Talk:Prague

Proposed changes

Following the recommendation (of bots) I would like to make lead section more compact,

following the example of Paris, I would make a special section on etymology

of Etymology The name Paris derives..

and remove it from lead, would like find a better photo for a lead. For Paris it is Eifel tower, for Praguit should be either Charles bridge or Prague Castle panorama. (suggestion anyone?)

I would remove 'twin cities' section and replace it by a reference. Few people care about that.

If anyone has objections, please speak now, or forever hold your peace. Petr (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

editing Prague

moved from User talk:Svick#editing Prague. Svick (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Svick

First I want to apologize if I reverted any of you changes without talk.

Only now did I got your message and noticed that youe have done some deletions.

It was not a revert, I may have typed it in again, wondering about my memory

I may have put something back, a map, wondering if I forgot to include it.

Do you have problem with link to Google map? Is there some objection to it in the style manual?

If I would be looking for encyclopedic info about Prague, I would certainly appreciate it. With it's

ability to show photos and street views it provides lot of basic info .

, the list of historical topics in the section

Main article: History of Prague

During thousand of years, the city grew from the Prague Castle and a fort Vyšehrad to the multicultural capital of a modern European state, the Czech Republic, member state of European Union. [edit] Ancient age

had list of events 30 years war, husites, etc

was intended for Lead, which, "may not adequately summarize its contents" it certainly has no summary of history. I just did not get to organizing and placing that info.

So, I am now looking at your deletions - let's discuss it before any other deletions and or reverts OK?

I would prefer to finish proposed changes, before someone else starts rolling them back. Most of my changes concern language, long convoluted sentences and often bad grammar. ed I am not sure, if in addition to that, I have patience to go through 10 changes you did put in trying to divine what you object to from the history.

Let's start with the map. What's wrong with it?

Petr (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a link to a map of Prague is certainly useful, but such links are already included: see the top right corner of the article. If you click at the coordinates, you get to a page linking to various maps of Prague. Wikipedia tries to be neutral, and there is no easy way to decide which map service to use. Also, I don't think a description of a map is very useful – people can see that themselves.

I like to separate my editing, when it concerns multiple sections, into more edits, but you can look what effect did they have combined (at the history tab, select the first edit before the changes and the last edit of the changes and click

”, in case you didn't know that). You notice that I didn't revert your changes regarding language.

Also, I have moved this discussion here, in case anyone else wants to add something. Hop you don't mind.

Svick (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not object to moving the talk here, I did notices that you left the improved language, and yes, I do know about “Compare selected revisions". So, so far no problem.

I do however disagree about inclusion of 'that map', which has the two 'castles' , and their description, which their collection of photographs. It is not essential that it is Google. It is just most efficient way to convey that information.

I was ALSO thinking about replacing the lead photo. Paris has Eiffel, and Prague should have Castle from the bridge. That is the icon of Prague. No reason for a montage, when thousands of Prague photos are everywhere, (including Google maps, where they are geolocated). so? Petr (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But, I have no inclination to spend my time on arguing. So, how do we resolve the map issue? It is one external link and 2, or 3 sentences which give e newcomer instant background on which to see the history is evolving.

I do want to add, that I am not inclined to wastetime my on completing the review of the page (about half done) and adding better photo for the lead, unless I have some assurance that arbitrary deletes of my contribution will stop.

What time-zone are you at? (or should I ask which planet?)

I asked few questions, do I get any answers?

Petr (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You won't get any assurance that someone else isn't going to change or delete what you wrote – that's not how Wikipedia works. I can tell you that I won't revert your changes regarding language or the photo in the lead, but I can't speak for other editors.

Regarding the map – I really don't think adding another link to a map of Prague will make the article better. And a description of a map isn't useful either: people can read maps, we don't have to do that for them. And if you want a collection of images of Prague (assuming the ones in the article aren't enough)? Go to the bottom of the article where is a link to Wikimedia Commons.

As for the timezone, I live in the Czech Republic, so it's CET (UTC+1).

Svick (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

I do not have all the guidelines memorized, certainly not as well as you, but I do know in general how it works. This not my first contribution. We may have met on Britske listy article in the past.

As to 'another' map, please look at the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Paris,_France#Geography there is a map, not even an interactive one.

Try this experiment: Get a guy who does not know Prague (a visitor perhaps) and let him read the description. Then give him Google map link and ask him to find Vysehrad and Castle. They usually get confused.

It is not issue of more photos. Photos on the Google map are geolocated. Those in commons are not. I would add to commons nice flash 10 interactive media of Prague parts (from Prague magistrate) in czech only, though.

How do you feel about 'another map' in the section on Geography, and I would throw in some links to Parks. The Rhododendrons in Průhonice are world unique. Perhaps even custom markers to castle , bridge and Vysehrad. What is so bad on outside link, if it serves a purpose. I would like to use google shortener for that. Perhaps you may help it to get an exception to a black-list? How is that done? Petr (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I am done for now. If you - or anyone - find a mistake, (which is always possible) please let me know. Petr (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Town is not the original settlement of Prague

The first settlements are all on the west side of the river. Unless you like legends, in which case the first settlement is Vyšehrad, but still not Old Town.

(for citation, see Denetz' Prague in Black and Gold) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theurbanmapper (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

not clear sentence

"Founded during the Gothic and flourishing by the Renaissance eras, Prague was the seat of two Holy Roman Emperors and thus then also the capital of the Holy Roman Empire.[6][7]"

I think this sentence is a little bit confused, in particular the part in bold.Jorgecarleitao (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why?

the HRE had no fixed capital city, like France or Engalnd.

Where the the king or emperor located his court that was the capital (pro tempore).

Their where several ceremonail places, like Frankfurt / Main, or Aix le Chapelle, but there was no capital defined by law. --88.152.149.138 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Prague Panorama - Oct 2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, as viewed from the Petřín Lookout Tower. The view is approximately 180 degrees, from north on the left to south on the right. The area on which Prague was founded was settled as early as the Paleolithic age. By the year 800 there was a simple fort with wooden buildings, occupying about two-thirds of the area that is now Prague Castle. Prague was an important seat for trading where merchants from all of Europe settled, and it especially flourished during the reign of Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor.Photo: David Iliff

Prague Montage Image

Can we please keep the montage image I currently have in the infobox?!?!? It gets removed, but the other montage is inferior. It is widely spaced, you can barely see it's contents, there are way to many pictures, and a proper caption cannot be provided. Mine has a simple 6 photos, a caption, isn't spaced and is overall just neater.--Pollack man34 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My Montage

Other Montage

Motto

"caput" means capital not just head. --88.152.149.138 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ancient kings?

there was a celtic tribe named the boii that lived in the area that combined with a german tribe named the rugians to form the bavarian confederation. no need for ancient kings, it's in the roman sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/prague_metro/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Map of the quarters

I would suggest a map showing the quarters of the city (old city, new city, etc.). I've been to Prague several times (great city -- if you haven't been, go!), but don't have the complete knowledge or skill to make such a map. Merely listing the quarters is informative, but doesn't show the relation between the parts of the town. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Districts of Prague has three such maps showing the overlapping administrative/municipal divisions (Prague 1–10 vs. 1–22) and the cadastral areas (old town, new town etc.) – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality ?

The city played major roles (...) in 20th-century history, during both World Wars and the post-war Communist era. - ? Major in Europe (rather not true) or major in Czechoslovakia (the biggest city, rather typical)?Xx234 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this assumes European history or world history in general. Probably based in Prague's surrender to the Nazis, the assassination of Heidrych, Prague's liberation at the end of WWII, the Communists seizing power in Prague, the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution all being considered major events of this period. This is obviously arguable but that's where the claim comes from. Not sure about WWI though, since the war isn't even mentioned in the article body.--MASHAUNIX 15:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Standard Central/Eastern European history. The 'major roles' statement needs sources. Xx234 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

New infobox or separate article?

The Historic Centre of Prague is one of the few UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) without an article with a WHS infobox. This article is included in the category 'World Heritage Sites in the Czech Republic', but it does not include the infobox. It could be added but the article is already very developed and the scope seems to go well behond the historic center. I wonder if it's not better to create a new article dedicated to the World Heritage Site of the Historic Centre of Prague. So my question to the regular editors of this article is: What is more appropriate: adding WHS infobox to this article or to create a new dedicated article?reisfe (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Prague

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Situated in the north-west of the country

Situated slightly north of the center of Bohemia isn't north.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is further north than the vast majority of the country, so I guess it's based in that.--MASHAUNIX 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Serbians living in Prague

There is an error in a "Largest groups of foreign residents" section. Surely there are not 6,019 people from Serbia living in Prague...178.255.168.75 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed You're correct. I found the archived link to the relevant statistics and found that the list was incorrect in a number of instances. I've now rectified the misinformation. Thank you for bringing my attention to the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

1306 BC legend

Please move the story to local legends, but don't pretend you accept the story.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that it does not belong in the history section. If the main articles on Prague's history and timeline are dedicated to actual mainstream historical content, at best this legend only deserves a subsection specifically dedicated to legends. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The List of Bohemian monarchs doesn't include the one.Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the actual proof of it being merely a legend or hearsay? The author, David Gans (1541–1613), who brings down these ancient histories is a very reliable and respectful author of tremendous worth, and almost everything he writes in his histories can be confirmed by other sources. I say that we should keep it.Davidbena (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it's not up to editors to prove that it's merely a legend or hearsay. The only reference being used is Gans's (Gans'?: I hate trying to work out possessives for surnames) own work which is is a WP:PRIMARY source. If there are reliable secondary sources, the content is fine for List of Bohemian monarchs. The breakdown of the reference in the citation contravenes WP:NOR. If there is merit in this 'history', there must other sources to confirm its merit. This article should not be used to carry content that doesn't exist in the more comprehensive list. I'm sorry, but I don't really understand this to be negotiable dependent on editor discretion as policy trumps WP:CON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no contravening of "original research," since the reference simply quotes verbatim the source, which is permitted to do in Wikipedia. Your asking for other sources about events dating back thousands of years is tantamount to asking for other sources other than the primary source (e.g. Hebrew Bible) used to describe the conquest of Canaan, or other war scenes mentioned by classical authors. It is not always necessary to show secondary sources if there are none, but only a reliable primary source as in our case, and by quoting the name of the author and showing the source from which the edit is derived. There is no reason to expunge this pertinent anecdotal, historical reference from a renowned Czech historian, even if his original sources are no longer extant.Davidbena (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We're not discussing using the old testament in referencing itself, or any form of classical texts as references unto themselves. We're not even discussing a chronicler who lived during - or anywhere near - the period he is chronicling: there's one and a half thousand years between the purported historical information and Gans's chronicle. What sources would have been existence and at his disposal from 1306 BCE? This is such a stretch without any supporting RS that it really does not belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

People familiar with Jewish history and chronology can tell you that Czech historian David Gans' overview of history, from the creation down to his present time, is very reliable and accurate. The problem, however, arises with people who may not be familiar with the methods used by chroniclers of ancient history, and with those who cannot read Hebrew, and especially those who may not have the skills for converting dates written in anno mundi into our Gregorian calendar system. Translations are meant to bypass these problems. The record is good and should stay. If, however, you wish to change "Jewish historian" for "Czech historian," that might be a consideration. By the way: Gans does quote a source, and the name given by him is "Burg" or "Borg." Be well. One more thing, if anyone wishes to obtain a confirmation of the Hebrew sources, he may do so through User:Avraham.Davidbena (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Czech translation [1]. If we accept the story, we should quote it also in Bavaria. The source is Spangenberg (?). If he was Cyriacus Spangenberg, he was older than Ganz, born 1528. But he was Christian. Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

History of Bavaria says similar history - Boii were Celts, described by Tacitus.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

They may have, indeed, originally been Celts, but I would know very little about that. The Celts moved from one place to another, as I recall, and were once also around the Black Sea.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hesitate to call three people a consensus but I went ahead and culled the minority, to put it mildly, view supported by a singular source and frankly giving pretty WP:UNDUE[2] weight to the claims, and also went against mainstream sources (i.e. in disputing the Boii/Bohemia claims). I admit I am somewhat surprised this remained in the article for so long. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Foreign residents in the city (2015) ?

Isn't it 2013?Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Actually, no. The sources only covered 2012 (although published in 2013), so I've adjusted it to reflect that the figures are for 2012. Until more recent stats are sourced, the dates must remain as are. Thanks for noticing this anomaly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Prague bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

The subject should be mentioned in History of Prague and Timeline of Prague but not here. Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong picture in the Gallery

In the Gallery section there is a caption about St. Nicholas church of the Lesser Town/Mala Strana, which is often cited as the best baroque architecture example in Prague (cf. ). The night time picture, however, is of St. Nicholas Church of the Old Town (Old Town Square). Fine by any means, but a different one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.126 (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

References

established_date

I kind of agree with this, the infobox shouldn't be too complicated, but shouldn't the answer to the question "when was Prague established?" refer to the city of Prague, not to the castle? The city was established in the 1230s. Before that, there was a castle on the hill, and several sellements along the river, but the city now known as "Prague" did not exist. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, the thing is, the 1230s saw what we now call the Old Town (of Prague) expand (more like gobble up & get bunched up with other settlements), get a royal city charter or whatever it's called in English, and a bunch of walls erected. However, by that time it had already existed for a couple of centuries. What's more, the city of Prague would not exist until 1784 when the various towns of Prague united. Cities which were predated by settlements that have in some form existed for a couple of centuries including well before 1230 (i.e. just like Old Town). I think for the sake of simplicity just listing the initial (and continuous) Prague settlement, the Castle – incidentally not a castle in the high middle ages sense, but a fortified settlement – makes the most sense. Prague as an early "agglomeration" was obviously not founded in 1230, and neither is the granting of city rights to Old Town the establishment of Prague proper. The alternative, listing a whole bunch of frankly useless dates equivalent to 1230 (e.g. founding of constituent parts, royal decrees promoting backwaters to cities etc.), seems rather unnecessary & would clutter up the infobox. Especially as they are discussed in context and detail in the history section – incidentally thanks again for clearing those up! --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

well, as far as I can tell, this is a rather standard situation with medieval cities. The city as an entity is established with its receiving city rights (which happened c. 1230). You are right that there were settlements long before that, but the entire point is that there were several settlements, and no single city of Prague. The "Old Town" is what was known as the city of Prague from 1230 to 1784. After that, it's just a regular case of modern city growth with the incorporation of neighbouring municipalities.

But I am happy with the current revision, it's not a real problem. It is correct that the castle was built in the 9th century, and apparently in the 10th century, there was a market called Praga on the left side of the river (at least if we believe the interpretation of Ibn Yaqub, although I must say I find it slightly dubious to equate fzʾʿʾ (فزاعا) with praga...). It seems that this was later eclipsed by the right-bank settlements and the name was somehow transferred over there, and after 1230, nobody remembered that Mala Strana was actually the place that had earlier been called Praga. I suppose the /g/ in the German name establishes that the name predates c. 1200 (although I would like to know when the name is first recorded outside of the dubious Arabic reference). --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Praga confirmed for the 1110s (Cosmas of Prague, clearly in reference to a "city" (urbs) in Hradčany). The question now becomes, what is the date of the first attestation of Praha (useful to date the /g/ > /h/ shift in Czech)? --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Might be of interest (or not!) – Prague in Latin goes even further back with Widukind of Corvey in Res gestae saxonicae sive annalium libri tres: "Post haec Pragam adiit cum omni exercitu, Boemiorum urbem, regemque eius in deditionem accepit..." I got no idea about how legit the chronicle is, I just remember stumbling upon an article or something saying that it's supposedly one of the first mentions of Prague or whatever. As for the shift in pronunciation, /g/ –> /ɣ/ –> /h/ in Czech is a late 12th/early 13th century thing, at least according to a passing mention in some old 1980s book I got laying around – but some quick googling supports it. Nothing specific about Prague though. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Class assignment -- Additions

I propose the following additions to the Prague page:

Some traditional dishes: Steak Tartare: Seasoned raw minced beef served with egg and toasted bread.

Kulajda: A creamy potato soup infused with mushrooms, dill, and vinegar and served with a poached egg

Sausages: Served with a side of mustard, assorted sausages are popular at all times throughout the day, including breakfast.

Svickova A combined dish made up of beef sirlion covered with vegetable gravy, and bread dumplings

Kolace Small pastries filled with poppy seeds, cheeses, or flavorful jams

Geography: Prague is located at the heart of Europe and in the Northwestern region of Czech Republic. Rich in nutrients, the fertile soil became an important necessity when first forming the city there.

Music:A favored saying is that everyone from Czech Republic is a musician. Music is an important cultural aspect of Prague.

Antonin Dvorak is famous composer known world-wide. First studying composers such as Mozart and Beetoven, Dvorak wrote symphonies similar to their style before defining his own.

Science: While not born directly in Prague, but a short 3 hours outside in Moravia. Sigmund Freud made several important contributions to science and psychology. He wrote many famous publications including The Interpretation of Dreams and The Ego and the Id. Freud worked toward connecting the conscious and unconscious mind through fear and dream interpretation. He is known as the father of psychoanalysis. His fame is what saved him during the days of Nazi Germany, but his writings were burned during book burnings.

Let me know if there are any issues with these additions,

Lsladek (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Lsladek Hey there, I have reverted your edits, although they definitely seem to have been made in good faith! Not only have you started a discussion here, but you have in fact tried to come up with sources, and you were not vandalizing the page in a rude manner – which is great to see! However, to be perfectly frank, it seems a bit too much like a hodgepodge of random trivia at times.

Loads of those sources are not reliable, see WP:RS – just because a website says something doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. Especially if that website is just used as an advertisement, for example. Sometimes there's no sources at all, which is also a no-no, see WP:OR. And to be honest, some of the additions are pretty unencyclopedic, see WP:MOS. Like Sigmund Freud, you even say he wasn't born in Prague at all, so I have a hard time imagining why he ought to be included.

Now I know all this might sound rather disheartening and maybe it comes across as overly negative, but remember that this is an article that has been around for a long time and loads (hundreds? thousands?) of people have worked on it, some of their work was deleted, some was kept... the point is, it's always going to be pretty hard to really add to an article like this.

I've noticed this is a school assignment and I'm not trying to make life difficult for you or anything – in light of the above, wouldn't focusing on a particular part of the article be better? Because right now you've added a bunch of not particularly groundbreaking and sorta throwaway remarks all over a fairly well constructed and sourced article. Like a bit about geography here, another about music being important there, you get the idea.

How about taking a more specific approach, something that's missing in the article right now? Like post-2000 history. Or expanding something that's only mentioned briefly, maybe write about well-known musicians or artists who have worked in Prague in the Culture section. You know, something with more focus.

But don't take my word as gospel, I'm just an editor like you or basically anyone else. All of this might just be my opinion and someone might come along and disagree with me. Although even if that happens, those problems with sources or original research can't really be argued away easily. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

GDP and Purchasing Power Parity

The data on GDP (Nominal) Per capita is very erroneous- it'states €32,300,while the IMF source shows figure €13,494.I wonder how this info could remained in that state for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carerofyou (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The source cited for GDP gives the following information for Prague for 2015:[3]

• Prague region GPD €40,789m
• Prague region GDP per capita €32,300
• Prague region GPD at Purchasing Power Standard €64,902m
• Prague region GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Standard €51,400

Note that the Purchasing Power Standard figures are in Euro not US dollars; they are calculated relative to the EU as a whole. You can tell this by looking at the top of the table in the source, and seeing that the numbers for the EU as a whole in PPS are the same as the numbers in Euro.

The source is cited for Purchasing Power Parity (in US dollars) is an IMF document, which contains the following:

• Czech Republic national currency per current international dollar 13.494 (for 2015)

A more useful page from the IMF for 2015 might be [4]

• Czech Republic GPD local currency 4,595.783 bn
• Czech Republic GPD US dollars 186.830 bn
• Czech Republic GPD purchasing power parity; international dollars 340.571 bn
• Czech Republic GDP per capita local currency 436,103.916
• Czech Republic GDP per capita US dollars 17,728.702
• Czech Republic GDP per capita purchasing power parity; international dollars 32,317.566
• Czech Republic implied PPP conversion rate national currency per current international dollar 13.494

Note that the local currency was the Czech koruna.

To convert the economic figures for the Prague region from Euro to dollars at purchasing power parity, we need an exchange rate for euros to dollars as well as a PPP conversion rate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

On 31 December 2015, 1000 US dollars were worth:

• €921.04 [5]
• 24,914.6 Czech koruna [6]

An average for the exchange rate for the year would be better, but I do not have a source that provides that figure.

The PPP factor for dollars can be calculated using the GDP in dollars and PPP dollars:

• PPP factor = GDP in PPP dollars / GDP in dollars = 340.571 bn / 186.830 bn = 1.823

• Prague region GPD €40,789m
  • multiply by PPP factor (1.823) and divide by 0.92104 to put into Euro
  • €40,789m * 1.823 / 0.92104 =PPP $80,700m
  • The infobox says €41 billion = PPP $78 billion (presumably a different date's exchange rate)
• Prague region GDP per capita €32,300
  • €32,300 * 1.823 / 0.92104 =PPP $63,900
  • The infobox says €32,300 = PPP $62,400, PPP (presumably a different date's exchange rate)

Conclusion, the PPP figures in the infobox are tolerably accurate, though it would be nice to have citation spelling out the calculation used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Prague - Metro + population

Prague - Metro population is grossly overstated. Metro area (km²) is probably deliberately not published. Information about The Central Bohemian Region is also incorrect, compare info on English and Czech versions Prague = 496 km² Středočeský kraj (The Central Bohemian Region) = 10 929 km2 (https://cs.wiki.x.io/wiki/St%C5%99edo%C4%8Desk%C3%BD_kraj) The Central Bohemian Region (Středočeský kraj) = 11,014 km² (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Central_Bohemian_Region) Please correct this misinformation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.63.65 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English, "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". As the article resides at Czech Republic, references to the country should use that term. --Khajidha (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Charles IV not founder of Cathedral

In the section about Charles IV is written that "He began construction of the Gothic Saint Vitus Cathedral, within the largest of the Prague Castle courtyards, on the site of the Romanesque rotunda there." It is at best inaccurate - his father John of Bohemia was the one who gave the order and laid the foundation stone. Charles IV. was, together with his brother and others, only attending the ceremony... so Charles IV "began the construction" in a sense I shot the movie I watched yesterday. English is not my first language so I would prefer someone else to look at it, please. 88.103.227.42 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

David Černý to be mentioned?

Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Twin cities

Hello FromCzech and Sapphorain, maybe there was a misunderstanding between us. So where do you think only nine cities are sourced? I see only one source in this paragraph and it lists 16 cities.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23: It looks like you didn't read mine and Sapphorain's edit summary. The source list all the international relations, not only twin cities twin towns/sister city agreements. For example, you added Guangzhou to the list, but the source states it is only "Memorandum on Development of Cooperation", and nor does Guangzhou consider Prague a sister city; you added Seoul as Seoul is mentioned in the Prague's source, but if you read it further, you will see it marks only a visit of the mayor (and you can check Seoul's international relations to see that Prague is not listed even between Seoul's friendly cities); etc. While this approach encounters some difficulties (differences in translation and perception of the concept of twin towns, Prague's outdated source), I hope you understand now how the list of 10 Prague's twin towns originated. FromCzech (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that these ten cities are based on your own research? This is here on Wikipedia forbidden. And what about the other five cities, they also do not mention Prague on their websites? Anyway, what is on another sites is irrelevant, we are not here to judge which pages are older. But we have to stick to the reliable sources, and that the official website of Prague is. In this case, the paragraph title could be changed to: "Twin and partner cities" or just "Partner cities". Own research is not acceptable. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I just say two things: 1) read carefully Prague's source what is twin town and what's not; 2) don't add any cities which don't list Prague as their twin town, it is illogical and unacceptable to have for example Seoul listed on Prague' page and then click to Seoul#Sister cities and have Prague missing. List of twin towns is an objective thing, not a research. Another sites are not irrelevant, they are references on pages of individual cities (Seoul#Sister cities), where you can go and do a mirror comparison of twin towns list (don't start the madness where every city on the list would have another reference, wikilink to that city is enough). If you don't like the approach, find concensus to change it on all the twin towns lists and cities' pages, and don't deal just with Prague's case. You can start other subsection about other Prague's international relations (I wanted to do it too), but there is not ideal (updated) source to do it in good quality. FromCzech (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

1) Can you better specify how we should determine from Pragues site if it is a sister city, or not? 2) I have to disagree, it is irrelevant what is on other pages, wrong data should not spread (because of this reason).

I do not understand you, for example Phoenix have only agreement between cities and is included, but Shanghai have agreement on Sister City Relationship between Shanghai and the City of Prague - and is not included. Furthermore, the fact that the agreement came just during the visit of a major does not matter, the important thing is that the agreement has been approved. Seriously, we shouldn't judge anything ourselves, let's stick to the source, which list them as partner cities. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The basic academic rule is not to rely on one source and confront sources. The official Prague source is misleading due to its obsolescence (Shanghai still listed as a twin town, although the termination of the partnership was a national cause; promotion of Phoenix (2013) and Taipei (2020) to a sister city not included), inaccurate/misleading translation into English (calling German twin towns agreements "partnerships agreements" because German term for twin town is Partnerstadt and Czech partnerské město, etc.), and you still want to blindly follow what is standing there, which will certainly not lead to an improvement of Wikipedia. Twin towns/sister cities and partner/friendly cities are apples and pears you want to mix, nothing that would be on the site of any other metropolis – people want to know what is what.

I'm pretty exhausted, so if you are still not satisfied with my argument, I will leave the place to others to support or oppose my point of view. FromCzech (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please answer the 1st question? Secondly, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in your opinions, on what is controversial or misleading. We have to follow the sources here, and so far we do not have better than the one from official Prague site. Your private opinions here will not change Wikipedia. So for now, I have to insist on returning the text according to the source. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I was convinced you were just a troll so I stopped the conversation. You tried to intimidate me that I can be blocked and referred to my edits as own research. You wrote that I should stick to the reliable sources, and then refused to recognize websites of other cities as reliable sources. You just did not seem interested in a meaningful discussion at all. The only problem could be in missing references, but certainly not in the current list, so for the last time, I'm asking you to stop vandalizing the section. FromCzech (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalizing is adding content that is not sourced. So I'm asking you again not to change the text unless it's properly sourced. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Editing policy, "information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia:No original research discusses the need to remove original research. Wikipedia:Vandalism: "changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism".Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, you added content that is not sourced; the source clearly says the are "Joint Declaration of Mayors" not relationship between cities, and you didn't provide any other sources to verify. To make you happy, I added one extra source for every entry and deleted that unreliable source so it does not confuse you anymore. FromCzech (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I do not agree that the Prague source is unreliable, this is a certain improvement. The Prague source clearly says "Partner cities" and you don't recognize it, but the Frankfurt source also says "Partnerstädten" (Partner city, in fact: Twin city), and you acknowledge this. It doesn't make sense to me. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Not sure what this edit was trying to convey as I can't think of any English accent where "vague" rhymes with "pog". Prague rhymes with pog in US varieties that merge cot-caught and lot-palm, but what this sentence is presumably trying to convey is that in the 19th century Prague was also pronounced "Prayg", like New Prague, Minnesota still is today? I actually can't work this out from the references given (the limerick one contains an audio file of someone pronouncing vague as "vahg", with the PALM vowel) so we might do well with a better source for this... – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As for "vague", I can only find the "vayg" pronunciation (with the FACE vowel) in the sources I have at hand although wikt:vague has an alternative pronunciation with the TRAP vowel - which still wouldn't rhyme with "pog". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical notations

the return to the basics of solidarity and sound mind, enough with frivolity and wimsy. after years of contemplating the who's who and whats what to no discovery or too late to bring solidarity of sound unity through the introduction of the european community and the reverting back to the old mappings of the old glamor of the ballrooms and chandeliers with open arms and straight forward realness of the times reflecting on the history of discovery overthe waters of the oceans and new lands now lost but found again in a new brighter light of the older views. No need to chnge the names and run with the new name but do plan to state each individually in reverse letter order for the new millenium. year 2022 JenniferRoddick (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To be removed. Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete informations

"In 2017, Prague was listed as the fifth most visited European city" Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The university shooting

Wouldn’t it be better to have that be separate? Seeing as it doesn’t hold much value to the page of Prague itself but rather an atrocity that occurred? Maybe create a seperate page dedicated to that? QuantumZazzy (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Text change.

Hello I would to ask for a change of text. In the early history of Prague there is stated that it was “Prague was also once home to an important slave market.” With source n.34

After I finally got to the page 417 of the source book the only mention of Prague is in a context of Radhanites and that one of the routes they used ran through Prague.

I may be just over exaggerating, but it feels to me like a great reach to call it “an important slave market” just because some traders, who among other things did trade slaves, used a route through the city. Username8471837 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of the 1981-2010 climate data box

Why are you deleting the WMO data, I hope not because those temperatures are lower than you personally want? It's ridiculous to want to hide data...

In my opinion, reliable information is necessary, and the first, big climate box raises doubts in me, because I cannot find a valid source, and secondly, the temperatures of the earlier period are higher than the later ones, it is almost always the other way around. It should be checked whether the climate data for 1981-2010 is correct at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vif7vt (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Prague was a German city for most of it's existence, until the 19th century

"For most of its history, Prague had been a multi-ethnic city with important Czech, German and (mostly native German-speaking) Jewish populations." This sentence, particularly in this article, which deliberately obscures the fact that Prague was a German populated, and German speaking city for most of its existence, amounts to a lie. Prague was a German populated and German speaking city for many centuries until the 19th century, when Czechs replaced the Germans as the dominant ethnic group.

In the article I see a lot of talk about Jews and Czechs, but this extremely biased website covers up the largely German history of Prague. That colors everything, including the creation of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of much of its popualation, the Sudetenland crisis, and the German incursion into the recently created country Czechoslovakia (1919), which had been part of the Austrian Empire for most of its history. 83.166.57.200 (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How old is prague

How old is prague 85.254.74.248 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the History section. Ken Gallager (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)