Talk:Zurich Airport: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:54, 19 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zurich Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Aviation: Airports Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

Switzerland Start‑class High‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linking ZRHwiki again and again

I'm the administrator of ZRHwiki (http://www.zrhwiki.ch). I consider ZRHwiki a reliable source – as reliable as a wiki can be, i.e. every wiki's reliability depends on its users – and I have never been contacted with regard to Wikipedia and a copyright violation. I agree, however, that ZRHwiki should indeed not get linked from the Zürich Airport article here in the English Wikipedia. All ZRHwiki content is in German and has therefore only limited use for visitors of the English Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration! --ZRHwiki (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note: Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name in English

I'm sorry, but I do not accept the «germanised» spelling of Zurich Airport with the Umlaut into English, when even the official website of the airport uses "Zurich" without umlaut to name itself. Please, at least, do respect the official name and official appreciation of its denomination. --User:Ngagnebin 1:22, 3 Februaty 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is so much on target. It is really silly to use these umlauts in an English-language encyclopedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

Page moved. Google books is a persuasive argument. However that is not sufficient information to establish the name on its own here. If you consider that the US airlines on their web sites also don't use the umlaut, we now seem to be establishing the case that allows us to select The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage. Then we look at the airport's English site and there are no umlauts. In the text Zurich is used and it is the only form used on the pages I checked (for the airport). I will note however that the page does deal with the umlaut problem in an interesting way for the logo when there the umlaut is replaced with a stylistic accent added to the the u. The airport itself apparently makes a distinction as seen in statements like Flughafen Zürich AG operates Zurich Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zürich Airport → Zurich Airport — Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) The name of Zurich with an umlaut is not official and not shown around other airports. The official website in English doesn't use any umlaut in its English name and respects the English and international spelling of Zurich. The use of the Umlaut is a germanization of an official English translation that should not happen here. Ngagnebin (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support but with failing courage. The city of Zurich is known to many Engish speakers, and the umlaut is rarely used in English, and then often for poetic or similar effect, see Zurich#Name. But see also Talk:Zürich#Zurich or Zürich? and Talk:Zürich/Archive 2. I guess we could say that the airport name is even more rarely shown with the diacritic than the city name... ah well... Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Seems like an "if it's not broke, don't fix it" kind of thing. The spelling of Zürich on Wikipedia appears to be, well, Zürich, such as at Canton of Zürich and Zürich. Umlauts are not unheard of in English, for instance noël, naïve, über, etc, and also there are many other pages on Wikipedia that use diacritics in the title such as the place names mentioned earlier, people such as Nicklas Lidström, etc. Rejectwater (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've left a note at Talk:Zürich letting them know about this discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The official name is irrelevant to the naming of the Wikipedia article. I agree with Rejectwater that umlauts are present in loanwords, so I don't see this as a Germanization. It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name, but the consistency with Zürich, Canton of Zürich, etc. seems preferable. --skew-t (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:UE, decisions should be made on what is the usage in English language reliable sources. What evidence do you use to conclude that "It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name"? If Zürich was to be moved to Zurich then would you support the move of this page to Zurich Airport? -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't disagree with UE, nor did I argue that some other language should be used. Loanwords are those that have been adopted into English. So far no sources beyond the official site have been provided showing usage either way, so I say it's debatable, as in there can be further discussion on that point. The rational given by the original post was that the article should use the official name. And yes, I'd be more inclined to support a move if it is consistent with the parent article. --skew-t (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google book search returns

107 on Zürich-Airport -Zurich-Airport in English.
790 on -Zürich-Airport Zurich-Airport in English.

This is evidence that in reliable English language sources the use of "Zurich Airport" is about eight times more common than "Zürich-Airport". Do you still think "It's debatable which spelling is more common for the airport name"?-- PBS (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think one Google comparison ends discussion. My main argument however is the official name is irrelevant and consistency is preferable. --skew-t (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that would indicate that the Google Book is not a fairly accurate survey of reliable source usage? If the wording is changed to indicate that the move should be made because "Zurich Airport" is by far the most common usage in reliable language sources would you then change your opinion? It is this use of consistency that is why I have persistently objected to its inclusion in the policy as consistency should not be used to overrule the usage in reliable sources. Let us suppose that the name Zurich was being used for the city name but reliable sources showed that English language usage favoured "Zürich Airport" over "Zurich Airport" do you think we should have it a "Zurich Airport"? -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per my comment at Talk:Zürich, I'd remove the umlauts from both titles.--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The present title of the article on the city is itself debatable; there is no necessity to be consistent with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Zürich Airport discomfort.

I found the airport hard to find my way about. There would be one sign pointing where to go, far away from the destination. It was easy to get lost, which I did. One passes many glamorous shops, but finding a place to sit down was not easy. I am not young and need to sit down on occasion. The men's restroom near the gate was up a two landing flight of stairs, and of course I had to lug my carry on suitcase up these stars. The airport is glamorous but far from comfortable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.234.106 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name reprise

We now have a clear decision at Talk:Zürich#Requested move 4 documenting that WP:EN's name for the city is 'Zürich' rather than 'Zurich'. For consistencies sake, it is clearly desirable that other 'child' articles are renamed in line, and I and others have been doing so.

However I'm not at all certain that this article should be renamed in the same way. The previous decision on this article in 2010 (above) is not particularly predicated on the city name, and the airport operator clearly and consistently uses 'Zurich Airport' and/or 'Flughafen Zürich' (depending on the language of the communication) but never the hybrid 'Zürich Airport'.

Also as it describes an international airport, the article context is clearly rather different to other articles of more local significance.

I've just amended the article to replace all references to 'Zürich Airport' with 'Zurich Airport', which is consistent with the article name, but retained 'Zürich' for more general usages. I think that is the correct answer, but I suspect not all will agree. What do others think?; should we rename or not?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion a long time ago and we already had a discussion on Zurich regarding the Umlaut. I don't know why they keep on insisting to put the Umlaut in English when the English form does have a translation of "Zürich" in "Zurich". Therefore, even the Airport names itself without the Umlaut in English so I would oppose any change. The problem we have is that often in Switzerland, Swiss-German people translate websites into English from German and they keep the German form when it exists obviously a correct English spelling. I think one should stick to the solely and only official name in English which is "Zurich Airport". Ngagnebin (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the point of voting on the name then ?

I just read the article today and I clearly wonder why do we ever vote on agreeing on an article name/entry on Wikipedia when we clearly reach an agreement about keeping « Zurich Airport » without umlaut and then some people just change it with an umlaut again without any vote and consideration for the discussion(s) held here. I'm seriously considering forgetting contributing to Wikipedia in English as is seems it becomes a banana-republic concerning cooperation amongst its members and democratic discussions leading to an agreement that are just thrown into garbage by others' decisions to make their own rules. I'm getting fed up with this... -.-" Ngagnebin (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]