Skip to main content

Talk:Zürich

Talk:Zürich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Social[edit]

Isn't this section outdated? --E4024 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Be bold. --Leyo 07:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 4[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was moved as requested. Substantial evidence for the competing usages was presented by both sides. Nine editors indicated support for this move; four opposed it. One opposer is an IP; I normally discount IP !votes because they can easily be gamed, and because it is difficult to tell whether that editor has substantial experience editing Wikipedia; in this case, however, the IP voter has a contribution history that appears to represent consistent contributions from a single editor, so I have counted it. Nevertheless, that merely makes the consensus in favor of moving slightly more than 2:1, instead of 3:1. Although there has been a previous move discussion bringing the page to this title, consensus can change over time. In this case, it has. bd2412 T 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Zurich → Zürich – The umlaut is more often used in English sources than not. Furthermore, this page was moved in December 2010 with the edit summary "moving per consensus on talk page" despite the fact that no such consensus existed. The only RM on the subject, in 2005, resulted in an even split of votes and a clear no consensus. Note to closing admin: In closing this, it is my belief that a "no consensus" vote should actually result in a reversion to the previous title of Zürich as this was the longstanding title before the page was unilaterally moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. There was an RM, with a consensus to move, held in December 2010: Talk:Zurich/Archive_3#Requested_move. Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, apologies for that - nobody had put a link to archive 3 in the bullet points of the archive box on this page, hence I missed it. I have now updated that. I have also struck my "note to closing admin" in the nomination above, since the move was carried out legitimately. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    No problem, those things do happen. You may want to strike the bit in the nom about "no such consensus existed" and "The only RM on the subject, in 2005", as those statements were superseded by the 2010 RM. Dohn joe (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the 2010 consensus -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - consensus can change, more importantly objective registration of what is and isn't an English exonym can change. The trend, accelerated by EU integration and expansion, is away from exonyms and towards endonyms - and not just in English. As regards this specific case, there appears to be some movement on whether this really is an exonym (a case of English using French names for important towns in German Switzerland) or whether it is simply a typographic convenience. Peter Jordan, ‎Milan Orožen Adamič, ‎Paul Woodman Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names 2007 p208 lists both versions for English. Naftali Kadmon Toponymy: the lore, laws, and language of geographical names 2000 Page 84 counts Zurich as a deliberate exonym equivalent to Copenhagen for Kabenhavn.
A raw test of all sources for both reliable full-font sources and unreliable basic ASCII sources with typographic limits produces the following:
So the majority of both reliable full-font and unreliable basic-ASCII sources when counted together gives a 20:1 preference for the French spelling in English.
However WP:Identifying reliable sources define "reliable" as WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made" so sources in basic-ASCII are not reliable for assessing whether an umlaut is present or not and basic-ASCII sources need to be excluded from search results. The above search also picks up too many University of Zürich refs which is always written with an umlaut, distorting the search.
So we need a delimiter, such as [ Düsseldorf‎ -dusseldorf] to exclude unreliable for statement being made basic-ASCII sources (and have added in any of cities/city/switzerland/swiss to ensure English only sources):
So there you have it, sources which spell Düsseldorf as Düsseldorf‎ are moving (have moved) to the German spelling of Zürich. I can see below !votes arguing Oppose that we should include basic-ASCII sources which don't carry any German umlauts, but en.wp doesn't count basic-ASCII sources as reliable for umlauts, and oppose !votes on this basis should be ignored in closing RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Harumph! It's København, not "Kabenhavn". Favonian (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. There you go, picked up an OCR error in citing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The statistics In ictu oculi provided are a bit flawed as the results are not always in English (like addresses). The only way to get results in English only is to add prepositions like "of" or "from" in front of the name:
Let's try with the common surname Müller:
Counting all the results, we have:
  • Zurich : 51 + 214: 265
  • Zürich : 29 + 66: 95
Finally, let's compare Zurich with Düsseldorf (using Müller):
So Zurich is about 3 times more common than "Zürich" like Düsseldorf is about 3 times more common than "Dusseldorf". Therefore, both articles follow the common name policy. mgeo talk 10:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Evidence? Zurich 2,150 vs Zürich 3,680 results. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The umlaut is used in English as much as, if not more than, it isn't used, and this being the case and being as it's the correct name it should be used on Wikipedia. Non-use of accents is not "more natural" in English. Unless it's clearly more commonly seen in English-language sources without the accent (which it isn't), it's just lazy. And arguments that "accents aren't used in English" are pure rubbish. They often weren't used when they weren't available on English typewriters and had to be added by hand; with computers there's no excuse whatsoever not to use them. It always strikes me (as someone who always uses accents if they're used in the country of origin) as extreme laziness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • in 1882, the first horse-drawn tram wends its way through Zurich's city centre, and this was followed in 1894 by the first electric tram through the city on the banks of the Limmat. Zürcher Verkehrsverbund
  • Carl Lewis, a favourite of the Zurich fans, clocks 10.07 and wins the 100m for the sixth and last time. Weltklasse Zürich
  • FC Zurich will be facing FC Bassersdorf, a club from the greater Zurich area, in the first round of the Swiss Cup this Saturday. FC Zurich
  • The hotel's elevated location, between the pulsating life of the city and a refreshingly natural green zone, provides a magnificent view of the city of Zurich, the lake and the Alps. Dolder Grand
  • From the heart of Zurich, you're at the airport or the nearby main railway station in no time at all. Swiss Exchange
  • Headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland, UBS is present in all major financial centers worldwide and employs about 61,000 people around the world. UBS
  • The academic excellence of the University of Zurich brings benefits to both the public and the private sectors not only in the Canton of Zurich, but throughout Switzerland. University of Zurich
  • The cost of the extension of the Zurich National Museum is calculated at CHF 111 million. Landesmuseum Zürich
  • In September Christoph Becker succeeded Felix Baumann as the new director and the electorate of Zurich voted in favour of a loan of 28.5 million Swiss francs for renovation of the Kunsthaus. Kunsthaus Zürich
  • Zurich's first permanent theatre, it was established in the form of a joint stock company by theatre-loving citizens. Zurich Opera House
  • Since the appointment of David Zinman as principal conductor, the Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra has developed into one of the world's finest orchestras. Tonhalle Orchester
  • Zurich is not only a favoured production site, it is also highly regarded by visitors for its cultural and gastronomic diversity and the countless opportunities for repose and relaxation it has on offer. Zurich Film Festival
  • SRG begins a regular television service with German and French-language programming broadcast from Zurich and Geneva. SRG SSR
  • With an area of 70,000 square metres on two floors, the Zurich-Mülligen Letter Centre is the largest in Switzerland – and the only Swiss Post letter centre that handles international letter mail. Swiss Post
  • The birth of telecommunications in Switzerland: the first public telegraph service between St. Gallen and Zurich opens on 15 July. Swisscom
  • Zurich Europaallee. A new quarter for Zurich. Swiss Federal Railways
  • Zurich is not a large metropolis, but its high quality of life, international flair, and economic importance make it a truly global city with worldwide influence and standing. The entire region is a key motor of the Swiss economy. Finanzplatz Zürich
  • In the Canton of Zurich a remarkable 34 percent of employees use English in their work. NZZ
  • Zurich, Tel Aviv, Cape Town and Lima were named the best airports in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and South America respectively. The Economist
  • Küsnacht, the suburb of Zurich stretching along the shores of the lake.. The Times
  • The Greater Zurich Area is Switzerland's economic center.. Greater Zurich Area
  • The brochure "Canton of Zurich" presents information on characteristic features of Zurich in a postcard format on 148 pages and demonstrates the international flair of the canton. Canton of Zurich
  • mgeo talk 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly many foreign-language websites do this when they use English as they think we poor English-speakers don't understand accents and are trying to be helpful. Doesn't prove anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to Zürich These days, when the umlaut is easy to spell, more and more English sources would appear to use Zürich, which of course also is the name the people of the city use.Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; more accurate spelling. I don't think the umlaut is a major barrier to readers. bobrayner (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru --Երևանցի talk 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. More English sources use the umlaut these days -- Marek.69 talk 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. !Voters who say that the umlaut is used more often are incorrect. See this ngram, which clearly shows that the non-umlauted version continues to dominate. This is really no different than our articles on Mexico, Peru, or other places where long-standing English usage drops diacritics. If you're skeptical about the ngram results, feel free to go in and look at the actual book images, restricted to just 21st-century publications. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Dohn joe, the ngram example you show is for 'books published in the English language from 1800 to 2008'. The reason books and other printed materials in English did not use diacritics historically is that they simply couldn't. Movable type and later type fonts in English containing diacritics were not available; so it was almost impossible/intensely laborious to print books containing them. It is only relatively recently (15-20 years) that standard digital type fonts used in the English language have had the ability to render diacritics easily for publishing. When I say that the umlaut is being used more often in English sources these days, I mean it has been on the increase for the last few years -- Marek.69 talk 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If your point is that the umlaut is relatively more prevalent in English-language books now than 20 years ago, I would agree. However, it is still far, far behind. If you narrow the ngram to just 1990-2008, it's still more than 11 to 1 in favor of "Zurich", and that's including false positives for "Zürich" within German-language results. Dohn joe (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - As per Bobrayner, Jeppiz and the City of Zürich itself. Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sustainability monitoring in the City of Zurich, Stadt-Zürich (PDF). You see: (some) websites-> Zürich, quality publications-> Zurich. mgeo talk 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I support this one as well, if the city itself wants us to use an umlaut then we shall do so.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    It really doesn't matter what the city uses in its official English-language website. Please see WP:OFFICIALNAME. Dohn joe (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support its the offical name Jacob Steven Smith (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clear case of common name, practically all major institutions in Zurich or in the canton of Zurich use the English name. None of the supporters have provided evidences of the contrary. mgeo talk 08:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested move 5[edit]

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)

  • Oppose per WP:NOTAGAIN. It's barely a fortnight since the last discussion closed - is this going to be endlessly discussed? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you see the statistics? mgeo talk 10:57, 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)‎
    • There is no "English" version, since Zürich is in Switzerland! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 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) [3]. 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)
  • Strong support. The name of the city in reliable sources in English is Zurich. What the city itself says doesn't matter nearly as much - see Kiev. Red Slash 02:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Since the local (Ukrainian) name of the city is Київ, this is quite a bad example. --Leyo 08:36, 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)
  • Oppose. If the majority of Wikipedia articles about towns and cities use diacritics if the town/city name contains them, then why should Zürich be different/the exception? -- Marek.69 talk 17:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Difficult to see a good reason to overturn the last RM and move to a misspelt name. bobrayner (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • How to you come to the conclusion that "Zurich" is a misspelling? -- PBS (talk) 14:27, 8 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

Name[edit]

In the Name section of the article, we currently read, "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)." This assertion is incorrect on two counts:
1. The default English spelling of the city is still Zurich with no umlaut, as evidenced by Google's counting: Zürich shows 135,000,000 results, while Zurich shows 488,000,000 results.
2. Standard English practice for German names is NOT "to either preserve the umlaut or replace it with the base letter followed by e". Dusseldorf is the normal English version of Düsseldorf, just as Zurich is normal English for Zürich. --Michael Bateman (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Zurich is clearly still predominantly spelled "Zurich" in English. I'd love to have a re-vote on moving this article (and all the rest with Zurich in the name) back to "Zurich". What do you think? — tooki (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

protet this pace[edit]

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

Grasshopper[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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[edit]

{{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[edit]

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zürich&oldid=1019117299"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more