Jump to content

Talk:Zurich/Archive 3

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

Cleanup

ok, the "sights" and "clubbing" sections need to go. Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide. Rewrite as prose summary, export to Zurich nightlife (and see if it's deleted as spam), or just delete. dab (��) 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove it, I just came to this page to find that information. It's called "culture" and is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.

I just looked everywhere and couldn't find where it said the main languages of the city. If it has been written, I don't think it's very apparent Canking 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to 2000 statistics, first languages are distributed as follows: German 84.8% (Swiss German: 65.1%, non-Swiss German speakers 12.6%), Italian 4.7%, South Slavic 2.4%, Spanish 2.2%, French 2.1%, English 1.8%, Portuguese 1.6%, Albanian 1.5%, Turkish 0.9%. dab (��) 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several times I stumbled upon links to the German version of a website although they have an English version as well (e.g. Theater Spektakel, Official Website of Zurich). In my opinion the English Versions should be preferred because this site's language is English and the information linked to will be comprehensible for everybody visiting this Wikipedia-article. Or should the possibility be given to link to both the German and the English version because the German version of a website (e.g. the above mentioned) usually contains more detailed information than the English one? Jack-72 (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Why are all of the variants of the city's name in the beginning of the article accompanied by their respective pronuntiations, but for the english one?? This is rather annoying. Can anyone add the English pronunciation, whatever it is?

See approximately six inches up the page. There are at least three ways I might pronounce it in English, depending on my mood. 62.136.137.152 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? I can't find anything about this either in the discussion page or in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.25.253 (talk) 00:49, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

we usually do not give pronunciation information for English because readers of the English language encyclopedia are expected to know English. In the case of proper names, of course, pronunciation information may be given in ambiguous cases, but you will need to provide a source for the information you add. dab (𒁳) 13:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one can know English without knowing how to pronounce proper names like this. Dictionaries don't contain this information usually, so unless one has heard it prononuced how can you know the correct way, even if you know English? And this is indeed an ambiguous case. For example, is the first Z pronounced as in zebra? And is the final "ch" pronounced as in "chair" or is it a k sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.51.9 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For almost all English speakers, Zurich rhymes with Munich. Similarly for French, Spanish and many other languages, though the rhymes vary.

--Rumping (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would have guessed it rhymes with Munich, but the question remains of how Munich is pronounced. Is it ending with a 'ch' (as in 'chair') or a 'k' (as in 'cat') sound? And is the first 'Z' of Zurich a voiced 's' as in 'zebra'? Or is it a 'ts' sound (like in German) or a 'th' sound (like in Spanish)? From what I've heard it seems that it is pronounced like /zurik/, but my point is that there's no way to find this out unless you hear it (which isn't reliable anyway), and it's a bit inconsistent to have the pronunciation in other languages but not in English. Someone said that this isn't necessary because readers are expected to know English, but the fact is that one can be proficient in English and yet don't know how to pronounce proper names like Zurich, since this information is hard to find. Wicktionary doesn't contain it either. By the way, I don't think Zurich would be pronounced in English the same way as in Spanish; in Spanish you would say 'thurich', with a soft 'th' sound (as in 'think') and ending in 'ch' (as in 'chair').

Forget about the last post, I've noticed the English pronunciation has been finally added, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.115.50 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on the number of German citizens

While reading the article I found this part ambigous:

30.6% of the registered inhabitants of Zürich do not hold Swiss citizenship, which is 115,379 people.[9] German citizens make up the largest group of foreigners in the city with 22.0%, followed by immigrants from Kosovo, Albania, Italy.

Is 22% from the total population or 22% of the foreigners?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source (and using my somewhat rudimentary German) it is 22% of the foreigners. I've clarified this in the article. the wub "?!" 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "mercer" :
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1173105 | title=Worldwide Quality of Living Survey | accessdate=2007-07-17}}
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1173105 | title=Worldwide Quality of Living Survey | accessdate=2006-12-11}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the notice. :) the wub "?!" 10:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich or Zürich?

In English, is the city written with or without the u-umlaut? My spellchecker prefers it without the umlaut, but the article uses it with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.18.23 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.129.183 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in use in respectable publications. Read the talk archive for details. --dab (𒁳) 20:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Why Düsseldorf but Zurich? The name of the city is Zürich in English as well, check out any major dictionary. Itla66 (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Stadtpräsident

The Mayor seat is vacant right now. There are two ladies competing for it, Kathrin Martelli and Corine Mauch.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/news_digest/Zweiter_Wahlgang_fuer_Stadtpraesidium_Zuerich.html?siteSect=104&sid=10303235&cKey=1234109728000&ty=nd

Nomajeen (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a National Capital

This has to be a national capital to be on the "top" list. Not even Los Angeles or Istanbul are there! Here is the list: National Capitals Wallie (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zürcher

Is this really pronounced with a full [e] and trilled [r]s? (Just checking.) kwami (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not necessarily. The IPA is just a phonological transcription, not a narrow phonetic one. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most livable city"

The article said Zurich was the most livable city from 2006-2009 but the reference states that in 2009 it was not the most livable city. I changed it to say 2006-2008.Air.light (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much useless statistics in introduction

The introduction should provide a quick overview and also contain the language, the history, the location, the climate, in a very short form... Some statistics can be mentioned like "belongs to the most livable, wealthiest and most expensive cities of the world" but saying

Zürich is also ranked the sixth most expensive city in the world. In 2008, Zürich was ranked ninth. The city ranked behind Hong Kong and ahead of Copenhagen. It is the third most expensive city in Europe and second most expensive city in Switzerland after Geneva.

is definitely too detailed (and useless) information in the introduction. This might be mentioned later on. However, since these "rankings" differ from study to study and year to year we should not provide absolute numbers here that refer to a particular subjective evaluation of a particular year, in which Zurich is now 0.1% better or worse than some other city. Zurich has a 2000 years history, provide stable information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.106.187 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the intro a bit, I hope your concerns are addressed. mgeo talk 16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heckling

Reason for removal: not notable (as per WP:NN), not reffed (as per WP:OR). I'm sorry if you or someone you know has had bad experience with heckling, but let's wait for this to become an issue mentioned in a newspaper or so. The only quote in your paragraph is one about May Day violence, not heckling. Trigaranus (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

I have protected the article for 4 days. In the meanwhile, please discuss the dispute in the talk page and don't delete others' comments. Elockid (Talk) 20:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may be pronounced /ˈzʊərɪk/, /ˈzjʊərɪk/, or /ˈzɜrɪk/

so it may. It may also be pronounced /ʒʌ'iːʃ/. The question is, do we have evidence of each of these pronunciations? --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The English Pronunciation Dictionary by Daniel Jones (15th ed, 1997) offers the following pronunciation variants: /'zjʊə.rɪk/, /'zʊə.rɪk/, /'tsjʊə.rɪk/ ("as if German"), and /'zʊ.rɪk/ (for US English). Looks like the last one given in the article got its vowel sound a bit off (it does look a bit bizare, come to think of it... is that a length-unspecified schwa?). I'll take the liberty of changing that one. Trigaranus (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the US pron, as it's predictable. I assume the loss of the /j/ is not, that people who have /j/ in dew may not in Zurich? — kwami (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the /ə/. I think the most common ones would be /ˈzʊrɪk/ and /ˈzjʊrɪk/. THe /jʊ/ may be an attempt to imitate the /y/.

Perhaps this is my mistake. I see that Help:IPA for English gives hour as /aʊər/ but cure as /kjʊər/. Now hour has two syllables, ow-er, but cure has just one, kyoor. I do not understand why the /ər/ in one instance appears to be syllabic but not in the other. cure does not rhyme with skewer, does it? In my book, cure should be /kjʊ:r/ and skewer should be /skjʊ:ər/. My suspicion here is that the /ə/ is just meant to help express the English /r/ phoneme and does not represent a separate phoneme at all. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I did not pay attention. The IPA cited by Trigaranus above clarify this because they express syllable structure. I fully agree with /'zjʊə.rɪk/, /'zʊə.rɪk/ and /'zʊ.rɪk/, the dot significantly expressing that all names are disyllabic. /'tsjʊə.rɪk/ "as if German" must be a new one, as the original English pronunciation was based on French. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our transcriptions are based on RP. Thus the schwas before /r/. I don't know anyone who distinguishes monosyllabic from disyllabic "our", but there are minimal pairs like hour /ˈaʊər/ vs. plougher /ˈplaʊ.ər/ in other dialects. For me, hour does seem disyllabic, but then so do peel and pail (basically, any diphthong before /r/ or /l/), yet we transcribe them as monosyllabic. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I know, the // express that the transcription is to be understood phonematically, as opposed to the square brackets, [], which entail the claim of close phonetic transcription. Thus, /r/ may express any English r-phoneme, RP and non-RP, and it is not strictly consistent to try and further illustrate how a phoneme is rendered. What I am trying to say is that [ər] may express one or two (or really any number of) phonemes, but /ər/ should be taken to express exactly two phonemes.
I would not admit that peel or pail are disyllabic, but we would seem to be getting into rather deep water there. English phonology says "Nasals and liquids may be syllabic in unstressed syllables, though these may be analyzed phonemically as /əC/." The question is, what is meant by the "may be" -- is this an option of the speaker or of the phonetician? And why phonemically? Surely there can be no minimal pair of /pi:l̩/ vs. /pi:əl/? Does this mean that for peel you can say either [pi:l], [pi:l̩] or [pi:əl]? --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it when we talk deep. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the ideal of the IPA having one letter (plus diacritics) for each phoneme. Things aren't always so neat, however, for example with diphthongs, affricates, and tones.
"may be analyzed": 'analyzed' means by the phonologist.
I contrast pill [pɪl] with peel [pʰiʲᵊl]. I would analyze those as /pɪl/ and /pɪjl/. But the WP system is diaphonemic: it's meant to capture the phonologies of several English dialects. The schwas before /r/ are a characteristic of RP; I think that phonemically we should really have /iːr/ rather than /ɪər/, but that would require distinguishing /iː.r/ (as in key-ring) from /iːr./ (as in searing), which we don't need to bother with using the current convention. In the end, phonemic transcriptions are largely convention, and are useful in as far as they're practical. I'm not crazy about the schwas, but they work. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you really go for /pɪjl/? Isn't it, in spite of the lateral, at most a descending diphthong, hence /pɪəl/, without a palatal approximant? (Or is that a slightly syllabic l there?) Trigaranus (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good approximation phonetically, but only before /l/. For me, peel is pretty close to [pi.ᵊl] or [pi.l̩]. pier is [pɪɹ]. The palatal offglide is very slight. However, it fits a pattern, where diphthongs and rhotic vowels (arguable also diphthongs) create sesquisyllabicity with /l/, so one analysis would be to treat all such vowels as diphthongs. (I find a distinction between 'tense' and 'lax' to be unsatisfying.) Assuming diphthongs are built up from monophthongs, it would have to be /ɪj/, as the seven non-reduced non-rhotic monophthongs in my dialect are /ɪ ɛ æ ʌ ɑ ɔ ʊ/, with /ɔ/ only found in /ɔj, ɔɹ/. Girl also suggests a diphthong, though it's hard for me to say what the monophthongal part of it is; I suppose it would have to be /ɡʌɹl/. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"/'zjʊə.rɪk/, /'zʊə.rɪk/ and /'zʊ.rɪk/": No, /zjʊə/ and /zʊ/ are not possible syllables in English. /ʊə/ isn't even a possible vowel. If we syllabify, they'd be /'zjʊər.ɪk/, /'zʊər.ɪk/ and /'zʊr.ɪk/. Though I don't see any point in doing that: of course they're disyllabic. There's no other possibility. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Switzerland?

I live here, and most of us think of it as "northern" Switzerland (we're almost at the border) or even "central" Switzerland... but I've never heard it referred to as Eastern Switzerland. The Swiss themselves geographically divide themselves via topography: Jura, Central Plateau, various Alpine, etc. Most frequently, however, they distinguish by language: German, French, Italian and those little pockets of Romansch in the eastern areas.

Thoughts on a change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasouthcott (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected and cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.156.224 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boys, let's be serious: I live here too, and in no way is Zurich even remotely "central". And as for the "easternness" -- let's all just briefly check on a map and confirm that we do not live in Western Switzerland all that much, do we?
BTW the heckling bit being constantly reinserted is, interestingly, in itself a form of heckling. A few people trying to put up a decent show, and one guy from the ranks who thinks it would all benefit from some unconnected drunken yelling from the back. So please, cut it out or raise the issue on the talk page. Trigaranus (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ostschweiz Tourismus exclude Zurich from Eastern Switzerland (http://www.ostschweiz.ch/de/) but they do include the Lake Zurich Region. This concurs with the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.19.224 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BFS also excludes Zurich from Eastern and other regional areas in Switzerland - electing instead to treat it as an seperate entity. Pages 9 and 10 of this document (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/news/publikationen.Document.128827.pdf) reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.254.193 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors with most articles on Swiss cities

At the moment, all Swiss articles seem to suffer from the same problem. To begin with, would someone please how to edit the population figure in the infobox? The line with population that comes up when clicking on edit is not the one actually displayed in the infobox, the latter is not possible to access in any way I've discovered. For most cities, the population figure shown come with a reference (not found anywhere in the editable version) that does not contain any data to support the population. Quite often there's a different population figure given in the text. In other words, most articles in Swiss cities suffer from three problems: 

- A population figure that it is not possible to edit.
- This population figure is usually unsourced (the source provided does not support the claim)
- A different population figure is often found in the main body of the article.

Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual population figures are hidden away a couple of template layers deep, i.e. on Template:Swiss populations data CH-SO and similar. I don't know if these are more or less accurate than the figures in the text - the link that's supposed to support the figures doesn't work for me.--Kotniski (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request at Talk:Zürich Airport#Requested move

Editors of this article may be interested in the move request at the above link. The request is to remove the umlaut, per common English usage. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: move to Zurich. There is a clear user consensus in support of a move now. This has been backed up by the evidence of usage in English language sources, both internationally and within Switzerland. The title of this article has been a contentious issue for a long time (personally I originally favoured the Zürich spelling), but hopefully we can now move forward and concentrate on improving the actual content. the wub "?!" 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zürich → Zurich — While this is the first official move request, it's been shown in previous discussions that "Zurich" predominates over "Zürich" in English-language sources by a healthy margin (including those used in the article itself). "Zurich" should therefore be the title, according to WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, and especially WP:DIACRITICS. Dohn joe (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. WP:DIACRITICS is quite clear: "follow the general usage in English reliable sources ". The NY Times, [1] and The London Times [2] are pretty reliable, I think. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. WP:DIACRITICS asks us to look at three things in deciding whether to use diacritics. 1) the sources actually used in the article; here, English-language references using "Zurich" clearly outnumber those using "Zürich". 2) a Google Books search; for this one, see results above. My Google Book searches show 134,000 results for "Zürich -Zurich"; however, of the first 100 results, 30 were still in German, despite the English filter. Thus, the real English-language results are probably closer to 94,000. Meanwhile, a search for "Zurich -Zürich" yields 1,070,000 results - over 10:1 in favor of "Zurich". 3) a survey of reference works; searches on encyclopedia.com return no encyclopedia or dictionary results for "Zürich", although Britannica uses "Zürich" in its online version. The combination of these results shows that "Zurich" is favored by English-language sources. Dohn joe (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Book searches to distinguish between use of a letter with an without diacritic are completely meaningless. Incorrect, nonsensensical, misleading, pointless rubbish. It's nothing but computational artefact - Google search does not distinguish between the two, the "-" operator does not exclude the following term and results based on OCR are even worse (o can be read as ü, ü as anything from û to o or 0 or ll). Furthermore, the short text version given in the search result page does not always represent the use in the text - the book itself could use ü but be reported as u. The results when clicking on your searches above depend on your geographical location, but both contained several false positives on even the first page for me when you check the actual text. I wrote about this phenomenon at length at some point and included it in some guideline or other, but the general gist is not to waste your time with google on this sort of question. There are ways of proving relative usage, but this isn't it. Knepflerle (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I think the University of Zurich [3] and the ETH Zurich [4] are pretty reliable too. ;-) mgeo talk 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The request is to move it to the normal English language form of the name. Related article titles should also be changed to use the normal English form. Jamesday (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the whole. All naming disputes are things of air, given the ready availability of redirects. But if we are going to discuss this, we should try to secure the advantages of following the usage of reliable sources. This seems fairly convincingly established. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They are more than air. Recently I was surprised to see that the Wikipedia article on "Popski's Private Army" did not appear in the first 10 of a Google search. It turned out that the article had been moved to "No. 1 Demolition Squadron, PPA" and although the redirect "Popski's Private Army" existed, it did not show up in a Google search. Now that the article is back at Popski's Private Army the article is the first one returned by a Google search (although Google it is still caching the older pre-move back version of the text). -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the reasons I gave in the preceding section. In addition there has been a tendency for some editors to use the current name of this page to justify ignoring sourced based spelling in related articles for reasons of consistency (see Talk:Second Battle of Zürich and talk:Zurich Airport). This page name has also been used in other naming debates to support the use of diacritics even when English language sources do not usually use them. -- PBS (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly support, I've been noticing some use of the umlauted form in English recently (my old college sent me an invitation to a meeting of expat alumni to be held in "Zürich", and it was mentioned above that Britannica and some others use the umlaut), though I still think this is a city which has a well-established name in English (both in writing and in speaking - I think it would generally be considered pedantic rather than clever to pronounce Zürich the German way in English speech), so Zurich is the form I would choose for the article title, even though generally WP has a useful bias towards using diacritics.--Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares as per Septentrionalis. This can't be a very pressing issue in a virtual encyclopedia. The normal user does not even notice if he is taken to the article by a redirect or not, so the whole problem (or lack thereof) seems a mite pedantic. If the redirect is under "Zürich" or "Zurich" is of no real consequence. Trigaranus (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The original local name is more correct, and the diacritic here is hardly confusing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original name of the article was Zurich![5]. Why do you think that the name with an umlaut over the u is more correct in English? Is this just a personal opinion or do you have a source that backs it up? -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the original name of the city is the Proto-Celtic word reflected in Latin Turicum - whatever it may have been. We are written in English, not German; the English name of the city is the "most correct" form in this language. To do otherwise is to deny our readers, and those in other Wikipedias, this fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, I meant "local name as used by the current inhabitants", not the original, historical name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the local inhabitants don't normally use English, what relevance is their usage to how we refer to it in this English encyclopedia? Besides, even the local university does not use diacritics, at least not on its English web page. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    wow, this has only been debated for five years, and the arguments thrown in the fray are still as poor and beside the point as on day one. --dab (𒁳) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, the move is probably correct, but to Swiss eyes, the lack of diacritics just feels jarringly wrong, like a spelling error. Surprisingly enough, Zurich does seem to be widely used in English even within Switzerland. It is the official translation in the terminology database of the Swiss federal authorities, and is used in the official translation of the federal constitutution. On the other hand, the city's English website uses Zürich.  Sandstein  00:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    German is not the mother tongue of all the Swiss, and presumably Zurich does not look odd to French speakers or given that the majority are Swiss are poligots to a Swiss German when he or she reads a French newspaper. Why should English spelling look any more incorrect than French spelling to a Swiss German? Or if it does, as there does not seem to be any move to impose German spelling on the French article, do you have any idea why not? -- PBS (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struggled a bit with that one, fellow Phil. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Swiss people are not polyglots. You'd have to travel for two hours or so from Zurich to get to French-speaking regions. French is as irrelevant to Zurich as German to Geneva or Bellinzona, and naturally there are no moves to have those articles renamed to "Genf" and "Bellenz". As for this whole struggle over a trema, it still seems more nonsensical than the one over an iota, which in itself was already a rather spectacularly pointless act to follow. Trigaranus (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support established English convention.Erudy (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support People tend to forget the problem of "Français fédéral" which here could be translated into "Federal English". "Français Fédéral" is a way of having Swiss-german native speakers having the task to translate official documents into French. And while doing it, they just use their "mother-tongue" version of what "they think" is good, most of the time, without even checking. In Romandy, one find typical French mistakes that are straight coming out of "German". In English, one can find this with Zurich, Bern (instead of Berne) and even "Genf" on some English pages on internet instead of "Geneva". The best example is here on Wikipedia. The user has German as a mother tongue and under the explanation of the coat of arms of Geneva, the english information entered by this user is "English: Coat of arms of the canton of Genf"! (changing and assuming that in English, the name is just the german name they know...) One can find this then on myswitzerland.com, website of the city of Zurich and so on. These pages are NOT written by English native speakers but by Swiss-germans who assume that the English translation is how "they" would write it. The city name is just "translated" from German into... German along with English grammar. For people stating that "Zürich" in English is written with an umlaut, just check were the society is based. Mainly in Swiss-German parts, employing Swiss-German people, talking Swiss-German and assuming that English has same spelling than their Swiss-German way of thinking the "truth"... We actually have the same discussion for Berne-Belp airport or Bern-Belp airport going on right now. Your point of view would be appreciated. :) Ngagnebin (talk)
Lonely Planet, Telegraph Media Group, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Christie's are written by native English speakers, not by Swiss Germans. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. And they just take information on swiss website, written by Swiss Germans. Oh, BTW, US and UK Consulates use both Zurich with no umlaut for their Consulates.  :) Ngagnebin (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reasons as stated in the discussion six months ago. Both versions are commonly used in English texts. It's not as if anyone is going to have trouble finding the article where it is, especially as a redirect is in place. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

wow

so, after five years you finally found a slender majority to move this article. I don't have a problem with that, but I see that some people took this as an invitation to go on a rampage all across Wikipedia doing global substitutions of /Zürich/Zurich/ as well as numerous moves and category renamings. This is unacceptable. You have moved this article, based on a dodgy consensus. If you want to move or rename any other article or category, seek consensus for that, on a case by case basis. The only thing I can accept is that the default disambiguation string in brackets should match this article title. But, to cite a spectacularly misguided example, moving Zünfte of Zürich to Zünfte of Zurich looks like the work of a shell script, not a sentient editor.

Apparently this is difficult to grasp for editors like MadGeographer (talk · contribs), so let me spell it out: whether an article uses Zürich or Zurich is a question of style. It is a matter of choice of the text's author whether latinate names are preferred. Some authors will use Zurich, Berne, Basle, Grisons, others will prefer Zürich, Bern, Basel, Graubünden. Both choices are valid. The discussion above merely concerns which set of preferences people writing this article want to observe here. If you now go and do a mindless search-replace all over Wikipedia, you will end up with some articles with jarringly mismatched Zurich, Bern, Basel, Graubünden. This is why you shouldn't do stylistic changes to articles with which you have no involvement. Wikipedia's "menial" or housekeeping editors often have an astoundingly poor understanding that articles are prose, and that some editors actually know what they are doing to an extent that it isn't helpful to do random search-replace edits on their prose. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Style"? If an article like Cantons of Switzerland or Huldrych Zwingli uses Zürich, is that not simply because the article was located at Zürich? Generally, editors tend to avoid the use of redirects (Zürich was even piped in many articles), that's probably the main reason. For the "spectacularly misguided example" cited above the solution would be to choose an English title like Guild houses of Zurich or a German title like Zürcher Zünfte but not both languages. mgeo talk 12:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I was amazed at how much energy was, in lack of a better word, wasted on that sorry excuse for an "issue". I am sure WP has more pressing problems, or more real ones. Trigaranus (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a move request, open for two weeks, with a 9:2:2 result - and closed by an admin who expressed a preference for the umlaut - is evidence of a fairly strong consensus, at least as of today. As for other articles, I would agree that they should be pursued individually. References to Zürich alone in the body of articles may or may not need to be changed. But article titles should go through the normal process of consensus-determining. Dohn joe (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to mgeo, no it is not. Even on Wikipedia, ome people actually know what they are doing when they are writing encyclopedic prose. Indeed there are possible alternatives for Zünfte of Zürich. What I still maintain was spectacularly misguided, and indicative of the sheer lack of clue in people engaging in this "discussion", was just the move to Zünfte of Zurich (as a corollary, this is also why such moves should never be based on simple majorities. Instead, you need to survey which of the commenting users show awareness of the issue, or at least sentience). I do not claim that "Zünfte of Zürich" itself is a great title: if you want to move this to "guild houses of Zurich" or similar, do a literature survey and present a move suggestion. If it turns out that this is how English language literature refers to these Zünfte, I will of course support the move. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zurich-panorama.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zurich-panorama.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection needed

User:TomZH3030 is constantly edit warring on this article using sockpuppets. mgeo talk 18:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zurich by night 50.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zurich by night 50.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to move this article back to Zurich?

The article says "In English, the name is usually written Zurich, without the umlaut." Which if true means the article should be at Zurich and not Zürich. When the name was last debated the name had been fairly recently moved form Zurich to Zürich there was not consensus to move the page back but neither was there a consensus to leave the page at Zürich. Since those days we have moved on to a more sourced based method of deciding on names and have the WP:RM process for moves such as these that did not exist during the early debates on the name of this article. -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though in general I support the use of original diacritics in Wikipedia, I think the umlautless Zurich is sufficiently established in English to constitute the English name of the city (as Rome for Roma), so I'd be in favour of the move.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us at least review the sources. WP:NCGN has a checklist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Undoubtedly, in the past, "Zurich" was far more common than "Zürich". That is not necessarily the case today. Useage of the umlaut version has become much more common since maps started adopting native useage 30 years ago, and appears to still be increasing. Examples of the umlaut useage are as follows:-
    • From luxury to international brands, traditional businesses and urban Zürich labels – shopping in Zürich inspires both lovers of exclusive items and the fashion conscious. from Zürich Tourism
    • Zürich is a city both exciting and open to different cultures, offering locals and visitors alike a unique quality of life while providing excellent conditions for companies and businesses. from Stadt Zürich
    • Famous for those legendary Swiss bank accounts and recognised as one of the world's financial centres, Zürich is a striking city, with the River Limmat snaking through it and the Alps looming in the background from EasyHotel Ltd
    • There are lots of things to see and do in Zürich. Check out the famous business-and shopping-quarter Bahnhofstraße, the state museum, the opera, the Zurich zoo, and Lake Zurich just to name a few. from Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc
    • Zürich is a city whose reputation precedes it - and does it a complete disservice, trashes its name, gives it a good kicking. A boring banking capital? 'Zu Reich' (too rich), business-minded and uptight? The spotless Singapore of Europe? If Switzerland's largest metropolis once lived down to those dull descriptions, it certainly no longer does. from Lonely Planet
    • The city of Zürich lies in the heart of Europe and at the center of Switzerland, on the northern shores of Lake Zürich from Switzerland Tourism
    • In a quiet street 10 minutes by bus from Zürich rail station, from where there are trains to all corners of Switzerland. The bus stop is just around the corner from the hotel. You can catch a late, post-work flight to Zürich, spend the night here and be on your way to the Alps early the next morning. from Telegraph Media Group Limited
    • Christie's Zürich, located next to the famous Kunsthaus, was opened in 1978. In 1991 the first Christie’s SwissArt auction took place in the Kunsthaus, as Zürich is the buying and auction platform for collectors interested in SwissArt from the 18th to the 21th century. from Christie's Inc
    • Zürich grew as a trade centre, and in 1218 it became a free imperial city. In 1351 it joined the Swiss Confederation. Under the leadership of Huldrych Zwingli, Zürich became the centre of the Swiss Reformation in the 16th century. from Encyclopaedia Britannica
  • Skinsmoke (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is without any doubt still the case today:
      • Public transport in the city of Zurich is a dense and well-planned network ( buses, street-cars, regional trains, and even boats). from University of Zurich
      • The history of Zurich Opera House begins with the “Actien-Theater” (shares theatre), which opened in 1834 with Mozart’s “Zauberflöte”. Zurich’s first permanent theatre, it was established in the form of a joint stock company by theatre-loving citizens. from Zurich Opera House
      • Thanks to an international appeal for funds it became possible in 1818 to secure the Zurich’s main artistic attraction, the ‘Gessnerische Gemählde-Cabinet’, for the city; this encompasses 24 gouache pictures of idyllic landscapes and a number of drawings by Salomon Gessner. from Kunsthaus Zürich
      • Every day, over 300,000 passengers already use Zurich’s main station – the Hauptbahnhof (HB) is the lynchpin of Switzerland’s rail system. By 2020 it is anticipated that over half a million passengers and passers-by will be using the HB every day. from Swiss Federal Railways
      • Because the IIHF is based in Zurich and Switzerland is an IIHF founding member, it is important for the IIHF to involve Switzerland in the 100-year-celebrations. from International Ice Hockey Federation
      • The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) is an association governed by Swiss law founded in 1904 and based in Zurich. from FIFA
      • On 29 September in Zurich (Switzerland), the 8th International Ski Federation (FIS) Youth and Children’s Seminar brought together 77 participants from 41 countries. from International Olympic Committee
      • The Zurich office has Googlers from every corner of the globe – 67 countries at last count. from Google Zurich
      • IBM has maintained a research laboratory in Switzerland since 1956, located on its own campus in Rüschlikon near Zurich since 1962. from IBM
      • Sotheby's Zurich offers a comprehensive service for clients world-wide. from Sotheby's Zurich
      • Headquartered in Zurich and Basel, UBS is a global firm providing financial services to private, corporate and institutional clients. from UBS
      • Zurich is ranked as the city with one of the highest qualities of life in the world. The city has exceptional cultural diversity, excellent housing options and countless possibilities for enjoyment and relaxation. from Kraft Foods
      • The Mayor of London Boris Johnson will head to Zurich today in support of the England bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018. from London.gov.uk
      • In Zurich, Secretary Clinton attended the signing of two protocols between the governments of Turkey and Armenia. from U.S. Department of State
      • Australian ministers regularly visit Switzerland for meetings in Geneva or to attend the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. The former Minister for Trade, Mr Crean, attended the WEF in January 2010 and in 2008. In January 2009 the then Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard took part in the WEF. As Minister for Sport, the Hon Kate Ellis, visited Switzerland from 13 to 14 May 2010. An Australian parliamentary delegation, led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Harry Jenkins MP, visited Bern and Zurich in April 2009. from Australian Government
      • Petty crime has increased and occurs in most public areas, particularly in Berne, Zurich, and Geneva. from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
      • At the heart of a picturesque landscape, Zurich is a good example of "little big city" in which it is possible to enjoy the advantages and standards associated with a great metropolis. Zurich's attractiveness was thoroughly appreciated by artists such as Richard Wagner and James Joyce, who spent many years of their lives by its river Limmat. from European Union
      • The Secretary-General left Amman, Jordan early in the morning of Wednesday, 28 March, for an official visit to Switzerland, where he was joined by his wife, Nane. His first stop was in Zurich, where he addressed a gathering of close to 2,000 prominent members of the Swiss business community. from United Nations
      • Zurich, once the famously staid banking capital of Europe, is now home to the continent’s largest annual street party. Still spotlessly clean, this picturesque (and expensive) city has evolved into an edgy, fun-lover’s paradise. from The Telegraph
      • New Yorkers — along with throngs of tourists and other visitors to the city — pay roughly half as much as people in Zurich for cab fares, according to a study by the website Priceoftravel.com. from Wall Street Journal
      • For a glimpse of Zurich outside the city centre, take trams 2 or 3 westwards to Helvetiaplatz, in the pacy quarter of Zurich West. from CNN
      • The significance of Putin's decision to stay away from Zurich and attack rivals for unfair competition is also difficult to read, although it is hard to believe he would not be here if there was even the slightest chance of victory. from BBC
    • mgeo talk 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a move request so there is no need to "OPPOSE" it. It was a query if we should have another debate on whether to move it or not, as the last one was not. I suspect that you are not necessarily drawing on a fair sample in your survey, for example "Christie's Zürich" would seem to be a name much like "Zurich Airport" which has little to do with the city name, and some like www.britannica.com should be given emphasised weighting while others like "http://www.myswitzerland.com" should probably be disregarded. Google books (set to return only English language volumes) returns

  • -Zürich Zurich About 1,820,000 results
  • Zürich -Zurich About 291,000 results

But it is clear from the first page of results returned, that the "English language volumes" flag is far from perfect and many German language books are returned. Even so that is about six to one in favour of Zurich. If we do the same survey but from 1990 and from 2000:

  • -Zürich Zurich About 824,000 results (from 1990)
  • Zürich -Zurich About 117,000 results (from 1990) seven to one
  • -Zürich Zurich About 389,000 results (from 2000)
  • Zürich -Zurich About 65,800 results (from 2000) six to one.

then your suggestion that "Usage of the umlaut version has become much more common since maps started adopting native useage 30 years ago, and appears to still be increasing." does not seem to be born out by a simple Google book search that, as can be seen includes some German titles, which means that the ratios are probably larger than those returned. Do you you have a survey published in a reliable source that the numbers are increasing or is it your own estimation. -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware, I suppose, that you are duplicating research we already did back in 2005. I do not suppose there has been any major shift from Zürich to Zurich over the past five years, so I don't really see the point in re-opening this discussion.

The result is that there is certainly the greater number of hits for Zurich, but there is also a clear tendency to use Zürich in publications of higher quality (academic literature etc.). So merely counting google books hits doesn't cut it. The question is whether we want to imitate popular literature, or highbrow literature. As I said, we have been over this in insane details five years ago.

Fwiiw, I am not positively opposed to a move to "Zurich", nor did I express any preference last time around, I just don't think it will be in any way helpful, as people will still insist on re-opening this discussion no matter what we do.

There are better ways to spend time with this article, e.g. ways that result in an actual improvement. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that "clear tendency to use Zürich in publications of higher quality"? -- PBS (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of a move to "Zurich", but my main concern for now is the quality of the article. mgeo talk 20:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, is it possible that this is "similar", but not "alike", to the strife over a Iota during the Arian controversy, just a little less interesting? (Not that the iota controversy was all that fascinating in itself...) I don't think that in the age of redirects there should be quite such a lengthy discussion about this. Everybody, including me, will have an idea why one version is infinitely more appropriate than the other; so a consensus here is not likely, but nor is it needed. Let's leave it. There are redirects out there. Everybody will find the article. Trigaranus (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a policy (WP:AT) and a guideline (WP:NC (UE)) on how to title articles such as this, so deciding on the appropriate title, as on content of the article, should be based on verifiable reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no review of the sources has been done, aside from a selective reading of tourist guides (which tend, as WP:NCGN observes, to use the spelling on signs rather than that conventionally used in English). It is long since time to reconsider this: It was improperly placed here, it is not majority English usage, and it misrepresents the English language to other Wikipedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the umlaut. It make the u look like a smiley face and makes me feel good. Also you guys have literally been arguing for months about two pixels. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.21 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zurich sights.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zurich sights.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical Gardens

The article contains the following:

  • Botanical Garden – The Botanical Garden houses about 15,000 species of plants and trees and contains as many as three million plants. In the garden, many rare plant species from south western part of Africa, as well as from New Caledonia can be found. The University of Zurich holds the ownership of the Botanical Garden.

The problem is that there are two botanical gardens in Zurich, and I cannot work out which one this is talking about. My first thought was it must be the Botanical Garden of the University of Zurich, but that garden's web site ([6]) only claims 9000 different plant species. At present the link goes to a dab page (Botanical Garden, Zurich), but a bot has pointed out that this is an incomplete disambiguation, and it may just end up pointing at Botanical Garden, which would be less than helpful.

Can anybody help disambiguate this link. Thanks. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One explanation that offers itself is the fact that the Old Botanical Garden (which is extremely unlikely to house that many species) is organised as belonging to the same administrative body as the new one. The main office is located at the new facility, which may well only have 9000 species -- but the "Botanical Gardens of Zurich" together, with their two locations combined (the old one on the baroque fortifications, the new one on university grounds), could well make up 15000 species. You could just change the entry from "garden" to "gardens"; but first I would try and source that number. Trigaranus (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 95.178.254.117, 14 June 2011

I want to change the main photo because this one is ugly !

95.178.254.117 (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just indicate here what photo should be used and we'll see if it's better. mgeo talk 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Happysailor (Talk) 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This one: 7359-7361 - Zürich - View from Grossmünster.jpg I think it's perfect for presenting a beautiful city like Zürich.

The problem is that a panorama alone isn't ideal for an infobox. But you can always try to make another better mosaic with this.


I tried to make a new mosaic and I think it's good enough: http://i53.tinypic.com/2rho3v5.png

All photos I used are from commons wikimedia:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.248.177 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I was looking for some (very) recent photos of Zurich west. I think it would be great to have a free photo like this in the mosaic but of course we can add it later when available. Concerning your mosaic, I'm not able to upload it at the moment (have a low internet connection) so unless you create an account and upload it yourself you'll have to wait a few days. mgeo talk 11:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't find any Züri-West photos on commons, so I put the photo of Werd-Skyscraper instead. Here's the second version with the Züri-West photo, I think this one is better. http://i56.tinypic.com/jg4m1l.png

I'd prefer that you upload the photo. I made an account, but I'm not sure how to upload the file properly because it's not my own work.

If you didn't know that, you can also use photos from websites other than wikimedia commons. You only have to make sure they are freely licensed or in the public domain before uploading them or any work containing them (see here for a flickr search that shows only the acceptable photos). The choice is limited but I'm pretty sure we'll have more interesting pictures in a few months, we just have to be patient. mgeo talk 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey anonymous editor, wouldn't it be great if you could use a regular account when editing articles about Swiss municipalities? That would allow other editors to contact you on your talk page, among many other benefits. You could also join our Wiki Project that concerns Switzerland-related articles. I would also kindly ask you to explain your edits in the '"Edit summary" field (see Help:Edit summary) before saving your changes, because it's very important for other wiki editors to understand what you're changing in the articles. mgeo talk 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social

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

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

Requested move 4

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose per the 2010 consensus -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Harumph! It's København, not "Kabenhavn". Favonian (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. There you go, picked up an OCR error in citing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Evidence? Zurich 2,150 vs Zürich 3,680 results. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zurich/Archive_3&oldid=1231830412"