Talk:Lake Zurich

Untitled
2|- m seems like a weird dimension... methinks this is a scanned in document — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.198.130  (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2002 (UTC)

From where I'm accessing this at... I see a "missing image" for the picture of the lake. Reuploading it was a move resulting in failure. Odd. --DF08 18:00, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Obersee (Zürichsee)
Hi, started Obersee (Zürichsee), please let's know respectively discuss here, so you dont's see any need to separate; before please also see p.e. Obersee (Lake Constance). thx and kindly regards, Roland zh 21:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Zurich oder Zürich
What is correct? In German it is Zürichsee. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Best time to swim
From the article: "Historically, the best weather for swimming has been late August, with August 28 typically having the nicest weather at around 5:30pm." This is suspiciously specific. 2A02:AA13:7200:2400:E470:C629:94DE:1134 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence, it was added here on August 28(!) 2014 at 5:03pm(!) local time. Obviously a troll edit. --FGodard (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628110559/http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/bs/de/home/themen/kgs/kgs_inventar/a-objekte.html to http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/bs/de/home/themen/kgs/kgs_inventar/a-objekte.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228075510/http://www.zsg.ch/index.php?english to http://www.zsg.ch/index.php?english

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling with/without umlaut
The article is named "Lake Zurich", yet in the article, the spelling "Lake Zürich" is used. It should be either/or, consistently.

My research shows that "Lake Zurich" is the established Anglicized spelling, but I don't feel sure enough to change it. Ebab (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2021

 * 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: Moved back per consensus  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lake Zürich → Lake Zurich – To align with WP:COMMONNAME, reverting a WP:BOLD 2020 move. Ngrams shows a considerable preference for "Lake Zurich", with the difference sufficiently sufficient to override concerns about the impact of the US village. This is reinforced by recent news results, with agencies such as Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC all using "Lake Zurich". BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Normally I'd oppose removal of umlauts, but Zurich is the official English spelling of the city, so by consistency the spelling should be used for the lake too. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The umlaut is omitted only by the ignorant and by those who once had to use typewriters. In the modern day we have no such problems. If we're talking about consistency, our article on the city is at Zürich! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So are those who create the official English spelling ignorant, or do they continue to use typewriters? In any case, their position isn't overly relevant due to WP:OFFICIALNAME, but I would suggest that if "Zurich" not "Zürich" is also the common name for the city, then we should move that article as well. BilledMammal (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The city article has already survived RM. The reason many cities in non-English-speaking cities have official English names without accents is not because their inhabitants are ignorant but because they think (with some justification, apparently) that we native English speakers are! The fact is, however, that many of us can cope with "furrin" names and even, horror of horrors to some (e.g. those who still insist on writing Marseilles, Lyons, etc, a trend that has, thank God, mostly died out in the UK, but sadly not in the US), prefer to use them. With a very few exceptions, like Venice, Florence, Belgrade and Vienna, where the Anglicised names have become so well established that it would be pretentious to use the native versions, it is always better to use the native spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Eight years ago as "no consensus". As for the rest, the policy is WP:COMMONNAME, which asks for the English name, not the native name - and if you wish to change that, could I suggest opening a RfC there? BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, common name means common name in English-language sources, not necessarily the one without the accents, not necessarily a translation and not necessarily the "official" English name. But the common name. In fact, usage in English-language sources is mixed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was unclear, but that is what I meant regarding common name. As for usage being mixed, that wasn't what I observed, an observation that is reinforced by ngrams. In fact, over the top hundred relevant results when searching for news about ""Lake Zürich" Switzerland", 95 used "Lake Zurich" and just 5 used "Lake Zürich". Did you observe a notably different result? BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --Spekkios (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  per nom, other sources that use ‘Lake Zurich’ include The Washington Post and Google Maps . Though we’re talking about the lake, it might be good to discuss whether or not the city should use the umlaut as well. Ale3353 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2021

 * 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. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 04:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lake Zurich → Lake Zürich – The RM attempting to move the article Zürich to Zurich has failed. We are therefore now inconsistent with article titles, so I am proposing to move this article back to its former spelling. Super  Ψ   Dro  15:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  15:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)  — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the arguments and evidence presented in the previous RM, and per the Zurich RM resulting in "no consensus", which makes it inappropriate to apply widely. BilledMammal (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. 125.167.56.108 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BilledMammal Ale3353 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support there should be consistency between the two—blindlynx 13:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per nom, giving needs to consistency of naming Zurich article. I also see that moved the article back to pre-2010 Zürich Airport (with umlaut), which also think is time to move Zurich Protocols to Zürich Protocols (with umlaut). 116.206.35.23 (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It’s worth noting that even certain sources that use ‘Zürich’ also use ‘Lake Zurich’ such as Google Maps. Ale3353 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even official Swiss tourist sites who umlaut the city name refer to it as "Lake Zurich" (e.g.) Walrasiad (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Lakes has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Switzerland has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that we shouldn't have a flood of Zurich/Zürich name changes after a no consensus result, but this is a valid exception. Regarding the vote: First, I see no arguments presented here that aren't "per the previous RM".  Second, I think Google Maps is copying us rather than making its own editorial policy. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 20:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. A lot of reliable sources were provided for ‘Lake Zurich’ in the 22nd November 2021 RM while no sources have been provided for ‘Lake Zürich’, 2. Google Maps does have it’s own editorial policy as can be seen for places like Mecca which is Makkah al-Mukkuramah on Google Maps or like how Port Elizabeth is Gqeberha on Google Maps . Ale3353 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * NZGB Independent Sources discusses this briefly; when it comes to Google maps, we don't always know where they get their name from. I would generally agree with powera that we should avoid using it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced above by other opposes and by the Google Ngrams. I see no convincing evidence here that the proposed title is the more common name in English for this topic. The RM discussion cited for justification in this move ended with no consensus, which means it has no relevance here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to the common name evidence above and in the 22 November 2021 RM (excluding Google Maps, per 力 (powera)), a Google Scholar search of "Lake Zürich" -"Lake Zurich" Switzerland -Illinois (978) and -"Lake Zürich" "Lake Zurich" Switzerland -Illinois (3890) holds up in favor of "Lake Zurich". The Zürich/Zurich RM also included discussion of Zurich Insurance Group and whether it affected the evidence such as ngrams. Here, in contrast, Zurich Insurance Group and other proper names have no effect on the results for Lake Zürich / Lake Zurich. This is a difference between the present case and the Zürich/Zurich RM which should add confidence in interpreting the evidence. Lastly, I agree with BilledMammal that the argument for consistency with Zürich is weakened by the fact that Zürich itself has no consensus. Adumbrativus (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Suport It is inconsistent, and "no consensus" can't really be used as evidence since the votes were leaning toward oppose Spider241 (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The manual of style states ‘The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.’ It doesn’t matter what way the vote was leaning, all that matters is that it got no consensus. Ale3353 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The RM to move Zurich Protocols to ‘Zürich Protocols’ (which had similar reasoning to this one) has just failed. Ale3353 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per arguments presented above. Zurich (no umlaut) is the comonly-accepted English spelling. Superboilles (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2022 (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.