Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions

This project subpage was created in a single edit by a single editor in 2005; it has never been discussed, and has been referred to twice in this period. It ne'er was consensus of more than Docu, and is an undesirable guideline in that makes unsourced controversial claims of fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Before discussing all the points you raised, can you detail what you mean with "unsourced controversial claims of fact"? -- User:Docu 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (4) brought me here. Is Lucerne or Bern more common? citation needed. Prudent guidance is a rule without real-world examples (unless they've been discussed and are consensus) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Pmanderson and have marked the page historical. There is no indication of it being supported by consensus, and the general guideline, Naming conventions (geographic names), is widely supported. There is no reason to have another guideline just for Switzerland. (And I'm saying this as a Swiss.)  Sandstein   17:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline outlines the way the articles are currently titled and as such it is still useful. It was set up for discussion when it was created and supported by those participating to the project. I know that Sandstein didn't create any municipality articles and as such might not have been interested, but others did and reviewed the guideline. The fact that the guideline wasn't edit warred doesn't mean there is no consensus.
 * If we remove it, we will still have to add another guideline explaining why we use the current solutions.
 * The samples of Lucerne and Bern are supported by Lucerne (disambiguation) and Bern (disambiguation). For neither we did have any request to move this away from their place as primary topic (Disambiguation. Note that (4) doesn't address the question if one should use "Bern" or "Berne". -- User: Docu at  22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was quoted - admittedly by a somewhat tendentious editor - as decisive for Bern. If that implication is unintended, it should at least be recast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I clarified (4). May I remove disputedtag and add guideline instead? -- User: Docu at  06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable evasion of the issue, and I do not dispute it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we come to the central question: why do we need this guideline? What's here that is not in WP:NCGN? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to answer, as the stuff around it keep changing. Most other countries have a more or less guideline as well. -- User: Docu at  19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Made proposed. Let's have a central discussion that can be linked to; maybe it will improve the guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated it to guideline. -- 签名 sig  at  10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Disentis/Mustér
I'm a bit embarrassed to see Disentis/Mustér used as example here since I recently moved the article to Disentis without being aware of it. So my suggestion would be to replace it with another example that follows better the common name policy. I think I've never seen Bosco Gurin referred as "Bosco" or "Gurin" alone, so it's probably a much better example of a bilingual name (if this is the kind of example we want to illustrate). In case you disagree (with the move or the propostion), please make sure to let me know. mge o talk 15:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is not generating any great controvies, so I implemented the change. mge o  talk 20:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)