Talk:History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible move? 

message: move (done by User:Hexagon1). Patstuarttalk|edits 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You also misunderstand. I know that the First Republic is a common term. Please see above: One is to be a country page Republic of Czechoslovakia, the other a history page Czechoslovakia: 1918 - 1938. I don't see why this is so complicated for everyone. - TheMightyQuill 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You also misunderstand. I know that the First Republic is a common term. Please see above: One is to be a country page Republic of Czechoslovakia, the other a history page Czechoslovakia: 1918 - 1938. I don't see why this is so complicated for everyone. - TheMightyQuill 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion