Category talk:Books from the 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)

Category:Products of the Czech Republic

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia.

	Category:Products of the Czech Republic	Move to/Rename as	Category:Products of Czechia
	per recent rename by ŠJů (talk · contribs), but as it is inconsistent with parent Category:Czech Republic so I restored the original name pending completion of this discussion.

• For now, we should retain the name Category:Products of the Czech Republic. I would be happy to see Category:Czech Republic changed to Category:Czechia but until that is done, sub-categories should remain as "Czech Republic". Josh (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Let us invite participants of the previous discussion to this Neverending Story:@Gryffindor, Themightyquill, Mormegil, Wieralee, Palu, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, and Blackcat: @Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joostik, Auntof6, and Buidhe: . --ŠJů (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

@Joshbaumgartner: Czechia experienced several state organization: it was a kingdom with affiliate lands, it was a part of unitary Czechoslovakia, if was a protectorate, if was a federal republic within Czechoslovakia and finally, recently it is a separate republic. However its national identity is continuous from medieval times. Country categorization of Commons should be as timeless as possible. Factories and traditional local products at the area are the same, independently on the variable political forms. If you created the category Category:Products of the Czech Republic, we need create a parent category for Czech products from other historical periods. However, most of other countries have their categories by country, not by fugacious state regimes. We have "Products of France", not "Products of the French First Republic", "Products of the French Fifth Republic", "Products of the Second French Empire" etc. Let Czechia to have the same simple categorization.

For now, we can keep "Czech Republic" for categories related exclusively to post-1993 institutions or units, but timeless items require timeless categories with timeless category names. It's absurd and funny to categorize 19th century Czech people or 1930s Czech products under "the Czech Republic", no such a republic existed at that times, but Czechia did indeed exist. --ŠJů (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw., the 2016 CfD discussion was closed by a very biased and irrational participant of the discussion, in contradiction to prevailing arguments and opinions from the discussion, not reflecting the factual arguments sufficiently. --ŠJů (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply said, "Czechia" or "France" can be substitutes for "Czech Republic" or "French Republic", but "Czech Republic" or "French Republic" are not timeless substitutes for "Czechia" or "France". Geographic names of countries are not full synonymes to political names of states, although they can be equivalents in some contexts. --ŠJů (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If what you said is true, then you made an error by renaming from "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". If "Czechia" is distinct from "Czech Republic", then it should exist separately from it (it does not). Category:Products of the Czech Republic should remain. If there are contents which are not products of the Czech Republic are there, they should be removed, but the category and all products made in the Czech Republic should remain. Josh (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: For most of other countries, the categorization of products is "by country", not "by state regime". I.e. the categorization system is set for such categorization. Theoretically, we can have a parent category for the country and its subcategories by its historical periods by state regimes or administrative forms of the country, but no other country uses such structure. Your category name deviates from the logic of the system. In any case, all products from the Czech Republic are from Czechia, but not all products from Czechia are from the Czech Republic. I.e. my change can cause no harm, while your change caused misscategorization of many contained files and subcategories. As I said above, most of local factories are continuously at their places no matter how the state regimes are changing. The legal continuity of companies and other legal entities was also independent of change of state regimes. The republic itself is not a manufacturing company and has no products. And your hasty action was disruptive. --ŠJů (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@ŠJů: I am glad to see your different approach now to this, and your new edits are far more appropriate in not removing Czech Republic products from their correct category. I have no idea what you are talking about with the whole country/state regime thing, but no matter, the "Czechia" you describe is a separate entity, possibly a parent of various countries, but definitely not a child of them. Thus 'products of Czechia' is not a subset of 'products of the Czech Republic' and "Czechia" as you describe it is not a country but a historical amalgamation of multiple countries/entities over time, so if anything, 'products of Czechia' could be a parent of 'products of the Czech Republic'. The whole thing remains a bit problematic so long as Category:Czechia is just a redirect to Category:Czech Republic which indicates that the two are synonymous so far as Commons categorization is concerned. You might focus on that first before siponing off details like 'products of'. Josh (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Regrettably, the current solution is just provisional, to solve the chaos you caused with your rash and unsystematic move and stubborn reverts. Unfortunately, for some Czech products it is not possible to identify from the photo whether they were produced during the Czech Republic or at a time when Czechia had another legal/administrative form of government. And many subcategories would have to be split to accommodate this unnecessary and unsystematic double-trackness. The right solution is to have just one category for Czechia, together for all periods and forms of its existence, just as most of other countries have. If you are not able to understand what is the difference between France, Spain or Czechia – and French Republic, Kingdom of Spain or Czech Republic, then do not try to reorganize and rename any categories, as this will do more harm than good. In Europe, countries have their history and identity, mostly much older than today's legal form of the state in that country. Czechia is a name of the country where Czech Republic is at the moment, as well as Spain is the country where Kindom of Spain is. I understand that this may not be understandable to an American, because American history is not so continuous and American states have not originated as naturally and historically as states on other continents, and the words "country" or "nation" have a bit different meaning for Americans than for historical nations. But I think an educated person should be able to understand facts about other continents.

Commons "by country" categorization is generally based on timeless names of countries, not on political names of the current political forms of the state entities. Unfortunately, some of elements of the category tree "Czech Republic" including its root category deviate from that principle. It is caused by ignorants who before 1993 probably did not even know that there exists any Czechia, and it never occurred to them to think of the nouns from which the compound word Czechoslovakia or the adjective Czech was derived. And because of that, the discussion ended in a stalemate. In the current situation, there is nothing to do but to bear in mind that where "the Czech Republic" is written in any category name, it should actually mean Czechia. However, this is confusing, and therefore a lot of Czech content is not properly categorized by country, because people perceive incorrect to categorize pre-1993 (or pre-1969) content related to Czechia or Czechs under "Czech Republic". And then someone who does not know or not undestand the situation arrives and begins to rename something and change the situation even worse.--ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You have a unique perspetive on how country categorization works. As far as Commons is concerned, the "Czech Republic" is for post-split and "Czechoslovakia" is pre-split. Maybe the names should be changed, but right now, those are the names. Injecting your personal ideas of how we should use "Czechia" by disrupting the orderly structure of Category:Czech Republic or Category:Czechoslovakia is going to continually cause problems. Building a separate Category:Czechia tree to cover your definition of it is not exactly a good solution, but at least it isn't destructive and its continued existence can be discussed safely. Randomly renaming "Czech Republic" categories to "Czechia" because you don't like or agree with the lack of consensus to rename or reorganize the category tree is going to be continually resisted, so long as Category:Czech Republic is the consensus name for the country. Josh (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia (exactly:Czechoslovak Republic, if you want to be consistent), in essence, was a state of two countries and two "fraternal" nations (let us omit Transcarpathia, fragment of Silesia and national minorities for now), Czechia and Slovakia, as its compound name indicated from the beginning. Czechia and Slovakia as countries existed before Czechoslovakia and exist past Czechoslovakia, even though Slovakia never had its own statehood before 1939. Most of factories, companies and brands in Czechoslovakia were always either Czech, or Slovak, during all periods of their existence, and many of them have their pre-1918 history. Only a few state organizations and state concerns were really "Czechoslovak" and worked in both countries of Czechoslovakia (maybe the army and ministries, postal organization, state railways etc., and international sports representations). Czechoslovakia is really not a country, but it was a (temporary) state unit compound from several countries. There was no Czechoslovakia before 1918 and there is no Czechoslovakia past 1992, while Czechia, Slovakia, France, Germany, Italy, Russia etc. are relatively timeless names of countries, independent on the fact whether the country has a republic, or a kingdom, whether has its own separate state or is currently integrated somewhere or is divided to several states. The countries have their continuous historical identity. That's why we talk about unification of Germany or Italian unification – the countries continuosly existed and have their historical and national identity even when they have not their unified states. They were not artificially constructed from nothing but based on previously existing national identity.

As an example, the machinery brand "Škoda" was based in 1866 by Emil Škoda. According to the your view, we need to distinguish Škoda products as Austro-Hungarian product, Czechoslovak products, products of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and now "Czechrepublican" products. Every category of any Czech brand or factory would be divided into several subcategories by the historical period. I can see no sense in such complicatedness. Let us have simply a category for Czech products, as well as we have such categories for other countries.

However, I understand that such a approach can be controversial in relation to countries which were never unified or are definitively divided and their identity is controversial for the current states (see Kurdistan, Big Serbia, Big Albania, Macedonia, Cyprus, China etc.). By contrast, Czechia has an uncontroversial identity and area since the Middle Ages, as "core Bohemian lands" or "Czech lands" – especially Bohemia and Moravia which both use Czech as their main language (let us omit the German minority in Czechia for now). Also, the vast majority of other countries have category names based simply on the (relatively timeless) geographical names of the countries, not on political names of the state form (republic, kingdom etc.)'. (Also UK tends to be simplified as "Brittany" or "England" in common language. USA are a specific case.) The basic problem is that "Czech Republic" is objectively not a timeless geographical name of the country, but just a current name of the current political state form of the state in the country of Czechia. If we use this political name instead of the name of the country itself, then we will always have a problem with categorization of pre-1989, pre-1969, pre-1945 and pre-1918 Czech items. For other countries, we use non-political geographical names of countries, which reduce or eliminate such problems. We need just one, unified category tree for Czechia. However, renaming of the root category is blocked, thus the suitable name is used firstly for those of subcategories, where the political name is very unusable and causes bigest problems - thats why the rename discussion beginned in "History", because names like "Czech Republic in 1869" were totally absurd and anachronic, as well as categorizing of Comenius or Jan Hus under the "Czech Republic". Renaming of these subcategories was very urgent and necessary. You can greatly prefer the full political name in texts who concern today's reality, but the political name of the 1993-republic is absolutely not usable as a timeless name of the country in its historical continuity, and for whatever before 1969. Unfortunately, the solution is blocked by people who are unable to understand it. In fact, those "Czech Republic" categories are used as if they were intended for "Czechia", even though they are misnamed "Czech Republic". '

Maybe, for state administration and division items, states are more suitable units for categories than national countries. However, for structures, architecture, people, industry, geography, nature etc., categories should have their historical continuity. Bohemia and Moravia are parts of Czechia and Czechia is a country in Europe independently on various changing government forms. The fact is that a geographical name can also serve as a political delimitation, but a political delimitation by the current political form does not fulfill the timeless function of a geographical delimitation of the country. As it was explained many times in those endless discussions here and elsewhere. --ŠJů (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Let us keep Products of the Czech Republic and not confuse Commons users with Czechia. Czechia is just a (failed) attempt of English short name of the Czech Republic, despite Šjů´s opinion there is no distinction between Czech Republic and Czechia.Jklamo (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, there is a big difference between Czech Republic and Czechia. Czechia is a current name for the country throughout its history. Czech Republic is a name of the republic founded in 1969 as a part of Czechoslovakia, at first bearing the name Czech Socialistic Republic, since 1990 Czech Republic, and since 1993 being a sovereign state.

  Only if a category is intended to contain files related solely to the Czech Republic and is not intended to contain files related to previous historical epochs, it should bear the name Czech Republic. There was no Czech Republic before 1969, as Czechoslovakia was politically a unitary state from its foundation in 1918 until 1968. And of course it is an absolute non-sense to put files related to the Bohemian Kingdom (no matter whether a sovereing state or later a part of the Habsburg monarchy) into a category containing the word "republic" in its name. Currently, Comenius is categorized as a "philosopher from the Czech Republic", which does not make any sense in connection with the 17th century. This needs to be fixed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  As it was explained many times in this discussion and previous discussions, clearly, in detail and with the help of analogies, "Czechia" can be used as a short name for the Czech Republic, but Czech Republic cannot be used as a substitute for the name Czechia in its full meaning throughout the history of Czech lands, because the Czech Republic was created in Czechia in 1969, and never before has there been any Czech Republic. While the word Czechia can be used for Czech lands retrospectively, as an geographic or ethnographic term designating that country, to use the name "Czech Republic" for any period before 1969 is an utter and absurd nonsense. Unfortunately, some people want Commons to have errors, nonsenses and chaos rather than admit the use of the correct and fitting word they don't like for irrational reasons, ignoring facts, ignoring arguments, ignoring real and urgent problems with categorization. Yeas, the name of the country is unfamiliar to uneducated and unacquainted people who never heard about Czechia before 1993 and who never think of the substantives that derive the name of Czechoslovakia or the adjective Czech. But IMHO such people should not disrupt and obstruct our project. Btw., the word Czechia was used in Latin at least since the second half of the 16th century and in English at least since half of the 19th century. At that time, of course, Czech lands had nothing to do with republicanism (in the modern, liberal meaning of the word "republic"). Maybe, the name of the country is not familiar to people who haven't deeper knowledges in history and geography (and they draw all their knowledge from the inscriptions on sports jerseys and shouts at sports stadiums or articles in tabloids and are not able to understand and reflect arguments from the discussion), but this is not an argument to avoid the word, as it is fitting and irreplaceable. --ŠJů (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sleepy and I'm not clear what's proposed, so I won't say "keep" or "move". Instead, Use Czech Republic, because it's simply the standard name in English. For things like "Built in [this location] in YEAR", use "Built in Czechoslovakia" or "Built in Austria" or whatever applies at the time in question, because these categories use jurisdictions not regions, and the Czech Republic wasn't a jurisdiction many decades or centuries ago. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: You're not right. Those categories obviously use short geographical names as the equivalents of regions, regardless of "jurisdictions". For example, categories Products of Germany, Products of Ukraine, Products of Italy, Products of Finland or Products of Austria contain also products made in times before creation of present states – yet they are listed under the umbrella names of contemporary polities. The reason is evident: clarity, orderliness, logical continuity. The same principles should be guidelines in this case. A product once made in Czechoslovakia or Bohemia (either under the Austro-Hungary or even earlier, it times of independence) is still "Czech" product although the Czech Republic didn't exist at that time. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iaroslavvs: Nyttend (talk · contribs) is actually correct in essence, even if you might disagree with the use of the word 'jurisdiction' (which could be debatable). 'Products of the Czech Republic' is no different than Products of Germany, it is a topic of a country and covers the history of that country. 'Products of Germany' could include products from past parts of its history when it wasn't named Germany, and likewise, 'Products of the Czech Republic' could include products from past parts of its history when it wasn't named the Czech Republic. The same applies to all of the ones you listed. Why would Czech Republic/Czechia need to be treated any differently than Germany or Austria or Finland or Spain or any other current country? Josh (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support for renaming → Products of Czechia. ŠJů is absolutely right in his rationale. This endless intense discussion on the en:wiki (and only here! why?!) on the matter of short geographical name of the Czech Republic should be solved once and for all. The Czech Republic is a political name, which have existed just since 1969 or 1993 respectively, but Czech statehood (& culture, language, economy etc.) is much older – hence, there is a logical, consequent requirement for "eternal, timeless" common name of the country (as it is in cases of other countries, no matter what are their present political names/regimes or years of creation) and this is, undoubtedly, Czechia. Officially approved by Czech government and listed in registers of the UN, EU, on world maps and so on. Follow the reality! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a fine rationale for renaming Category:Czech Republic to Category:Czechia (just as Germany is a better choice than Federal Republic of Germany), and one I agree with. However, this consensus needs to start at that level. Subverting consensus by changing names on deeper categories just because you cannot get consensus to change the more visible parent category (per ŠJů: "If it is not attainable to correct this error at all levels, we must do so at least where it is most necessary.") is not a valid approach to naming and name changes. Josh (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitly  Oppose to the renaming. On the other hand here after 3 years of discussion no consent had emerged to change "Czech Republic" into "Czechia", which is a name that never grasped (see Czechia: 28,000,000 results, Czech Republic 1,030,000,000 results, so the question is closed for the next 15 years at least: Czech Republic is the most established and used name and we used the rule of the most common name amongst the equivalent ones - and not even at the UN the new name grasped). I proposed to our Czech friends who care so much for that pointless matter to use the term "Czechia" only for categories related to cultural issues (i.e. poets from Czechia, writers from Czechia, cuisine of Czechia, and so on) leaving "Czech Republic" for categories related to official issues ("government of the Czech Republic", "Sportspeople of the Czech Republic"). They have ignored and refused that fair compromise, thus I don't know what else do they want. There's no consensus to change the name, at least as long as those who refer to "Czech Republic" are 30+ times than those who refer to "Czechia". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Not to mention that even the Czechs find the change unfeasible, to say the least... ;)

That is a big mistake. Your numbers show mostly (almost only) references to current Czech Republic. However, it is extremely rare to find the name "Czech Republic" to refer to something preceding its foundation in 1968 (or in 1993 as a separate country). So please do not use such misleading numbers. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Just my opinion as an American who's ignorant of the historical back and forth, but there's currently a bunch of categories for "Czechia", "Czech Republic", and apparently also "Czech lands." At the day categories are suppose to use the most common name, which if I were to guess isn't Czechia and it sure as heck isn't "Czech lands." Three categories for what is essentially the same place is just super obtuse and makes it impossible for anyone who isn't a European history major to find what the category they want. Personally, I could give care less what the name of the category is. Although I think Czech Republic is clearly the more common and easier to use one out of the three. So can we just pick one and go with it? There's a bunch of images I really want to organize but can't because this miss-mosh nonsense makes it to difficult. So lets get it together and decide on something already. My money is on "Czech Republic." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: The current country main category is Category:Czech Republic, so it is completely appropriate to use "Czech Republic" for all category names for this country. If and when a consensus is reached to change that to Category:Czechia, then that will become the one name that should be used in category names. I am personally in favor of switching to Czechia, but while I have seen a lot of other users (sometimes a majority of users) supporting this in discussions over the years, I have not seen a case where it has reached the point of a consensus, so the change has not been adopted. Wherever one stands on the issue, the established status quo for Commons categories is "Czech Republic" and any case of "Czechia" (where defining the category as covering the current sovereign state) can be changed to Czech Republic. I would recommend retaining a redirect in all cases, however. Josh (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 and Joshbaumgartner: I'll try to explain it a thousandth time. On American realities. North America has always been North America. Long before anyone first named it with those words. In contrast, the United States of America came into being on a specific date. There was simply no such entity before 1776. As far as Europe is concerned, the non-political names of countries are more universal and timeless than the names of political entities. Therefore, these non-political names are more suitable for categorizing non-political topics. Many countries were monarchies and republics, dependent or independent, duchies, margraveships or kingdoms, incluced or separated. However, "Germany" or "Italy" can be conceived as entities far backwards, in relation to the times when they still had no unified state, while "the Federal Republic of Germany" or "Italian Republic" or "Czech Republic" are political subjects, which arose from a specific event. Yes, various empires have grown and shrunk, but the cores and national identity of most lands (nation-states) remain in the same places for centuries.

Yes, for photos of towns and villages taken by today's Commons contributors, or for today's sports fans, it doesn't matter if they use the timeless name of the country or the political name of the current polity. However, as soon as we have to categorize any historical figures, events, years by country, then those "republican" categories are absurdly anachronistic and unusable. A user who would like to categorize pre-1969 Czech facts would either have to completely resign to this aspect of categorization, or categorize into obviously absurdly named or inappropriate categories. Czechia existed continuously throughout a millennium, as a principality, kingdom, a group of Bohemian crown lands, part of the Habsburg monarchy, part of unitary Czechoslovakia, part of federal Czechoslovakia or as a protectorate. ​The creation of the Czech Republic is not the origin of Czechia. Czechia existed hundreds years before (such as France existed long before the French Republic, and Germany long before Bismarck's unified empire and even before the Republic of Germany). That is the reason why Czech categories should have similarly timeless names as the categories of most other countries. First of all, it is necessary to use the name "Czechia" for those categories, where the name "Czech Republic" is completely absurd and unusable. If the categorization tree is to be systematic, then it is logically necessary to adapt to the usual logic even those categories for which both names could be considered synonymous, including the root category. As long as some colleagues block it, there is needed to use the timeless name at least for those categories where it is necessary. An inverse analogy is the Irish categories, where it is also necessary to reflect the difference between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That's where the political name is necessary for some level of category names.

When it comes to Czech products, many important Czech companies and brands have some continuity going back to before the creation of the Czech Republic. As for companies originally controlled by Bohemians or Moravians of German nationality, it is problematic to call them by the adjective "Czech" but not so problematic to call them "from Czechia" or "of Czechia". For specifically historical categories, of course, it is advisable to have also subcategories according to historical lands (Bohemia, Moravia, Czech/Austrian Silesia), where such a division makes sense. Principally so that nonsenses like "Nobility of the Czech Republic" do not arise. :-) --ŠJů (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The creation of the Czech Republic is not the origin of Czechia. And your examples of the name "Czechia" being used before the modern Czech Republic are what exactly? Your the one claiming Czechia is timeless. If so, cool. Where has anyone used the name "Czechia" historically to refer to the current territory of the Czech Republic or anything else? At least with your example of how France existed long before the French Republic the name "Francia" existed before the modern state and was used in 843. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd rename Czech Republic to Czechia as that is what the country itself has said should be the style of its name in English, as far as I understand it. The rest of the world seems content to ignore this and carry on with Czech Republic for whatever reason. When Swaziland said it preferred to be called Eswatini, no one here batted an eye and the rename was completed rather perfunctorily without drama or any extended need for years of fighting. I get it, maybe nobody cares about a tiny southern African country outside of a few of us weirdos, but it bothers me that the same simple approach wasn't taken with Czechia.

That said, it is not just up to me, it is a community decision, and clearly the consensus has not yet been gathered to make the change of Czech Republic to Czechia. Thus the country parent category is Czech Republic and thus all sub-categories must use "Czech Republic", NOT "Czechia", in accordance with the Universality Principle . The moment we get our act together and rename the parent category to Czechia, all sub-categories must follow suit and be renamed "Czechia".

What I am 100% opposed to is users implementing their preferred country name on certain sub-categories as a method to get their way or dig their heels in short of 'winning' the debate over the parent category. When @ŠJů moved the existing, correctly named Products of the Czech Republic to Products of Czechia, they were completely wrong to do so. The stated reason, that some of the contents pre-dated the Czech Republic, was a valid concern, but the remedy was wrong. They should have simply moved the incorrectly-categorized, pre-Czech Republic contents to the entities they were actually relevant to (i.e. Czechoslovakia, Kingdom of Bohemia, whatever fits the given item), and left the products which are actually from the current state in the existing category.

As for Products of Czechia existing in addition to Products of the Czech Republic, I wouldn't have a problem with this if Category:Czechia was a thing, but its not, its just a redirect to Category:Czech Republic (indicating synonymity). For all of the protestations provided for the thousandth time by SJu, as long as Category:Czechia is not a thing on Commons, it is incongruent to have a category for a facet of Category:Czechia which is what Category:Products of Czechia is. It should be a sub of Products and Czechia, but it can't because Czechia is a redirect, so instead it goes under Czech Republic, but if that is the case, then it is back to being a duplicate of Products of the Czech Republic and merged into that as redundant. What a wasteful cycle!

I second the request of Adamant1 to perhaps review some specific items that are at issue instead of just talk in general terms. As for dated categories (e.g. 2003 in ...), we already have a well-established precedent for dated categories to use the name of an entity which correlates with that date, as something like "1575 in the Czech Republic" makes no sense, and should be "1575 in whatever the correct name for the time was", even if it does end up under "Czech Republic by year". However, for something non-dated, such as "products" this does not apply, and name changes do not really require creation of separate categories for each possible name. See companies for entities that change their names a lot more than countries. When it is just a name change and when it really represents a different entity is a fair discussion to have in many cases though, so again, specific cases can be looked at.

SJu, it would be great if we could work towards finally getting the country category name changed to the correct "Czechia" format, if the position of that country remains as it was a couple of years ago when I last saw major discussion on this (I admit not keeping up on the daily Czech naming news). The summary of Commons at that time seemed to be: no consensus to change, as inertia is on the Republic side, we can revisit it later when its more mature. Well, it's later, and I'm happy to lend my voice again to call for the change. However, until the change is made, I oppose any guerrilla effort to muscle "Czechia" in at sub-levels, and stick to applying the Universality Principle and keeping "Czech Republic" for all subs until the moment we change the parent category to "Czechia". Josh (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As has already been explained about a hundred times, if we have a category of Czech-Republican products, but we do not have a category of Czech products (product of/from Czechia), then the Czech products of Czech companies and producers from the times when Czechia was not yet the Czech Republic, will remain uncategorized by that origin. Most important Czech manufacturers and brands have a history dating back to before the founding of the Czech Republic, but they were undoubtedly allways in Czechia. Thus, the category of their products can be correctly categorized as "Products of Czechia", but not fully correctly as "Products of the Czech Republic". This topic is one of those that need non-political, timeless names of countries. The inappropriate name of the root country category is the complication that needs resolution. However, subcategories, topics and images should be categorized like for the vast majority of other countries. It is not a solution that several centuries (almost a millennium) of Czech history remain uncategorized just because Czechia was not yet a republic or had a common republic with the neighboring country. Of course, the items where the "republican" names were the most absurd and the most disruptive to the categorization had to be adapted first. If we don't want to have, for example, Czech personalities of the 19th century or Czech noble families categorized absurdly under the "republic", but want to categorize them as Czech, it's really inappropriate to call it "guerilla effort". The same applies to Czech brands which exist continuously for several stages of Czech history. That stubborn "republicing" is what deviates from the principles of categorization and disrupts the logic of the categorization tree as well as the consistency of cross-language links. Restoration of the "republican" category of products was a "guerilla effort" which caused that useless fragmentation of the categorization into two levels. --ŠJů (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They were undoubtedly allways in Czechia. Well, not really. They were in whatever the name of the political boundary was at the time, which wasn't "Czechia." The frankly nationalist historical revisionism on your end is one of the reasons I don't support changing the categories. I think Josh and I have made some good points about how the pre-Czech Republic contents should have just been moved into categories that were actually relevant to them, i.e. (i.e. Czechoslovakia, Kingdom of Bohemia, whatever fits the given item), and left the products which are actually from the current state in the existing category. It's seems you rather act like products produced in Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Bohemia, Etc. Etc. where all made for, by, and on behalf of "Czechia" when it wasn't even a thing at the time. Obviously that's not how we, or anyone else, does things. You don't get to just pretend after the fact like everything was related to or created in "Czechia" and the other entities didn't exist or that media related to them can't be put in the relevant categories instead of renaming the whole category structure just because the Czech Republic superficially changed it's name a few years ago. I'll also point out that's not why the name was changed in the first place. It was simply because "Czechia" is sorter and easier to write. So your totally projecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Czech Republic

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia.

Move this category and all subcategories that use "[...] the Czech Republic" --> "[...] Czechia".

Explanation: The formal name of "Czech Republic" may officially be shortened to "Czechia" since 2016, and this is easier to write and remember than the formal variant. For some reason, we also abbreviate "the French Republic" or "the Federal Republic of Germany" or "the Kingdom of Sweden". Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

see Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic, Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia and Category talk:Czech Republic. Jklamo (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, but I'm certain this will get suggested a few times more. Besides "the Dominican Republic", I don't see other category trees that don't have a disambiguation reason for not using a shorthand. And the amount of confusion around the topic seems to be staggering, what with all those 19th-century Politicians of the Czech Republic. --Enyavar (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that Czech Republic is still far more commonly used than Czechia, I would argue against your suggestion that Czechia is easier to remember. Last time I was in Prague, I never heard anyone say Czechia. That doesn't necessarily mean I think Czech Republic is a better choice - just that your argument isn't very compelling. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Hm, have you recently checked the Czech Wikipedia? Even there, the official lemma is Česko, with "Česká republika" mentioned as the second alternate name (since the start even, like 16 years ago). Similarly, the WPs in German, Polish, Slovak (all neighboring countries) and French and Russian (other countries with lots of relations). I'm arguing that international naming conventions should be taken into consideration, Commons is not only made for English native speakers even though the native language of Commons is English. Sure "Czechia" might seem weird to English speakers who only ever heard of either "Czech republik" or "Czechoslovenakia", but many conventions are arcane for non-English users. Last point: I'm certainly in favor for well-considered, gradual step-by-step changes, and not a merry wild renaming spree. All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I'm Czech (not Czechrepublican) and "Czechoslovenia" seems weird also to me, because I never heard of Czechoslovenia. Czechia was in a joint state with Slovenia last before 1918, but this joint state was called Austria-Hungary, not Czechoslovenia. Slovakia is not Slovenia nor Slavonia nor Slavinia, Austria is not Australia, Czechia is not Chechnya, Rusyn is not Russia and Georgia is not Georgia :-). --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Oops, yeah that was a typo. Slovenia is the alpine state next to Italy, of course I meant -slovakia. Now I feel like one of these Americans who confuse Switzerland and Sweden. --Enyavar (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The first question is whether there is a reason that Czechia would have to be almost the only country which must be called with its current state form. This makes sense, for example, where one country is administratively divided into several states (Korea, Ireland, Kongo, China, the two former German or Vietnamese republics etc.). It is possible that there are a mass of ignorant and uneducated people among English users who have no idea from which noun the adjective "Czech" is derived, but we should not always adapt to the least educated people. Btw., the word "Czechia" is documented in English et least since 1841, and probably has its origin in 17th century.

It is true that native English users have become less accustomed to a one-word geographical name of Czechia than international English users from non-English-speaking countries, who also commonly use its equivalent in their own languages. The Commons should focus more on international English than on various dialects and customs of native speakers (which can be more important for English Wikipedia).

However, the main problem is that the political name of the current state unit is much less timeless than the non-political name of the country. While the non-political geographical name also makes sense to be used retrospectively, the "republic" is absurd especially in relation to periods when there was no republic in Czechia or when there was no Czech Republic, but only Czechoslovak Republic. While "Czechia" can be used as a timeless and retrospective name for the area of the current Czech Republic, the words "Czech Republic" cannot be used in relation to any date before 1 January 1969. For some branches of the category tree, which relate mainly to historical times, the word "republic" is absolutely unsuitable and unsustainable. No one sane can say that Bedřich Smetana, Jan Hus or Komenský were "from the Czech Republic", but they surely were Czechs from Czechia, although in their time this name was not yet common. For categories relating mainly to modern topics, the two names can be considered roughly equivalent. It may be difficult for Americans to understand the European concept of countries whose identity is longer-term than the identity of states as units of power. In European languages, one can speak of a "country" even if such a country has no republic or kingdom of its own. E.g. the unitary Czechoslovakia was conceived as a republic of two countries and two (main) nations, Czechia and Slovakia, Czechs and Slovaks. I suppose it makes sense to respect a continuous identity of Czechia in the categorization tree, regardless of the period in which the Habsburg Monarchy or the Czechoslovak Republic was more or less centralized, or Czechia was temporarily under the protectorate. If you want to argue how the Czechs themselves refer to Czechia in English, you must also take into account timeless educated conversations about Czech identity and history, not just superficial conversations about about today's practical things, tourism or hockey. A person who is able to say that František Palacký or Comenius were from the Czech Republic should definitely not be taken as a standard. Unfortunately, some of the previous discussions were closed by people who did not take factual arguments into account at all.

However, it is true that the adaptation of the names of Czech categories to the standard usual for other countries is still blocked by several colleagues who did not reach a consensus for their opinion, but so far they have managed to block unification. It's still a stalemate. It may still be necessary for the ignorant to get used to the fact that Czechia has existed here for hundreds of years, in various administrative forms and constelations. We have no other comparably timeless name for Czechia. --ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your second point answers your first point. It's one of the few countries using it's full name because that's what's commonly used, and not just in English. I agree that using the Czech Republic is anachronistic in many cases, but so are an enormous number of country categories, since most modern states aren't very old. Even Czechia hasn't always existed. -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: The crucial problem is that geographic names can be used retrospectively much more appropriately than purely political names can. Besides, Czechia (as the land of Czechs) has had its identity for approximately a thousand years, while the Czech Republic never existed before 1969. The standard of correct English terminology should be educated users of English who knew about Czechia and were able to speak about it before 1993 and before 1969, not the uneducated ones who had never heard of it before 1993 and who cannot understand the difference between Czechia and the Czech Republic, because the peak of their language skills and historical and geographical knowledge is the conversation with drunks or the taxi driver in the streets of the night Prague. When naming the categories of other professional topics, we will also not be guided by the horizons of fools who have incomplete or mistaken ideas about the given topic.--ŠJů (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose Czech Republic is way more way more used and we don't usually abbreviate category names. Especially not when it comes to names of official government entities/Geographic regions. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Factcheck, we usually do that! "the Russian Federation" gets abbreviated to "Russia" and "the Italian Republic" gets abbreviated to "Italy" - those are conventions throughout the category tree, and there are just a few deviations, like in the case of the two Congos. Also, "Czechia" has also been adopted by government bodies within the Republic; or by the UN (Czechia, compare Germany). Best, --Enyavar (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Sure, "the Russian Federation" is abbreviated to "Russia", but that's purely because "Russia" is the more common name. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of consensus to abbreviate category names though. It's ridiculous there is or that abbreviating "the Russian Federation" to "Russia" is at all analogous to this. "Czechia" isn't the common name in any way, shape or form, like "Russia" is. So your comparing apples and oranges. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: this argument has also already been refuted before, but once more: "Czechia" is the more common name in most languages. If you go by the Wiki lemmas, English, Spanish, Italian, Turkish and Albanian are the most prominent exceptions - notably languages of countries not directly bordering Czechia. These languages also each have the variant "Czechia/Chequia/Cechia/Çekya/Çekia", anyway. That is the reason why non-English uploaders including citizens of Czechia itself and its neighbor countries, have to first learn that Commons treats the country different from most others. Granted: "Britain" a.k.a. "England" is worse. --Enyavar (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly has it been refuted? The fact that it's the common name for Wikipedia articles doesn't mean anything. This isn't Wikipedia and that's not how we decide what the common name something is. And it's not like consensus about what to name an article doesn't change over time either. I'm sure a lot of those articles were called "Czech Republic" at some point and will be changed back to it once "Czechia" eventually stops being a trendy fad. So what exactly does it prove except that the only evidence you have comes from literally the most unauthoritative and unreliable source in existence? Seriously, where's the academics and news outlets using "Czechia" instead of "Czech Republic"? If you really wanted to go there though, the English Wikipedia article is "Czech Republic" and we base category names on the most popular English term. So I don't think how Wikipedia does things is the win you think it is. Otherwise I guess you support "Czech Republic." In the meantime even the countries government has said "Czechia" is only meant to be used in specific instances where the full name doesn't work and that they are going to continuing "Czech Republic." But sure dude, lets ignore the fact that literally no one, including the countries own government, is using "Czechia" as the common name "because Wikipedia article titles." Although I'm totally fine going with "Czech Republic" since it's the title of the English Wikipedia article if you really want that to be the deciding metric. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"trendy fad"? This is not some recent idea. "The Czech Republic" has been called Czechia (in many languages) since it broke from Slovakia in 1992. I rather trust Wikipedians to know the Lemma in their own language, and large Wikipedias generally follow some guideline that a country Lemma needs be the most commonly used term. Speaking for de-WP, I can actually give you the exact scientific metrics based on a representative linguistic media survey: Czechia is frequency-class 2^10 which means it is used about 20 times more often than Czech Republic (frequency-class 2^15). Strictly according to its rules, de-WP chose "Tschechien" as the country lemma. I don't think that the Polish, Czech and French Wikipedia choose the country lemma on a "my-whim-today-is..."-basis, either. And why would you even think that articles would be "changed back" when many were never changed in the first place? Now, for reputable news sites using the term, let's have a look at "literally no one" next: French newspaper: Tchéquie, some Czech newspaper: Česko, largest Czech newspaper: Česko, German television: Tschechien, Polish television: Czechach, Swedish television: Tjeckien, Danish newspaper: Tjekkiets, Dutch newspaper: Tsjechië...

Now, if Czechia had always been called "Czech Republic" in English, the English lemma would naturally apply nonetheless, because English is the language to be used in Commons. However, the term "Czech Republic" was created in 1990, and only applies to the current state. Before, the correct term was "Czech Socialist Republic" (to formally address the sub-entity of the union state) or "Czechoslovakia" for the state, which is - surprise! - a portmanteau of "Czechia" and "Slovakia". No hidden republic there. That means that this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong... and this is very wrong. Okay, only as wrong as "14th-century kings of the French Republic". --Enyavar (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not some recent idea. I thought the metric here was when the name started becoming popularly used. Not when some random person had the idea to rename the country. If the former, which I assume it is, then Czech president Miloš Zeman recommended the wider official use of Czechia in 2013. The important thing to take away from that is "wider use." So sure, the name isn't recent, but that's not what the discussion is about. We don't decide what to call a category based on a coin toss of whichever name was invented first either, obviously. In this case the fact is that Czechia wasn't popular until at least 2016 and it still really isn't popular to any meaningful degree. At least not compared to Czech Republic.

Now, for reputable news sites using the term, let's have a look at "literally no one" Not to dispute the efficacy of your "reputable news sites" but they are all extremely recent and from European UN charter countries that have close ties to the Czech Republic, which is the exact use case that the president of the Czech Republic said the name would be used in. A few of are even Czech Republic outlets. So they aren't representative. That would be like renaming the Wikipedia article for dogs to "Canis lupus familiaris" because you read a couple of biology papers on the evolution of the species and they used the term "Canis lupus familiaris" instead of "dog." Especially with the news outlets that are specifically from the Czech Republic. Although I will say the Polish news story you cited, Czesi już dziś wybierają prezydenta. Ważny polski wątek i niebezpieczny rosyjski trop, repeatedly uses "Czech" and "Czech Republic." So I'm not sure what you think that proves. Except that the names are interchangeable, which is my argument. 99% of the news article I've read through used all three names either to the same amount or used "Czechia" Less then the other two though and it seems like your sources are no different. If it turns out to be a wash where all of them are used to the same amount then there's no reason not to just go with Czech Republic since it's been used longer.

The whole thing about the term "Czech Republic" being created in 1990 seems like a non-starter and strawman since again we aren't going by which term was created first anyway. Not to mention you haven't provided any evidence that "Czechia" was "created" before recently anyway (I'm aware that it was a name of a tribe of people at some point or something, but that's not relevant). I will say though that at least with the United States the region that the nation currently occupies is still called "The United States" before the articles of confederation were signed. It's not called "The United States Lands", "The United Stateichia", or any other nonsense like that. Otherwise it's called the 13 colonies, the old west, or some other depending on the area. But even the period of California when it was a part of Mexico is still called California. Just "California under Mexico." Not "California lands" or "Californichia" Lmao. There's zero reason this should be treated any differently. Again unless you can provide some reputable non-bias sources saying otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course these news sites are recent. Duh, they are about the election of the current Czech president this month. (I hope you didn't look at them straight through the Google-Translate lens, which converts to Republic automatically.) Do you want news reports from the same countries, from back in the early 2000sleft col. 4th, when some Czech ministry hadn't already issued some statement, but non-English media already used Czechia nevertheless? Those older mentions can be found as well, but require more effort and I suspect you will then return back to the position of "must be English to count". So let me hit Wikisource, and not just any language where the term is easily found, but the English Wikisource: I find “Long live Czechia!” in an English translation of Picek's works from 1849, as well as "The Czechs maintain that the Slovaks are Czechs, and that Slovakia is Czechia." in a 1919 book about the Hungarian Revolution. Granted, English like all non-slavic languages at the time preferred the term "Bohemia", but "Czechia" was already around to more precisely distinguish the Czech identity from Austrian-Bohemia. Reharding your comparison with the US, that is a whole different subject matter and I dunno where your "Stateichia" originates from. I am acutely aware of Category:1640s maps of the United States - but that is done for convenience because we have no widespread global consensus on how the whole US area was called at the time, not to mention the less-than-13 colonies at the time. In the case of Category:1640s maps of Czechia, we do have an exact name for the country, yet it was not a Republic back then.

For maximal confusion, of course, we could even more consequently use the terms "Bohemia" for everything older than 1919; then "Czechoslovakia" between 1919 and 1992, and finally "Czech Republic", with "Czechia" as the super-umbrella-category. I find that this separation is currently attempted in some topics, but maintained poorly. Other categories like cardinals and scribes "from the Czech Republic" are not separated like that at all, and it's also not entirely practical. --Enyavar (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• • The Commons standard is to use for countries their non-political timeless geographical names, if they exist. The "Czech Republic" category tree deviates from this general consensus and its logic, which causes a number of problems, especially in relation to topics that concern Czechia in the periods before creation of the Czech Republic. Even an uneducated native English speaker could understand that in the 1930s or in the 19th century one could not speak of any Czech Republic, even though Czechia as the land(s) of the Czechs had demonstrably existed and had its national identity long before that. --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Strong support. Valid arguments have already been submitted in previous discussions. Unfortunately, they were closed by people who did not deal with these arguments and ignored them. As it was mentioned in all previous discussions, Russia, Italy, France, Catalonia, Crimea, Lombardy or Poland are timeless geographical indications which are usually more stable than the names, arising or dissolution of power formations. Most of republics are successors of kingdoms or principalities, many republics were renamed, merged into federations or confederations or separated again, although their national identity, continuity and territorial localization and delineation remained essentially the same. If we use (for Czechia) the name of the state entity that was created in 1969 and gained independence in 1993, the application of this name to items relating to most of the 20th century and all previous centuries is absurdly anachronistic, while Czechia (defined as Czech lands) existed continually through all political situations and its non-political name can be used also retrospectively. Similarly, Slovakia existed hundreds years before the first separate Slovakian state, and the historical Felvidék (Upper Hungary) can be retrospectively called Slovakia, but surely not Slovak Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what happens when the government eventually dumps the Czechia because no one wanted to use it. You'll probably claim whatever name is used next existed continually through all political situations. I can almost guarantee the same was probably said about "Czech Republic." Heck, I can do a search for "Czech Republic history" on Google right now and there's plenty of results from reputable sources that use the term for the pre-1969 history of the area. In the meantime, the article for "Czech lands" is barely sourced, two of the references are talking about "Bohemian Lands", not Czech ones, and there's scant results for it on Google. So no insult but this whole thing kind of smells like historical revisionism and POV editing. Which is why the only justification there seems to be for renaming the categories is that categories for the Russian Federation are named "Russia." As if they are at all comparable.

Where's the reputable sources using "Czech lands" though? Hell, where has the government or anyone else said that the name "Czechia" should be applied retroactively to the pre-2016 Czech Republic state? Let alone where has anyone said the name "Czechia" refers to the territory that supposedly existed continually through all political situations or whatever? As a side to that, this is a quote from a "The country will retain its full name but Czechia will become the official short geographic name." Is anyone seriously going to argue that the categories shouldn't continue to be named "Czech Republic" when it's still going to be used and "Czechia" is just going to be used in specific cases as an abbreviation? Come on. That would be like changing all the "United States" categories to "U.S.A." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Rename Category:Czech Republic to Category:Czechia , but until such consensus is reached, we must follow the Universality Principle and children of Category:Czech Republic should use "Czech Republic", not "Czechia" (this applies only to children specific to the current country--historical topics may continue to use "Czechia" as appropriate for their context). If and when consensus is reached to adopt Category:Czechia, all children should then be likewise changed from "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". Josh (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)