As per your recent revert, the intro is quite vague and doesn't explicitly exclude "partnership" agreements. It is my understanding that any association, if formalized by two local governments (as in the case of the Tuscan Region & Yerevan) would qualify Tuscany/Yerevan to be on the list. Would it not? Please explain. Thanks!
Archives908 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908: I didn't write the intro, however, the title of the page clearly says "twin towns and sister cities", so it is defined what should be on the page and what not. Twinning is much closer and more complex link between local governments than partnership. You can mention partnerships and friendships in the designated section on the Yerevan page.
All the twin towns lists and all the municipalities on the list (and on theirs individual pages) are made with same methodology so it would be unsystematic and confusing if there would be some random partnership. And the lists would be three times longer. I hope this explanation helped! FromCzech (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for continuing the good work on English twin towns. Keep it up - I am sure it will all be totally finished soon! <g> Looking at this edit, I followed the Haringey link and was surprised to read that it is twinned with somewhere in Sweden in addition to the places we have listed. If the LBH link is our main source, should we also list the Swedish twin? Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Hello! I use the principle of mirror comparison for veryfing as much as possible. So as this Swedish article says, the twinning was terminated and Alūksne and Kirkkonummi are the only Sundbyberg's twin towns. So despite what the LBH source says, Sundbyberg is not its twin town anymore. Thank you for your support, however the English list, similar to French or German lists, will probably never be totally finished. I have about 50 towns and cities in my personal database for potential addition, and there is plenty of English-French twinnings between small municipalities, but I think there shouldn't be every small village as the list is already long enough. But time to time I will add few more just for fun, especially twinnings with some less common countries. FromCzech (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you for the brilliant explanation and for your amazing thoroughness. I went and read the Swedish link in translation: it's interesting, and means I shall not be packing my bag for a nice trip to Sundyberg any time soon! Thanks again for all your hard work. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted this list my edit which had added Caucasian cities Baku and Yerevan. The reason was "no consensus". But there is consensus on another Caucasian city - Tbilisi (considering its inclusion). I feel safe to assume that the same consensus is inclusion of these two cities as well (there is no ground that would support inclusion of Tbilisi and exclusion of Baku and Yerevan in the talk page).
Finally I'd like to mention my own opinion on this topic: I'd prefer the list even without Tbilisi (as it used to be in the past).
@Pan Někdo: There was extensive discussion about whether or not Tbilisi should be on the list. Caucasian cities as a whole were not discussed. Some arguments were related only to Tbilisi (e.g. culture ties). I don't think any of them belong on the list, but Tbilisi made it there based on the last discussion. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any argument supporting inclusion of Tbilisi only. I'll start new topic in that talk page with more extensive arguments (originally I thought that it would be only short discussion between us two so I started writing here). --Pan Někdo (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically, all capitals of the South Caucasian states are located out of Europe. None of them should be included. And if Tbilisi is included, then all three should be included. Calesti (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FromCzech, thanks for your edits on articles I created!
I have a question to you who are a Czech-native speaker: do you have any idea on the etymology of Mičan ? Does it mean anything in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! It doesn't mean anything specific, but it sounds very Czech. In some Czech sources it appears written as Míčan (with a long pronounced i). In my opinion, it will be derived from some place that no longer exists. There is a very small pond called Mičan. There is a street in Prague called Na Míčánkách (literally "at Míčánky") and from a linguistic point of view, Míčánky is a diminutive of Míčany. Although these two examples certainly have nothing to do with the family, they indicate the geographical origin. FromCzech (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; I see, interesting, thanks for the explanation. I wonder whether -an is a common suffix in Czech names and if it does indeed indicate geographical orign? I know that, for example, in Romanian name it does, so Mican would be Mic+an, thus from a place called Mic. The -an suffix indicating geographical origin is also used in many other languages, if seldom, even in English (Rome + -an → Roman). OTOH, I know that in South Slavic languages they use -an to make adjectives from verbs, and I wonder weather this also happens in Czech and if it could possibly be the case here? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., in some South Slavic dialects mić means "small", which is ultimately from Latin miccus. Do you also use mic, or something similar, to say "small" in Czech? Tommy Lee J. (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suffix -an means a demonym (e.g. Praguer = Pražan in Czech). A common suffix of geographical names is -any (Grammatically it is plural; probably a lot of people from the place before the suffix lived there. See Říčany, Rokycany, Vodňany.). I searched further, and there are villages Míčov and Mičovany. Accoridng to Antonín Profous (a linguist who in the 1950s wrote an extensive four-volume work on the origin of 15,000 place names in Bohemia), both of these villages derived their names from the personal name Mič, which originated from the name Michal.
We don't use mic in Czech, only the prefix mikro- (micro-). In Czech, only the word míč is similar, which means "ball". FromCzech (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, wow, so much information, thank you so much! The place name origin makes most sense, and the ultimate origin from Michael as well.
There is a similar surname in Romania (Mican, in which the "c" is read "z") which is definitely a place name as well, but probably unrelated IMO.
According to Forebears.io, the only other European countries where Míčan is present today is Croatia, in the forms Mićan and Mičan. There are about 60 families in total, all concentrated in the Osijek-Baranja County (which is on the border with Hungary). Since this Croatian surname appears only in this Croatian region it definitely has a common origin. Considering that Mican surname (and variants) does not appear in any other Slavic country (beside Czechia), and the only European countries with hubs of Micans are Czechia and Romania, I think it possible or even likely that this Croatian branch has Czech or Romanian roots. Wonder what you think about this and thanks again for all info. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to think about it, I don't want to think about it anymore... my brain hurts :) I am much more interested in the origin of geographical names than the origin of personal names, although it sometimes overlaps. FromCzech (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just saw that you reverted my edits to the list of twin towns and sister cities, removing the state the US sister cities are in. I was working on updating all of the US sister cities/twin towns to include the state since it's not immediately clear where the US sister cities/twin towns are in the US. Especially since some of the towns I came across have the same name but are in different states.
I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia articles, but I thought that this would have been a helpful update to anyone who came across the lists. I suppose I'm just a little confused about why you reverted my changes?
Hello! Let's assume that the user is not completely stupid, and in the few cases where he needs to distinguish cities with the same name (and I don't know why you apply it only to US cities), he looks at the preview or the page in question. Many of the twin town pages are extensive, and expanding it with additional information (subregion, population of the town, etc.) would not be beneficial for their clarity. This is what the wikilinks are for. In the current state, twin town pages are in a uniform format not only among themselves, but also with twin town sections for individual cities in most countries. FromCzech (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re [1], this is just a question rather than an objection, but is there a standard way of measuring distances to/from Prague? For example distances to London on roadsigns are always measured from Charing Cross, so we apply the same standard on Wikipedia when measuring distance to/from London. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about any standard and I haven't been able to google anything. If there is one, I apolozige for that correction, but the 84 km seemed to me to be against common sense. Perhaps it would be sufficient to use a rounded value of 80 km. FromCzech (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick survey: cs.distance.to calculates with Old Town Square, mapy.cz calculates with Prague main railway station and maps.google.com calculates with Míru Square.So there is probably no standard. FromCzech (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear FromCzech, I would like to ask you not to delete {{British English Oxford spelling}}. There is no such rule that would prohibit to use of it in the case of articles that describe cities, towns, and villages located in the Czech Republic. I do add such a template after a spelling unification, so it's clear to anyone what spelling system I have used in the unification. Best regards, Martin Tauchman (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! British English is used in all Czech municipalities and is generally default for all topics primarily related to the Czech Republic, no need to draw attention to it. Within Czech topics, the spelling template is only used very rarely, e.g. on larger sites where there have been disputes in the past or which were historically written in AmE. Perhaps there could be a note about it somewhere on Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic, but there's no reason for that on the pages you've been adding it to. And excuse my possible ignorance, but Oxford English and Oxford comma are two different things, right? Oxford comma does not make English Oxford English. And I can't think of any Czech topic where the Oxford English template was used (except for those where you put it). FromCzech (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article looked like this in the morning, and you might have access to something in Czech I couldn't understand. - For background on Grimes, there are two (expired) RfCs regarding the Manual of Style, - links on my user page. Don't comment! Just read for better understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I'd like a clear reference for the day of death, 30 as our article has, or 29 as the German Wikipedia, and our list of deaths. More generally, I'd like to see added that he returned to Prague in 1989, and more publications, and more reviews of them. I need sleep ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quality articles about Czech persons such as Filip Kaloč, Otmar Oliva and Jan Vodňanský, for your worldwide interest in twin towns and sister cities, for finding sources, for "A quiet coexistence and trying not to meet much will be completely enough for me. Peace." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
I hope you don't mind that it's from the cabal of the outcasts ;) - Can you perhaps follow through with the proper names of the theatres where Peter Grimes was performed, instead of piped links that look like cities? - Two of the trio banned me from their talk page, and the third even from clicking thank-you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand it. Why can't you edit the Peter Grimes page if they don't want to talk to you? According to MOS:SUBMARINE, visible theatre names should be much better than city names; you're right. In my opinion, an edit from some other party would look better than from me, after the history I have there. FromCzech (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit: you deleted info I copied from here. Are you saying that Dictionary of American Family Names contains an error? Is there a way to confirm this? (I thought this suspicious as well. Can it be that Karas is diminutive of Karel?).- Altenmann>talk20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will be an error. The diminutives of the name Karel are Karlík, Karlíček. The -as suffix doesn't sound Czech at all. The page with Karas in that dictionary also does not contain such information. The Czech diminutive of karas is karásek (see, for example, the Official Dictionary of the Literary Czech Language). However, the word Karasek in your dictionary attributes this form only to Polish. On the other hand, you will not find the word karasík in Czech or Polish (see e.g. Wiktionary), although the suffix -ík is common for diminutives. Overall, I find your dictionary unreliable in the area of these specific names. FromCzech (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I's like to bother you again. Can you provide a good refference for the etymology of the surname Dolejší. I guess it comes from the common Slavic root "dol" ("something down there") and can fever to valley, trough , mine, etc., cf. Dolina. But what about Czech? - Altenmann>talk23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was lazy to consult "Czech name" :-(. By the way, can you clean up it a bit, in the part related to translation of foreign surnames for females (and add references), in the part starting with
The woman's surname is also[clarification needed] not declined if it is of foreign origin and adding the suffix -ová would be awkward or unfeasible: Olga Walló, Blanka Matragi.
Czechs tend to add a feminine suffix to the surnames of Czech as well as foreign women surnames. ....
I noticed you often move pages and work in categories, and wondered whether you feel the page mover permission would be helpful. If so, I would be happy to grant it. This permission allows you to move categories, move pages without leaving behind a redirect (e.g. to clean up page move vandalism or to perform a round-robin swap) and move pages along with all of their subpages. Have a read of the policy page and let me know – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱08:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Filelakeshoe: Hi, thanks for the offer. Of course I welcome any other rights that make things easier. On the other hand, although I regularly involve myself to page moves, they are rarely the situations that are mentioned in the policy page (like vandalism). If by acquiring the rights I do not commit myself to regular use of page moves or active search for cases where it can be applied, you can grant me the rights, I will be happy for that. FromCzech (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FromCzech. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Hi, you retracted my edit regarding Olomouc, in which I added the Polish name of the city, giving the reason that it was never the official name. However, there are centuries of history behind the name in Polish due to the cultural and geographical proximity (mostly) between the Silesian and Moravian cities. You won't find many unique names for Olomouc in other languages, from cultures that were not in contact with the Czechs, so this should justify adding the Polish name of the city in the article, as is the case with Ostrava, for example. Providing the German name as the only foreign name seems unjustified and questionable in this light. Graendail (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine per enwiki standards. There is a huge difference between a German and a Polish name; the German name was at one time the official name and appears in older English-language sources (eg. Encyclopædia Britannica), therefore it belongs to the first sentence. FromCzech (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed three of my edits in List of sister cities in the United States saying the sources, from 2006-12, were outdated. What do you consider to be outdated? Since you did not remove Clarksville's pairing with Gunpo with a source from 2017, would it be anything older than 10 years? My other problem involves Wolfsburg and Chattanooga. I have tried to ignore this topic for a while since you included a note saying they are friendship only, but it is one that interests me. The city of Chattanooga and many newspapers from the area list them as being sister cities since 2011, while the city of Wolfsburg's website says they were friendship cities since 2011. So is it automatically assumed that they are friendship cities because one reliable website mentions it while others say they are sisters, including the source for the article itself? King airaglub (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, town twinning (sister city relationships) come and go and there has to be a reliable source that is not 10+ years old for newly added pairs. Sometimes this can be verified, e.g. you added Chengu to Knoxville, but Chengu removed Knoxville from its official list of twin towns some time ago, so that is 100% invalid information as of 2024. But thank you for adding Clarksville.
Yes, unfortunately the problem is that some cities do not distinguish between the type of relationship and include everything under "sister cities". This is often problem of cities in e.g. Eastern Europe, and strangely enough, it is sometimes a problem of American cities as well (but luckily there aren't many of them). Perhaps this is just a simplification, since everything is managed by the Sister Cities organization of Chattanooga. Regardless of how Chattanooga promotes it in the media, it is not a two-way relationship and thus is not incorporated to the list. This approach is consistently applied to all cities in all countries. However, Wolfsburg states on its website that the friendship can later become a town twinning, so perhaps we will see the elimination of this discrepancy one day. FromCzech (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if friendship cities like Liverpool and Memphis were put on the list but had a special marker (maybe a bold F) to indicate that they are only friendship cities? This allows for Wolfsburg to make the list while also being considered a friendship city. If you think this is a good idea I will bring this up on as an RfC King airaglub (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely against it. The list have only twin towns and sister cities in their name, not friendship cities. Friendship cities are less notable, sometimes it's just the cooperation of mayors, etc. In some countries, signing friendships is more common, and some already very comprehensive lists would be significantly expanded even more. And it would also be a problem to determine what is a friendship agreement and what is another form of international cooperation (cooperation agreement, cultural agreement). So no. FromCzech (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I stmbled upon a huge article, Surname inflection that was translated from cs-wiki. In it I stumbled on a sentence that puzzled me:
en: As historical records testify, women's names used to be as free as men's names.
cs: Jak dosvědčují dobové zápisy, bývala jména žen stejně volná jako jména mužů.
Do you have an idea what "free" meand here?
By the way, can you quickly review the article, since it looks like it didn't get much attention.
Also, judging from the relative amount of text, it seems to me that a good idea would be to spawn Inflection of Czech surnames, leaving a summary section, per WP:Summary style, comparable with other languages.
Hi! From the context, and as explained below, "free" means that women's names were not dependent only on the names of men (their husbands/fathers), but in some cases also arose independently. It is indeed so in the quoted source.
It's quite a bit of text, I don't really feel like doing it right now. I just hope I don't come across as unfamiliar with the terminology in English... FromCzech (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have twice changed the correct English name of the city where I live to its name in French, i.e. from Marseilles to Marseille, but whether we like it or not its name in English is Marseilles. (I only noticed today that it was also you who did it the first time, as that was just one of several edits you made at the same time.) No French person has ever complained, or even commented, when I use the English name in a document in English, though 30 or so years ago a Francophone Belgian did correct me when I used the French name in an official document in English. Would you want me to write Praha if I had occasion to refer to Prague? Would you want me to replace Turkey, which has been called that in English since the 1920s, by Türkiye, just because Mr Erdoğan thinks he has the authority to dictate how English should be written? Athel cb (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb: As long as the Marseille site is named Marseille (meaning this is the most common name in English), the convention is to consistently use the name Marseille within enwiki. The same goes for Turkey, Prague, etc. I have no personal preference as to which name should be preferred, but I intend to follow MOS. If you feel that Marseilles is more common, start an RM and present your arguments. But it is common for the frequency of use of some names to change and existing ones to become obsolete, which I believe is the case with Marseilles. It is possible that Türkiye will prevail over Turkey one day and the page will be moved. FromCzech (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not worth losing sleep over this: there are more important things to worry about, so I won't pursue the matter. However, I note that you begin with a speculation without any evidence about the original editor's meaning ("As long as the Marseille site is named Marseille (meaning this is the most common name in English)"). This speculation is not supported by the history. The original version posted by 209.2.60.xxx is unintelligible, so we have no idea why the article was called that. The first intelligible version, posted by 213.253.39.104, says "Marseilles is a French sea-port in Provence, with a population of approximately 1.2 million." Athel cb (talk)
Yes, but it gives no reasons for dropping the English name; it just asserts it. In any case, are Wikipedia editors subject to the preferences of a newspaper? Athel cb (talk)
It is in accordance with MOS and objectively the most appropriate name. If you disagree with this, please raise your objections on the Marseille page and not on my personal page. FromCzech (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FromCzech, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.
Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.
I notice you made several AFDs with the statement, "no WP:SIGCOV founded". This is incorrect English grammar. You should say "no WP:SIGCOV found". The word "founded" means something completely different than the past tense of find. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello FromCzech
I don't understand your cuts. There is no redundancy (see your comment from 12:05 p.m. on 3 August 2025). What is your problem with mentioning the uses of this marble, which is one of the most beautiful marbles in the country? Why should we not name these things that have contributed to the cultural history of the country? I am very familiar with the geology of many parts of the Czech Republic and also with the most important uses of natural decorative stone in the country. The quarry where this marble is found has been closed for many years. It is therefore not advertising, but of cultural significance. The image of the marble is significant and relevant in the context of the theme. It shows the extraordinary colourfulness. Sincerely Lysippos (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You forget that this page is dedicated to the Králický Sněžník mountain range. I did not delete the use of marble. But details about this one quarry, such as who operated it, do not belong there. Likewise, the image, which has a marginal connection to the mountain range as a whole (see MOS:IMAGEREL, which I mentioned in the Edit summary: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context.) and is distracting given the length of the page (but even if the page were longer, I doubt it would be useful to the average user). Then it's a side note that I don't even agree that it is among the most beautiful Czech marbles (which is a subjective statement). As far as I know, it's one of several. FromCzech (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello FromCzech, I see it from a different perspective. Every mountain range has a geological structure. In this regard, there are general aspects and also specific aspects. Here, the specific aspect of the small mountain range is the marble deposit, which is described as significant in other scientific literature and has been important for the country (before and after 1918). Such an aspect is also mentioned in other parts of the world. (For example: [2]). There are Czech websites that describe this occurrence and present it as a geological and tourist attraction ([3], [4], [5], [6]). "V Krystalických vápencích a dolomitech (mramorech) v údolí horního toku Moravy vznikl pozoruhodný kras." ([7]). The marble deposits are considered particularly noteworthy in this mountainous region: "Vysoce kvalitní krystalické vápence se ještě v 90. letech těžily v Mramorovém lomu. Lanovými pilami byly řezány ve velkých blocích, které se dále zpracovávaly pro dekorační účely. Dnes lom postupně zarůstá. " ([8]). Since I am familiar with all the major marble deposits in the Czech Republic, I can assess their cultural and geological value. These are some examples of belonging to the ‘topic context’. The professionally contribution is the basis for the further development of texts. A picture would be a minimal visual illustration. Sincerely Lysippos (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant your source of information, lest it was American rather than English and thus unsuitable to an article in BritEng. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are meticulously working with pages of this kind, I would like to bring your attention to disarray in Wikidata items. Quite a few of them were created of "disamguation" type, probably by a bot, and I often have to create a new wikidata item for "family name" type or move around surnames betwen wikidatas, such as Buzek (Q5003437) and Buzek (Q56245592). If you have nothing better to do, you may want to pursue this type of clean-up as well. --Altenmann>talk09:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: I've never worked with wikidata and I still have a lot of work to do here on Wikipedia (I've only gone through 8% of Czech surnames so far, let alone given names). But thanks for the tip, I will think about it, maybe sometime in the future :)
And now off-topic: can you please look at the page Renner (surname) and see the edit history? I have a dispute with the creator of the page regarding filling the page with red links and your perspective on the matter may be useful. FromCzech (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is at least harmless. Usually I do almost the same, with the exception I look into bios in other wikis from the point of view of English notability, especially actors, politicians, and sportspeople. Also 19th century and older historical people are OK with me. I will try to remove some tomorrow, and see what happens. If anything, a RFC may be started. --Altenmann>talk09:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I stumbled upon the userpage User:Aarp65 with the list of surname pages he created, a HUGE number of them. He was topic-banned for this: per accusations, he was quite careless in this and did not respond to criticism. Therefore his work needs review. I started removing his refs to forbears.io (non-RS per our rules). Below is the list of his Czech surnames, which you may want to review as well:
I'll look into them sooner or later. Simonischek with the suffix -ek evokes Czech or another Slavic language, but I don't know of any similar surname in Czech from which it could be derived. FromCzech (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@LaundryPizza03: Sorry for my mistake. I can't judge if it's also G15, but the references are obviously non-existent. Shunichi Tezuka is (was) an existing person, but he almost certainly doesn't meet the criteria for notability and the page should at least be draftified. FromCzech (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zdravím, kolego. Dík, že jste pomohl s tím článkem Josef Seidl. Autor se na nás obrátil o pomoc na cswiki, dali jsme mu nějaké rady, ale Vaše pomoc je cennější, máte na enwiki více zkušeností. Tím založením článku ale vznikla řada falešných odkazů, existuje totiž nějaký německý motorista Josef Seidl, na kterého vede na enwiki vícero odkazů, ale jelikož nemá článek, všechny teď vedou na našeho Seidla. Vy zde máte zkušenosti s tvorbou názvů článků s rozlišovači, mohl byste navrhnou nějaký pro toho motoristu? Pak bych pomohl přepsat ty odkazy. Dík a doufám že nevadí, že píšu česky, jinak můžu příště klidně anglicky. Ať se daří. KPX8 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Ještě mě napadlo, jestli by vlastně neměl mít rozlišovač v názvu ten český Seidl, neboť na toho německého je více odkazů, tak je to vlastně očekávanější název... KPX8 (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KPX8: Done, a disambiguator has been added to speedway-related links. As long as there is no other page than the Czech Josef Seidl, the current situation is fine. If a page for the racer is created, the Czech Seidl will be moved and a disambiguation page will be created. FromCzech (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all of the cleanup you did on the Skirlińska bio. It took a lot of attention to detail and tenacity to perform those few edits. As a USA/American, I do not use diacritical marks regularly, and incorporating them consistently into all of my edits can be cumbersome; combined with my lack of remembering to do it all the time, I supposed it can create problems/shortcomings, so thank you for providing them. I disagree with your having undone the boldfacing on the word "exactly" whereas is applies to her relationship with Emanuel Löffler - I know that boldfacing is generally not encouraged, but seeing that I used it extremely sparingly, I don't see what the problem is with keeping it on there. It draws attention to a very interesting parallel between Skirlińska and Löffler that I think is worth highlighting in some fashion. I noticed that some time ago you had undone that previously, also, on Löffler's article, and I changed it later, after a while, although it is now still there. I respect your work and I certainly don't want to get into a disagreement about it. I would just like you to note that I used that boldface sparingly, on all relevant articles (for Skirlińska, Löffler, and Vlasta Děkanová), whereas this particular coincidence within history is concerned.QuakerIlK (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I understand your problem with diacritics, but if it's right in the name of the person you're editing, I recommend quickly checking the article at the end of the editing and adding it at least to the person's name (you don't need to know the keyboard shortcut, just copy the character from the page title).
It draws attention is exactly (ha ha) why boldfacing is generally not encouraged and why do I have a problem with this. We do not write fiction or an article for tabloid. The encyclopedia should use a neutral and factual tone and avoid emotional overtones, sensationalism, and drawing attention to text that someone finds interesting. See WP:FORMAL. The paragraph in Löffler's page should be rewritten to avoid the phrase "extreme misfortune" and information about Skirlińska's career that is not directly related to Löffler. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very reason that we write and publish is to draw attention to things and inform, not to ignore and equivocate and bury them. Also, this is Wikipedia, where all kinds of things are incorporated, like images and hyperlinks and tables and charts and Wikification in general. The more Wikified an article it is, the more likely it is to be reviewed highly. Extremely rare use of boldfacing is hardly out of line with that - otherwise, why would Wikipedia architects have made boldfacing so easy to do? All one has to do is either click the B symbol above the input box or just put three simple apostrophes on either side of the text to be boldfaced.QuakerIlK (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't write and publish to draw attention, we write and publish to inform if someone searches for information. Boldfacing is so easy to do because we need it in almost every article: in the lead (see MOS:BOLD). And as MOS:NOBOLD says, Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text. There is no objective reason to break the rule in that article. FromCzech (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting, more specifically relevant to MOS:EMPHASIS that "Use of emphasis more than once in a sentence is rarely helpful to readers". In my treatments on Löffler and Skirlińska, this is the only time I used any emphasis whatsoever in articles that are hundreds or, in Skirlińska's case, over 1000 words long, much less only one sentence, so the frequency with which I used emphasis is hardly questionable. Yes, italics are preferred, but they do not draw attention like boldface does, and one italicized word is not going to stand out among hundreds of italicized words like a boldface word does. Also, to invoke comparisons to fiction and tabloid journalism based on the boldfaced, emphasized usage of only one word out of hundreds, or even thousands, is a prime example of a logical accident. Moreover, there are examples of boldface used for emphasis in major sports figures such as Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali where in both of those articles, boldface is used for emphasis within the articles' leaders (and NOT only "the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead") such as in the phrase "the Greatest" for Ali and three times for Jordan (for "MJ", "Air Jordan" and "His Airness"). If you check the talk page, as well as the archives for the talk page, for both Jordan's and Ali's articles, you will not find a single objection to use of boldfacing for emphasis for those quotes. Nor will you find any such objections to boldfaced emphasizing within the talk pages for Wayne Gretzky (another example whereas "the Great one" is also emphasized in the leader using boldface) or Babe Ruth (two occurrences of emphasis via boldface are in the leader - "the Bambino" and "the Sultan of Swat"). In conclusion, yes, avoidance of emphasis via boldfacing is the general preference, however that is a general guideline and not an absolute law, otherwise these examples in the leads for numerous major sports figures would have been challenged at least once.QuakerIlK (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I got lost in that wall of text, but I don't get the point. For articles like Jordan, Ali, Gretzky, Ruth and Accident (fallacy) boldface is used everywhere only in the lead, for alternative names, addressing the subject of the article, and everything is in accordance with MOS:BOLD. Study the WP:BODY of that biographies, despite their length you will not find any event highlighted in boldface. So I don't see any parallel with your use of boldfacing. If in doubt, transfer the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting and ping me. FromCzech (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not (see § Other uses below)." Those instances I cited within Ali's, Gretzky's, Jordan's, and Ruth's are not redirects. The boldface is used simply and only for emphasis, and is not explicitly enshrined within any policy or guideline that you have yet quoted, nor any that I can find. So, why do you have such a problem with me using it so sparingly for sports figures who have apparently gained so little attention? Moreover, the logical fallacy article is one I pointed out to address what appears to me to be an error in your thinking (of equating the work I've done on Löffler's and Skirlińska's with tabloid journalism or fiction, essentially articles for which I have created all of the content, due only to one instance in each article of using boldface for emphasis), not anything having to do with boldface emphasis. Also, if you have the tenacity and patience to make all the numerous technical corrections you have in the long edits I've made in articles, you should have the tenacity and patience to absorb and comprehend my most recent comment, rather than resorting to a "TLDR"-style retort.QuakerIlK (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Greatest", "Air Jordan" or "destroying the exception" cannot be redirects, when they are regular pages, but they include links to the related pages. But for example His Airness is a redirect. However, the point is not that these are redirects, but alternative names for the subject of the article. I never called your work tabloid journalism or fiction, I just used hyperbole to express that this is an encyclopedia, and why it is not appropriate to attract attention in violation of MOS.
(talk page watcher) @QuakerIlK Out of curiosity I looked at both Janina Skirlińska and Emanuel Löffler and was struck by their unencyclopedic tone. En.wiki does not use terms like "surprisingly" and "extreme misfortune", and does not use bold for emphasis like your "exactly". Bold is used in the lead sentence of an article to highlight the targets of incoming redirects from alternative names for the person or topic, but very rarely used elsewhere in the encyclopedia. PamD09:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. 'Tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! Your contributions to Wikipedia in 2025 are greatly appreciated! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas, and here's to a happy and productive 2026! ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Trams in Liepāja, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Thank You for correcting my bad spelling mistakes in creating Eugen Strouhal's English wikipedia article. It is unfortunately easier to type the "Czech Republic" than Czechoslovakia--which was a struggle for me. However, I also made some improvements from the Czech language wikipedia version with a paragraph titled "Selected accessible PDF publications" for some of Strouhal's more important articles which also includes many online articles NOT in Anthropologie and also an "External links" paragraph which gives a link to a list of Strouhal's accessible 113 articles on Anthropologie--many of which are minor articles--that are accessible in PDF format.
If you wish, you can add this "list" to his Czech wikipedia article. Strouhal has been dead since 2016...and I think it was better not to wait for more than 10 years until 2026 until someone wrote an English wikipedia article on him. PS: I am sorry about the Pilsen name mix up but I had to use Google translate" to translate the original Czech article town of Plzeň which Google Translate said was commonly known as Pilsen. This was my mistake! I just followed what Google Translate said. I wonder if AI programs in future will make such errors sadly! Best from Canada...although I was born and lived in Malaysia until March 1989 with my family--just 8 months before the Berlin wall fell when my family legally immigrated to Canada. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit to this article because "Czechoslovakian" is the common adjectival form of the word in English. See OED third edition:
Czechoslovakian
Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.)
Reference type:
English Dictionary
Current Version:
2015
... / ˌtʃɛkə(ʊ)slə'vakɪən / ▶ adjective relating to or characteristic of the former country Czechoslovakia or its inhabitants : a Czechoslovakian film and a television series . relating to or characteristic of Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia
Also please don't mark an edit as Minor if you are changing the common English spelling of a word to an alternative spelling which you prefer. We should retain the established English variation.
@Aemilius Adolphin: Hello, "Czechoslovak" is the predominantly used demonym in the modern English and it is constistenly used in Wikipedia, including all the page titles (e.g. First Czechoslovak Republic) and category names (see Category:Czechoslovakia tree). Even outside Wikipedia, it is much more common (see ngram). "Czechoslovakian" is obsolete and your source citation is cherry-picking. I apologize for not describing the change in more detail in the Edit summary, from my experience I thought it was obvious. FromCzech (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, "Czechoslovakian" used as an adjective is not obsolete: it is still widely used and is listed as the adjectival form in the OED, the Collins Dictionary and the Merriam Webster which are the three leading English Language dictionaries. If it were obsolete, these dictionaries would say so. So no "cherry-picking" involved, I simply used the adjectival form that I grew up with and which is in all the major dictionaries. That said, if "Czechoslovak" is now the dominant form, I agree it should be used consistently across all articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Trams in Liepāja, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
