Jump to content

Talk:Plzeň

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name Alternatives

[edit]

Several sources (Britannice, Merriam-Webster) list "Pilsen" as an English and German name alternative. I believe they should remain in the article.

Not true. Britannica just says "German Pilsen". Merriam-Webster doesn't describe it, it just has a cross-reference, as it has for "Leningrad" and other former names which are still well known. NoPuzzleStranger 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)
The city of Plzen lists "Pilsen" on the English version of its web page. Please stop changing the article simply because of a POV difference.
http://info.plzen-city.cz/article.asp?sec=5&lang=1033
Jbetak 30 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Well, if you consider that decisive, I'm pleased that you will at least give up your reverts on České Budějovice. The city of České Budějovice uses "České Budějovice" on the English version of its web page. http://www.c-budejovice.cz/EN/02/History/ NoPuzzleStranger 30 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
I have just checked that page as well ;-) Still, you have to acknowledge that the changes to the České Budějovice article were initiated by you. The former status quo was obviously supported by a consensus and would be preferable to the current state. Until the question has been resolved. As I have explained before, I have qualms about not paying enough consideration for the rich past of these cities. We could be renaming Prague next - but hey it's just my POV ;-) Jbetak 30 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

This article is written in English, not Czech. The title should be "Pilsen". --April Arcus 15:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Masterhatch 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsen was used in all latin writtings that I've saw in abbeys and priories I visited in South Bohemia, but I am interested in Latin only and not in German or Czech so bear with me. IEEE 14:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this article is written in English, not German. ;-) --213.129.141.13 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pilsen

[edit]

Unless someone can come up with a good reason why i shouldn't, I will move this article to its English name (because this is the English section of wikipedia) of Pilsen. Masterhatch 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it is obvious this article should be moved to Pilsen. Masterhatch 19:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should suggest a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Olessi 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with renaming. There are many more articles with English versions of names, like Prague (not Praha), Rome (not Roma), Venice (not Venezia). These English versions have long history and abandoning them would be like losing a part of English language heritage. Jan.Kamenicek 14:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The journalistic convention (see examples below) is to use Plzeň in English. English-speakers used to use the German name; now we use the Czech name. valeriet 10:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved. Jonathunder 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2006)

[edit]

Plzeň → Pilsen – Plzeň is the Czech name for the city and Pilsen is the English name. the MoS states that the most common English name be used. Plzeň is definately not the most common English name for that city. (rationale originally posted by User:Masterhatch at Wikipedia:Requested Moves.)

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Comment. The only important thing is whether it is well-established, not whether it requires diacritics (there can always be a redirect omitting the diacrictics). Jan.Kamenicek 15:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Oruj 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But the English version of the city's website is clearly translated by a Czech, not by a native English speaker. valeriet
Comment: I'm merely saying that this issue looks pretty closely related to a precedent case (see: Talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues and Talk:Danzig). Valentinian (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments

I am open to persuasion. Google tests, however, are unusually misleading here; actual citations of present English usage are wanted. Septentrionalis 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Pilsen, which is obviously invariable in nineteenth-century sources, should of course be noted in the article. Septentrionalis 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pilsen" is used by on the English versions of the city page (which also uses "Plzen") and the University of West Bohemia. I am currently neutral on the matter. Olessi 14:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, the English version of the city website was clearly translated by a Czech speaker rather than a native English speaker. Less easy to tell with the university website, but in both cases, 'Pilsen' is likely to have been suggested by Czechs who are unfamiliar with English journalistic and other convention.valeriet 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

britannica, encarta, & columbia use plzen, with pilsen as alternate name. ahd & mw dictionaries use plzen. reference works like encyclopedias and dictionaries are generally good indications of the most common english usage. plzen is actually slightly more common at google scholar. diacritics are not an issue because many of these references don't use the diacritic & i searched without it. many of the above comments seem to assume that pilsen is the most common, but did i miss the evidence? Appleby 04:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most common" is, in this context, a red herring. A foreign name, unnatural in English orthography, should be preferred only if there is no reasonably-common English name. "Pilsen" is reasonably-common: that is all I contend is needed to prefer it. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that part of my argument is that the pronunciation of "Plzen" is not transparent to those who do not already know the subject: one might readily assume that the implied vowel is after the digraph: "Plizenm" but it just looks strange. This is different from, say, "Beijing" vs "Peking". While the latter is more probable as an English place name, the former doesn't look unpronounceable. This sort of thing is not an exact science, but I think "Plzen" lies on the wrong side of the dividing line. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many Czech place names aren't kind to the English-speaking tongue (Brno for one) but we manage fine with the Czech rather than the German version. valeriet 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all the encyclopedias & dictionaries i looked at are, of course, english reference works. they all use plzen. it seems plzen is the common english name, although i'm open to other evidence. Appleby 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the other hand, they do not need to follow Wikipedia policies. For example, Brittanica validly includes snippets of original research. I feel that the spirit of UE is violated when we use names that are impossible in English orthography, provided that some reasonably-natural alternative is available. Then again, I laugh at network anchors when they try to affect an accent when saying names like "Managua" and "Nicaragua." Robert A.West (Talk) 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of journalistic usage of Plzen:

2nd BBC story is actually a quiz not an news article, prevous BBC usage has included Pilsen but current usage is Plzen ie all Latin characters no diacritics in sight.

It is indeed a quiz - that's why I added it. All the more indication that Plzen is also used in more cultural contexts as well as news stories. You do find some usage of Pilsen on the BBC site - mostly in historical reminiscences about World War II, and in references to the Pilsen Radio Orchestra. valeriet 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Plzeň

[edit]

I contend that some voters above were misled by the false premise that "Plzeň is the Czech name for the city and Pilsen is the English name". In fact Pilsen is the former German name, used locally and internationally when it was part of Austria, but now obsolete. It's true that it sometimes occurs in English, but if that makes it an English name, then Plzeň is also an English name (that's what all English-language encyclopedias use) and then the question is which is more common, and Google shows Plzeň is more common (compare "Pilsen Czech Republic" and "Plzen Czech Republic"). Physicus 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion above - I don't think anyone was misled. "Plzeň" could not be an "English name" because English orthography does not use any Diacritic marks on its letters - it would have to be rendered as "Plzen". GraemeLeggett 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
English may use diacritics, as you find out, if you look at the List of English words with diacritics. Jan.Kamenicek 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that even those loan words are not spelt with diacritics and that with the domination of the keyboard over pen and ink noone even knows how to type a diacritic (they might know where insert symbol is in MS Word) so diacritics are almost completey absent from written English - I've never seen anime written with an accent in the last 18 years. GraemeLeggett 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of this is relevant to proper names. If you don't know how to type Plzeň, you'll just type Plzen. It's still the same name. Physicus 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways of defining "English name". At bottom, "Plzeň" is of course a Czech name - just as "Pilsen" is a German name. There's no third, separate English name. But if any name that is used in English becomes an "English name" then both are English names. And "Plzeň" is the more common one. The presence of diacritics that are not otherwise used in English doesn't disqualify it either in that sense. After all, you could find plenty of small Czech towns which have no other name whatsoever except the Czech name, so you have to use the Czech name in English and that would make it the "English name" in that sense. Physicus 00:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose as premature. Abide by consensus decision; please note that this is change from the vote above. There is no question (see the 1911 Britannica for an example) that Pilsen was once the name used in English; the question is whether English usage has changed. We have decided this; as a member of the minority, I join the majority opinion. Septentrionalis 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Support, earlier vote was ill-informed. Oruj 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yalta

[edit]

I removed the following sentence, as a factual error.

The Yalta Conference placed Czechoslovakia in Soviet sphere of influence and Patton had to withdraw shortly after the armistice.

Reading the Yalta Accords will show that they do not mention Czechoslovakia or any part of it. I suppose there will be a revert war here; but I hope that the copyedit preceeding will be left alone. Septentrionalis 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes

[edit]

Similar case with Poland

[edit]

In the Polish material, the issue resulted in a pretty heated arguement. (see: Talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues and Talk:Danzig), and the result was that the German names is used in some historical contexts, and the native name in modern contexts. In the Polish material, the native name is used everywhere except Warsaw. Encarta sticks to the Czech name as well. [3]. Valentinian (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The compromise in Gdansk/Danzig was just that, a compromise to resolve a highly-emotional situation. As such, the decision does not need to be rational, and really doesn't pretend to be. It was just a decision, and we are not obliged to repeat it slavishly. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Names on a map is often more than an emotional dispute; it is a very political dispute. On the European mainland, the use of German language forms for East European locations outside of Germany's post-1945 borders is very often - rightly or wrongly - interpreted as support for German expansionism. This issue is - thank God - not at the agenda of the German government, but fear of it rests very deep in the minds of many of Germany's neighbours. I'm well aware that this was not the motivation behind the votes for "Pilsen" cast here, but using German forms for non-German areas is a controversial path to take. Valentinian (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for a change of policy. This is not the place for that; try Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) or the Village pump. Septentrionalis 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most common name used in English

[edit]

User:Yup! said in an edit summary, "No one has proved Pilsen is less common than Plzeň in English. The city is used to using the name "Plzeň" on its intl website, and I, as a resident, can tell it's far more known abroad than "Plzeň". (I think he meant "using the name 'Pilsen' on its intl website".)

Re: --Yup! 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Yes, thanks. I wrote it in hurry and mixed it up completely. This above is the way it should be. On the other hand I'd rather point out in the article, that Pilsen is a German equivalent, that is as common as Plzeň in English. However, Pilsen might be used more broadly in the world referring to the original beer production, that the city is famous for. That's the reason for being in the head of the document, and also why the city is officially using this name. But Pilsen is still only an equivalent, which is a fact to be stressed. There are still many people, that don't like Germans since WW2, when all the cities used to be called in German. That's why I wouldn't like to see German name there.[reply]

Well, it is very easy to prove. First, by way of authority: All real English-language encyclopedias not only have their articles at Plzeň, they also do not even mention Pilsen as an alternative English name, only as a German name. To wit:

  • Britannica: "Plzeň, German Pilsen, city, capital of..." [4]
  • Americana: "Plzeň, a city in the Czech Republic, 55 miles (88 km) west-southwest of Prague. Plzeň (German, Pilsen) is the..."
  • Encarta: "Plzen (German Pilsen), city in western Czech Republic, ..." [5]
  • Columbia: "Plzeň, Ger. Pilsen, city..." [6]

Second, by checking actual use through Google. "Plzen Czech Republic" shows 138,000 hits, "Pilsen Czech Republic" only 55,100, a ratio of 5 to 2. (The addition of "Czech Republic" serves two necessary purposes - ensuring the reference is a modern one, not one referring to or dating from Austrian times, and ensuring the reference is in English.)

I don't think your anecdotal knowledge trumps those verifiable facts. Nor does the city's own website; cities are not authorities on what they should be called in foreign languages, and the local people who write those English texts may not be aware of what the most commonly used name is in English. Oruj 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound rude, but the above discussion about the "English" name is simply moronic. Citations to ENGLISH encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and magazines are completely ignored. Google results, Google scholar results, and appeals to logic and consistency are buried alive, kicking and screaming. To counter the mountain of actual evidence, editors simply opine, nay, DECLARE!, that the most common English term used by the most authoritative English publications is not English, because ... they SAY so. Astounding. Pilsener 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google results are not authoritative. You may not sound rude but you do sound a touch hysterical. GraemeLeggett 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your majesty conquers mere citations to English encyclopedias, dictionaries, newspapers, and magazines, with nothing but devastating wit and wisdom. I bow before the supreme authority of your voice. Wikipedia bows, nay, the world bows. Pilsener 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we flying in the face of journalistic convention by using Pilsen? I've checked numerous prominent newspapers (see above) and they all use Plzeň (usually without the diacritic) as their regular way of referring to the city. Supporters of 'Pilsen' haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. valeriet 19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent or whatever

[edit]
The Yalta Conference placed Czechoslovakia in Soviet sphere of influence and Patton had to withdraw shortly after the armistice.

Why did you remove the whole sentence? Just change the beginning and it will be ok.

After WW2, Czechoslovakia was placed in Soviet sphere of influence and Patton had to withdraw shortly after the armistice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmoc (talk • contribs)

The present phrasing is:

On May 6, 1945, at the very end of World War II, Pilsen and Western Bohemia were liberated from Nazi Germany by General Patton's 3rd Army; the rest of Czechoslovakia was liberated from German control by the Soviet Red Army. Patton withdrew a few days thereafter, in accordance with the agreements of the Allies.

What false claim or misleading inference do you see here?

On the other hand, the text Azmoc proposes implies that the Anglo-Americans had actively placed Czechoslovakia in the Soviet sphere of influence before the end of the war. This is unsourced; and Western diplomatic histories tend to claim that, until 1947 or 1948, they expected Czechoslovakia to be a true neutral until 1947 or 1948. Septentrionalis 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, expecting something is one thing. How do you explain that the "soviet part" of germany became communist, actually everything that was "liberated" by the red army became communist? Are you trying to suggest, that all the countries and territories that came under soviet control after ww2 became communist incidentally, and that the soviet communist rule was not imposed on them? Azmoc 07:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is widespread sentiment that the policy of attempting to administer Germany by consensus (and by extension, manage the rest of the Continent so) was a failure - the creation of East Germany was part of that failure; there is disagreement as to how much the Western Allies attempted the policy of consensus, and as to how foreseeable the failure was. George Kennan claims to have foreseen it and protested from within.
  • No, I am not " trying to suggest, that all the countries and territories that came under soviet control after ww2 became communist incidentally, and that the soviet communist rule was not imposed on them". I do not think that; what have I said that could be so interpreted?

I didn't say that "Churchil and Truman placed Czechoslovakia somewhere", I said that "Czechoslovakia was placed". I didn't suggest that Anglo-Americans actively placed Czechoslovakia somewhere. It might be true, that they just passively allowed it to be placed into the Soviet sphere of influence. Doesn't matter - my sentence says "was placed", doesn't say by whom. Would you please suggest any other wording that would express that the change from democracy to communism was imposed on Czechoslovakia from outside? Azmoc 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are making the (unsourced) claim that it was entirely imposed in May 1945, that would be off topic and extremely misleading, especially before Patton's withdrawal. If you have some sources on the Communist takeover of Pilsen, do by all means put them in. Septentrionalis 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West vs. western, faculty vs. school

[edit]

The first two comments come from user talk pages: User talk:J76 and User talk:Pabouk. I put them here in order to keep the discussion in one place.

Hello J76, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I partially reverted your modification of the Pilsen article. Here are the reasons:

  1. School in that sense is used almost only in North American English. See School#Regional varieties.
  2. Faculty is the right word. See:
  3. Please do not try to rename the University of West Bohemia :-) It is the official English name of the institution.

--pabouk 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your Pilsen update:
1. I do not know where you went to school or whether you studied somewhere abroad however so called "North American English" represents ACADEMIC STANDARD these days so no matter whether you're attorney in Argentina or nurse in Sweden it would be nice to follow it and don't try to figure out some sort of "Czech-Kiwi English". Thus it's not some kind of "merely" argument. Therefore we do not write faculty but school instead.
2. The thing that UWB has arguable uneducated faculty members in its language departments who studied during Husak's era (and that are unable to translate properly name of their own univesity - how embarrassing btw) cannot override the fact that PROPER title is the University of Western Bohemia. Have you ever heard of any university bearing such geographic name ??? It's NORTHWESTERN (actually quite elite institution) or NORTHEASTERN NOT Northwest University...it's ADJECTIVE !!!
The site is aimed for those who do not have a clue where this town or Uni actualy is. I think it's important to realize that.
3. I hope I clarified what was necessary.
Best,
J. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J76 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Pilsen article is written with American spelling but be aware of the fact that the whole English Wikipedia does not use just single variant of the language. Even many people from non-English speaking countries (like me) contribute to Wikipedia.

The word faculty in the sense "division of university" is described in many (but not all) American dictionaries (see examples below) although it is primarily a British English meaning of the word thus I think that the sense is known in the USA.

  • Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition [7]
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [8]
  • Ultralingua Online Dictionary [9]

The word faculty and its variants are used in United Kingdom and most of the continental Europe. I would definitely prefer to use this word in articles about Europe but as the Pilsen article is in the American spelling I would like to know opinions of some native English speakers.

Regarding the "West - Western" dispute:

  1. I strongly insist on my opinion that the official name of the institution should not be changed especially in an encyclopaedia.
  2. The word west is both a noun and an adjective. You can find this fact in every usable dictionary. [10]
  3. You did not use proper examples for your arguing because the examples contain compound directions, they are adjectives just of the word university and not a name of an area like Bohemia.
  4. I think that West Bohemia can refer to the name of former kraj: Západočeský kraj. You can find many examples (in every variant of English) where a cardinal direction is used as an adjective in its basic form. The examples follow.

See also these nice explanations and discussions: [11] [12] [13] I understood that the adjective western is used to describe a not exactly defined area while west is mainly used in names of well defined areas but this could not be considered to be a rule. I think that the University of West Bohemia is a correct name. --pabouk 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was move to Plzeň.


Pilsen → Plzeň — Several reasons for this move:

  • "Plzeň" is the name of the city. The German name "Pilsen" has fallen in disuse a long, long time ago (it's been a Czech city for decades), even among English speakers.
  • "Pilsener" is a beer, widely known among English speakers, period. The city where the beer originated is a different matter. And the name of that city is, and again I stress- for decades, "Plzeň".
  • The move discussion back in 2006 that resulted in this article being moved to the current name was a joke very dubious, with the closing admin having participated in the discussion, and multiple ridiculous, wrong arguments presented to support the move. Arguments included ignorance of the city, poor comprehension of English usage versus Czech spelling, and overall misinterpretation of the Manual of Style. — Húsönd 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 2

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose. No new evidence. English usage is changing on such names, but Wikipedia policy is to follow the change not lead it. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What lead? The name of the city changed way back in the 40's, there's been a consistent growth of the usage of "Plzeň" in English since then. We're not coining any neologism with "Plzeň". Húsönd 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not disputing any of that. But the question is simply, has usage changed enough? And is there any reason to think that consensus will have changed since the last attempt at this move? No change of vote, I really think we should give this a rest. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has changed plenty of enough. Hardly any English speaker refers to the city as "Pilsen". Knowledge of the word "Pilsen" is basically beer-related, not because English speakers who know the city still use that word when referring to it (on a personal note, I even suspect that using that name while in the city would prompt derision from its locals). The case we have here is exactly the same as the Czech city of České Budějovice, where the beer Budweiser is from. Yet, the article on that city is not "Budweis", a name long fallen in disuse. Húsönd 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say much the same as Andrewa and say that nothing new is being presented here - however on inspection of the above discussion, the evidence (surprisingly) strongly points towards the common use of the indigenous name in English-language texts, particularly in reference works. Our policies say nothing but that we should follow the evidence of usage presented, so I support. To oppose in the face of all the evidence presented above is clearly against WP:UE. Knepflerle (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, English usage has changed enough for Plzeň to become the primary name of this beautiful city. The points raised on previous discussions are also quite compelling. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use Plzen or Pilsen, unless you have a non-English keyboard, it's not ň, and if you do have a non-English keyboard, then it's not English. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted this-- Matthead  Discuß   07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IPs do not have suffrage, and your argument is silly, can you type coöperation, née or naïve on your 'English' (presumably actually an American) keyboard? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably actually an American"? Nice. Of course, only Americans are churlish, arrogant, and unilateral enough to want to control their own language. On the other hand, that IP was actually from Quebec, Canada. May I presume you are typing on an anti-American keyboard, Hexagon1? Erudy (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am typing on a US keyboard, from Australia, as we speak. I find that far more than actual anti-Americanism, there is a massive wave of American insecurity (not everything is an insult). My point was that there isn't even an 'English' keyboard, UK keyboards do actually have diacritical signs in them to facilitate wring words like the ones above. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this is a vote, but IPs do have "suffrage" insofar as it exists. It's the argument that counts, not the source. On the substance: why Hexagon supposes that ň appears on keyboards in England (or, say, Australia or Scotland) is beyond me. His examples cast doubt on his fluency in English of any variety; coöperation is dropping out of use in those dialects which retain it, and naïve has been archaic for a century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IPs have the same right to not vote in this not-vote. They have just as much right to bring up this tired argument which has no support in policy for good reason. There is neither need nor obligation for these characters on the reader's keyboard. (On a side note, the claim of the archaism of naïve is equally baseless - and they're just those that OCR correctly...) Knepflerle (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was unaware they had the same rights in this regard. I typed that ň on a Mac US International keyboard, a simple procedure indeed ([Option-v] [n]), and your assertions cast doubt on your literacy, I encounter these quite frequently, in fact the New Yorker uses them as standard. Oh, and please desist the ad hominem attacks, Pmanderson. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that what the majority of English-language sources use is not English is a touch surreal. Knepflerle (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong, are you forgetting WP:Rumping'sUsageIsAuthoritative? :) +Hexagon1 (t) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Plzeň is original name, and for users with problem with "ň", there can be redirect from "Pilsen". --Yopie 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Really, yes. www.pilsen.eu redirects to www.plzen.eu, which of course is the main domain used by the city, as hardly surprising they use Plzen in Czech context - but Pilsen in English/German. The domains www.pilsen.cz and www.plzen.cz are owned by rather unrelated private sites. What stands out right on top off the city's website is the Logo/Image used in all three languages, displaying Pilsen (small) and Plzen (larger), indicating that they (unlike others) are comfortable with the historic spelling. If you disapprove of Czech city officials, musicians and sportsteams using Pilsen, well, you've got to tell them, not me. BTW: will you also request moves of Cologne to Köln and Munich to München? The American Football teams in these cities use the English spelling, too (see German Bowl). -- Matthead  Discuß   00:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Köln and München are not used in English, period. They're the German names of two German cities. "Plzeň" is the current name of a Czech city, also widely used in English. "Pilsen" is the old German name of that city, still used in German and English, but falling in disuse in the latter. Húsönd 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Pilsen is sometimes used. The policy however says we use the most common name. You have only shown that the less common name is still occasionally used - that doesn't change the decision at all. Knepflerle (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems that if the name is not Pilsen then based on WP:UE it should be Plzen not Plzeň (see below for a longer comment). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might have noticed from thousands of articles all over Wikipedia that we tend to use diacritics on foreign words unless there's a specific variant in the English language. Not the case for "Plzeň". On the internet you'll also find more hits for e.g. "Sao Paulo" than for "São Paulo". And yet, our article is at "São Paulo", which is the most accurate spelling of the name of this city. Húsönd 01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A exists on Wikipedia, therefore B should exist is a poor argument. Can you point to any policy or guideline that advocates the use of diacritics in the fashion you suggest? Dragons flight (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah yeah, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There has never been consensus on a policy or guideline deciding how we should use diacritics, that's why I pointed out the thousands upon thousands of articles we have on Wikipedia that use them in their titles. If for nothing else, we should have "Plzeň" for the sake of consistence (and I won't even pick the much more plausible argument that many-readers-actually-know-that-"ň"-reads-differently-than-"n"-that's-why-we-should-use-it-because-then-those-readers-will-be able-to-read-the-name-right because that argument usually falls on deaf ears). Húsönd 02:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As I mention below, I do think English usage is moving away from Pilsen (with, I might note, some major exceptions), and may have reached a tipping point. However, much of that usage omits the diacritic. I would support the unadorned Plzen for now.Erudy (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plzen. I've been fence-sitting about this. There is reasonable evidence that Pilsen is becoming less favored, though still rather common. However, I don't think English usage has shifted all the way over to Plzeň, even though some more formal texts do choose that. Absent a clearer guide on diacritics, WP:UE seems controlling, which would seem to favor dropping the ň if that is what most English writers do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a word has lost its adornment when being borrowed into English. However, I think all three forms are used often enough and are clear enough that none is really so bad that it would create a major problem. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You and Erudy should have a look at Category:Cities and towns in the Czech Republic and explain why the usage in English of the diacritic in Plzeň should be different than that of all the other towns in the Czech Republic carrying them. And, if you'd like to take something positive out of this discussion, then I also recommend having a look at ň in order to realize that there's an actual purpose for the existence of the diacritic on this letter (it's not some superfluous decoration of the Latin alphabet Czechs seem to fancy). Húsönd 04:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know "ň" can not be written as "n" in Czech. Many languages require that each written symbol has a distinct sound, which certainly aids in phonetics. I suspect that Czech is one of these langauges (though I don't know that directly), and clearly "ň" is correct in Czech and "n" is not. However, English does not associate a single sound to each character, and our "a", "o", "c", etc. can take on many different sounds depending on the words they appear in. It isn't Wikipedia's role to define what is right or wrong about English, so if English writers choose to drop the wedge most of the time, then that is the style of English we should use too, even though doing so would clearly be wrong in Czech. As to the category, well "other stuff exists". Dragons flight (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not Wikipedia's role to define what is right or wrong in English, but as an encyclopedia it is our role to provide our readers with the most accurate verifiable information we can. Usage of "Plzeň" is verifiable in English, and that fulfills one of the requirements. As for the accurate, you must remember the many English speaker who know that "ň" reads as "lasagna" and not as "stone". For those readers, presenting the title as "Plzen" instead of "Plzeň" may prevent them from reading the name of this city correctly. For readers who don't know how to read "ň", it will make no difference to have the diacritic as they will read the name incorrectly anyway. Thus, Wikipedia has the duty to provide maximum accuracy to those who require it, not follow the suit of those who disregard it. Besides, suppressing diacritics represents other problems (e.g. imagine that another Czech town with the exact name "Plzen" exists). Yes, "other stuff exists", and for good reason it does. Húsönd 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but we should consider whether Pilsen ought to become a disambiguation page, as it is also used for the type of beer. Regards, --Asteriontalk 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pilsen is becoming archaic. As for the issue of the diacritic, I believe it should be included. Readers can simply ignore it if they don't understand what it's for, like they do with all the other wiki titles bearing diacritics. Kasnie (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Plzeň or Plzen. When there are several common names used in English, we should defer to the official or native name (assuming it is one of the common names, which is the case here). --Polaron | Talk 00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Plzeň is the only name it makes sense to use. MTC (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Husond has persuaded me: there is a difference between Pilsen (and Prague) and other Czech towns: many more English speakers have heard of it, so it is not surprising that the once-established name, supported by pilsner, remains in use. Ignoring this is disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
    • Yeah right. Like anyone's gonna believe that you are open to any kind of persuasion when it comes to diacritics. I believe that the only reason you're joining in this late is because you tried to resist contradicting yourself (first RM above). Húsönd 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Since the argument is that Plzen is widely used and Pilsen is essentially archiac, we ought to be able to provide supporting evidence for that via Google. However we don't want to see the beer (or Pilsen, Ohio), so I've tried the following searches: "Plzen +Czech -beer" and "Pilsen +Czech -beer" on each of the following:

Pilsen Plzen
US .gov sites 1270 5050
NYTimes 126 913
BBC 59 290 (most in Czech language)
Most Google hits of BBC stem from their Czech language version bbc.co.uk/czech. Also, many hits are for sports teams like FC Viktoria Plzeň and HC Lasselsberger Plzeň. I did not check other sites as, as stated above, the locals Czechs (etc. city administration, orchestra, American Football team) actually prefer the use of Pilsen in English, which should be respected. No need to teach Czech to the Czechs - or to readers of English Wikipedia. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add more. Based on this so far I would say there is a preference for Plzen, though it would be too much to say that Pilsen isn't used. Looking at results I'd also say there appears to be a preference for Plzen over Plzeň, i.e. no diacritic in English, but since Google doesn't distinguish the diacritic this is not easily differentiated by these searches. Dragons flight (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go as far to say that Pilsen is "archaic"; that is too strong. The evidence suggests it is routinely second-choice nowadays, however. The combination of evidence from both reference works and popular media is persuasive. Knepflerle (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of neutral on this one. Official municipal website in English, long historical tradition: Pilsen. Journalistic convention: Plzen. Other English encyclopedias: Plzeň. Sheesh. I do think that English usage is evolving away from Pilsen. Has it reached a tipping point? Probably. Has it tipped all the way to the adorned version of Plzeň? Very debatable. May I suggest a compromise of "Plzen", without diacritic, for now? Erudy (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google using the UK domain name as a filter to remove other languages and Czech to pick up more recent pages, it would seem that Plzeň is less common than Plzen

  • about 536 English pages for Plzeň -Plzen Czech site:uk
  • about 6,380 English pages for -Plzeň Plzen Czech site:uk
  • about 5,930 English pages for Pilsen Czech site:uk
  • BOOKS 911 on Pilsen Czech
  • BOOKS 938 on Plzen -Plzeň Czech
  • BOOKS 665 on -Plzen Plzeň Czech

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting: DE wiki [14]have article named Plzeň, same name have BE, DA, EO, ET, FI, HR, HU, ID, IS, IT, LB, NN, NO, PAM, PT, RO, SK, SV, and VO. Everybody can see in iw, that great majority of wikis have respect for official and original name. --Yopie 23:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reopened the move proposal, after some comments at my talk page. Additional evidence has been provided that makes it clear (at least to me) that English usage is trending away from Pilsen. The question I think needs to be answered is: "is that usage trending towards 'Plzeň' or the plain 'Plzen' ?" I think it would be good to find what the governments of English-speaking countries are using for official purposes, if that's possible to find. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Plzen is far more common than Plzeň at sites controlled by government. Dragons flight (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plzeň Plzen
US .gov sites 109 6890
UK .gov.uk 4 26
Canada .gc.ca 3 94
As are all words containing diacritics. That doesn't mean they are any less verifiable, legitimate, correct. The perennial reasons for the lack of diacritic be more common are: lack of diacritics on English keyboards; unawareness of the existence of diacritics and/or their purpose; deliberate disregard for their presence. None of these reasons are valid and should be followed on an encyclopedia. Unlike accuracy, which is the reason why we have thousands of articles which titles contain diacritics even if those words are, and will continue to be, more common on English sources without them. Húsönd 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of those reasons help explain why English might evolve away from diacritics. You contend that's wrong. I contend that this is simply the nature of English. If we are going to follow WP:UE then we probably ought to be looking at other articles where the diacritcs should be removed. If we are not going to follow UE then you should be starting a discussion on the use of diacritics in general rather than doing it case-by-case. Dragons flight (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many times before have users tried to create a consistent policy or convention for dealing with diacritics. There has never been a consensus, and hardly ever will. You contend the nature of English, which is fair, but neglect that we're talking of a name that is simply not English. It's the name of a Czech city being used in the English language. Embedding this unusual word in English should allow conditions for its correct, yet foreign pronunciation. Something that only diacritics can provide. Húsönd 17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, tell me, how does this position deal with Prague? Is Praha also the name of an English city "being used in the English language"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Praha" is not used in English, period. That is pretty clear, no comparison may exist with the Czech capital. Húsönd 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without saying whether I share the view or not, I think we should consider if it is appropriate to use the German name for the city. Compare with Szczecin vs Stettin or Gdańsk vs Danzig. In both cases, editors may argue that the German name is more "accessible" to English-language speakers. --Asteriontalk 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Insert

[edit]

I've inserted Fred Klein. [15] On his websites there are some more informations about Plzeň history to be found, in addition to the glimpses into his personal life.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.163 (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- 88.72.21.223 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, [17]. Hello Yopie, this is not a valid argument for deleting. I am going to reinsert him sooner or later.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.30 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:N--Yopie 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

2011 Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plzeň → Plzen – Previous RM discussion indicated a concensus that Plzen is more common than Plzeň, for example at government webspace. I work with (and create) a lot of pages with diacritics, however, in this case, it has already been shown that the version without diacritics is more widespread than that with. Yes, argument about keyboards. Yes, ň isn't an "English letter". But importantly, English usage for Plzen is more widespread than for Plzeň. Google books returns 20,000 without diacritics[18] and 11,000 with.[19] Cloudz679 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plzeň Plzen
US .gov sites 199 2940
UK .gov.uk 4 613
Canada .gc.ca 4 232

The sources which cover this city's name are not concerned with how to pronounce it, only how it is written. On the basis of Plzen being the most common name used for the city in the English language, I request editors here to consider the move. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment—I spot-checked a couple of results from your books search. Several of the ones from the search for the unadorned form really do use the "ň". [20] and [21] are some examples. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. When I filter for English, I get 194 post-1980 Google Book results with the diacritic out of 3,680 examples, or about 5 percent usage for the diacritic. The version with the diacritic appears mainly in guidebooks and phrasebooks. WP:NCGN warns that these are not relevant since they testify to local signage and native speaker usage. Slavic diacritics are never used in English-language newspapers. In short, the overall level of usage must be even lower than this figure would suggest. The title should tell the reader what conventional English-language usage is, not mislead him by providing a form of the name that exists only in some other language. The usual English-language spelling should appear somewhere in the article. The title is the most logical place since a typeable title is easier to search for and to link to. The version of the name with diacritics would still appear boldface in the opening and above the box. Kauffner (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What man knowth the ways of Google? But I have noticed problems when a Japanese or Vietnamese diacritic is used exclusively. Kauffner (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For every example you can give with a diacritic, I can easily give ten without, especially if we don't include travel guides. Britannica is a fine source and all, but Wiki's format is quite different. There many excellent sources that do not use Slavic diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to your examples, if they include general-purpose encyclopedias, authoritative sources on the English language and others whose house style and choices are actually relevant here. Prolog (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about the New York Times, Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, CNN, CBS News, Time magazine, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, BBC, Times of London, The Guardian, or the The Economist? No reference works geared toward specialists here! This is the big time media, the people who set the pace on this kind of issue. Kauffner (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you proved my point there; encyclopedias differ greatly from newspapers and thus do not follow the stylistic practices of this deadline-intensive medium. Good usage is more important than common usage. That's a great thing; not only can we spell correctly, but we don't have to overcapitalize, overuse one-sentence paragraphs, concentrate on recent events, censor words and images, et cetera. Prolog (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Prolog, that the Merriam Webster links provided, geographical and collegiate dictionary, appear to use the version without diacritcs. As does Academic American encyclopedia. And you may be interested to know that when I use my computer's dictionary on Plzen, it tells me that it's the Czech name for Pilsen. Further, the link for The Encyclopedia Americana you provided shows the viewer that this reference is last century, due to the mention of Czechoslovakia. More, World Encyclopedia of Beer, Encyclopedia of World Geography: Eastern Europe and Collins Dictionary add weight to the original RM, above. Think these things together make it worthwhile to have this discussion, regardless of the outcome. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Academic American says "Pilsen: See PLZEŇ" on page 303, M-W Geographical entry is at "Plzeň [...] Pilsen" on p. 938 and M-W Collegiate entry at "Plzeň" on p. 1573. You're right about the Americana entry being outdated, although it is doubtful that the spelling was changed for later editions. Collins is an interesting addition. However, I'm not sure if their online edition renders the háček, as they use Antonín Dvorák for Antonín Dvořák, Tomás Garrigue Masaryk for Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Ceské Budejovice for České Budějovice. Prolog (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is to prefer common usage to specialist usage, secondary sources over tertiary, and English usage to non-English. You are turning all of that on it's head. Our format is quite different than that of the printed encyclopedias. Their entry titles were designed to be subheads in a book. Ours must function as the titles of what to many readers will appear as standalone articles. We put the native version of the name boldface in the lead regardless of what the title is, which is again not the same as printed references. Britannica often uses diacritics that appear absolutely nowhere else in published English, so its entry titles are testifying to native speaker usage, equivalent to our boldfaced openings. Kauffner (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sources that use Plzen are using a misspelling, often for technical and printing reasons. It's not a choice. The name of the city is Plzeň, period. Ease of searchability is irrelevant, we have redirects for that. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These 'technical and printing reasons' form the basis of the written English language. If it is shown, which I believe it already has been, that the norm for English language sources is for the city's name to be spelled without diacritics, I do not see how it is a misspelling. Yes the city's name has a ň, but it's a Czech name. The English name, as reported in the majority of English-language sources, does not use diacritics. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English name of Plzeň is Pilsen (from German). Plzen is like "definetely" or "unneccessary". Both of these have high G-hit numbers, but that doesn't make them correct. ErikHaugen pointed out the problem of measuring with G-hits: results that write Plzeň show up in a "Plzen -Plzeň" search. The examples by Prolog show that the trend-setting sources use ň. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name Plzen is more common in reliable sources written in English, and since this is English wikipedia, this is the basis for the proposed move. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for the name something to be different in one language than it is in another. It is not reasonable to conclude that one language must be right and the other wrong. Kauffner (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion of anything being wrong, just trying to establish common English usage for English Wikipedia. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Martin Jůza

[edit]

A user added him has a notable Plzeň person, another user deleted him as not notable. I have never heard of the fellow, his notability concerns something I have absolutely no knowledge of or interest in, but he does have a non-stub/start Wiki page. I assume that qualifies as notable. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plzeň → Pilsen, Czech Republic – Used by the city's official English-language Website, Oxford English Dictionary, and TripAdvisor. More common in Google searches by a ratio of 17:2. Google Ngrams shows "Pilsen" becoming more common and "Plzeň" and "Plzen" both becoming less common from 1999 to 2008, the most recent decade for which it has data. Bobby Martnen (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please rename the article to its correct English (and in general European form) Pilsen

[edit]

The English wikipedia is more important than some users understand, since a lot of articles in smaller European languages are just copied from English (eg to from English Wiki to Swedish wiki). It is important that Czech users (and i suppose less travelled American users) to understand that in most European languages we say Pilsen. Plzen is a very confusing spelling for Europeans in general. Most Europeans couldn't tell how to pronounce it. 78.71.209.195 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times, and the general consensus is to keep it as Plzeň. As per WP:NCUE, the most common name in English should be used; it doesn't matter if it is called Pilsen in other European countries. Movement to Pilsen should be done on a language-by-language basis. Lxxl (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 October 2020

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

– The name Pilsen is far more common in English both historically and today than Plzeň. See Google's Ngram Viewer which compares their prevalence in English-language books from 1800 to the present making it clear that Pilsen is the WP:COMMONNAME by a factor of about 5, even today. The name Plzeň is also unpronounceable to most English readers and Wikipedia needs to be accessible to its readership in accordance with WP:USEENGLISH. Even the official website for the city refers to itself on its English pages as the "City of Pilsen" - see pilsen.eu, so they've come to the same conclusion. Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Pilsen page is a disambiguation page with significant content. It cannot be a target "new" title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. All other uses of the name are namesakes of this major European city which is the unquestioned WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for the name itself, Pilsen is the English-language exonym for the city to the same degree as Prague is the English-language exonym for the country's capital. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google news and hits show that Plzeň is more common by a factor of 10. I do think Pilsen is often used in English, but book hits don't tell the real picture. Most reliable references such as Britannica, Lonely Planet, Dictionary.com, etc, use Plzeň, and if they use Pilsen denote "Plzeň" as common English useage anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looking at Google Trends for US and Canada shows that there is no contest which is more frequently used by English-speakers. UK and Australia are closer but I expect that's because more Czech expatriates live there. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is moved, Plzeň Region should also be looked at. (t · c) buidhe 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiously enough, while the article about the city itself is located at de:Pilsen at the German Wikipedia, the article about the region is located at the Czech name at de:Plzeňský kraj although the article states it's called "Pilsen Region" in German. Might this be because the original city has strong ties to Germany, but the region is fully a Czech construct? JIP | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The common name now is undoubtedly Plzeň, in English-language sources as well as any other. Pilsen was once the common name in English, but hasn't been for many years. Same with Marseilles, Lyons, Mayence, Cracow, Danzig, etc (although I note that some of these are often still commonly used by Americans, which may explain the divide - in the UK we tend to use native names more, with a few obvious exceptions). This is emphatically not a WP:USEENGLISH issue (and I should point out that I am English). Note that the Ngram will also pick up mentions of the beer, which is often referred to as Pilsen! It will also, of course, pick up Pilsen being used in recent works referring to the city when it was commonly known as Pilsen (since calling it Plzeň in historical terms would be revisionist). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The common name now is undoubtedly Plzeň, in English-language sources as well as any other. Pilsen was once the common name in English, but hasn't been for many years evidence? (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the evidence that Pilsen is the common name, given what I said above about the fault in the Ngram? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the reasons from the previous discussion remain current (one of them is mentioned right above). Personally, I have the impression that we Czechs use the Pilsen name more for marketing reasons (to profit from the worldwide known name of the Pilsner beer), so I wouldn't consider its use on Czech websites (such as the official website of the city listed here) as a valid standard. FromCzech (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH seem to go with the Plzeň title now, and being a namesake isn't a primary topic criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plzeň - really?

[edit]

Just an observation: the current name is not English, it's Czech. Nothing wrong with Czech, but very few English speakers can read it. For centuries it's been known in English as Pilsen; it is clearly way more common than Plzeň, which BTW is almost unpronounceable to an English speaker. Just take a look at e.g. Pilsen/Plzeň on Google ngram viewer which records the hits of both names in English sources and town/city of Pilsen/Plzeň which clearly is not about the beer. So calling the place Plzeň clearly fails WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, despite attempts to claim the opposite. We should not be surprised that the name Pilsen is well known and recognised, not least because the beer, known as Pils (not Plz), is world famous. Nonsense like this may please native speakers (I admit even we English prefer "London" to "Londres", but not on French Wikipedia!), but it does nothing for Wikipedia's usability or credibility. Bermicourt (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start another RM then, I'm quite neutral on Plzeň/Pilsen (as the German name is still used in English) but you lost me at "unpronounceable to an English speaker" which is quite irrelevant to article title policy. Renaming Czech town articles to their historic German names just because they might be "easier to pronounce" certainly does nothing for Wikipedia's credibility either. The ngram test as well as @Buidhe:'s trends test in the last RM above both fail to take into account that there are places in the US called Pilsen, and the Google Trends results suggest the search results from the US are heavily concerned with those. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plzeň&oldid=1212183277"