Talk:Zurich/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Zurich. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Requested move 5

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments17 people in discussion

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):

Zurich : ("of Zurich" -Zürich Düsseldorf -Dusseldorf) -> 147 + ("from Zurich" -Zürich Düsseldorf -Dusseldorf) -> 34 = 181
Zürich : ("of Zürich" -Zurich Düsseldorf -Dusseldorf) -> 61 + ("from Zürich" -Zurich Düsseldorf -Dusseldorf) -> 12 = 73
Zurich : ("of Zurich" -Zürich Müller -Muller) -> 424 + ("from Zurich" -Zürich Müller -Muller) -> 83 = 507
Zürich : ("of Zürich" -Zurich Müller -Muller) -> 9 + ("from Zürich" -Zurich Müller -Muller) -> 18 = 27
Zurich ("of Zurich" -Zürich Küsnacht -Kusnacht) -> 52 + ("from Zurich" -Zürich Küsnacht -Kusnacht) -> 11 = 63
Zürich ("of Zürich" -Zurich Küsnacht -Kusnacht) -> 7 + ("from Zürich" -Zurich Küsnacht -Kusnacht) -> 2 = 9

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)

~~Neutral~~ I am repeating position on previous RM just closed, per Economist Style Guide I had always regarded Zurich as a French name in use in English, much like English uses French Lucerne for Luzern (even though it is in the German-speaking part of Switzerland), and was taken by surprise by the increase in English sources following German spelling. Also the official Zürich websites using "Zürich" in English text. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 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) [www.britannica.com/search?query=lucerne]. This is definitely not a consistent usage by EB.
I agree that propably in a few years or decades, the official English naming of Swiss cities and towns will probably have changed to the local spelling. But then this should also happen to Genève for example, just for the simple reason of consistency.
Nevertheless, the Swiss Post (quite a reference as well!) still ueses the traditional English spelling of Swiss city names (not true for Basel).
There are many other examples of this ongoing movement (I do mind!), mainly because it leads to inconsistent situations, even though I know that I will not be able to stop it, of course. Such as: Grisons --> Graubünden, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes/Inner-Rhodes --> German spelling, Argovia, Friburg, Glaris, Nidwald, Obwald, Schaffhouse, Soleure, St. Gall, Thurgovia. All these used to be the official English spelling (not necessarily derived from the French version! That would be a wrong assumption!) of these cities/cantons. I still learned them that way in the school. --ZH8000 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

ZH8000, per the previously cited UN Manual for the National Standardization of Geographical Names United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names - 2006 p129 "The omission of diacritical marks usually does not turn an endonym into an exonym: Sao Paulo (for São Paulo); Malaga (for Málaga) or Amman (for 'Amman) are not considered exonyms. = there's a difference between these full exonyms transitioning (such as Grisons -> Graubünden). I think we all know that there is a tradition of excepting Zurich, per James Murray Luck Science in Switzerland 1967 - Page 5 "... Neuchatel in place of Neuenburg, and Avenches in place of Wifflisburg. Also I have spelled Zurich without the umlaut, and I have used the spelling "Rhine." " but evidently that has already started changing. We can play with parameters, from 2005 ["in zurich" "in düsseldorf" -zürich -dusseldorf] gets 148 to 96, but which is ahead doesn't change the fact that there is no longer agreement in print sources that Zürich is to be excepted. Grove Book of Opera Singers etc. are not "wrong" to use the umlaut. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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, although this should have been speedy closed as the move review was nearly unanimous. Google Books hit counts are never reliable on style issues due to optical character recognition issues that may or may not effect only certain words, pages or books. As noted on WP:NCGN, it is better to look at authoritative reference works such as other encyclopedias. [global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658483/Zurich Britannica], Columbia, Encarta, Macmillan and Oxford all use "Zürich", as does Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, which is recommended for spelling matters by The Chicago Manual of Style. Prolog (talk) 15:40, 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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Zürich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002021302/http://www.zurichcci.ch/ to http://www.zurichcci.ch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

protet this pace

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Grasshopper

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"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

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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.

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.
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.
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.
It appears to say that Zürich was determined to be the second-best city in some (unknown) category, behind Wrocław. Well, that's great, but what is the category? What were the criteria? Who determined this? Who (else) on the planet considers the determination to be notable? In other words, why is this something that should be in the article?

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

This information doesn't belong in the Lead and putting it there violates the MOS. The Polish article does discuss what the criteria were but Zurich receives only 2 words in the article and one of them was Zurich! I haven't been able to find an English language article, but I did learn that the Financial Times has 6 different ranking and awards competitions going on right now. So, while ranking second in Small/Medium cities of the Global Cities of the Future evaluation and 16th in the overall evaluation (overall rankings) is probably notable, it only deserves a sentence or 2 in the article.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tobyc75, the link you provided has led me to this page (in a viewer—ugh). The tables and categories are neatly visible on that page (and preceding pages), and there is information to provide a clean citation. I think (perhaps later today) I'll find a place in the article body and add it. I appreciate your input (und also welcome more from others). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago64 comments44 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Comment: Pinging those involved in the recent Talk:Lake Zurich conversation, most of whom raised the name of the city in their response: User:JIP, User:Necrothesp, User:Spekkios, User:Ale3353. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Per nominator --Spekkios (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Support i believe the discussion that occured eight years ago was ended with no consensus due to many arguments regarding keeping original name or adopting English name for Zurich. But, as time changes, more English language source now using Zurich (without umlaut) as the Common English or non-German name, even for their website (named as Zurich.ch). 180.254.166.239 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

new IP in Indonesia care to identify yourself? We had an issue with an Indonesia IP acting as a sock in RMs before. Are you one of the participants in the discussion 8 years ago? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. Normally I'd oppose removal of umlauts, but Zurich is the established anglicised spelling. The English Wikipedia also calls München Munich, Napoli Naples, København Copenhagen and Göteborg Gothenburg. JIP | Talk 23:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, but they're entirely different names, not just lazily omitting an accent that in these days of computers could easily be added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. Umlauts are snobbery often enough, Zurich is the common name in English, never heard of the Zürich version. Ngram is pretty convincing also. Taking on faith without checking OPs data re what major sources do. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- If unlauts are snobbery, should Wikipedia move the article Hämeenlinna to Hameenlinna, for example? JIP | Talk 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  - Probably not, because Hämeenlinna is not well known enough in the Anglosphere to have an English name, in which case we go with the native name. Herostratus (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The native spelling is extremely common in English-language sources, although the version without the umlaut is obviously seen too. Claiming umlauts are snobbish is just, well, no comment. This omission of accents comes from a time when we all used typewriters and they had to be written on by hand. That situation no longer applies so there's no excuse not to use them. I speak, incidentally, as an English native English-speaker who wouldn't dream of omitting the accents from foreign names. It is true that English-language versions of foreign websites often omit them, but I think that's because they think we native English-speakers are too ignorant and lazy to use them. Sadly, that often appears to be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Not so much common as non-umlaut ones (Zurich), as the latter is the most widely used spelling (actually come from French, which is the one of four official languages of Switzerland) among non-German speakers inside and outside the country. I would be interesting to see how the city names would have different meaning if they were written without umlaut for example Düsseldorf (village of the Düssel) instead Dusseldorf (village of the fools). 180.254.166.239 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - mainly because Zurich, including "Zurich.ch" mentioned above, is quite distinctly the international insurance giant Zurich Insurance Group. The city's own presence on the world-wide web is notably "Zuerich", which is the established way in German-speaking countries to avoid the problems associated with umlauts. As someone on the ground in Zürich, this distinction is quite unambiguous, making logos and ads for the insurance company stand out as odd, or at least clearly separate from the place name proper. Frankly, I may be biased since it is literally my home town and tourists mispronouncing places like "Lucerne" to rhyme with "concern", "Basel" as in "hazel", "Berne" as in "burn", and "Chur" as in "chur-ch" gives me a weirdly jingoistic vibe. But given that WP takes care of any such move in a barely noticeable redirect, it's honestly well-nigh irrelevant which variant this page is listed under. Trigaranus (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - I can't see any advantage to this change. Including umlauts in cases where they're the only difference in spelling is advantageous as it makes the pronunciation clearer to readers. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per nom. If reliable sources write the name this way, so should we. Calidum 16:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - I don't find any valid reason for the change. The ‘ü’ umlaut is also part of the Latin alphabet which helps in better pronunciation. Ignorance is the reason people are dropping the ‘Ü/ü’ over the years. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment: If ignorance is the reason why people are dropping the umlaut, that still means that the common name is Zurich, regardless of why it's the common name. --Spekkios (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per WP:UE. Use of the umlaut implies that that is the most correct way to write the word in English, which is not the case. Station1 (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Trigaranus. Alex2006 (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: as per Trigaranus. Ramesh and Suresh (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC) — Ramesh and Suresh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Support, per common name in English. Walrasiad (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose a misspell remains a misspell no matter what. From what I see, all of the articles cited above don't show the use of diacritics in any other word. We can't say the authors made the conscious decision to write this city's name as Zurich. It is just lazy people not putting an effort to write foreign names and words properly. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Support – the city itself apparently prefers the spelling “Zurich” on its English-language websites, cf. https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/portal/en/index.html. This is also what the Federal Chancellery of Switzerland recommends in its «Schreibweisungen», cf. p. 57 of https://www.bk.admin.ch/dam/bk/de/dokumente/sprachdienste/sprachdienst_de/schreibweisungen.pdf.download.pdf/schreibweisungen.pdf. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Strong Support Apparently, not only English that prefers "Zurich" (without umlaut) spelling as their website stats, but also French, one of four official languages of Switzerland, prefers it. For me, is not just WP:UE that makes sense, but non-umlaut Zurich is most recognizable spelling outside German-speaking countries. 114.125.229.177 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
What French-speakers prefer is certainly irrelevant to what we on English Wikipedia use to describe a primarily German-speaking city in the German-language region of Switzerland. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Necrothesp, Trigaranus, HumanBodyPiloter5, The Anonymous Earthling, Alex2006, Ramesh and Suresh as well as Super Ψ Dro. Having supported English Wikipedia's use of diacritics for Polish cities (Kraków), I likewise support use of the umlaut in this case, although English Wikipedia does make occasional exceptions for very common use without diacritics (as in the case of Ho Chi Minh City, rather than Hồ Chí Minh City). As for Swiss cities best known in the English-speaking world by their French names, such as Neuchâtel (German Neuenburg,) such places may be also known to German speakers without accents or diacritics (Neuchatel). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Support The manual of style states “An established anglicized name is preferred (even if it merely drops the diacritical marks). In other cases, articles are written with the native proper name and the appropriate diacritics.” and ‘Zurich’ is definitely preferred by English language sources as can be seen from those provided by the nomination, I also agree with Spekkios; it doesn’t matter why ‘Zurich’ is the common name, the important thing is that it is. Ale3353 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per the text "The name is traditionally written in English as Zurich, without the umlaut." Our language doesn't use the markings within the letters in sources given in the nomination. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per The Anonymous Earthling. cookie monster 755 23:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Trigaranus. Volunteer Marek 02:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - per my comments here -->[3] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, no it is not a COMMONNAME. When there is uncertainty, the version with umnlaut/diacritics should be preferred, as in case of these recent Polish placename rename requests.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there is uncertainty when provided sources clearly show that there is a common name. --Spekkios (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - no evidence the non-umlaut spelling is a genuine English language variant name (like 'Cologne') rather that just a technological limitation of dead-tree media. I've never met an EN speaker who has been confused by the unlauted spelling, so no reason to use non-umlaut spelling. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- If I could demonstrate widespread use in media that has demonstrated their software and hardware to be capable of dealing with umlauts would that be sufficient to convince you? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/zurich - Station1 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as per established rules.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per User:Mach. When the city itself is using Zurich without an umlaut on their English-language websites, that's strong evidence that the umlaut is not used in the common English version of its name. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose For languages using the Latin alphabet, it is preferable (and frankly more respectful) to use the existing names, as long as no established English alternative name exists (such as Venice, Rome, Gothenburg, Copenhagen etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
For Zürich case, this one already have not only established English name, but also globally-recognized name (Zurich without umlaut) and has been taken from French, which is one of four official languages of Switzerland. If someone outside German-speaking countries didn't have umlauts on their alphabets, there can still spell Zurich with the French name. 114.125.228.219 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see how French has anything to do with the matter. This isn't French Wikipedia; we're not writing in French. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The established English name is Zurich as per the sources provided. "Respect" does not play into article title decisions. --Spekkios (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia is not dumbed down and WP:DIACRITICS are ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - per various similar proposals by the nom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BilledMammal&dir=prev&target=BilledMammal In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - per Trigaranus. ~Junedude433 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. There are sources which use umlauts on some names while omitting it from "Zurich"; examples are The Wall Street Journal (Düsseldorf but Zurich), The Atlantic (Küsnacht but Zurich), Calinger (2016) Leonhard Euler (Göttingen but Zurich, almost always), and User:J. 'mach' wust's www.bk.admin.ch source (for English, recommending Graubünden but Zurich). They are not omitting umlauts indiscriminately, but for Zurich specifically. I take that to reflect a deliberate choice, not laziness or ignorance. More broadly speaking, there is no place in policy for dismissing sources out of a generalized belief that sources are lazy, ignorant, or technologically limited (or snobbish).

WP:DIACRITICS neither encourages nor discourages diacritics in general, but leaves it up to other policies, particular the policy on common names and on foreign names. If there is more discussion, I hope it could be more focused on evidence for or against a common name. I support based on the common name evidence in the nomination. Other points which were raised have very little weight, in my opinion. 1. Other cities/place names have their own different usage patterns. 2. "Zurich" does not primarily mean Zurich Insurance Group in general English usage, even if it does in local usage. 3. The usage in German or French isn't important; it would matter if there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, which is not the case here. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - We aren't back in the dark ages, most users have keyboards which will enable the entering of an umlaut and anyway there'll be a redirect. We should seek to be accurate not lazy. Zürich is the name of the city, we should use it. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Zürich is the name of the city, there is also a redirect so renaming it is useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider241 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why this is pretty much a nontroversy if we're being honest here. Whatever side the coin falls on, it's going to be a redirect that only us nerds pay any attention to. It's almost violently irrelevant. Trigaranus (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. If a city has diacritics on its name, that's it, removing them is a mispronunciation and a misspell, and most importantly a dangerous precedent for other cities. Super Ψ Dro 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Can it really be called a misspelling if the city of Zurich tells us that in English (and French) the city is called "Zurich", not "Zürich"? BilledMammal (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And Armenian and Swahili and Esperanto. Oh wait, they have nothing to do with the discussion here. Like French. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

French is one of the official languages of Switzerland. It's not overly relevant, as we should only be considering what is correct in English, but as we are not doing that I thought it was worth mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Italian is too. So what? (It's not relevant at all.) Please let's stop confusing the issue with irrelevant arguments. Otherwise, we'll be forced to move this page to Zurigo. This is English Wikipedia; the most French usage might come into a discussion is if we were discussing, say, Genève (in which case, German usage would be wholly irrelevant). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Necrothesp and others. Though I do agree it hardly matters due to the magic of redirects, I still think it is more correct with the umlaut. Thanks DBaK (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that four Polish city RMs - Poznań Kraków Wrocław Łódź all just failed spectacularly. As they should do. Serious sources have full fonts. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per points already made by other editors and the recent consensus on the aforementioned Polish move requests. Turnagra (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

~~oppose~~ news agencies aren't the only RS' and typically don't use diacritics anyways—blindlynx 14:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: What other sources do you think we should be interrogating? The nominator already linked to google ngrams, which indexes the majority of books ever published in English, and it shows the non-diacritic version being significantly more frequent (even in the modern era where there are fewer technical impediments to rendering the diacritic). Colin M (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out the ngrams also catch the insurance company. Otherwise it seems like usage is pretty even between the two looking at google scholar 2,2 million [4] to 2,6 million [5]. I'll strike my notvote based on that—blindlynx 16:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. Zurich is not a case like Düsseldorf where the Umlaut is sometimes left out from laziness- it is the standard English form of the name, and as someone has mentioned above, is the preferred Anglicization of the name used by the city abd canton government. See www.zh.ch], www.ethz.ch and other related official sites. The first one reads Welcome to the Canton of Zurich in its English pages for migrants. This is used by people who definitely have Umlauts on their keyboards.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Come on, this is ridiculous. If I search English Google for Zurich sans-umlaut, my top two hits are for the insurance company instead of the city. English-language Google Maps spells it with umlaut too. It's not even the slightest bit uncommon to spell it Zürich, and I don't see any reason why an English-speaker would be confused by that spelling. Is it also spelled Zurich? Sure! In fact, that's the form my spellchecker prefers. The point here is that there's no clear "consensus" in common use, so why switch to something less specific when redirects exist? The city's own branding can't even decide: see "With the Zürich Card, city explorers can enjoy Zurich in all its diversity and save time and money too" as an example I just pulled off the zuerich.com website. (The English-language alt text on the images is spelled "Zürich" in every case.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, both uses are reasonably common in English, so modern spelling in local language should be preferred. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by ORT5000 and Mission Q8

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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