Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
There is not need for second German place names, because according to ] "Other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." In mediaeval Bohemia was official language Czech and Latin, German was second after 1620 (but after 1620 Lands of the Bohemian Crown were de facto dissolved). I cannot find significant English books with German names for mediaeval district in Bohemia, but of course, we must find consensus. --] (]) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
There is not need for second German place names, because according to ] "Other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." In mediaeval Bohemia was official language Czech and Latin, German was second after 1620 (but after 1620 Lands of the Bohemian Crown were de facto dissolved). I cannot find significant English books with German names for mediaeval district in Bohemia, but of course, we must find consensus. —] (]) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
::They are not "second". In English, the German place names were always primary. The Czech names were essentially unknown. In a historical context, German place names are near universally used. Not to mention, of course, that there were large amounts of Germans in these particular areas. ] establishes that cross-naming should be used in cases where there is more than one significant name. That applies here. Your removal of the names is disruptive. "De facto" dissolution is not dissolution. The lands remained with the Crown until the Crown was eliminated. ] — ] 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia
I have a question. Could this article be renamed the "Crown of Bohemia"? I think it sounds better. Its shorter and easier to say than the "Lands of the Bohemian Crown". Moreover, it would correspond with the original Latin name "Corona (regni) Bohemiae" (and the Czech: "Koruna česká", "Česká koruna", "Koruna království českého"). I understand the "lands" in the expression "lands of the Bohemian Crown" just as an area which belongs to the "Bohemian Crown". We call the area under the rule of the King of Bohemia by the name "Crown of Bohemia" (it doesn't include only Kingdom of Bohemia but also other lands under his rule - therefore it is called a "Crown", not a "Kingdom").
I understand that the articles's name "Země Koruny české" is in Czech more convenient than "Koruna česká" because it cannot be confused with the currency Czech koruna (Koruna česká). But this is not the case of English. English distinguishes "Czech" from "Bohemian", therefore there cannot be a misunderstanding. I consider the word "Lands" in the article's name to be redundant. It is not an article about the lands of the Bohemian Crown (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia... their geography, languages, people, culture, history, the present etc.), but about the Crown of Bohemia itself as a state-like structure under the rule of Bohemian king.
Provide reliable sources in the English language for "Crown of Bohemia" as pertaining to the lands, and not the crown itself. I prefer "lands", as it provides a more WP:PRECISE title that makes it clear to the reader what one is reading about. RGloucester — ☎15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There is not need for second German place names, because according to WP:PLACE "Other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information." In mediaeval Bohemia was official language Czech and Latin, German was second after 1620 (but after 1620 Lands of the Bohemian Crown were de facto dissolved). I cannot find significant English books with German names for mediaeval district in Bohemia, but of course, we must find consensus. —Yopie (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
They are not "second". In English, the German place names were always primary. The Czech names were essentially unknown. In a historical context, German place names are near universally used. Not to mention, of course, that there were large amounts of Germans in these particular areas. WP:DANZIG establishes that cross-naming should be used in cases where there is more than one significant name. That applies here. Your removal of the names is disruptive. "De facto" dissolution is not dissolution. The lands remained with the Crown until the Crown was eliminated. RGloucester — ☎01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
