered evidence (without long moratoria again - some opponents are explicitly looking forward to it already). It's very interesting though, that people here immediately reject it without waiting to see what evidence the (uninitiated? hasty?) proposer will add to the request; they immediately know for sure. Let them read the last move request that ended in the indecisive 'No consensus.' That tired, 'definitive' argument with ngrams didn't work last time, so I don't know why it should work this time.Chrz (talk)14:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz Just to be clear, are you saying that a process of evidence gathering is underway and this move request will undermine it? What timeframe are you thinking of?Doric Loon (talk)15:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was more like waiting for better cards to play. Now, it still has a high chance of success, but the cards are lower. If there is a loss, the next "game" will not be allowed for a year, and the opponents will be even more amused by how the loser attempts the impossible yet again.
Since Czechia is already used almost everywhere, any new evidence will only consist of an increased frequency. Or, we're waiting for CNN or BBC, which I don't know why they should be the final obstacle, but things aren't too bright with them yet.Chrz (talk)16:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could be extremely lazy and ask a not entirely reliable AI to do a deep research for me on what has changed in the adoption of the name Czechia since 2024, and when I tell it to focus more on newspapers, it will say this:
The year 2024 marked a critical turning point in the global normalization of the short geographical name "Czechia" for the Czech Republic, moving it from a mere recommendation to a widespread international standard. This rapid expansion was fueled by a coordinated strategy across three high-impact domains: major sports events, sovereign financial reporting, and national destination branding. The most significant catalyst was the International Olympic Committee's official use of "Czechia" for the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics, ensuring massive, high-frequency media exposure worldwide. Concurrently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided a clear mandate that "Czechia" should be used wherever the formal "Czech Republic" is not legally required, which guided state-run agencies. In the financial sector, conservative institutions like the European Commission and S&P Global Ratings adopted the short name for macroeconomic analysis, signaling deep institutional recognition. Similarly, the U.S. State Department’s 2024 investment climate report routinely used "Czechia," legitimizing the term in government-level economic communication. The national tourist agency, CzechTourism, further reinforced this by basing its international marketing on the unified "#VisitCzechia" brand. In common sources like newspapers and general media, the adoption by the Associated Press Stylebook to prefer "Czechia" in general text accelerated its use by global news outlets. Although the formal "Czech Republic" persists in legal and some deep analytical contexts, the 2024 synergy effectively established "Czechia" as the official, preferred short name in standard international discourse.Chrz (talk)15:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, on "Is Czech Republic or Czechia the most common name for that country in English?" Google's AI says ""The Czech Republic" is still more common in English, but the Czech government prefers "Czechia" and has made it the official short name."Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)16:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deep research: Depending on what you want to research, it will find you relevant sources, read them, and it will write a long essay with a list of sources and even a final summary, which I posted here... If you don't want to trust the AI's judgment (and you really shouldn't), you can verify for yourself whether the sources are relevant and not just some useless blogs; you can read the sources yourself and draw your own conclusions. Unlike the regular chat mode where it invents the answer word-for-word without clear sources, so it might sound like a nice response.
So, the AI did research and found some progress/change from the sources since 2024. Therefore, it's possible to show those sources to prove that something new has, in fact, happened. Someone here claims that absolutely no noticeable relevant change has occurred since the 2016 officialization and that 'Republic' is a common name, despite the fact that the last discussion about the move ended without consensus on what the common name is here. So, what is one supposed to think about some of these arguments...Chrz (talk)18:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried putting your question into Google, and it gave me a similar answer to yours and, as a source, provided... drumroll... Wikipedia. That's a pretty neat way to try and prove Wikipedia with Wikipedia :DChrz (talk)18:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support "During 2024 and 2025, there was a significant normalization in the use of the short name 'Czechia' in English-language news coverage, even though the longer form 'Czech Republic' remained in formal titles and institutional mastheads. Journalists began commonly utilizing the name 'Czechia' in analytical commentaries where geopolitical brevity was needed, especially when comparing the country with Hungary and Slovakia in the context of political trends after the 2025 elections. The adoption was also accelerated in specialized journalism and data reporting, which prioritize efficiency, for example, in sports reporting, technical reports (Digital DataReportal), or government documents (US Department of State reports), thereby cementing the term in digital and factual discourse. Overall, 'Czechia' shifted from a marginal option to a standard editorial choice for contexts referring to the geographical entity, culture, or economy, becoming the preferred alternative to the formal state name."
This is what the AI says after deep research (meaning it collected relevant sources and made a summary, no hallucination, but maybe exaggeration). If this statement were true, would it be enough evidence of the change for opponents, meaning it's worth presenting the sources, or would even this finding be unhelpful and I shouldn't bother?Chrz (talk)11:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: The last time, it ended with no consensus on what the common name is here, and the status quo remained only for that reason. If the article were being created for the first time now, the Czech Republic would lose the advantage of it simply having been on Wikipedia for a long time, and a rename forces a lot of changes. Since the last attempt, occurrences and frequency of Czechia have been increasing (as even many opponents admit), and if there is interest, specific evidence can be added, not just their summary. It is not true that nothing is changing; on the contrary, last year's Wikipedia status quo is increasingly leaning in favor of Czechia, the trend is obvious; the only thing debatable is whether it's fast enough and whether it has already crossed a critical threshold. From last year's undecided state (which many opponents still refuse to accept), we are moving more and more into the position of Czechia. Although there are fears that the shift is not sufficient yet, that it could revert back, that it would be premature, crystal ball predictions, I do not share these fears. The trend is moving forward; one only needs to look at the previous attempts to see how Czechia is penetrating more and more sources. Yes, it is winning outright in some places, and in others it has less support, but the solution is not to suddenly and hypocritically give the greatest relevance to those sources where the change has not yet been so pronounced.Chrz (talk)07:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Future move requests are going to be pleading to go back to Czech Republic. We're going to win this one! 😂 It clearly isn't getting closed anytime soon because of the false start. So that would require some evidence. I have only written a general assessment above, saying that the name appeared in the news more this time than it did before.Chrz (talk)13:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I wrote above:
1) The discussion should pick up where it last ended. It is not constructive to repeat arguments. The arguments presented this time by the proposer were considered. The opposers' 'ngrams' point was considered. And that is exactly what led to the result: there is no consensus on what is the COMMONNAME for this country. Why should those arguments be repeated, expecting a different outcome? Changes/new evidence since the last time should be brought.
2) Any new evidence will now primarily be a change in frequency, which is more complex to prove than just saying, 'look, even this organization is now using it.'Chrz (talk)10:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, I am following up on the previous RM, which showed that the article title and COMMONNAME are not evaluated as simplistically as you are presenting here again: relying only on the general public and one single type of source.
I am suggesting this: If everyone here keeps repeating the identical arguments, the logical outcome is the same as last time: no consensus. No new arguments have been presented. None. Zero. 0. The other option is to demonstrate a shift in the sources being considered, which should then solidify the position toward this change (sooner or later). The sources that used Czechia are sticking with it. The sources that used Czech Republic are weakening or moving towards duality or switch. This can be proven, but I don't know if it makes sense when someone here is still going to repeat things about ngrams from 2022.Chrz (talk)11:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a constant loop. Everyone imagines something different under the word 'predominates.' This Canadian supporter [below] probably only knows Czechia from hockey (apologies for the prejudice), so they only hear and read the name Czechia now, just like other sports fans of other sports. Someone was at the World Exhibition in Japan and visited the pavilion named Czechia. Someone only watches CNN, so for them 'Republic' still prevails, while others read/watch other English-language sources/news and noticed the change. Someone only studies maps and tourist guides; they won't come across 'Republic' anymore (or nearly anymore). Some people haven't caught up and still know it as Czechoslovakia; we'll ignore those. Some shorten it their own way to 'Czech'; fortunately, we'll ignore those too. What is your 'prevailing' for general audience? And what is the last consensus – that it couldn't be determined.Chrz (talk)15:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to address the valid arguments of that 'SPA,' rather than repeating outdated ideas, especially after the last RM. Instead, what we read basically is: 'Don't bother us with this nonsense again, let's close it super quickly and not revisit it for a long, long time.'
Evidence that the situation has shifted to some degree can be provided, but it requires spending time working with sources. In contrast, some opponents instantly know, even without checking sources, that the situation hasn't changed—you just have to look at Ngrams from 2022, and similar 'gems'.
But it will probably be better to just write up your argument and ignore everything else. To hope for the closing administrator's ability to not just count votes, but mainly assess the strength of the arguments, regardless of how many people share them. After all, they didn't just count heads last time either, when 'Czechia' won on supporters.Chrz (talk)13:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support To remind everyone, last year this was touch-and-go. The first adjudicator who came here to close the discussion was going to support the move, but then found he was unable to because of a technicality. The actual closer then closed with a decision not to move, but explained that the arguments were so finely balanced that it was difficult to claim that eitherCzechia orCzech Republic are the common name. However, masses of evidence were presented to show thatCzechia is now very common, so the old arguments of bygone years thatCzechia is unknown or little used have been completely discredited. Since last year I have seen a further increase in the frequency of its use in news reporting etc. It is time.Doric Loon (talk)15:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, last year it ended with:"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." And with a tied result, the status quo remained. If the request proceeds without speedy close (without moratorium) and the proposer doesn't ensure it, we would ask you, you did a great job last time! If no one presents any new argument that hasn't already been considered last year, the result should logically remain the same:no consensus on whether either the proposed or the current title meet WP:COMMONNAME.Chrz (talk)15:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PerWP:COMMONNAME, this is what basically the entire English speaking world refers to the Czech Republic as. If this changes and there becomes widespread usage of Czechia rather than the Czech Republic,WP:COMMONNAME will go in the other direction and I would support the change.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)17:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move –Speedy close butno moratoriumfor now. This well-intended nomination cites common, frankly reasonable arguments for the move. Unfortunately, these failed to engage with the 11 (!) prior RMs. Keeping this open is a time suck and imposing a moratorium based on this RM is a wasted opportunity for a more thorough proposal. Many opposers in prior RMs and other discussions have stated that some day this change likely will be made. Several opposers here oppose on the basis that it would be reasonable to have a fresh discussion but that this proposal is incomplete. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're nearing the 7-day mark and the discussion remains active so a "speedy close" is inappropriate. A variety of 'support' arguments have been made without any real source analysis or other P&G-based rationale. I still see this RM largely as a wasted opportunity but 'support' editors have had some time to construct better arguments or move for a speedy close and then lay low, which would make it easier to close without prejudice.Weak support 6-month moratorium if 'not moved' or 'no consensus'. This is more than enough time to come up with a better proposal. By my rough count ≈1/3 of 'oppose' !votes either explicitly support assessing a better-formed proposal now or in the near future, or indicated some level of ambivalence based on the state of the current proposal. I'magnostic as to the underlying merits of a move at this time.—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, name changes should apply to countries just as it does for people. I don't get why the policies are treated so differently.--Ortizesp (talk)15:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Czech Republic" is still the country's long-form name. It hasn't been discarded. In addition, if you object to a policy or guideline, you ought to try to get it changed at the relevant talk page. Until it's changed, that's what we follow.Largoplazo (talk)16:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's evidently more than a chunk of ground, it's a legal entity and also a nation of people. What are humans but a bunch of hydrocarbons anyway?Ortizesp (talk)13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoesWP:BLP apply to countries now? I sense something like theZeroth law of robotics at play here... Humanity itself is of higher importance than any one individual. But no. If an individual changes their legal name then we might or might not give that extra weighting for BLP reasons,but there's no such consideration for the Czech Republic. NormalWP:COMMONNAME andWP:NAMECHANGES policy should be followed. — Amakuru (talk)14:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a supporter, I'm telling you this angle is pointless and worthless; it just gives opponents space for ridicule. Justify it differently.Chrz (talk)14:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because so far I haven't seen a single thing said here that demonstrates that usage patterns in relevant sources have sufficiently changed. That's the sole thing that's been necessary all these years but that hasn't been shown to have happened yet. Every other single thing anyone has written here so far in support of the change is just a repeat from previous discussions that didn't suffice then and doesn't suffice now, and amounts to beating a dead horse. If anyone contributing to this discussion actually takes the trouble to provide evidence of a sufficient increase in actual usage, then I'll change my !vote. The burden is on the move proponents.Largoplazo (talk)16:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the proposer hasn't even bothered to update his request based on the feedback, some opposers aren't even waiting for anything more and already have their conclusion prepared, and the supporters (at least me) didn't really want to submit the request now because they didn't have the 'relevant' sources and frequency analyses ready to present within 24 hours just because someone else submitted a request.Chrz (talk)17:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz Well if that is the feeling among long-term supporters of the move, may I suggest we close this RM and open a project page in somebody's userspace where we gather evidence (without debating it) and don't bring the matter back here for debate until it's ready? In that case, another moratorium might be appropriate so we don't waste everyone's time with false starts like this one. At present I just don't have the head-space to do much work on this RM, but I could contribute by and by.Doric Loon (talk)08:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it "Arguments in favor ..." because then it will just become filled, repetitively, with the same inadequate, beside-the-point arguments that have been perennial features of these move discussions. Something likeTalk:Czech Republic/Evidence that "Czechia" has prevailed in relevant sources. That will give leeway to editors to keep the page clean and usable for its intended purpose by deleting Olympics/Google Maps/WP:OTHERCONTENT with respect to other country articles/the-guidelines-are-stupid/the-people-of-the-country-are-profoundly-offended-even-though-it's-still-the-country's-full-name/it-will-happen-eventually-so-do-it-now arguments that anyone posts.Largoplazo (talk)09:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether anybody who's ever made the "the guidelines are stupid" argument, and whom I or someone else have told that the place to argue with the guidelines is at the guidelines' talk page and that here we simply follow what the guidelines currently provide, as stupid as they see them, has ever gone and raised the subject on the guidelines' talk page.Largoplazo (talk)09:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that same advice applies to people who interpretWP:COMMONNAME to mean "there is only ever one common name for any topic and it can be determined by bean counting google books/news hits". If that asinine interpretation ofWP:COMMONNAME really is the consensus - which it seems to be - then the guideline should say that. Currently, it does not. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱10:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Filelakeshoe The guideline is correct. But people are bound to pick up the catchphrase "common name", which gets repeated like a mantra, and not read the guideline properly. Treat them with patience, and keep educating them.Doric Loon (talk)12:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, something like that was explicitly forbidden in the past -- preparing for an RM and creating a page for it. And by the way, who will guarantee that the RM won't be opened by someone unfamiliar with the topic and the situation, as happened this time.Chrz (talk)10:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz I am not aware of any policy forbidding that. If it is not allowed here, it is certainly not forbidden in userspace, where gathering and preparing evidence is commonplace. Having it in userspace would also make it easier to keep it clean and usable, as @Largoplazo mentioned, because you can have one or two people authorized to curate it. You don't want arguments there - the whole point is to stop endless arguments.Doric Loon (talk)10:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz It seems to me that both sides in this discussion want an end to half-cocked false starts. Unless someone complains and backs it up convincingly, I wouldn't let some old comment stop us.Doric Loon (talk)12:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a rule or norm against creating such a subpage. If we do, it could have a simpler and less POV name likeTalk:Czech Republic/Pre-RM source analysis orTalk:Czech Republic/Pre-RM P&G assessment. I would think that a handful of editors collaborating in userspace is more frowned upon. Wherever it lives, It should be prominently linked, for example from the banner and/or a pinned post. It could just start as a new Talk thread here. Just my 2¢. I don't know if the case for RM is ripe yet but there's plenty of fodder for an RFCBEFORE. We can't prevent someone from unilaterally launching a poorly argued RM but having a robust, organized discussion underway may strengthen the case for a speedy close or regular close that leaves the door open to present a better argument. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)15:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a page for supporters of the move to gather their arguments, IMO it's better to name it after that rather than something likePre-RM source analysis which indicates otherwise, and might attract unwanted analysis.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)15:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I'm of two minds. There are downsides to both the appearance and reality of creating a closed group of POV editors. My interest is in having a productive discussion about the state of the evidence in light of the applicable P&G to determine if the time is right and to present the best case at the next RM. Presently, I'm agnostic because I haven't done my own assessment and there isn't a proper one here to respond to. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)16:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as problematic (necessarily, anything on WP can get problematic) to make such a page, NPOV applies to mainspace, though some other PAG:s apply everywhere.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)16:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per google scholar results this year, which are similar to last time. "Czech Republic" outnumbers "Czechia" by around 2.7:1, Google Trends in the last year is almost 4:1. Isupport a moratorium on these time wasting discussions. (t ·c)buidhe23:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the move result but firmlyoppose speedy close. Enough points in support have been made in support that I believe should be addressed first. I may come back to this later to provide my opinion on the move. ―Howard •🌽3309:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common name plus this is not the Czech Wikipedia where the title would make much more sense. Speedy close this. We have too much nonsense with page move requests by users who don't even read basic guidelines and rules about basic stuff. --WikiCleanerMan (talk)02:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The place to contest the guidelines is at the relevant guidelines' talk page. For all the people who've participated in these discussions all these years who've criticized the guidelines, I'm unaware that any of them has bothered to actually try to get the guidelines changed rather than just pleading for them to be ignored.Largoplazo (talk)06:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a counterargument that the name 'Czechia' is never used and is not common, this is quite sufficient: In ice hockey and other sports, 'Czechia' is absolutely common. When opponents here claim that 'Czechia' is not used at all and that the discussion is terribly exhausting for them, you remain silent. Or when they choose a single source or metric where 'Czechia' does not win. There are aspects where 'Czechia' wins overwhelmingly, and aspects where it doesn't, but they should be weighed, not given absolute power to just one. If you want to moderate here, please also point out to the opponents that they are judging superficially.Chrz (talk)07:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a straw man. Who is claiming that "Czechia" isn't used at all; if someone is claiming that, it can be instantaneously debunked; I know full well that it's used; but, in the end, it's immaterial because the threshold for a change of title isn't whether it's used at all but whether it predominates.Largoplazo (talk)14:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold iswhen there's enough editors to support the change. Sooner or later, that threshold will be met. For example - It took years & multiple RMs, butfinallyBurma was changed toMyanmar.GoodDay (talk)22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending evidence that something has changed. I note that the OP argues theWP:CRITERIA. I reject this argument. I note that "precision" does not meanpreferred by the local government and it is far from obvious thatconsistency means using short names even where English speakers do not. I note that the arguments made by the OP on recognisability and naturalness are purely subjective with no evidence provided. And whileCzechia is marginally more concise, the fact that it has one fewer syllable is hardly overriding.
If the supporters were actually providing solid evidence - which, since this apparently hasn't been clear in the past means not cherry-picked examples but demonstrations, particularly from style guides, of English-speaking media from English-speaking countries that used to useCzech Republic but now useCzechia without clarifying that byCzechia they mean the Czech Republic - then I have no objection to looking into this again. But in practice, in this RM, most of the supporters seem to be spending most of their time castigating the OP for failing to do the research work that those castigating have also failed to do. The article won't be moved without an RM. If you refuse to start an RM and complain whenever someone else does, it looks wildly inconsistent when you then complain that the article hasn't been moved.Kahastoktalk09:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one forgetting that it was a tie last time. Different sources, different rules, and different weightings were judged, and it was 50:50. A year later, with new sources, it might be 51:49 in favor of Czechia. Whether it was worth submitting a new request with such a small edge is questionable; many supporters would have preferred to wait and weren't ready. With the current ratio, it's still a tough one, even though the trend is clearly moving ahead. Nevertheless, ping to the proposer, so he also put in some effort @ChaoticVermillion.Chrz (talk)09:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I see nothing wrong with newspaper article mentioning once that Czechia is the Czech Republic and then only using Czechia. Such a source is perfectly fine and cannot be excluded.Chrz (talk)09:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the whole article only Czechia, but categorized under Czech Republic. Or Česko on a cap translated as Czechia. Something like that would have been unthinkable a year or ten years ago. A more in-depth survey and analysis would also confirm that these are not just minor examples (cherry-picking), but that a shift of, say, 5-10% has occurred even in general news reporting over the last year (which is just one of the areas that plays a role, and probably the last one opponents can cling to). However, such figures are below the resolution capabilities of many, which is why we should have waited longer.Chrz (talk)09:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahastok The style guides already are favourable to Czechia. If you look back to last year's discussion, you'll see that the objection from opposers was that they didn't think enough news outlets were putting that into practice. We made two separate attempts to provide a cross-section of the press, both with reasonably large samples, looking at the outlets with the biggest circulation (Wikipedia has lists for that) and including many countries around the world, but no matter how much work we put into making the sample representative, opposers shouted "cherry picking", many of them apparently without even looking at the evidence presented. None of the opposers was prepared to suggest a method of surveying the press which they would accept as not cherry-picked. So while your points are valid, you need to be a little bit careful that that cherry-picking argument is more than just a lazy way of not dealing with good evidence.
By the way, English is a world language, so it's not just native speakers who get to decide on usage. So English-language media from Germany, Israel, Korea, and yes Czechia, is absolutely relevant.Doric Loon (talk)10:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few points to pick up on here. First, you say, "the style guides already are favourable to Czechia" based on the previous RM. The biggest discussion on style guides last time was on AP, where the support side were trying to say we should discard it and all sources that use it for reasons. Second, you did provide a list of what you claimed were "outlets with the biggest circulation", but you only selected example texts usingCzechia without providing any evidence that these were more common thanCzech Republic in the same outlets. And, if anything, the problem for the supporters wasn't that opposers didn't look at them. It's that they did. For example,this was one of your sources that you claimed usedCzechia. It does, in the headline, but usesCzech Republic exclusively in the text. There were several examples whereCzechia was only used in direct quotations, and examples whereCzechia was immediately clarified to meanCzech Republic. These are not arguments thatCzechia is recognisable perWP:CRITERIA. Meanwhile there were also cited multiple articles actually written specifically to explain the wordCzechia to readers unfamiliar with it.
And no, it makes no sense to count usage by non-native speakers. Language is defined by the usage of native speakers. If a non-native speaker uses a non-English word in the middle of a sentence that is a language error, not a legitimate dialectal difference.Kahastoktalk10:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one specific example: The very fact that they are willing to put it in the headline says a lot. Who on earth would click on that if they didn't know which country it was about? :) And would they really have done it this way before, or is it evidence of progress? We don't need to prove that it is used majority or overwhelmingly in news reporting, we only need to prove that it is used more than before, because we have other indicators and types of sources where Czechia overwhelmingly wins, and those balance out the shortcomings with news reporting.Chrz (talk)10:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What it does not demonstrate is what was claimed - that the Independent has switched to usingCzechia. And this is despite being based on a search forCzechia - who knows how many Independent articles there are out there that weren't found because they only useCzech Republic and don't useCzechia at all.
You keep on saying things likeCzechia overwhelmingly wins, but without evidence that's a meaningless statement. From previous RMs we can probably assume that you're talking about formal and technical reporting, but (a) previous RMs are irrelevant, what matters is this one, and (b) we should be looking at the sorts of sources that are aimed (as we are) at the general public, not dry technical reports aimed at a few specialists. That is the principle expressed bynaturalness andrecognisability in theWP:CRITERIA.
I'll add that there seems to be a strange idea in some of the comments that the fact that the last RM closed at no consensus somehow compels those who opposed at the last RM to support at this RM, or suggests that this RM must end with consensus to move. I see no rational basis for this inference.Kahastoktalk11:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång What do you mean about SPA? Is that a problem with the OP? Whatever, I would also agree to a further moratorium - since nobody was ready to put any work into this RM, it should have been procedurally closed without so many words being wasted. We don't want to return to this until the proposers have a new case prepared. I'm more than happy to participate in preparing it somewhere down the line.Doric Loon (talk)12:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:MODERNPLACENAME says "Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook". The CIA World Factbook calls the country Czechia, seehere.European Union,Gov UK uses Czechia,WHO uses Czechia,US Department of State uses Czechia,OECD uses Czechia, and theCzechia official website uses Czechia. The nth billion example of Wikipedias fighting a move for arguments sake, and one that no one would ever bother moving back when it's done.--Ortizesp (talk)15:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your seven examples demonstrate It Is Used, not It Is Predominant. In addition, four of these sources are irrelevant because they aren'tindependent, using the names by which their own member nations identify themselves for organizational purposes.Largoplazo (talk)16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think, based on fierce opposition over the years, that the formal process to reverse the move to Czechia will begin the minute it's completed. Judging by some of the messages in previous RMs, all of these sources were perfectly relevant and important until they used Czech Republic. As soon as they betrayed and switched to Czechia, they became irrelevant. I'm saying that such convenient messages appeared; I cannot confirm they played a role in closing the discussion. COMMONNAME says "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations," but here in the discussion it is being limited, that it must not be organizations of which the country is a member?!Chrz (talk)06:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think you are misinterpreting the objections. You are also misrepresenting the letter and spirit ofWP:UCRN with your selective quotation. The section first says to determine the common name byprevalence in a significant majority ofindependent,reliable, English-language sources. This is consistent with the generalWP:COMMONNAME guidance. By all available evidence, this is still Czech Republic, although Czechia does continue to gain acceptance. The section you quoted describes what to do when the common name cannot easily be determined, which does not appear to be the case here. But even in such cases,major international organizations is only one of the source categories to consider. Usage in the others—major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals—does not show a consistent preference for Czechia. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:COMMONNAME. Czechia is getting more common, but it is not quite there yet. It is unclear why the drop in frequency of the Czech Republic is not accompanied by a similar rise in the use of Czechia, however. A similar anomaly is observed inNgrams.
Thanks, @Kelob2678, this is a nice presentation of the data. The trend should be heartening for those hoping for an eventual title change but the data do not support such a change at this time. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)07:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Personally, I am surprised and disappointed that the same arguments as last time resulted in a different closing outcome.. it seems it was just a matter of the headcount.
However, the discussion typically shifts immediately to a moratorium. As discussed during RM, I have already set up a page outlineTalk:Czech Republic/Czechia to gather arguments for a properly established and well-supported RM. Contributors there would know exactly when to launch the next attempt, even without mandatory moratorium breaks.
So, instead of declaring a moratorium, could we propose that new RM be expected only after an agreement is reached on that specific subpage, and not from random passersby? Do the rules allow that? Working on the arguments will take a few months anyway. Currently, the overall usage across various types of sources isn't advanced enough for this to be an easy, unambiguous transition - it's just 'already theoretically conceivable' now and that requires more supporting material and convincing others about the relevance of individual sources, rules and metrics.Chrz (talk)15:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrz It wasn't the same arguments with a different conclusion. Quite simply no arguments were put this time. By all means we can use the preparation page, and obviously we would not start a new RM until that comes to fruition, but only a moratorium can stop another newcomer launching an unprepared RM like we saw this week.Doric Loon (talk)16:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No new arguments, just a few new cherry examples from sources that haven't fully switched to Czechia yet, but are now occasionally starting to use it — which they weren't able or willing to do a year ago. Plus, Google Scholar, which was meant for the opposing side but actually shows a skyrocketing trend in support for Czechia. :D Of course, it could still be continuously rejected even without a moratorium, stating that the case is being built on a subpage.Chrz (talk)17:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RM nomination was hardly unprepared, it was done in good faith and was well-based on the relevant guidelines. It's just that in this particular situation (and also onTalk:Twitter, where I got pinged on a subpage like this just yesterday) that's apparently not enough. We probably need to flesh out the talk FAQ a bit, I think it's unrealistic for us to expect everyone who comes here and wonders "why hasn't Wikipedia changed its usage yet when all these other sources have" to read 20 years worth of wall-of-text RM discussions –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱20:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, what's currently written under Q1 in the FAQ is just misleading – it's weird that we give "the Czech Republic is the official name of the country" as a rationale for not moving the article, when the article title policy is quite clear that whether a name is "official" is immaterial to whether it should be the title. Not to mention the "official" argument makes no sense on either side of this debate as BOTH names are official. Also to say that there's a broad consensus against moving the article is not quite accurate any more - the October 2024 RM was closed as "no consensus" (as opposed to "not moved").
I would rewrite it to something like:
In 2016, the Czech government adopted the short name "Czechia" for the country, and since then some other sources haveadopted the short name. The question of whether to move this article to "Czechia" has been extensively debated, most recently in October 2025, and the consensus is that even though some other sources have adopted the short name, Wikipedia should retain the name "Czech Republic" as it is more widely used in sources such as journalism, literature and scholarship, indicating that it is still the more widely recognized of the two names in English. This question may be revisited again in the future, but any future RM rationale should include substantial evidence to demonstrate that this situation has changed.
I've supported making this move since about 2021, so someone on the other side of the debate might want to edit that before implementing it. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱20:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help the discussion if those opposed to the change made clear what it would take for them to support it. We could avoid accusations of “moving the goalposts” and, hopefully, prevent pointless RMs if it’s clear none of these conditions have been met.
Personally, I’m not interested in seeing a list of sources using “Czechia”. I know “Czechia” is used. What I would need to see is evidence of it being used MORE than “Czech Republic”. And so far, every metric referenced in these RMs (Ngram, Google Trends, Scholar) has shown “Czech Republic” ahead. “Czechia” wouldn’t need to win in all three, or even in most of them. Wikipedia usually uses the official short name of a country, so, as long as it isn’t losing to “Czech Republic” in every metric, I would support the move. It also wouldn’t need to be these three metrics, any similar (and widely used) tool would be enough. And it does seem that “Czechia” is getting closer to “Czech Republic” in Google Scholar, so it might not be long before I change my vote.Brainiac242 (talk)07:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I know Google Trends measures searches, not uses, but sinceWP:CRITERIA specifically mentions what “readers are likely to look or search for”, then “Czechia” winning there would be good enough for me.Brainiac242 (talk)07:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trends is completely irrelevant for assessingWP:COMMONNAME, as it's usage in reliable sources that drive the assessment, not usage by the population at large. Scholar is also rarely very useful, unless it's used alongside a comprehensive analysis of usage in the other main source types. Scholarly articles form a small minority of sources as compared to books and media and it often uses more specialist language not used in other more general sources; as such, we specifically don't strive to give scholarly usage more prominence than others. As such, I would say ngrams are by far the most useful metric here as they represent the combined figures from over 5 million books and, absent a slam-dunk argument showing overwhelming shift in media and other web sources, I am unlikely to change my vote until the ngram lead for Czech Republic is significantly reduced. — Amakuru (talk)08:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Trends is indeed irrelevant for assessingWP:COMMONNAME, but that is not the only guideline that needs to be considered.WP:CRITERIA should be used to “choose the best title” when there is “more than one appropriate title for an article”. And “Naturalness” states that what “readers are likely to look or search for […] usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English”. In any case, I’m not trying to convince anyone here to change their position, I’m just stating mine, and you can very well demand a higher threshold to be crossed than me.Brainiac242 (talk)10:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiBrainiac242, thanks for the reply but that seems to be an incorrect reading of the policy. PerWP:COMMONNAME, as well as all the other associated guidelines such asWP:NAMECHANGES,WP:OFFICIALNAMES and longstanding consensus at RMs, the common name across reliable source is almost always the bane that should be chosen. Per the policy wording,"when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly" (emphasis mine). But since the ngrams imply at present thatCzech Republic is the single, obvious name most frequently used (without sufficient evidence from other source types to overturn that), there is no need to invoke any of the five criteria. Which is a good thing, frankly, because while the criteria are useful rules of thumb, they are quite subjective and open to interpretation. In my experience they're mostly invoked and weighted with a view to promoting a particular viewpoint rather than applied in an empirical objective manner. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)10:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: “Ireland” is clearly MUCH more used than “Republic of Ireland”[5], and yet the article is calledRepublic of Ireland, as that title “unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects”, namely the island of Ireland. Sometimes there is more than one valid title for an article, and when there is, Ngram should definitely be considered, but it should not be the ONLY thing considered.
Both “Czechia” and “Czech Republic” are valid titles for this article, and although “Czech Republic” is the better name today, that might not be the case three years from now, even if, like “Ireland”, “Czech Republic” continues to clearly win at Ngram. In any case, it’s rather pointless to discuss now whether it would make sense to move the article three years from now, but if we clearly state what could make us change our minds, maybe we can stop having RMs like this one, where everyone in favour last time, continues to be in favour, and everyone opposed, continues to be opposed. I for one would welcome an RM if either Ngram, Google Scholar, or Google Trends, showed “Czechia” ahead.Brainiac242 (talk)11:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is a different case, because the name is ambiguous. The articleIreland refers to the whole island. If there weren't this ambiguity, we would 100% be calling the article "Ireland" since, as you note, that's the common name in sources. As you say, this is all rather academic right now, I was merely pointing out that basing an argument solely on Google scholar or Google trends, while ngrams continue to show a large lead forCzech Republic, is unlikely to be compliant with the article title policy and probably wouldn't be an argument likely to find consensus when viewed through that policy lens. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)12:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relationship between WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA, and WP:PLACE should finally be clarified before the next attempt. We're naming a place, so it should be quite obvious which rule is the most specialized, but both in RM 2024 and now, there is speculation about the priorities of these recommendations without consensus.Chrz (talk)13:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note:
I’ve noticed the use of NGram several times, and I do not believe that this is the most accurate source we could use for decisions on WP:COMMONNAME. Oftentimes NGram is based on professional, sophisticated uses. Use cases where the long, formal name is more likely to be used. NGram isn’t able to clearly the difference between “Czech Republic” (the long name) and “Czech Republic” (the wanted short name). Feel free to correct me; it is just something I’ve noticed reading through these threads.144.129.7.117 (talk)14:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Ngram is about books. Books describe the present and the past. That's why the term 'Czechoslovakia' still appears almost as often as 'Czech Republic' even in the data up to 2022, despite the state not existing for 29 years.
Ngram is probably best used to see how a new term takes hold (in books) and how an older, outdated name disappears.
However, it is less useful for a term like 'Czechia'. This is because the name 'Czech Republic' remains the official and valid full name, meaning it will continue to appear in a significant quantity and will likely never disappear. You can compare this situation to 'Slovak Republic' vs. 'Slovakia'.Chrz (talk)15:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a random nobody who just reads Wikipedia on occasion, have you ever considered that Wikipedia itself is influencing what name is used? As in, 'Czech Republic' gets an artificial boost over 'Czechia' because it's what Wikipedia uses? I'm just saying that, if someone comes across a country they don't know the name of, or are unsure of what name to use, they will it. And what will they find? Wikipedia, which calls it 'Czech Republic'.192.249.3.255 (talk)19:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only uses so-called reliable sources, which would never use Wikipedia as their own style guide. There might be a great deal of idealism in this; we can only hope that Wikipedia is not caught in a self-referencing loop.
In cases where two completely equal names compete, Wikipedia chooses just one of them and completely pushes the other one out. This is probably where the most damage is done, but randomly switching between them probably wouldn't help either.
There were attempts to differentiate based on context (e.g., Czechia for sports, Czech Republic outside of sports) to avoid suppressing one of the names. However, there was no willingness to adopt such solutions, even when examples were shown that Wikipedia had done similar things before...Chrz (talk)22:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we can only hope that Wikipedia is not caught in a self-referencing loop"
But I guarantee it is. It's the first thing that comes up when you search pretty much any topic. Google AI uses it as it's primary source. It's the largest encyclopedia ever created. Even if people don't use it as the end-all-be-all, it's still going to have some influence on what name is used. I guarantee that if Wikipedia switched to 'Czechia' it's popularity and usage would skyrocket. The fact that Czechia is gaining traction, despite Wikipedia, is probably a sign that's it really caught on.192.249.3.255 (talk)15:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree here. However, I think our best option is to make note of this in the actual WP:COMMONNAME page - protesting on this page won't help to fix that.144.129.7.115 (talk)18:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is. Where I see a problem is with your underliying assumption that change must happen. It may happen tomorrow. It may happen twenty years from now. Or it may never happen. All of those are valid outcomes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is."
The problem is that Wikipedia decides what to call the country formed from the Czech half of Czechoslovakia based on what articles and other sources are calling it. Which are themselves likely pulling the name from Wikipedia. Wikipedias gets the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia which get the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia. It's feedback loop. Both texts are citing each other. Which suggests that using the most popular common name is a bad metric because Wikipedia is itself mudding the waters.~2025-31300-01 (talk)02:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So, you're saying that a work designed to record what is and to report that to the public, is doing so? I don't see where the problem is."
The problem is that Wikipedia decides what to call the country formed from the Czech half of Czechoslovakia based on what articles and other sources are calling it. Which are themselves likely pulling the name from Wikipedia. Wikipedias gets the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia which get the name from sources which get the name from Wikipedia. It's feedback loop. Both texts are citing each other. Which suggests that using the most popular common name is a bad metric because Wikipedia is itself mudding the waters.~2025-31300-01 (talk)02:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that you believe that there are reliable sources that have something to say about the country but, somehow, don't already know what its name is and are looking it up on Wikipedia and using whatever they find there? Or is it that you believe the there are reliable sources that, every time they mention a country, check Wikipedia first to see whether its name has changed since the last time they wrote about it?Largoplazo (talk)13:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who notice that the Czech Republic is now called "Czechia" in a bunch of places and might come to Wikipedia to find out why and which name they should use in their writing, yes. That's a perfectly normal thing to use a reference source for. –filelakeshoe (t /c)🐱13:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And since we have information about that name, they will find out the "why"s. And since we show that each form is used by some sources, the choice is obviously theirs to make for themselves. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)13:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply the source of the data you've used to establish that this is common. I'm suspicious of the proposition that reliable sources are, to an appreciable extent, outsourcing to an unreliable source like Wikipedia for this.Largoplazo (talk)13:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such "lazy" sources wouldn't have to check Wikipedia before every new article; they would just save the List of sovereign states page and use it as their "own" style guide.Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents shows how even very reputable sources have been fooled by nonsense from Wikipedia. In the case of a country's name, it's quite a different thing, that seriously exists. But, they could just come to the idea that they'd rather stick "conservatively" to the name from Wikipedia than try to be more "daring".Chrz (talk)15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they saved the list, then in 2019, they'd never have updated their own nomenclature in their publications. I still await data showing that that happens with any appreciable frequency in place of freestyling conjecture.
In order to be fooled by Wikipedia, a writer would have to have lookedat Wikipedia. I've called into question how often that happens. We aren't concerned with whether it's ever happened but with whether it happens sufficiently often to have a marked impact.Largoplazo (talk)17:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy from Wikipedia in ways other than checking its current status daily. Once a year, they can rewrite their style guide according to Wikipedia, and then write using that guide for another year. How would you even prove something like that? If Wikipedia confirms sources, and the sources confirm Wikipedia, they are in a mutual loop.The only thing that would expose even respected sources of copying are those clear screw-ups, where they copy nonsense from Wikipedia that hasn't been published anywhere else. But I don't even want to prove it; I will choose to believe that there are enough (!) independent sources and that Wikipedia follows them and not the other way around. Without this basic (and partially) idealistic assumption, it wouldn't even be possible to do Wikipedia.Chrz (talk)17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? So what if they did? If, by and large, English language sources decide to stick with a central source that says X, then that means that English language usage has settled on X. Why is that not an acceptable outcome? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that single source is the list at the UN, then why not? That list has clear rules about where the names came from. But mindlessly copying a collective work by anonymous contributors... in the best case, they also read the notes next to the country list, but otherwise...Chrz (talk)17:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we are still talking about a central source for 'nomenclature', not a central source for 'general truth'. And no, Wikipedia is not a suitable central source for nomenclature, no matter what it says.Chrz (talk)18:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know if you would find copying Wikipedia's usage problematic if Wikipedia's usage was Czechia instead of Czech Republic. Would it not still be "circular reporting"? Would you accept usage of the UN list if the UN used Czech Republic instead of Czechia? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)18:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Swap the names, my answers would be the same :) If the UN list (lists of sports organizations, ISO) contained only Czech Republic, I wouldn't see any way to introduce the 'new' name into English at all. Would it just appear in news reports without also having formal approval?Chrz (talk)21:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When UN request will be sent and accepted, then the article about Czech Republic will have to recognize it at least somehow. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)"Chrz (talk)14:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call for the move in 2015. But I did call for including it in the article ONCE it is made official. What I wanted already in 2015 was to include the Czech name 'Česko' in the first senence, and the excuses were that it wouldn't be symmetrical or something like that...Chrz (talk)17:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Wikipedia has a huge influence on what is subsequently used across the internet and by AI. Ideally, Wikipedia should rely on independent sources that can think for themselves and remain completely unaffected by this. It would certainly be an interesting experiment to 'arbitrarily' rename something on Wikipedia well in advance and see how the world shifts.
We have to ask: what prompts English-language news media to suddenly decide to name a country differently? Anyone can see that the initial step must come from the country itself, which (to the chagrin of some opponents) naturally has the right to influence the English language.
The best moment for a name change is when a country is first established (which is not renaming, but naming). Another good time is when the country renames itself in its local language, creating a large discrepancy with the English equivalent. It's clear that Czechia has no such advantage: it was established long ago, there was no change in the local language, and the 'old' name remains valid as the formal name. Wikipedia did not account for such special sub-cases, and maybe its general rules cannot resolve them.Chrz (talk)20:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can see that the initial step must come from the country itself, which (to the chagrin of some opponents) naturally has the right to influence the English language." Yes, influence. Not command. If the influence is insufficient, then English usage doesn't change. Maybe there is nothing to resolve with respect to English usage and Wikipedia, the change didn't happen. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)12:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We surely can't claim that nothing has changed since 2016. Some sources HAVE CHANGED (because influence works), some ARE CHANGING, and some HAVE NOT CHANGED. "Naturally", opponents exaggerate the ones that haven't changed, while supporters do the opposite. During the RM, we evaluate which ones are better. However, observing the changes in the English language over the last century, the changes in country names IMHO didn't mostly happen due to willingness, but rather due to guilt (colonialism, etc.).Chrz (talk)15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I should have been clearer. When I said that "If the influence is insufficient, then English usage doesn't change." my point wasn't about an absolute lack of change, it was about changing from predominantly one form to predominantly the other. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)13:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want more than the rule suggests. It's enough to roughly reach 50/50 and note the trend direction. Waiting for some 'predominantly' would no longer be Wikipedia ahead of the current state of things, but severely behind.Chrz (talk)15:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly one of the things that RMs naturally deal with: that Wikipedia is becoming too far behind what is up to date. For some sources, it is definitely behind, but for others, it would be ahead a lot. And no exact formula was (or could) given for weighing all sources together.Chrz (talk)17:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we follow. We can follow immediately after the triggering condition has been filled and seems stable. Earlier,User:BarrelProof said that Google Ngrams could be taken into account for this season's analysis despite their corpus running only up to 2022 because... Wikipedia does not try to lead the way in speculative up-to-the minute status. It intentionally lags behind. A few years is not a big deal. I disagree substantially with that. If "Czechia" had overtaken "Czech Republic" (unnoticed by Google Ngrams) in 2023 or 2024 or even early 2025 and stayed consistently ahead since then, it would now be time to make a change. "Follow" doesn't mean "ignore everything that happened in the last three years". Conversely (as I've often noted when supporting moratoriums) we also don't have to sit in constant watch and seize on the shift the very day it happens. It doesn'thurt if there's a year or two between reassessments. But once we're doing one, we should be using reasonably up-to-date corpuses.Largoplazo (talk)17:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, waiting doesn't hurt; some might say we have been waiting unnecessarily for the tenth year now. On the other hand, what harm would be done if the article was renamed 2-3 years earlier than some people think it 'should' be? Would it be a disruption of Wikipedia's sacred rules, the end of the known order, or just another example in the long line of times when Wikipedia evaluates things more comprehensively (AKA "exception")? Would a wave of resistance really rise up and demand an immediate reversal in the name of Wikipedia, or would it finally be the end?Chrz (talk)18:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Around what time do you think the usage will sway enough toward Czechia to prompt another discussion? If a moratorium ends up being put in place, we need to be diligent as to how long we set it.~2025-31721-48 (talk)18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Around what time do you think the usage will sway enough toward Czechia to prompt another discussion?" - good question, I'll pop down to the store and grab aWP:CRYSTALBALL and then I'll let you know 😀. As for how long to run a moratorium for, I'm not sure it even matters that much. Moratoria are rarely more than a year in length, whereas the time needed to see a slam-dunk change in usage is typically longer. At other cases such asTimor-leste,Myanmar etc, it generally seems that we forget about it for several years and then when the next big RM comes along, one looks again at the evidence and it's suddenly overwhelming. I would imagine something like that will happen here, and possibly atIvory Coast too, but I doubt it will be any time in 2026. — Amakuru (talk)11:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech Republic is not historically known as Bohemia. Bohemia is just one part of the country. Historically it was three separate lands/countries, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. They were part of the Holy Roman Empire and then Austria etc.~2025-29085-83 (talk)13:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out if there is an extended confirmed account that sees this and wants to edit. In the economy section there is a statement from 2012 about the Czech rank of internet speed amongst countries.
Indeed, it was ridiculous for the Internet situation in the country to be summed up at all with information that's 13 to 21 years old. Even without supplying up-to-date information, it was embarrassing for that outdated info to be there, so I've removed that whole paragraph.Largoplazo (talk)04:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2025
Hello everyone, I have no intention of renaming the title of this particular article now, but I want to write something that bothers me about Czech sports teams. For several years now, all international sports federations have been using the name "Czechia" to refer to the Czech Republic team. And that's quite annoying when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. Please seethis talk; I presented my idea there. Thanks,Maiō T. (talk)11:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is simple. As long as Czech Republic is the name of this page and Czechia has not prevailed as the common name, the name of encyclopedia entries about sports teams of the country is also Czech Republic, and should be used exclusively (we follow Wikipedia conventions, not off-wikipedia usage.). When the country is moved to Czechia, the names of all related pages will change, and the new common name will be used in the text of the pages (including changing existing references to the country). The outcome of the RM discussions on this page should not be circumvented by using the Czechia parameter or by creating an alternative code, as you suggest in the aforementioned talk. Same for Turkey vs. Türkiye, Ivory Coast vs. Côte d'Ivoire, and Timor-Leste vs. East Timor, which was moved recently.FromCzech (talk)12:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name Czechia naturally applies retroactively to those sports organizations/teams. Therefore, instead of using name=Czechia in current template usages, you can immediately change the code in sports templates to just "Czechia". There's no need to invent specialized ISO codes; CZE is and was Czechia, and that's that.
@FromCzech: Okay, I won't use that weird parameter|name=Czechia in articles until everything is official. However, this parameter has already been used a thousand times on Wikipedia and will probably be used another thousand times by other users... So I have mixed feelings...Maiō T. (talk)17:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep name=Czechia for current sports references; it's a long-term 'temporary' solution. Opponents dislike this and want full consistency everywhere, even though it completely ignores the sources.Chrz (talk)17:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If sports organizations have "retroactively" changed the results list, I see no reason to frown upon that on Wikipedia. Old PDFs or articles remain the same, but the overview on the websites retroactively substitutes Czechia where it "historically wasn't". So ummm.... yes.Chrz (talk)17:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have just disqualified yourself from this discussion, both sports and general. Those are some criteria of yours that are not supported by anything, now you are rejecting sports organizations and dictionaries, and soon you will be forced to reject almost all sources because they are not 'historically accurate.'Chrz (talk)17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was never, ever, ever about renaming the state (but rather about a second name for the same country), the retroactivity of the geographical name is truly not unexpected. Sources dared to use it, so why we should label them as invalid, I truly don't know.Chrz (talk)18:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The error clearly occurred after renaming the entry 'Czech Republic' to'Czechia' (Last Updated: 4 Nov 2025 - Definition revised), when it changed links leading to 'Czech Republic' to 'Czechia'. This is another disadvantage of the Czech Republic - the 'the' :)Chrz (talk)17:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The error clearly occurred after renaming the entry 'Czech Republic' to 'Czechia'" Yes, I know when it occurred. I just expect better of them than to do so blindly and leave obvious grammar errors in place for weeks. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That would appear to be inaccurate.Nubzor[T][C]17:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able toedit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.NotJamestack (talk)15:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
