Jump to content

Talk:Zurich/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 5

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Zürich → Zurich – The previous move was against WP:COMMONNAME policy. The city itself uses "Zurich" in official documents as well as the canton. Pratically no institution based there uses "Zürich" in English (University of Zurich, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich Opera House...). Note that "Zurich" is the common spelling in sources that use the umlaut (here are the results with Düsseldorf, Müller and Küsnacht):

Counting all the results, we have:

  • Zurich : 181 + 507 + 63: 751
  • Zürich : 73 + 27 + 9: 109

mgeo talk 09:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Zurich is the clear English name and the English version should be in English. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)‎
  • Neutral I think it is simply a reflex of native German speakers to avoid any Germanic umlaut in English. --Leyo 14:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly. German-speakers think we English-speakers can't cope with umlauts, which is why they tend to omit them on websites intended for English-speakers. They are, however, wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my reasons above. Doesn't need to be discussed again just because the proposer doesn't agree with the outcome of the previous RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I hardly see any English-language news articles using "Zürich", whereas "Zurich" is very well established. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • support move. Amakuru who proposed of the recent move put forward two reasons for putting in a move request. (1) "The umlaut is more often used in English sources" yet evidence presented by mgeo from reliable sources contradicts this. (2) Amakuru claimed that the move in December 2010 was made without consensus and "The only RM on the subject, in 2005". If one assumes good faith then one has to put that down to an inability to look in the archives (see Talk:Zurich/Archive 3#Requested move which clearly shows that most were in favour of the move 9/2( and 2 neutral). So the requested move was initiated with false information. Of those who supported the move Necrothesp arguments are not based on sources instead it is based a personal POV. Similarly the support options by Jeppiz, bobrayner, Երևանցի, Marek, where either for the arguments put forward by Amakuru or along the lines of "more accurate". Martinvl, Cas Liber, Jacob Steven Smith, based their opino on official name, not on usage in reliable English language sources. So I do not think that the recent close reflect WP:AT policy and instead opinions were counted as votes, which is not how consensus is reached. -- PBS (talk)
  • change to Oppose - based primarily on PBS comments above which are more reminiscent of a move review - which has already been done and are therefore inappropriate. Although mgeo has presented accurately a search in only accent enabled sources, alternative searches on accent enabled sources show increasing treatment like any other German name. Plus that consensus has clearly changed on en.wp, and the project now needs a very firm reason to anglicize a name. Some English sources are using the umlaut and that choice is just as legitimate for en.wp as any other source. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • IIo your opinion on the best name ought not be based on whether or not you think another editor should or should not review those who have expressed opinions in a a previous move request that was made less than six months ago (the only reason for holding another RM so soon is if the last one was flawed), nor should you base it on what may happen (wikiepdia is not a crystal ball). -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can reflect procedural concerns in their support or oppose of an RM, and if you can review others' comments, then others can review yours.
The increasing use of "Zürich" in full font sources has already happened. It seems to have been increasing in sources since 2000. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
What is your evidence for the statement "increasing use of Zürich in full font sources has already happened"? Take for example the Swiss exchanges, a search of their English language pages: Zürich 28 for Zurich 166. Their pages seem include many written by their member companies. Pages like the history of the exchange include umlauts on other words. -- PBS (talk)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and previous RMs. Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: As an older Swiss inhabitant I know that the official English name for Zurich used to be Zurich for decades (at least since my first school days ;-), if not for centuries. Have look in earlier editions of English encyclopedias! Before the rise of WWW and especially wikipedia these things have been defined by any language's major encyclopedian works of those days: for example Merriam-Webster (MW) and Encylopedia Britannica (EB).
    Nowadays, MW still has a preference for the traditional Zurich [1], though EB seems to prefer Zürich [2]. However, EB seems to be quite inconsistent, since EB uses on one side Zürich, Bern, and Basel, which are all "new" spellings by following the local spelling (in fact mainly promoted by the Swiss Federal Tourism Office in order to sell them easier aka better, but only since a few years!), but their original English spelling used to be (for decades, if not centuries) Zurich, Berne, and Basle (though this last one is almost oudated). However, on the other side, they still use the traditional English version of Lucerne (instead of Luzern) [www.britannica.com/search?query=lucerne]. This is definitely not a consistent usage by EB.
    I agree that propably in a few years or decades, the official English naming of Swiss cities and towns will probably have changed to the local spelling. But then this should also happen to Genève for example, just for the simple reason of consistency.
    Nevertheless, the Swiss Post (quite a reference as well!) still ueses the traditional English spelling of Swiss city names (not true for Basel).
    There are many other examples of this ongoing movement (I do mind!), mainly because it leads to inconsistent situations, even though I know that I will not be able to stop it, of course. Such as: Grisons --> Graubünden, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes/Inner-Rhodes --> German spelling, Argovia, Friburg, Glaris, Nidwald, Obwald, Schaffhouse, Soleure, St. Gall, Thurgovia. All these used to be the official English spelling (not necessarily derived from the French version! That would be a wrong assumption!) of these cities/cantons. I still learned them that way in the school. --ZH8000 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
ZH8000, per the previously cited UN Manual for the National Standardization of Geographical Names United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - 2006 p129 "The omission of diacritical marks usually does not turn an endonym into an exonym: Sao Paulo (for São Paulo); Malaga (for Málaga) or Amman (for 'Amman) are not considered exonyms. = there's a difference between these full exonyms transitioning (such as Grisons -> Graubünden). I think we all know that there is a tradition of excepting Zurich, per James Murray Luck Science in Switzerland 1967 - Page 5 "... Neuchatel in place of Neuenburg, and Avenches in place of Wifflisburg. Also I have spelled Zurich without the umlaut, and I have used the spelling "Rhine." " but evidently that has already started changing. We can play with parameters, from 2005 ["in zurich" "in düsseldorf" -zürich -dusseldorf] gets 148 to 96, but which is ahead doesn't change the fact that there is no longer agreement in print sources that Zürich is to be excepted. Grove Book of Opera Singers etc. are not "wrong" to use the umlaut. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
But the official Romanization of that name is "Kyiv." --BDD (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The fact we are on requested move 5 within a couple of weeks of reaching a consensus on requested move 4 proves to my satisfaction that there is no correct answer, just multiple points of view, on this subject. Given that, the most important thing for Wikipedia is to pick a name and stick with it. That is infinitely more important that nit-picking over what the correct name should be. Enough is enough, lets get on with making a great encyclopedia. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of people from Zürich

Hi, as imho the section Zürich#Notable people was overwhelming, started List of people from Zürich basing on format etc of that of NYC, so someone may be interested, or not ... and so you do not agree, it's from my side ok to 'restore' the status quo of April 7, 2015, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Template for Zürich

Why is there not a Project Template on the talk page for Zürich? WhiteAct (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Zürich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Zürich. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zürich. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

protet this pace

protect this page for only autoconfirmed users — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Al-Salom (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Grasshopper

Not experienced at this so don't want to edit the main page but the bit in the 'Sports' section about Grasshopper Club Zürich competing in the top Swiss league has not been true for a little while now; they currently play in the second tier. Pantscat (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

"In English, the name used to be written as Zurich, without the umlaut. Even so, standard English practice for German names is to either preserve the umlaut or replace it with the base letter followed by e (i.e. Zuerich)." — No, that is the convention in German when umlauts are unavailable. English doesn't have umlauts natively (though it has the dieresis), and thus has no everyday convention for German umlauts. It is not common knowledge among native English speakers without exposure to German that the "e" is a workaround for the umlaut. Moreover, as the "Name" section of the talk page notes, the "Zurich" spelling is still overwhelmingly dominant in English, so it clearly is not "used to be", it still is written that way today — some modern texts use Zürich, but most do not. Zuerich, on the other hand, is very clearly a niche spelling in English documents. — tooki (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Image Montage in Infobox

Can we please replace this hideous montage in the info box? The image quality is horrendous, and the picture of sunrise tower is vertically stretched in a desperate attempt to make it look like a tall building (real picture for reference), totally unfitting for Wikipedia. Can I suggest this picture which is way more representative and has a decent resolution? Thank you. --Spucky123r (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the montage with new images, let me know what you think. --Spucky123r (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Big improvement, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed it b wrong meh bois —2601:182:4301:4DD0:C903:A5FE:1D0C:5688 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine. What, specifically, do you believe needs fixing? Favonian (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Something Polish

No, this section isn't about a revolutionary new cream you can use to clean! and polish! your car, your boat, everything in your home with. It's about the repeated addition to the lead of something about Zürich and Wrocław. It seems clear to me this doesn't belong there, but the IP user who has added it, three times now (1, 2, 3), hasn't understood my objections in my edit summaries.

  1. The material has been added to the lead, which is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Since the material is not in the article, we can hardly include it in the summary of the article.
  2. The source used in the last two insertions is in Polish, despite my belief that the claim relates to a publication in Financial Times, an English-language paper. While non-English reliable sources are allowed, our Verifiability policy further says that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones. And while I have no doubts about whether Financial Times is a reliable source, I can't say much about the Polish source.
  3. The text added is all but unintelligible, and would need to be converted to understandable English. As it is (since I can't rewrite it, even if I had faith in the content), I'm inclined to remove it anyway.
  4. It appears to say that Zürich was determined to be the second-best city in some (unknown) category, behind Wrocław. Well, that's great, but what is the category? What were the criteria? Who determined this? Who (else) on the planet considers the determination to be notable? In other words, why is this something that should be in the article?

The most recent reversion includes the edit summary "Everything is ok, sources don't have to be in English", which misses several of the points I've been trying to make. If English sources exist (as I assume they must), we should use them. And even if the sources aren't in English, the text absolutely should be. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This information doesn't belong in the Lead and putting it there violates the MOS. The Polish article does discuss what the criteria were but Zurich receives only 2 words in the article and one of them was Zurich! I haven't been able to find an English language article, but I did learn that the Financial Times has 6 different ranking and awards competitions going on right now. So, while ranking second in Small/Medium cities of the Global Cities of the Future evaluation and 16th in the overall evaluation (overall rankings) is probably notable, it only deserves a sentence or 2 in the article.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Tobyc75, the link you provided has led me to this page (in a viewer—ugh). The tables and categories are neatly visible on that page (and preceding pages), and there is information to provide a clean citation. I think (perhaps later today) I'll find a place in the article body and add it. I appreciate your input (und also welcome more from others). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. We can go on and on about WP:DIACRITICS and common vs official name and sources that have umlauts for other things but not this whereas many sources never ever use umlauts at all and yada yada but there's clearly no consensus here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Zürich → Zurich – "Zurich" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources for the city. This can be seen in ngrams; while there are a number of other entities by the name Zurich, all are comparatively obscure, and many are directly related to the city (airport, lake, etc), and the difference is significant enough that these other uses are unlikely to have tainted the results. This matches use by major English-language news agencies; Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, Bloomberg, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, among many others.

This will also make the article meet other aspects of WP:CRITERIA such as WP:CONSISTENCY, with others such as the lake being at "Zurich", having been moved following a recent RM where the possibility of moving the city was raised. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging those involved in the recent Talk:Lake Zurich conversation, most of whom raised the name of the city in their response: User:JIP, User:Necrothesp, User:Spekkios, User:Ale3353. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per nominator --Spekkios (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support i believe the discussion that occured eight years ago was ended with no consensus due to many arguments regarding keeping original name or adopting English name for Zurich. But, as time changes, more English language source now using Zurich (without umlaut) as the Common English or non-German name, even for their website (named as Zurich.ch). 180.254.166.239 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
new IP in Indonesia care to identify yourself? We had an issue with an Indonesia IP acting as a sock in RMs before. Are you one of the participants in the discussion 8 years ago? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:DIACRITICS neither encourages nor discourages diacritics in general, but leaves it up to other policies, particular the policy on common names and on foreign names. If there is more discussion, I hope it could be more focused on evidence for or against a common name. I support based on the common name evidence in the nomination. Other points which were raised have very little weight, in my opinion. 1. Other cities/place names have their own different usage patterns. 2. "Zurich" does not primarily mean Zurich Insurance Group in general English usage, even if it does in local usage. 3. The usage in German or French isn't important; it would matter if there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, which is not the case here. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That's part of the reason why this is pretty much a nontroversy if we're being honest here. Whatever side the coin falls on, it's going to be a redirect that only us nerds pay any attention to. It's almost violently irrelevant. Trigaranus (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
No, not really. If a city has diacritics on its name, that's it, removing them is a mispronunciation and a misspell, and most importantly a dangerous precedent for other cities. Super Ψ Dro 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Can it really be called a misspelling if the city of Zurich tells us that in English (and French) the city is called "Zurich", not "Zürich"? BilledMammal (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
And Armenian and Swahili and Esperanto. Oh wait, they have nothing to do with the discussion here. Like French. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
French is one of the official languages of Switzerland. It's not overly relevant, as we should only be considering what is correct in English, but as we are not doing that I thought it was worth mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Italian is too. So what? (It's not relevant at all.) Please let's stop confusing the issue with irrelevant arguments. Otherwise, we'll be forced to move this page to Zurigo. This is English Wikipedia; the most French usage might come into a discussion is if we were discussing, say, Genève (in which case, German usage would be wholly irrelevant). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Necrothesp and others. Though I do agree it hardly matters due to the magic of redirects, I still think it is more correct with the umlaut. Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Blindlynx: What other sources do you think we should be interrogating? The nominator already linked to google ngrams, which indexes the majority of books ever published in English, and it shows the non-diacritic version being significantly more frequent (even in the modern era where there are fewer technical impediments to rendering the diacritic). Colin M (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As was pointed out the ngrams also catch the insurance company. Otherwise it seems like usage is pretty even between the two looking at google scholar 2,2 million [4] to 2,6 million [5]. I'll strike my notvote based on that—blindlynx 16:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Zurich is not a case like Düsseldorf where the Umlaut is sometimes left out from laziness- it is the standard English form of the name, and as someone has mentioned above, is the preferred Anglicization of the name used by the city abd canton government. See www.zh.ch], www.ethz.ch and other related official sites. The first one reads Welcome to the Canton of Zurich in its English pages for migrants. This is used by people who definitely have Umlauts on their keyboards.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Come on, this is ridiculous. If I search English Google for Zurich sans-umlaut, my top two hits are for the insurance company instead of the city. English-language Google Maps spells it with umlaut too. It's not even the slightest bit uncommon to spell it Zürich, and I don't see any reason why an English-speaker would be confused by that spelling. Is it also spelled Zurich? Sure! In fact, that's the form my spellchecker prefers. The point here is that there's no clear "consensus" in common use, so why switch to something less specific when redirects exist? The city's own branding can't even decide: see "With the Zürich Card, city explorers can enjoy Zurich in all its diversity and save time and money too" as an example I just pulled off the zuerich.com website. (The English-language alt text on the images is spelled "Zürich" in every case.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, both uses are reasonably common in English, so modern spelling in local language should be preferred. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by ORT5000 and Mission Q8

Two users, ORT5000 and Mission Q8, are edit warring to push a highly dubious claim based on an obviously unsuitable source. Despite several users having pointed out that the source fails WP:RS and the claim is unsupported, the users keep pushing it. I've warned both users, and will report any further policy violation by either of them. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reported them both (obviously the same editor) at ANI. Seasider53 (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

And both are now blocked as socks. 86.177.26.80 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zurich/Archive_4&oldid=1233702231"