Talk:Uetliberg

Untitled

The spelling Üe- is significant, because otherwise a reader aware of German orthography will take the Ue- as an umlaut. The first syllable however does not simply have an umlaut (*Ütliberg=Uetliberg), it has a diphtong beginning with an umlaut, Üetliberg. A theoretically strict transcription without diacritics would be *Ueetliberg, but this is not in use. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallery section

Added the gallery section and moved two of the panos here to improve the layout of the article. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Name confusion

The previous untitled comment suggests that the correct name should be Üetliberg (with an umlaut on the first letter), and indeed this article is named that way. But the very first sentence of the article text says that this is erroneous, and that the name is officially spelled without the umlaut. If the text of the article is correct, then the article should probably be renamed, but is it correct?.

The WP:DE article simply lists both spellings as alternatives. Looking elsewhere on the web, I see both spellings. Indeed the official Zürich tourism website (https://www.zuerich.com/en/visit/attractions/uetliberg) spells it without the umlaut, whilst the official Swiss tourism website (http://www.myswitzerland.com/en-gb/observation-tower-uetliberg.html) spells it with the umlaut.

Now very confused - can anybody help?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not "erroneous", it's just a variant spelling. Never believe anyone inserting claims something is "erroneous" without citing a specific source making clear who called it erroneous and for what reasons. --dab (𒁳) 17:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I recognize the user doing the edit[1], has given me grief with well-meaning edits before, "ZH8000" indicates somebody from Zürich out to "improve" articles just based on their local knowledge. --dab (𒁳) 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

dab, you obviously do not know the laws of this country good enough, otherwise you would not make such a stupid remark. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I quickly googled a few references.

The historical progression of spelling variants is Ütliberg, Uetliberg, Üetliberg.

The spelling Üetliberg has been in common use since at least the 1950s[2] and is hardly "erroneous", even though it is true that the national map always had Uetliberg. --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As always with geographical names, swisstopo is the authorative information source (not to be mismatched with the defining source! ... keyword: subsidiarity), since it is their lawful task to provide the official naming of geographical names (e.g. via the swisstopo maps) due to the GeoIG, GeoIV, GeoNV ... (Germa abbrv., SR 510.6x) laws and acts. So, swisstopo map's naming is always official and therefore "correct". Myswitzerland's error just shows that their employees are not accustomed to the best standard ;-) -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "country", please familiarize yourself with WP:NAME and WP:RS. The laws you cite regulate the geodata under the control of the federal government. The Swiss government does not legislate on "correct" orthography, because Switzerland is not a totalitarian dystopia. Wikipedia is not geodata under the control of the Swiss federal government. I hope you see that you are not making sense. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

dab, first of all, pease, familiarize yourself with the correct usage of talk pages WP:TP.

Secondly, then also learn the correct meaning of 'official' (small hint: is is not defined by WP!).

Thirdly, again, learn the correct content of the corresponding Geo laws and acts. Your claims are obviously erronous and make obvious how bad your actual knowledge is. So I suggest you stop producing your scrappiness before you make further totally erronous and primitive statements like the ones above. I won't comment them further. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is Uetliberg and that he therefore would like to request a page move. For the record, I think that ZH8000 is correct and would support the hypothetical RFM. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like we are all in vehement agreement that the article should be renamed without the umlaut. So I shall make the RFM unhypothetical. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: done DrStrauss talk 08:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Üetliberg → Uetliberg – As discussed in Talk:Üetliberg#Name confusion, and as now explained in the article lead, both Uetliberg and Üetliberg (note the umlaut) are variants in use, but Uetliberg is the WP:COMMONNAME and should used as the article name. chris_j_wood (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, of course. I already outlined it above. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support due to recollection of Uetliberg railway station not using the umlaut, and the current article not using it either. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah sure, though of course Ueetliberg remains my preferred spelling. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.