User Talk: FromCzech

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For all your hard work bringing Czech geography and football articles up to date – filelakeshoe ↗ (t ↗ / c ↗) 🐱 ↗ 10:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
|}

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your awesome contributions to List of twin towns and sister cities in the Netherlands ↗! gidonb (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|}

European cities - Baku, Yerevan, Tbilisi

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 ↗).

So I'm asking for better explanation of the revert. --Pan Někdo (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|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)
::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)
:::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)

Invitation

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
right|175px ↗
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}!

The New Pages Patrol ↗ is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.

We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting ↗.

Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.

Kindly read the tutorial ↗ before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page ↗ with questions.

If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider '''applying here''' ↗.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

</div>

Sent by {{noping|Zippybonzo}} using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Grimes

Did you see my comment in the Zürich discussion? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely different question, after having looked at your user page: can you perhaps help with Peter Demetz ↗? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

:1. Yes, and I immediately answered ;-)
:2. I'll take a look, but the site looks fine and I see almost nothing I can contribute. FromCzech (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:: 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)
:: 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)
:::There is not a very long article ↗ written for Czech Radio ↗ by his cousin, journalist Petr Brod. Maybe there will be something interesting. And this page ↗ says he died "last day of April". This article ↗ says that after 1989 he lectured at universities in Brno and Ostrava. FromCzech (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: That's great, thank you. Feel free to add the facts and refs to the article, - I believe in collaboration ↗. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious

{{user precious|header=twin towns|thanks=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 recipient no. 2935 ↗ of Precious, a prize of QAI ↗. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you, I didn't even know such an award exists :) FromCzech (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:: 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)
:::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)

Page mover flag?

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)

:{{ping|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)
::right|80px ↗
Hello, FromCzech. Your account has been granted ↗ the "{{mono|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 <code>suppressredirect</code> 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 ↗.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves ↗

:Category:Requested moves ↗, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – filelakeshoe ↗ (t ↗ / c ↗) 🐱 ↗ 11:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

TN Sister Cities

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)

: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)
::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)
:::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)

Surname inflection ↗

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.

I am sorry throwing a large work unto you, but 90% of the article is about Czech surnames, so I am not good for this work. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 05:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)

Barnstar Award

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7; width:100%;"
|rowspan="3" style="vertical-align:top;width:5em"| 60px ↗
|rowspan="3" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Czech ↗ Barnstar of National Merit'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; height:5em;"| FromCzech, this Barnstar is awarded to you, for expanding 45 Czech biography stubs to full articles in April 2025 as part of The European Destubathon ↗. Thank you from the whole WikiProject! C 679 ↗ 07:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |''this WikiAward was given to FromCzech by C 679 ↗ on 07:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)''
|}
:{{re|Cloudz679}} Thank you and thank you for your work within the destubathlon as well! FromCzech (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

English names of places in France

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)
:{{re|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)
::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)
:::As I said, I have no preference and it's not my fight. But ngram ↗ says that in the 20th century the name Marseille prevailed, and Britannica ↗ also prefers this name in English. FromCzech (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{tpw}} ''The Guardian ↗''{{'s}} style guide ↗ goes for Marseille. '''''Pam''''''''''D''''' 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
::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)
::::You performed the same edit to an article that I am working on. It is wrong, so I am reverting it. Keith H99 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::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)

Autopatrolled granted

right|80px ↗
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.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

English past tense

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)

:{{re|Flibirigit}} Thanks for the constructive comment, I didn't realize that. I learned it wrong and now it's hard to break the habit :) FromCzech (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Surnames

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 ↗ >talk ↗ 09:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|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)
: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 ↗ >talk ↗ 09:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
::Ok. I started a discussion there, I had no idea that he was also writing a comment to the discussion at the same time. FromCzech (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

More of Czech surnames

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:
:Sladký ↗ Slany ↗ Bystron ↗ Jašek ↗ Jaschek ↗ Šváb ↗ Kochta ↗ Holetschek ↗ Zámečník ↗ Hrdý ↗ Sládek ↗ Teplý ↗ Drtina ↗ Kratky ↗ Modrý ↗ Masný ↗ --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 16:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, Simonischek ↗: can it be Simonišek ↗? --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 16:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

: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)

Even more: {{sectionlink|Andrew|Andrew-surname}}, thanks to {{ill|Antonín Kotík|cs}}. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 21:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you re: Janina Skirlińska ↗

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)

: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).
:{{tquote|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)
::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)
:::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, {{tquote|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)
::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)
:::::::"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.
:::::::I don't see it productive to continue the discussion here, so I moved it to WP:MOS myself. FromCzech (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpw}} @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. '''''Pam''''''''''D''''' 09:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::For information, that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emanuel Löffler ↗. '''''Pam''''''''''D''''' 09:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank You Note on Eugen Strouhal ↗

Dear User FromCzech,

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)

Your edit to Allies of World War II

Hello there

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.

Happy to discuss on the article Talk page Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|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)
::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)

List of largest city squares by country and area ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of largest city squares by country and area ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability''' and '''no indication of being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources (WP:LISTN ↗)'''.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Joy (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Central Europe

See also MOS:CAPS ↗. Compare "northern Ireland ↗" v "Northern Ireland ↗": Donegal ↗ is in the former but not the latter. Just because Americans Capitalize Everything does not mean that we should do the same. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|JMF}} Disagree, Central Europe is the same as Northern Ireland. Start a discussion on Central Europe if you want change, not here. FromCzech (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::So show me the evidence for a legal entity called "Central Europe". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
:::This is an established name, i.e. consensus of many users. The WP:BURDEN ↗ is on you to prove that sources commonly uses "central Europe". But imho it is the same case as Central America ↗. There is also not a legal entity called Central America. FromCzech (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Vendetta?!

@FromCzech, the suggestion that I might be on a vendetta against you is puerile. I don't like some of the edits you make, and you've rebuffed my previous efforts to establish a cordial working relationship with you, but this does not mean that I take the situation personally and wish to outdo you on anything more than a professional level. Please keep doing your stuff—I know you do good work, and avoid the silly insinuations (and needless faux-procedural edits/reverts). Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{re|Revirvlkodlaku}} Forgive me for exaggerating, but it seemed really weird to make such a controversy an hour after you didn't like my edit elsewhere. I justified my edits, you didn't ("copyedit" does not say anything). Some are not improvements, some are unnecessary, some are directly against MOS. You are changing the date format and BrE to AmE without consensus. The script is not the justification – the editor is responsible for its execution. You wrote "avoid unnecessary edits", but that's exactly the type of editing you've done. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, so please WP:BRD ↗. FromCzech (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
::You are definitely exaggerating, but more importantly, your reverts of my improvements are unjustified. I absolutely did copy edit the page, and if you disagree, you should look up the definition of the term. DMY is NOT American, so I'm not sure what you're on about. You've so far provided no valid justification for reverting my edits, and until you're able to do so, you should stop needlessly lowering the quality of the page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Location of Dolní Poustevna

Hello FromCzech, Thanks for editing Alan Tyson ↗. I'm fine with the correction to "Czech Republic" (I had read in my newspaper that that "Czechia" is now the correct usage, but I guess I was wrong.). However, are you ''sure'' that Dolní Poustevna is actually on the way from Prague to Dresden? I looked on Google Maps and it seems rather out of the way, far from the roads that connect these two cities.

Is it possible that back in 1789, when Mozart passed through the area, the main road actually went through Dolní Poustevna? That's really the only way I can imagine that it is "on the way". If you have information to this effect, that's great, but otherwise I think it would be safer just to say that it is nearby. Thanks for your input.

Opus33 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I've actually taken this trip myself, on the train, and thought it was really beautiful. Opus33 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|Opus33}} Hello! It seemed strange to me to say that Dolní Poustevna is close to Prague when it is almost in another country. But maybe my formulation is also not accurate and it would be better to rephrase it (e.g. "near Dresden, on the way between Prague and Berlin" or something like that). FromCzech (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

::I wanted to include Prague because Tyson mentions it. Also it's my guess that paper from Dolní Poustevna was more likely to be sold in Prague than in Dresden, given the shared language and country.
::Hopefully everything is now ok; I've put in the distances to both cities so readers can judge for themselves. Opus33 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment

Hi. Regarding this edit ↗. Regardless of whether the former title or the new title is the correct one, the former title is not necessarily a misspelling. It could be a valid spelling if the given name was written in Basque (I don't know if it is, but given the subject's background it is certainly within the realm of possibility) as that language does not use diacritics in vowels.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:It was the only spelling in the cited sources and external links (IMDb), and it was also used in the text of the page and in eswiki, so I didn't verify it further. FromCzech (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Olympic ice hockey

I saw your changes like in this edit ↗. I think we should list it as "2026 Milan/Cortina" instead of your proposed formation, because 2026 Winter Olympics are commonly named as "Milano Cortina 2026". The "d'Ampezzo" part should be left out despite it being the full name of that town. – sbaio 20:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:The format is such that we write the name of the city/cities, not the trademark. This is consistent with previous years including 1956, when the Olympics were held in Cortina D'Ampezzo. Moreover, Milan/Cortina mixes both approaches. 2026 Winter Olympics ↗ commonly uses the full name too, see the infobox etc. FromCzech (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Janco ↗

No need to answer me, cheers. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 01:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Janča

Would you care to create a little article about

{{ill|Jan Janča|cs}} (1866–1928) – český novinář, spisovatel, autor divadelních her a autor politických úvah

using sources I cannot read: (https://kramerius.lib.cas.cz/view/uuid:48220bc0-4294-11e2-b246-005056827e52?page=uuid:d75d79de-653d-4290-bb5d-997d2ecca312 ↗, https://kramerius.lib.cas.cz/view/uuid:48220bc0-4294-11e2-b246-005056827e52?page=uuid:367c2cf5-2d00-463f-8171-a911355e682b ↗). This one I can read ↗, but not enough. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 18:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
:to make posiible the page for the Czech surname {{ill|Janča (surname)|lt=Janča|cs|Janča}}, where we may put

Monika Jančová ↗ (born 1992), Czech slalom canoeist

Sorry, I am a bit obsessive-compulsive about {surname} pages :-). If you do not have interest, I will try to write something muyself. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 18:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. There are some other Jancas in :cs:Janča ↗ you may find more interesting. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 18:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

:I like the freedom to go and do whatever I feel like doing and I don't like being tasked, plus this doesn't look very appealing. But never say never, maybe I'll change my mind.
:Btw maybe Jančo should be separate from Janco... FromCzech (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
::Of course, in Wikipedia nobody can force anybody to do anything. After all, it is a hobby. I was just giving a suggestion and absolutely no insisting on anything. It is just you are the only Czech person I communicate. I will stop bothering you, if you say so.
::I just found it noteworthy for Wikipedia to point out that "Jancova ↗" may come both from Janco and Janca, I didnt know it. --Altenmann ↗ >talk ↗ 19:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
:::It's okay.
:::Jančová can also be derived from the surname Janč. But this is not very common, according to the latest available data from 2016, there were only 30 male bearers of this surname in the Czech Republic (while Janča had over a thousand). FromCzech (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

RM dab pages

I just wanted to leave you a note, as I am sure it will be brought up, I have seen your comments ↗ about dab pages not being "formally nominated", but it clearly was nominated and implied in all cases, so I have moved the pages. You may disagree, but discrediting an entire RM because of a missing dab page will end up being a net negative, as it will waste community time since the same RM will be made with the dab pages listed right after the closure of the current RMs. I completely understand your arguments, but I do really think this would be a net negative. Cheers. – LuniZunie(talk) 07:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|LuniZunie}} There are people at WikiProject Disambiguation who monitor pages nominated for move and evaluate what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ↗ is. By not nominating these dab pages, the discussion could have avoided them, which could have influenced the outcome of the discussion. I just wanted to point that out. FromCzech (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::I agree, however, I could not, in good faith, close those requested moves as not moved or no consensus when no true objections were made, especially given that these would have just been re created minutes later. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Włodzickie Hills

Hi!

Why did you kick out mountains for no reason? It's not random low hills - it was all hills. Input Zoom (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:I didn't know this is complete list. But at least I explained why I was deleting them. In contrast, your restoration of the names was cocmpletely unexplained. Please read Help:Edit summary ↗. Historic German names does not belong to the general page about the range. Polish names are also redundant, especially when they overlap with common names. FromCzech (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Input Zoom

I have noticed that this user has been creating many pages on rail transport in Poland, a lot of this are railway stations. To me, it looks like they are a bot automatically creating these articles. Could you also please have a look into this? Because they also do not follow the MoS, like Poland station naming conventions ↗. Nothing in the articles is cited except statistics and designation of stations, which is official data from PKP. No or very little citations to history sections - usually the only citation is from a news outlet. Also, is this even encyclopedic? From Wrocław Świebodzki railway station#History ↗: "Architecturally, the station is described by the National Heritage Institute as a building of high artistic value, drawing on palace architecture derived from late classicism and the Italian Renaissance, reinterpreted in the spirit of the Paris École des Beaux-Arts ↗. Wrocław.pl similarly describes the building as one of the city's architectural landmarks and notes that it was built on an elongated C-shaped plan with a perpendicular southern wing retained from the earlier station complex." - it even looks like it was written by an AI tool. Fortek67 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

:Update: An AI cleanup has been requested here ↗. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks for the info. The editor published a large number of articles in short succession so there must be AI involved. FromCzech (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, you can have a read of both discussions. Fortek67 (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗

You are invited to participate in the '''Destubathon of the Americas ↗''', a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ ''Dr. Blofeld'' 16:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits

Ahoj, I noticed your recent revision note regarding added flags to cities. I took the inspiration from the German city list page ↗. Considering many other city lists have coats of arms added (eg. Austria ↗, Slovakia ↗, Hungary ↗ (next to images), Lithuania ↗, Latvia ↗ as well as the Slovenian page which had them until recently when many of them were removed due to copy right problems), would this be a better idea?

Nejsrdečnější pozdravy. Europan guy (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, German city flags are relevant on the List of German cities, but not in other lists per MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE ↗. On the list of European Union cities, they are rather distracting and have no meaning. You cannot compare world/continental lists with national lists. FromCzech (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:VAR

Hey there. Just so you know, MOS:VAR edits like Special:Diff/1349258993/1352478297 ↗ are pretty much futile: the first next VisualEditor edit of the infobox will reformat the code to the format set in Special:Diff/1324377906 ↗. It's not the guy's you're fixing after fault, it's systemic. Read more on the issue here ↗. Unsure what to do about it. Ponor (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, thanks for the information! FromCzech (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Milada Špálová

Ref your edits to this article. I have removed the birth and death dates from the Intro as these are optional and I see no point in repeating info that is already in the Infobox and in the main body of the text. Re your addition of the birth records, I do not speak Czech but I cannot see the relevant record on the page cited. Which line does it appear on please? When adding or deleting citations, please ensure that the remaining citations appear in numerical order at the end of the paragraphs. Finally, and most importantly, while I understand fully why you have deleted the academic thesis citation, this now leaves the article with no citations for some paras and it is only a matter of time before another editor comes along and inserts (citation needed) or similar. Without that source I would not have written the article as I don't believe in writing stubs.Roundtheworld (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{re|Roundtheworld}} 1. The birth and death dates in the lead are standard for biographies, just look around the top articles on Wikipedia. See also MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE ↗.
:2. Birth records – On page 68 of the book (archive image No. 70) there are five lines, Milada is on the fourth. The first column is the date of birth (''31. května'' = '31 May' 1884), the second column is the date of baptism (8 June 1884), the third is the person who baptised (the dean), the fourth is the name of the baptised person, etc.
:3. Private research is not an allowed source, sorry. Most of the article is well-sourced anyway and would not be a stub. For the rest, you either need to find a better source or someone can delete it. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::From MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE
:::Dates of birth and death (if found in secondary sources – do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them). If specific day–month–year dates for birth/death are given elsewhere in the article, then a simple year–year range may be sufficient to provide context. Roundtheworld (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::And yet it is standard to have them there whenever they are known. FromCzech (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::The Czech article gives the page as 69 not 70, hence my confusion.Roundtheworld (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)