Talk:First Republic of Czechoslovakia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second sentence claims that "Several ethnic groups and territories with different historical, political, and economic traditions had to be blended into a new state structure."
Was it in fact necessary, or does this statement just represent the viewpoint of those in charge after WWI? Were no other solutions possible or feasible?
Contents |
[edit] Possible move?
Since Republic of Czechoslovakia deals exclusively with the First Republic of Czechoslovakia, shouldn't this article be titled History of the First Republic of Czechoslovakia or (like the other histories) Czechoslovakia: 1918–1938 ? - TheMightyQuill 10:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
First Republic of Czechoslovakia → Czechoslovakia: 1918 - 1938 — Consistency with other Czechoslovak History pages, avoid confusion with Republic of Czechoslovakia TheMightyQuill 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
- Oppose Name actually used; disambiguation by dates should be avoided. If consistency is a worry, write the article on the Second Republic, ending March 1939, and retitle the others. Septentrionalis 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious and Strong Support. It will align the history series and end confusion between Republic of Czechoslovakia and First Republic of Czechoslovakia, two differently oriented articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support weakly because there are not two but four articles dealing with the same period to varying degrees: First Republic of Czechoslovakia, Republic of Czechoslovakia, History of Czechoslovakia, and Czechoslovakia. The title "Republic of Czechoslovakia" reads as a constituent of "Czechoslovakia." However, "First Republic of Czechoslovakia" could be seen as a sub-article of "Republic of Czechoslovakia" or "History of Czechoslovakia." "Czechoslovakia: 1918 - 1938" is consistent with the other history articles and the title makes it slightly clearer that it refers to history rather than the state itself. (Did that make sense?) — AjaxSmack 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support - reasons stated. TheMightyQuill 05:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
Why should disambiguation by dates be avoided? History of the United States does it, so does History of Poland. Still that's beside the point. This article is on the history of the First Republic of Czechoslovakia. The article Republic of Czechoslovakia is on the exact same topic, but is formatted as a country article, rather than a history article. If an article on the Second Republic were to be written, the Republic of Czechoslovakia article would have to move to the namespace currently being used by this article. If you prefer History of the First Republic of Czechoslovakia that's fine, but it sounds a little long to me. TheMightyQuill 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Disambiguation by dates is avoided, where feasible, because it is less informative to the reader and less likely to be found in searches. I'm not sure what American articles you are thinking of; Progressive Era does not use dates, nor does its fork, Fourth Party System. Septentrionalis 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said, by dates or not by dates is beside the point. If you think History of the First Republic of Czechoslovakia is going to return more searches, I'm more than open to it.
As for the History of the United States, I was referring to these ones:
- History of the United States (1776–1789), History of the United States (1789–1849)
- History of the United States (1849–1865), History of the United States (1865–1918)
- History of the United States (1918–1945), History of the United States (1945–1964)
- History of the United States (1964–1980), History of the United States (1980–1988)
- History of the United States (1988–present)
Further examples:
- Canada: History of Canada (1945-1960), History of Canada (1960-1981), History of Canada (1982-1992)
- France: France in the nineteenth century, France in the twentieth century
- Ireland: Ireland 1691–1801, History of Ireland (1801–1922)
- Portugal: History of Portugal (1578-1777), History of Portugal (1777–1834)
- USSR: History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985), History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)
- Czechoslovakia: Czechoslovakia: 1945-1948, Czechoslovakia: 1948-1968, Czechoslovakia: 1969-1987, Czechoslovakia: 1987-1992
The best example is something like History of Poland (1918–1939) which has a corresponding country article Second Polish Republic, and History of Poland (1569–1795) has Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, History of Poland (1945–1989) has People's Republic of Poland. See what I mean?
- Those are prime candidates for merger. In this case, First Republic of Czechoslovakia is clearly distinct from the Republic of Czechoslovakia which would be comparable to History of Poland. Septentrionalis 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know it's weird, but a lot of the former counties of in Europe are divided like this: German Democratic Republic& History of the German Democratic Republic, History of Poland (1945–1989) & People's Republic of Poland, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth & History of Poland (1569–1795), Soviet Union & History of the Soviet Union for example. I'm not opposed to merging them, but there is surprisingly little overlap between the two articles. -TheMightyQuill 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
But again, as long as this article is distinguished more clearly from the country article Republic_of_Czechoslovakia, I don't really care what you call it. - TheMightyQuill 07:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how they can be confused; but then I don't see why it's a problem. Both articles are historical, after all. Septentrionalis 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Two articles about the first republic of Czechoslovakia, one is called Republic of Czechoslovakia the other First Republic of Czechoslovakia and you can't see how their names could be confusing? -TheMightyQuill 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
