Jump to content

Talk:Lucerne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claudio Castagnoli

[edit]

Moved from my talk page (wrong place!) -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing Claudio Castagnoli from the Notable People section and I believe this is totally unnecessary. You've once flagged the edit as "Totally Unknown" and "Irrelevant" but that is gross ignorance. Claudio Castagnoli (ring name Cesaro) is a big name in professional wrestling and is currently signed to the largest pro-wrestling promotion in the world, WWE. He is a multi time champion, Pro Wrestling Illustrated named him the 13th greatest singles wrestler of 2014, Wrestling Observer Newsletter award him the "Most Underrated Wrestler" award a record four times (2013-16), and he appears on a successful internationally broadcasted television show weekly. --50.69.36.66 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an explanation to this, as well. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This might be true, but is totally irrelevant to be listed on the notable people list of Lucerne. First of all your wrestler is totally unknown not only in Lucerne but the entirety of Switzerland, secondly, wrestling is hardly known in Switzerland, if not fully ignored, and thirdly, the very tiny list is about people with an profound (cultural) impact on Lucerne. There would be literally ten of thousands other people with more relevance to Lucerne than your wrestler. Just to be born in Lucerne is simply not relevant. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google trends Claudio Castagnoli (under his ring name Cesaro) is on average more popular within Switzerland than every other person listed in 'Notable People 1950-today'. Also "wrestling is hardly known in Switzerland, if not fully ignored" is wrong as Zurich & Geneva are regular stops in WWE's European tours with the events drawing thousands of spectators. 50.69.36.66 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Hey, anonymous from Canada! You are a funny guy. Not. By any chance, are you the wrestler by himself, trying to promote yourself in wrestling desert Switzerland!? That would indeed be laughable.
Well, your wrestler seem to find the one or other click currently (12 searches a day? Wow, that's even laughable for Swiss standards). But that is not the relevant factor. And accordings to the survey by the Federal Sports Ministry (BASPO) the factsheet from 2014 lists 56 different prominent sports in Switzerland, but wrestling does not even appear on this list! Yes, you will always find a few people to watch any sport. And finally, the most important aspect: his impact on Lucerne is NIL. So please calm down, play with your toys, and let the adults do their work. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ZH8000. As an experienced Wikipedia user and an admin I've been asked to look into this. While I am concerned that there is a long unsourced list of notable people on the Lucerne article, which runs counter to the advice in WP:ListFormat, WP:VERIFY, and WP:BLPSOURCES, and so would understand if someone were attempting to remove or tidy up the entire section, your arbitrary decision to remove and then edit war with another user over the inclusion of one particular notable person is somewhat baffling. Can you explain your reluctance to have Cesaro (wrestler) mentioned in the article. I suspect you may have mistaken him for someone else. Or you may be under a misapprehension as to what is out of scope in an article - we don't put information into an article based on what a select group (in this case the inhabitants of one city in Switzerland) feel, we are a global encyclopedia, so we provide information for everyone. We decide what is in scope for an article based on reliable sources, such as these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You'll note that in those sources, that he is Swiss is of particular interest, and that he is from Lucurne is considered important information. So, mentioning him in the article is entirely appropriate. Unless you have a policy supported reason for keeping him out of the article, which I'd be interested to hear, it looks like you made a mistake. I am, however, also concerned about the way you have dealt with this situation - getting involved in a slow edit war, and then your unpleasant personal remarks above. That is against our guidelines. I can't see any excuse for that. My suggestion here is that you strike the personal comments from your above message and apologise to 50.69.36.66. It's worth reading WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BITE. And if, after reflecting on my comments you agree you have been mistaken, then either revert yourself on Lucerne, or at least allow others to edit that article according to our policies and guidelines. I'll keep this page watchlisted for your reply. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could make a lot of (useless) words. But let's make it brief and short: Firstly, this article is about the town of Lucerne, nothing else. And especially not about another town or village. Secondly, Claudio Castagnoli is not from Lucerne at all, though falsly used as his home town that way probably by himself in public (but still wrong), probably – I am obviously speculating – since Lucerne is many times more prominent than his real home town and many times better useable for his own promotion worldwide, and probably quite important money-wise, namely: the village of Weggis. It is true that Weggis is part of the canton of Lucerne, but clearly on the other side of the lake and definitely not part of Lucerne. I would propose to list him there. – And finally, I have still the impression that WP should be an encyclopedia. That primarily means providing facts, not fake-news. Well, this is possibly the wrong era we live in to ask for precisement, correctness, honesty, and seriosity. We will see. - ZH8000 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I will deal with this myself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lucerne. 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) 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lucerne. 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) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucerne. 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) 20:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucerne. 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) 01:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lucerne Gold Collar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luzern/Lucerne?

[edit]

Should the article title be Luzern? Luzern is the name used by the majority of the inhabitants and there seems no obvious reason to use the French name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.108.233 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...except that "Lucerne" is the standard name in English. SRamzy (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Town or city?

[edit]

Seems that Lucerne is officially a "town" but the article uses both city and town interchangeably? I'm not well versed enough to say so I' ll leave that to others to debate. To keep it accurate, I'm amending the lead sentence to "small city" and removing the blue link. The blue link would imply that "city" is an official designation, which is unclear.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult question. First of all, may I recall that English (either British or American...) is not an official language in Switzerland. And the translation of « city » and « town » are not exactly possible in German or French or Italian. Thus it doesn't make any sense to claim (in English) that Lucerne is officially a « town » or a « city ». German has only the notion of « Stadt », French of « ville », and Italian of « città » for which an official definition is indeed provided by Swiss law. It is used for any sufficiently centralized agglomeration of at least 10 000 people: so clearly it includes both the « towns » and the «  cities ». (And yes: French does have the term « cité », but this is not used very commonly (nor does it have any official meaning). Besides, « cité » is sometimes used to refer to what Americans call « downtown »…) What makes the matter even more complicated is that « city » does not have the same definition at all in USA and in UK: see for example the Cambridge Dictionary and the Webster’s.
Now let me make a simple comparison. Albany, New York and Lucerne are very comparable in their population size and political role. Albany is the state capital of of New York State, and Lucerne is the capital of the Canton of Lucerne. I think it wouldn't occur to anyone to call Albany a « town » (except maybe to some very sarcastic New-Yorker…). --Sapphorain (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the best definition is (but I think the majority of English speakers will call Lucerne a city). In any case qualifiers like "small" (or "big") should be avoided, unless sourced or really obvious. Zach (Talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bundesamt fuer Statistik specifically collects "City Statistics" using the English word "city" for 9 of the largest, most important municipalities despite 3 of them having less than 100,000 residents. That gives us a reliable source for at least calling these 9 "cities". On a side note, the mass conversion of city to town on articles such as Fribourg bizarrely changed "city-state" (a common English term) into "town-state" which is not a thing.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, changing the | municipality_type = in the Infobox Swiss town to read "town", "city", "municipality and town" etc is useless, doesn't show up in the article and has no meaning. The Infobox only looks for "former" to know if it's a former municipality, if it doesn't find "former" then it calls the village/town/small city/city/etc... a "Municipality".Tobyc75 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think city is the safest definition. I think I would reserve the denomination of 'town' to settlements that have only one (dense) urban center, like La Chaux-de-Fonds or Bulle. Quite obviously there's a grey area between 30'000 and 50'000 inhabitants, but Lucerne shouldn't be concerned. Zach (Talk) 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If I'm properly understanding MOS:CONTEXTLINK, there should be a link to either city of town in the intro. Zach (Talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is (6th word in the lede!). --Sapphorain (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Littau

[edit]

In the section "Merge with Littau" it is stated, that the merge is expected to pave the way for more negotiations with nearby towns with the only source being a study that states that more unification would be beneficial for the region. There is no statement about how likely more negotiations would be after the results nor any actual plans for talks with other towns. Jeremiabert (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucerne&oldid=1235878660"