Jump to content

Talk:First Battle of Zurich

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

Zurich or Zürich

[edit]

see Talk:Second Battle of Zürich

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Although ideally subtopics should be titled consistently with their supertopics, it is plausible to deviate from this goal where sources referencing the subtopic employ a different usage. bd2412 T 03:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The spelling of the city of Zürich on WP:EN was comprehensively debated and settled back in 2013 (see Talk:Zürich). I attempted to bring these articles into line, thinking this was by now an uncontroversial move, but was reverted. As it is obviously still controversial, and I guess there may be a case for spelling the battle differently than the city, I am raising this RM so we can make that call. chris_j_wood (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support restore to consistency as article was in 2010. Trying to duplicate Napoleonic era English fonts for Napoleonic events is not needed or sensible in an encyclopedia in 2017. Quality history books and other sources which can use umlauts don't suddenly drop them when the page turns to mention the 18th Century. The editor who removed the umlauts doesn't understand how publishing works in the Unicode era. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because:
  • First of all several things need addressing here. "The spelling of the city of Zürich on WP:EN was comprehensively debated and settled back in 2013" Well yes and no. It seems to me that as there were no consensus on the last move request (Requested move 5), that it is agreed that both spellings are correct, and all that is required is consistency within an article.
    [Interjection] I do not see how you infer that reading. Requested move 5 was a request to move the spelling back to Zurich from Zürich, after requested move 4 (a full two weeks earlier) had achieved a consensus to move from Zurich to Zürich. RM5 failed to achieve a consensus and therefore fell. There are only two outcomes of an RM; they either achieve a consensus or they don't. Failing to achieve a consensus isn't some kind of draw that lets people do what they like, it is a failure that leaves the previous condition unchanged. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether move 4 was a consensus based on WP:AT and the naming conversions is very questionable (indeed it was questioned). In move 3 the consensus was to move the article from Zürich to Zurich. So cherry picking a result does not advance the argument. There are three outcomes not two: Consensus to move; Consensus not to move; and no Consensus. No consensus is different from a consensus; and the last time there was a requested move for the article Zürich no consensus was the outcome. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The editor who removed the umlauts doesn't understand how publishing works in the Unicode era" Well that is a a piece of OR that Iio frequently uses without anything to back up his statement. For example the Zurich Airport authorities use Zurich on their English and French language pages ("You can download the Zurich Airport app free of charge from the iTunes App Store" and "Sur l’application Zurich Airport" but Zürich on their German page "Die Flughafen Zürich App können Sie gratis im iTunes Store herunterladen". This is clearly a style choice by Zurich Airport and is nothing to do with Unicode or anything else. It is simply that like Geneva and Vienna, English language usage differs from the German spelling (Genf, Wien, Zürich and is more closely related to French (Genève Vienne, Zurich) -- this is not surprising because for most of the modern era French was the lingua franca so many old cities in Europe are spelt in English from a name derived from the French name for the place.
  • "restore to consistency as article was in 2010" that is a selective judgement, because this article started out as "First Battle of Zurich" it was move to "First Battle of Zürich" later and was moved back after the 2010 discussion.
Another point to make is that the spelling of battles is separate from the spelling of the place: from WP:TITLECHANGES:
In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad.
WP:MILNAME recommends following the usage in reliable sources.
  • A search of google books reveals that "Battle-of-Zürich" -Zurich returns 51 books; while a search of "Battle-of-Zurich" -Zürich returns 99 books. If the search is restricted to 21st century publications, "Battle-of-Zürich" returns just 2 books while "Battle-of-Zurich" returns 13 so far from the "Battle-of-Zürich" being more common in more recent publications the the ratio between the two is greater in favour of using "Battle-of-Zurich".
--PBS (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Honestly, if we are going to talk about usage in English, I think the article on Zürich has this wrong. I actually live in the city of Zurich/Zürich. In German the name is definitely Zürich, but when it is written in English the umlaut is usually omitted so the name in English is simply rendered as Zurich. That's true even for people who know how to use umlauts. For example, the Canton of Zurich offers an English intro page "About the Canton of Zurich" [1], similarly the City of Zurich has an English intro page to "Zurich" [2], and the English guide to the main train station also omits the umlaut [3]. If we are going by usage in English, then I think it is more natural/common to omit the umlaut. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match Zürich. We are not dealing with a change in how the name is treated over time (as in, e.g., Saragossa/Zaragoza), but merely whether or not a printer wanted to use an umlaut. (In general, "Anglicizing" by simply removing diacritics seems pointless to me.) Srnec (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then how do you explain the use by the company who run Zuich Airport or those examples given by Dragons flight? Why do you not want to follow guidance on the usage in reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that Zürich Airport is named after the Battle of Zurich, or the other way round. Neither seems particularly likely, but I can see no other reason why you think the spelling of the airport has any bearing on the spelling of the battle. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is to refute the argument that "merely whether or not a printer wanted to use an umlaut" by presenting examples where an informed choice is used showing it is not juts a typographical issue, and that we should follow usage in reliable sources (as is advised in the policy over article titles). -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can I just point out that we are not discussing what the spelling of Zürich as a city or canton or airport should be. If you think the current WP spellings of these are wrong, then please take that discussion elsewhere and start the sixth or seventh or whatever iteration of that discussion. The question here relates specifically to these two battles. Should we bring them in line with the current view on the spelling of the city, or is there a case for spelling them differently.-- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were using German, this would be "Erste Schlacht bei Zürich" (or similar), but since this is the English Wikipedia I believe that "First Battle of Zurich" (without umlaut) is the most appropriate English name, since that is the most common way both the battle and the city are referenced in English. I disagree that the current title of Zurich's city article is either the best choice or should be controlling in this case. Wikipedia is already inconsistent about the umlaut, with various major pages like University of Zurich, ETH Zurich, Zurich Opera, Philharmonia Zurich, etc. choosing not to use the umlaut. Yes, most pages do use the umlaut; however, I would personally take the inconsistent usage and repeated move discussions at the city page as evidence that this issue lacks a strong consensus. Dragons flight (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support by requestor: If somebody can come up with a good reason why the battle has a different spelling than the city, then we should document it in the article and leave the name as is. But that is conditional on a good reason that stands up to an in-article explanation. If not, then it seems to me clear that the battles were named after the city, and therefore we should adopt the precedent already set for the spelling of Zürich in WP:EN. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please Note that your "Conditional support" needs to be change to comment so that people are not mislead into thinking that you are not the person who initiated this RM. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually from where I'm standing it was you who initiated the RM with your rollback comment on my original change. I merely transcribed it to the appropriate place without making any statement pro or con. Above is my *only* expression of opinion on this RM. Nonetheless, I have amended the statement to make it clear that I am the person who raised the RM. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the city is or is not misnamed is besides the point (that is something to decide through the usage in of reliable sources). The naming of this article should follow usage in reliable sources of the name of the "Battle of Zurich". I have provided a search using Google Books as a proxy for a full survey and that indicates that most modern reliable sources use "Battle of Zurich". For example the name of the Battle of Agincourt is not spelt the same way as the location (Azincourt) and the Battle of Blenheim was fought at Blindheim. -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely agree with you that the question of whether the city is or is not misnamed is besides the point; that is precisely what I was trying to say in my comment above. But I don't really buy your examples above. Both Agincourt and Blenheim were battles in which significant numbers of English-speaking troops fought, so it is hardly surprising they have their own well-established English spellings; no real difference to my memories of my own grandfather talking about being at the Battle of Wipers. But the battles of Zürich have no such linguistic connection, and I seriously doubt that there is a well established English-language spelling for them other than that inherited from the city that they are named after. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, Webster's New World College Dictionary, and American Heritage all spell it "Zurich." The only major dictionary that spells it with an umlaut is Collins English Dictionary. See One Look. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean that those dictionaries spell the 'First Battle of Zurich' and 'Second Battle of Zurich' that way. If yes, then I think that is pretty conclusive that the spelling should stay the same. On the other hand if you just looked up 'Zurich', then it is irrelevant as we are not discussing the spelling of the city or canton or whatever. There is already a consensus on that, and if you want to try and change it, here is not the right place. For the discussion here, we need clear indication of the spelling of the names of the battles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Guidelines say follow English usage, reader experience is at least as well served by following English usage, no case to answer really. As pointed out above, the guidelines explicitly say that the sort of consistency sought by this nomination is not to be pursued. As to the claim that the proposed title is more correct, that again is not supported by policy. Reader experience is not greatly affected, the redirect takes care of any minor confusion, but it's still important to uphold the principle. Andrewa (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:CONSISTENCY with the city article, and "Zürich" is in any case the common English term these days.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru "...the common English term these days" what is your evidence in reliable English language sources for this statement? It has never been agreed on on the talk page of AT that consistency should be considered over and above usage in reliable sources. Consistency is intended for use in things like whether it should be "First Battle of name" or "1st Battle of name", but even then WP:MILNAME recommends following the usage in reliable sources to determine the name. Also if consistency were an argument in this case, it cuts both ways: if the consensus is to keep the article as the "First Battle of Zurich" would you support moving the article "Zürich" back to "Zurich"? If not why not? -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2017 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Battle_of_Zurich&oldid=1207233541"