This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Czech Republic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Strange, I have never, ever heard of this being called anything other than Carlsbad. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

me neither -- and last time i looked, it was indeed Karlsbad. i suspect User:Wik or one of his more recent socks. 72.235.246.80 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad or Carlsbadt is used in historical Latin writings. Again, English Wikipedia should at least 'remember' the old latin name that monks used for centuries. --IEEE 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Carlsbad, New Mexico and Carlsbad, California, in the United States, and nearby Carlsbad Caverns National Park take their names from Karlovy Vary. is plain hilarious. I'll make a request to move the article. Many Czech websites written in English use Carlsbad anyway, quite a testimonial that they don't consider this obsolete or politically incorrect. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia does with all the historically German areas stolen from Germany and Austria at the end of World War II, in which at least 15 million Germans were expelled from lands they had lived on since the Middle Ages, it does everything it can to hide the fact these were German lands. That also goes for Memel, Konigsberg, Danzig, Stettin, and the entire Baltic Coast of what became Poland in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:888E:3900:15CF:E66C:C437:63A2 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions against consensus are very unwikipedian [1]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done against consensus? That is not against consensus, that would be bringing up the vote again with evidence seeking a new consensus. An action against consensus would be if I unilaterally moved this article back to Carlsbad, as someone did to the original Carlsbad article. Antman -- chat 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, this one is good [2]. He will push his POV and german equivalents all over the wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this belongs here... how? Personal attacks aren't helping you. Antman -- chat 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, personal attack ? Huh. Your actions on wikipedia are not personal you must be ready that they will be reviewed by other editors. Report me once or twice more if you wish. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to; you have already proved that you are both not above personal attacks, and that you are not willing to work with other editors; you only wish to push your own biased view of history, and if someone disagrees, you instantly begin to attack them; that is not an attitude that is welcome on Wikipedia. Antman -- chat 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, may I ask since when is 'Prague' a German equivalent? 'Prague' is an English name; the German form is 'Prag'. I would push for 'Tantsic' instead of 'Danzig', as it is an older English equivalent, but I doubt that it would get any support. I support Stettin because the current form 'Scseczecezeczecsin' I can't, and most Americans can't pronounce. Lastly, the German equivalent of this city name is 'Karlsbad', I am pushing for 'Carlsbad', for which several areas in the United States are named. Antman -- chat 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27x Karlovy Vary (or alternative spelling) and 3x Karlsbad (Turkish, Deutsh, Nederland) which we can count with. There is no doubt about number of use. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is asking to change it to Karlsbad, we are asking for Carlsbad, which is the English name. The Interwiki is irrelevant, what Hungarians or Serbs call Karlovy Vary does not matter on the English wikipedia. Antman -- chat 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki was always and still is important part of discussions. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] German Karlsbad, also spelled Carlsbad, spa city, Západoceský kraj (region), western Czech Republic. The city lies along the Teplá River where it flows into the valley of the Ohre River, 70 miles (113 km) west of Prague. The surrounding highland areas were once subject to volcanic activity, which accounts for the thermal springs in the vicinity. Of more than a dozen active warm springs, the best-known and hottest, Vrídlo

There is no doubt Carlsbad is a spelling of german Karlsbad and that Karlovy Vary is proper name of the article. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Britannica is never, ever wrong. If Britannica says something to be true, then there is absolutely no possibility that anything else may actually, in fact, be true. I could point out, of course, that Carlsbad is linguistically much more similar to what it would be in English ('Carlsbath' or 'Charlesbath') than 'Karlovy Vary'... pointing out that most English speakers have no idea how to even pronounce that let alone know what it could possibly mean. Antman -- chat 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore encyclopedia Britannica then you are making original research. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not; original research came about when someone went 'hey, let's call Carlsbad 'Karlovy Vary'. Antman -- chat 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not an original research, at first it is an official name, at second it is the name of the entry in encyclopedia Britannica, at third Duja provided exhaustive google test. Also encyclopedia Britannica clearly states that Carlsbad is a spelling of german name Karlsbad. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what did Britannica state was the official name of the city in 1945? Antman -- chat 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know why 1945 would be so important. WP:NCGN states that 1993 should be considered as a limit when looking for current name. Or am I wrong? BTW:

• Jan–May 1945 as a part of the nazi Third Reich: Karlsbad
• May-Dec 1945 as a part of free Czechoslovakia: Karlovy Vary

However, I can't see Carlsbad either. But that are local names, aren't we talking about English name (if some different of the Czech one exists in modern context)? – Yarp ^Talk 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to all, although I'm not an editor on Wikipedia I couldn't miss the heated debate around the nomenclature for this article. I'm not an expert on the subject but I'd like to share my point of view.

When I travelled to Karlovy Vary, indeed population there knew it as Karlovy Vary, our tourist guide (from Spain) named it Karlovy Vary and the first time I knew of Karlovy Vary (I'm native Spanish speaker) was as Karlovy Vary. Without doubt this is its official name.

However, the naming conventions sate "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists"

Attaching to this, and although the CORRECT and OFFICIAL name and with which I personally agree more, the correct wikipedian nomenclature (in case all or most English-speakers know it as so) should be "Carlsbad".

So here we should make a comparison between official and "more commonly known in English" names.

Here has been stated that "Carlsbad" is not only the name by which ost English speakers know Karlovy Vary, but accurately, it is closer to what it would mean in English both phonetically and grammatically i.e. to most English Speakers "Karlovy Vary" doesn't even give a clue to English speakers about a possible meaning of the name, (which in my view nonetheless would make it perhaps more interesting to discover the reasons of that name, or would at least broaden their knowledge by letting them know "Carlsbad" or "Charlesbath" in a different language and which besides is official) while "Carlsbad" does give them a closer clue as it is directly tied with their native language.

It has been stated as well that "Karlovy Vary" is the official name and that most nationalities including the very same Czech know it as as so, which is true.

So here is my conclusion:

It would be more wikipedian to name the article "Carlsbad", adding into it the fact that Karlovy Vary is its official and more recognized name throughout the world and in the very same Czech Republic.

But it would be more "officialy correct" to name the article "Karlovy Vary" as it is after all the way the natives call it and the way most in the world know it.

So it's matter of deciding wether to attach to Wikipedia's rules by attaching strictly to naming conventions giving priority perhaps to a "dogmatic" edition of wikipedia that would remain more wikipedian of course or leting the article be named "Karlovy Vary" with "Carlsbad" redirecting to it for English Native Speakers not to be unable to find the article they're searching for.

My personal choice:

Naming it "Karlovy Vary" - Even though it is more wikipedian to name it "Carlsbad" it becomes unofficial nomenclature. Also, lets take into account that the conventions apply to "English Speakers", not to "English Native Speakers" (arguably one should overunderstand that it is refering to the majourity of Native Speakers, though) and... how many non-native English speakers exist on these days? Applying relativity we could say that "the majourity of English speakers" is not even native-English speaking, or at least so they say will be one day. But well, that's not the point, the point is that, even if it's more wikipedian to name it "Carlsbad" it's perhaps, in my view, a bit misinforming due to the present situation of the official name of the city.

I personally like more "Karlovy Vary" because we're talking about a Czech city here and "Carlsbad" is "too anglo-saxon" for my taste. (Just giving my personal point of view).

So... it's just matter to decide what is more important: Attaching to wikipedian rules or putting the oficial information over wikipedia's rules forcing English speakers to call Karlovy Vary what probably they know as "Carlsbad" and to keep in mind its name, although they might know it as so, is not "Carlsbad" but Karlovy Vary.

It's more dogmatically wikipedian to call it "Carlsbad", but it is more official to call it Karlovy Vary. Should this be an exception for naming conventions in sake of stablishing an official nomenclature for any language?

Let's talk about what's more important to do, if it's more important to keep wikipedian, then, may the name be "Carlsbad" but, if it's more important to make Native English Speakers used to call it karlovy Vary, then, lets call it Karlovy Vary.

Naming it "Carlsbad" and stating that its official name is Karlovy Vary, would let the Native English Speaker readers decide by themselves wether to call it by the most common name in their countries or by its official name.

Personally I think that in this particular case it would be better to make people acustomed to call this city Karlovy Vary because it's its actual name, the name by which most people know it regardless of nationality and in my view it would be good to foment the disuse of a nomenclature that does not apply to the present reality. Like making "an official international name" This is just what I would personally like.. Besides... perhaps it would also avoid ambiguity when referring to other "Carlsbad"s Native English Speakrs might know or find in their Nations or other more germanic nations (to which Carlsbad suits better).189.141.62.172 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma[reply]

I can't resist adding my two cents to this debate. Karlovy Vary is definitely the official and local name of the place these days. That said, to the extent most English speakers think or speak of it at all, they would think of it as Carlsbad. That is the search they would type if they were searching for it from scratch (as opposed to linking from another page). The modern convention in atlases, however, is generally to use the local/official name, even when the atlas is otherwise in English. This is a matter of courtesy and respect to the local population. The same logic probably applies to newspapers. On the other hand, over the long history of the place, and especially during its pre-World War I heyday, its official name was generally Karlsbad, and that transferred over to English as Carlsbad. I'd say that is still the preferred English usage. Most Americans probably haven't heard of the town in either form, but those who have are much more liklely to recognize Carlsbad. The same is likely true of other native English peakers. As someone else pointed out, it also makes more etymolgical sense in terms of an English speaker being able to decipher the meaning of the name. Following the Wikipedia rule, the English article should be entitled "Carlsbad." That said, since Wikipedia is very good at identifying alternatives and shunting readers to the article they actually want, it's probably no great problem if someone typing "Carlsbad" in the search box ends up at Karlovy Vary. 167.102.231.183 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Lloyd S.[reply]

"to the extent most English speakers think or speak of it at all, they would think of it as Carlsbad." - really? Most English language texts from the last fifty years call it Karlovy Vary - I would expect most English speakers nowadays would be unaware it had another name. We should be using what English speaker are reading elsewhere; every major English-language encyclopaedia uses Karlovy Vary, are we writing for a different audience? Usage is the important factor per Wikipedia policy, not speculation about etymology or vague presumption of preference.

"The modern convention in atlases, however, is generally to use the local/official name, even when the atlas is otherwise in English." - this is also incorrect. The overwhelming majority of English-language atlases will use Munich, Prague, Rome, Warsaw and Moscow. These are not their local names, and it is telling that these same atlases will use Karlovy Vary, Koblenz and Trento - all places which also have English exonyms, but which have fallen into relative disuse in English compared with the endonym. Knepflerle (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Karlovy Vary, they told me that Peter the Great had studied carpentry there... does anyone know about any official source supporting this claim? 189.141.62.172 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma[reply]

Someone (User:Darwinek) thought it fit to include this article in the WikiProject Germany. As This Wikiproject is not about contemporary German towns or regions but on topics that are related to Germany, anybody who removes the tag will at least need to give reasons. Otherwise the removal must be regarded as an act of vandalism. Unoffensive text or character 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue in Balcer's action who, apparently correctly, assumed it as a point of broils. WikiProject Germany fits only and only Germany, not other countries. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not insist on the tag if Darwinek does not. But if you read the tag's text carefully, you will notice that you are not right. The project fits topics related to Germany.Unoffensive text or character 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Unoffensive text or character's edit: m (up to 1945 the town was populated by Germans. So the tag fits, after all, if only historically) 09:16, 28 March 2007" – Is it the WikiProject Germany or WikiProject Germans? I think the first one is true, so personally I don't see any reason for this article to be part of it. Is e.g. the article abou Vienna part of it? Why not, if Germany (in some users' opinion HRE = Germany) was ruled from Vienna for centuries? Were Karlovy Vary part of Germany? Yes, for 7 years, but I don't think any German is today proud of that… – Yarp ^Talk 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Vienna should be a part of WP Czech Republic, because prior to 1918 there was a significant number of Czechs and also WP Hungary because of Austria-Hungary, also WP Germany because of HRE or same language, and of course WP Austira, too many WPs huh ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, 37 kB talk, we should have a NPOV featured article from Karlovy Vary already ... :-/ Wasting time :-\ ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you are saying that the HRE was Germany, Bohemia was part of the HRE, and hence Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary would have been part of Germany for centuries as well. Antman -- chat 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's more LOL I've expected, you can surprise Antman with your logic. Bohemia was Germany, LOL LOL LOL. Yes, it was, but only between 1938-1945. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on User:Yarp's comment that the HRE was Germany, and hence Vienna was part of Germany; therefore, if the HRE was Germany, than Bohemia was Germany for centuries as well. Simple logic. If A and B, then C; else, not C. Antman -- chat 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But please note, that I don't think that HRE equals Germany. It would be the same as if someone implies, for example, that Roman Empire equals Hispania or USA equals Kansas, etc. – Yarp ^Talk 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Additionaly, it should be mentioned that in the time of HRE there was no Germany (as a political entity).

So presumably all those parts of (now) Italy, France, Belgium & Holland, Switzerland etc that were partr of the HRE have been tagged by the Germany Project also? Johnbod 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France was Germany for centuries, didn't you know that? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Related to Germany" is clear to me. This WikiProject can include articles on eg. Namibia, South Tyrol, Albert Einstein or Theodor Herzl. It can also include Gdansk, Prague or Pozuzo, Peru. On the other hand it should not include Italy or France as countries. Were there articles on the history of Italy as part of the Holy Roman Empire, those could be tagged by the Germany Project.

I do not see a problem here. Except, of course, if someone were anti-German and resented the idea of anything being in any way related to Germany. Such a person would, from his or her narrow point of view, of course have a problem with this tag. Unoffensive text or character 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I notice that not even Alsace has a Project Germany tag; I suggest that if that project wants to expand beyond the current borders, it starts with places with a rather closer relationship to Germany than Karlovy Vary. Johnbod 14:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project says that its goal is to improve "articles related to Germany". Bohemia is not a part of Germany. Historically and today, Germans or German weren't dominant in the area. At best Bohemia can be linked to German history, or World War 2. But not modern Germany.Rex 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seem to be a number of people who have difficulties understanding plain English. "Related to" is not the same as "part of". And anybody who claims that "historically ... Germans or German weren't dominant in the area (of Karlovy Vary/Karlsbad/Carlsbad)" should certainly do a lot of reading before engaging in this discussion.Unoffensive text or character 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he does not mind, but I'm borrowing Balcer's rationale: "While the present location of any town cannot be disputed, one could talk endlessly about the degree to which a given town must be impacted by another country's culture to be included in that country's project. More pessimistically, I could easily imagine various nationalists sticking the project tag of their nation all over the place under various pretexts. So overall, while project tags are mostly harmless, why not be on the safe side, avoid controversy, and use only the tag for the country where the town is presently located." Olessi 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at talk:Franz Kafka. Would you want to remove the "Czech Republic" tag? To the best of my knowledge, the Czech Republik did not come into existence until many decades after Kafka's death. Would you want to remove the "Austria" tag because it might contain an implicit nationalist claim that Prague was an Austrian city?

I think the purpose of these tags is improving articles. There will always be people narrow minded enough to suspect nationalism around every corner. But what I see here is a chance of Wikipedians of different nations co-operating on an article that touches the history of more than one country. Unoffensive text or character 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Prague, WikiProject Czech Republic covers Samo's Empire, Czech Lands, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tulkolahten, please be assured that I am not interested in an edit war. But please try to follow my line of argumentation and do not pick out single items and comment them. That will lead us nowhere. You tell me that the project Czech Republic covers Czecho-Slovakia? I do not mind at all. You are absolutely right there. For the same reason, the project Germany may cover Karlovy Vary/Carlsbad. Unoffensive text or character 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably forgot, that Karlovy Vary was never city in Germany! But you should know what Czechoslovakia was. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting tired of repeating the same sentences over and over again, as you seem not to understand them. "Related to" is not the same as "part of". "Czechoslovakia" is not the same as "Czech republic". Unoffensive text or character 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not speaking of a particular town, I was speaking about Bohemia proper. The point is simple. If this is a part of wikiproject Germany, then by the same logic Berlin is going to be part of Wikiproject Russia.Rex 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As an intellectual game, one could probably think of some connection between any town in Europe and any country in Europe. Being conqured by Napoleon would thus qualify towns for Project France, by Wehrmacht for Project Germany, by Romans for Project Italy, and by Mongols for Project Mongolia etc etc. Needless to say, far from helping Wikipedians to collaborate on articles, it would just cause an unholy mess.

Towns are well defined geographical entities, and the only project they should belong to is the project of the country in which they are currently located. End of story. Balcer 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.Rex 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gross simplification. One could say that Strasbourg belongs in Wikiproject Germany because of it's long German roots, but just because the Wehrmacht was in Greece at one point does not make Greece German. Your argument is far too broad and is a logical fallacy. Antman -- chat 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is just fine. Here it is, presented in a more formal way: a town located in country A can be included in the Project Country A, the clear and indisputable criterion for inclusion being the current geographical location. However, if we allow including the town in Project Country B because the town has some connection with country B, it follows that since we have no criterion at all for establishing what a valid connection is, all connections are permitted. Result: the problems I described above will be unavoidable, as different Wikipedians will have different ideas of what a strong enough connection is (and yes, some will claim occupation by the Wehrmacht for a few years as a valid connection). In short, logic says that the only way to avoid a proliferation of project tags is to have clear rules for which tags can be included. The only such clear rule that we can all agree on is: use current country as project inclusion criterion. Balcer 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, the connection between Strasbourg, a city with strong German roots, and with Elmhurst, Illinois, a city where a few Germans lived are the same because neither are in Germany... Antman -- chat 05:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but neither falls under Wikiproject Germany. Johnbod 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Balcer: What would be the problem if a town, region or person were included in more than one project? You were the one who had the good idea of including Karlovy Vary in the Germany project. You must have had reasons for doing so. I take it that they run along this line: Karlovy Vary is a town with both Austro-German and Czech roots. Therefore, why not include it in both projects. These projects do not put a stamp on articles that says: "The subject of this article rightfully belongs to Germany (or the Czech Republic) and nowhere else". It is simply a means of identifying articles that are "related to" this country. No nationalism involved, no revisionism, nothing. Along come some people with a vivid imagination who think there might be nationalists misinterpreting these country tags. But, I ask you, so what? Will that in any way change the content of the article? I am still confident that the majority of users are sensible persons and not nationalists. Unoffensive text or character 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was User:Darwinek who included this town (and some others) in Germany project. He has since backtracked on the idea, once I explained my reasoning to him. Let me again restate it: if the criterion for inclusion in a project is that a town is "related to" another country, this criterion will allow any number of tags to be included under various pretexts, since it is so vague and open to interpretation. This will not make editing Wikipedia any easier, but may attract various nationalists pushing their agendas. Let's face it: some people may get a big kick out of puting German flags (very prominent in project tags) on the talk pages of articles about Polish towns, some others might enjoy doing the reverse, putting Polish and Russian flags on talk pages of articles about German towns. This looks like a silly and mean-spirited tactic, but some people will enjoy engaging in it, with all the disruption that will cause. Let's not give them the opportunity.

Look how long this discussion already is. Would you like it to be repeated in various forms on hundreds of talk pages on which people will fight whether a given project is appropriate? I certainly don't. Let's stop this idea here and now, before we create a precedent. Balcer 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is rather that there are a number of people getting kicks out of removing project tags and out of accusing other users as nationalists on very feeble grounds. That there are a number of people who are extremely emotional, narrow-minded and prejudiced and cannot stand the idea of a town's history being shared by two countries. If you put a China tag to the article about my home town, my only reaction would be to wonder what in the world may be the relation between Frankfurt (Germany) and China. And I would be glad to know that there were people in China who devote time and efforts to the improvement of the article on Frankfurt. But, obviously, Karlovy Vary is in this aspect different from Frankfurt. Obviously there are people who want it all to themselves: The town, the article and the town's history. People who have denied that Karlovy Vary was in any way "related to", as the project tag claims, Germany, just because it happened to be populated by Germans for a few centuries. Unoffensive text or character 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what you wrote it would appear that for you project tags are not just innocent tools to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, but something much more. You want the Germany Project tag to serve as a marker to proclaim that "this place was once German". The big, prominent German flag displayed in the tag right at the top of the talk page serves this purpose very nicely. This is precisely what I am strongly against. If we start to use tags to make political points like this, the controversies will become endless. Balcer 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me completely. What makes you think so? The opposite is the case: From what you write it would appear that for you project tags are not just innocent tools to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, but something much more. You want the German Project tag to be removed because you think I want, if only symbolically, to take away Karlovy Vary from the Czech people. But I am not making a political point. I am making a historical point.

If you are in any way interested in continuing this discussion, I suggest that we do it in the relative privacy of one of our user pages. Please believe me that I am very far from being a nationalist and that I want to understand your point of view, as you are arguing (as opposed to some others here) in a very reasonable way. Unoffensive text or character 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I believe this conversation needs to move to a more frequented venue. To accomplish this, why don't you add the Project Germany tag to Talk:Vienna? That great city, obviously of huge importance to German culture, and with such close ties to Germany, and 100% percent German speaking today to boot, for some reason has been omitted from Project Germany. Do something about it, include the tag there, and see what the reaction is. I am curious myself. Balcer 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in tagging any articles and I have said so. I merely question the grounds on which the Germany tag was removed. And I think that it's for the people who work on the projects to decide which articles they wish to include in the scope of their work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unoffensive text or character (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It seems that if this article fits under WP Germany, it would fit under History in relation to Germany. Does this article significantly in Germany;s history? Kingjeff 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For modern Germany (1871-), not so much. The Carlsbad Decrees were released in the town when Bohemia (as part of the Austrian Empire) was part of the German Confederation. The town had a German-speaking majority populace for most of its history; whether that or its inclusion as part of the Holy Roman Empire makes the town worthy of WP:Germany is debatable. I would like to be an optimist regarding project tags as Unoffensive text or character is, but nationalist debates I have observed on Wikipedia lead me to agree with Balcer's rationale and concerns. Olessi 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of Vienna is a rather weak argument for not including Carlsbad in the German Wiki project. Whether or not Carlsberg is tagged that way should be able to stand on its own merits. There is enough room for the article to be included as part of both the Czech and German wiki projects. Quite simply Germany and Czechoslovakia share some history – that's fairly obvious. Including the city as part of both projects is legitimate as it acknowledges this shared history and helps create an appropriate context for understanding. Tagging Kingjeff with a 3RR violation over this was a pretty cheap shot and a poor man's way out of a proper debate over the issue. Tsk! Wiggy! 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I bet if one tried hard enough, one could identify a shared history between any city/country pair in Europe. If we allow arbitrarily defined "shared history" we get: 1. proliferation of projects, with each page tagged with literally dozens of tags, making the whole idea behind projects useless, since categorizing is only helpful if categories are reasonably restricted 2. endless discussion about how strong the "shared history" is and whether it warrants a tag. 3. truly outlandish project tags (Legnica tagged as in Project Mongolia and Vienna in Project Turkey spring to mind). On top of this we are almost certain to get nationalist editors adding project tags solely to stick the flags of their nations all over the place. This to me is clearly a recipe for disruption and disaster. I rest my case. Balcer 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples don't wash. The conflict between the emerging nation states of Germany and Czechoslovakia is central to the history of the region (Sudetenland) that includes Carlsbad - its not a question of "trying hard enough". For a substantial part of its history Carlsbad was a "German" city and it was materially affected by the attempt to create first a united Germany and later a Greater Germany and its character was changed as a result of the the expulsion of Germans from the Sudetenland after WWII. Today the place is Czech. Editors from both projects could make useful contributions towards creating a better article. In this case tagging it as part of the Germany project simply draws editors knowledgeable about that aspect of the city's history. Wiggy! 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These all also aply to other Austro-Bohemian, Austro-Moravian and Austro-Silesian towns, so why I can't see the WikiProject Germany Tag in Liberec/Reichenberg, Opava/Troppau, Brno/Brünn, etc. Weren't they important enough? – Yarp ^Talk 07:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Could be. But that kind of argument is weak, don't you think? They could be left out/missed for any number of reasons. The counter is that they likely deserve similar consideration based on their own individual merit. Wiggy! 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My input. I think it should be possible to tag places with various project tags as nothing is black and white but (as we discussed with Balcer earlier) for now it would be better to include only tag of a country which currently administers such place. Cities such as Karlovy Vary should be tagged by e.g. WPP German History or German Culture if such projects would appear in the future. And then it will be no problem with that as it is much less controversial solution and also fair, as many towns e.g. in Sudetenland were and are strongly influenced by German culture, architecture etc. (it is not a matter of pertinence to same state). In the same way it would be correct to tag Armenian villages in Turkey with WPP Armenian culture, Danish municipalities in Germany with WPP Danish culture and Polish municipalities in the Czech Republic with WPP Polish culture. Regards. - Darwinek 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. – Yarp ^Talk 08:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about the culture of the place or ownership of a piece of turf. Read the preamble of the wikiproject article and consider just what a wikiproject is. An article can bear a number of tags and in this particular instance German and Czech tags look to be those that would most likely bring together editors with the knowledge or resources to make useful contributions to shaping the article. Who currently holds title over the geography is moot in that sense. Sure its not a black and white thing in many instances, but if a tag can lead to the improvement of an article by drawing the notice of a particular group of contributors, it deserves fair consideration. Wiggy! 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume WikiProject Germany tag in the Czech cities as just a nationalism. Czech cities were in Germany only between 1938-1945, do you refer with that tag to this period? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd characterise that sort of assumption as being offbase. Sure, the area was literally part of Germany for only a brief period. To claim that a city which was clearly culturally German for a much longer period than eight years is disingenuous and is an excessively narrow interpretation of an extended period of history. Again, its not about claiming the place for one country or the other, but making a clear invitation to potentially interested editors to improve the article based on their knowledge, experience, and resources. The broader approach can provide necessary context and help manage POV problems. It seems ironic that the historical problem, if you will, is being re-fought in an open source encyclopedia. Nobody is trying to colonize the Czech Republic by way of Wikipedia. Its about people sharing knowledge. Nationalists will end up being eaten by other editors as part of the process. ;) Wiggy! 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will agree that Canada would be a part of WikiProject France, WikiProject England, WikiProject Denmark, would you? That's how you see that, but that tag is inappropriate! Even Gdansk is not a part of WikiProject Germany! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon. That's nonsensical and out of context. You might want to try a cogent argument. And for the record I wouldn't think twice about making the article about POW camps in Canada, where a significant number of German prisoners were held during WWII, part of Wikiproject Germany, simply because there may well be editors who are part of WP:Germany who could add useful material and an interesting, non-Canadian, non-Allied perspective - enriching the article in the process. Its all about the context of the thing, not about planting a German flag in northern Ontario or Alberta. Wiggy! 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this process entirely differently and much less optimistically. If the precedent is set here, the unavoidable result will be to have every single village and town in Czech Republic, Poland, Austria, and chunks of Switzerland, France, Netherlands and Denmark tagged with Project Germany tag. Nationalists (yes, they do exist) will see to it, sadly enough. Net result: sure a few articles might be improved by someone stumbling upon them from browsing through Project Germany, but the number will be small. I have been around Wikipedia since 2004 and made over 10,000 edits, but I can hardly recall every using any Project to guide me in what to edit. There are countless ways on Wikipedia to locate articles one is interested it and could contribute to, without relying on projects, especially Project Germany which with this proposal would anyway grow so huge as to become almost useless.

Now, compared to these small benefits, the cost will be the hundreds of rather annoyed Wikipedians from all around Europe, who will all wake up one morning and see a bright shiny German flag planted on the talk page of their home town. Given the heated discussion here, they will not take kindly to it. We will have rancor, controversy, and discussions like this one repeated on countless talk pages. This will happen not because these non-German Wikipedians are nationalists, but simply because in nearly every country in Europe the relationship to Germany is, so say the least, delicate. Many of these people will see the flag planting as a deliberate attempt to stake a claim, even if only in the virtual reality of Wikipedia space, that these towns and villages are somehow German. Most of them will not take kindly to it.

I am realizing more and more that the whole idea of projects, while well meant, has been put on Wikipedia rather hastily, without any rules on what the scope of a project should be, and how many articles it may contain before it ceases to have any practical use. I think this discussion should be moved to a more general page, where some kind of overall policy on these issues can be formulated. Balcer 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed changing the name of this entry to Carlsbad/Karlsbad. I was backpacking in the Czech Republic earlier this year and every map or guidebook in english (i.e. when Prague = Prague and not Praha) had this town listed as Karlovy Vary. Local tour guides and info. desks had this referred to this town as 'Karlovy Vary', and to be honest I never knew this town was a.k.a Carlsbad/Karlsbad until I stumbled upon this wiki entry and the debate within. The 'official website of the czech republic' has 3 search results for 'Carlsbad', none for 'Karlsbad' and 63 for Karlovy Vary.

I'm not sure how this is done for cities, but for football (soccer) teams this local language vs. english (german?) issue is solved by using whatever the english website of the team (city) uses. (i.e. the case of Czvena Zvezda vs. Red Star Belgrade).

In this case the official english website of this town uses the term 'Karlovy Vary' in the browser title and with the largest text as a page title, with both 'Karlsbad' and 'Carlsbad' in smaller text. I'm happy for the wiki entries for both Karlsbad and Carlsbad to redirect to this main page (of Karlovy Vary) - which is as it is now. I don't really understand why this is an issue as it is makes sense as it is now. Gresszilla (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the KV International Airport was built in the 30's [4], while the russian noveaux-riches are from the 90's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.71.97 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Yep, the source they have used (ref 2 in the article) mentions nothing of russian mob using real estate to launder money, or about creating an airport. All the article mentions is that the major requested an investigation and report by the interior ministor. I propose deleting the text block about the mafia building their own airport to run flights to moscow and back. Since the article is from Jan 2005 (!!) I think if this is true surely a more recent source can be found with the results of any such report (or ANY such source) if people want this airport story to stay in the wiki. Will give it a few days for someone to find a new source before deleting/rewording the paragraph 220.239.248.137 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The airport used is the one built in 1930 and having the status of international airport since 1936. The flights operated to this date are Prague, St Petersburgh and Moscow. [5]. Given its large capacity and proximity to the center any rumours about another airport being built close to this relatively small city seem to be an urban legend and no application has been filed with and investigated by the authorities. 90.129.51.213 (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I deleted it - stayed long enough, IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.161.89 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday i returned from Czech after being visiting this city. We bought a souvenir cup with the city's name in different languages on it including Carlsbad.
In my opinion history should be IN the article, not reflecting in the name of the article. The name should reflect the current place in the current language. I guess it is Carlsbad but i am Dutch and we don't have a distinct Dutch name, we use the German Karlsbad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloCalipari (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable. The town is called Karlovy Vary in English; we're lucky to have the proof of a Hollywood movie, just watch the movie "Last Holiday", which has many scenes in the main character's dream vacation spot: Karlovy Vary. --Bobak (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karlovy Vary is perhaps better for Czech nationalist reasons, but it is unwieldily and strange in English. English is my native language, I've only ever heard the town referred to as Carlsbad (a random movie is not the final say on the English language) We have a town nearby named Carlsbad named after the one in Europe. "Carlsbad" may be Anglicized, and it may be too similar to the German name for your taste, but it IS still historically accurate, and it IS the name in English. Ubudoda (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree on this idea -- it's absurd. Are we going to start calling Bratislava "Pressburg" again, too? How about Gdansk... let's make that "Danzig" again, since you can't have a g and a d next to each other in English! Even better! Let's take Los Angeles and rename it to what it is: "The Angels". Markvs88 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly not at its current name just because of a film, the current name is in current and widespread use. If you feel the name is "inaccurate" you may want to inform most other English-language general reference works of their "mistake": (Britannica, Columbia encyclopedia, Encarta, CIA World Factbook would be a good start), before moving on to the wider English language media (such as multiple uses in the New York Times, the Times (2), the Sydney Morning Herald (2), the Globe and Mail (2)).

We haven't even got started on the specialist English-language academic literature yet - these are all articles for mass consumption by native English speakers. If you have never heard this town referred to by the name Karlovy Vary, this is certainly not for want of opportunity to do so.

In the face of overwhelming evidence of common use in English language texts, personal anecdote and baseless claims of inaccuracy and nationalism don't hack it. Knepflerle (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to go by original names, let's rename Carlsbad, California back to its real name: Frazier's Station. :-> Carlsbad is the German name for the town. The Germans (that is, the Habsburgs of Austria-Hungary) haven't owned the city since 1918. The Germans that remained were expelled after 1945 (Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia if you're interested). Surely, we're not going to rename every ex-Austro-Hungarian city with their prior name? Am I going to see on the Prešov talk page and see a debate to rename it Eperies or Preschau?!? (The German/Hungarian names, no doubt in some older English books & texts...) Markvs88 (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no. Carlsbad is not the German name, it's the traditional English name (even if historically derived from German, but who cares, Prague is derived from French and ultimately Latin). The German name is, of course, Karlsbad. Fortunately, the article already states that correctly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobak. As per: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines alternate names are placed in the brackets with the proper lang template like: {{lang-de|Kalsbad}}. This is how the German version of Karlovy Vary is in the lead and the English one should not be different. The guidelines also state that 10% of English sources must use Carlsbad. The guideline states that you can go ahead and create a Etymology section and of course people can crow about how the city was named after Charles IV (Czech: Karel IV., German: Karl IV, Latin: Carolus IV) (14 May 1316 – 29 November 1378), born Wenceslaus (Václav) in the history. (The dude didn't even use the name "Charles").

Additionally Italics was misused in your version anyhow. --Hutcher (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It got you to fix it, didn't it? Behold, the magic of collaborative editing! --Bobak (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I had never heard of Karlovy Vary until I was vacationing in the beautiful town of Carlsbad, California, last year. I happened to see a plaque along the main street there commemorating the beach city's sister city relationship with some Czech town. It took a lot of reading and research before I figured out that strangely-named (to my Anglo ears) town is the place that I used to hear of as Carlsbad or Karlsbad. My curiosity aroused, I did some some wiki-browsing and discovered that a lot of articles contained links to plain old Karlsbad and failed to distinguish between the Karlovy Vary version of that name and a small town in Germany with the same name. I've tried to remedy this situation whenever I've had a few minutes to kill and could figure out which town an article was talking about. I hope I've guessed correctly while making these corrections. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another visit to that beautiful California town last week inspired me to do some more disambiguation work. Wiki-editors keep adding material to various articles, referring to the Czech town by its customary English name, Carlsbad or Karlsbad. The thought never occurs to them that its article could be known by any other name! I can't believe the nonsense in the discussion above which prevented this article from being known as Carlsbad. But I'm not about to kick open a hornet's nest by suggesting we move the article to where it belongs!

This is the English language Wikipedia and articles should bear titles which reflect the names we call things in English. Never mind what somebody in some other country might call a city. We should call it by its customary English name in our Wikipedia. When I'm speaking another language, I'm glad to use Nueva York or Nouvelle York or Londres or whatever. But if we're speaking English, I call it by its English name! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you call Karlsbad an English name, while it is a German name. As the now Czech city had the German name for quite a while in history, their should at least be a redirect pointing there, you name it, Karlsbad, Bohemia or the like. Karlsbad (Bohemia) exists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for the suggestion. I realize Carlsbad is the preferred English spelling, but I think we've seen Karlsbad enough in our language to be aware of it. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Carlsbad%2C+Karlsbad%2C+Karlovy+Vary&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

Ngrams shows Carlsbad to be the most common name, so I will move it. If it is reverted, please discuss below.

OttomanJackson (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Oppose. This page needs to be restored immediately: it was moved without discussion, against consensus, and using a search engine result as a rationale! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Much as I prefer the English name (see my comments above), a change of this magnitude shouldn't be made without discussion and consensus. Restore! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nobody has mentioned in this discussion yet that all English-language media in the Czech Republic refers to the city as Karlovy Vary. In fact, all Czech cities are called by their Czech names except for Prague. Some here have cited English versions of Czech sites made by people who don't speak English well, but these are professional English-language journalists in the country. They include the country's only English newspaper (that I'm aware of) Prague Post (praguepost.com) and websites such as expats.cz and prague.tv.Djob (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These plums (usually Quetsch) are candied in hot syrup, then halved and stuffed into dried damsons

This needs more explanation. A damson is a small plum. You can't fit half a plum inside a damson, even if you remove the stones of both first. Maproom (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on 25 July 2017 --Frans Fowler (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the text reads "After World War II, in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, the vast majority of the people of Carlsbad were forcibly expelled from the city because of their German ethnicity."

As to the Potsdam Agreement, the text makes plain that "(the parties) agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." As we should all know, in the event many thousands died on the march. It is therefore simply not correct to state that the expulsion took place "in accordance with" the Agreement. Would anyone object to amending the text to read "pursuant to"? In my view, even this would be a whitewash. Theeurocrat (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an explanation for the sudden drop in population from 2013 to 2014 after having been stable for 13 years?

Something significant must have happened.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source for the figures. I have added a citation request. Without a source cited we cannot tell where the figures come from or how likely the figures are to be reliable or even genuine.SovalValtos (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karlovy Vary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217131549/http://www.tvczechia.com/Diashow/KV_en/index.htm to http://www.tvczechia.com/Diashow/KV_en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119155751/http://www.tvczechia.com/KarlovyVary_en/www/links/stadtplan.asp to http://www.tvczechia.com/KarlovyVary_en/www/links/stadtplan.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]