From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SPAM!! Please delete[edit]

Just to make our jobs a little easier. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 16:20, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

Spambot removing this top section[edit]

This top section keeps being removed by a strange automated spam-bot

What is it with that one spambot hitting this page and only this page!? Oh well, more grist for the spam filter mill... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:16, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)

It's dumbfounding. You'd think that a bot would hit more pages; but you'd also think that a human being would eventually get a clue. Anyways, yeah, it all gets to the spam filter eventually. --(WT-en) Evan 10:07, 13 Nov 2005 (EST)
Seems like they like the top discussion on this page. I'll put this discussion at the top. Maybe that makes the situation clearer. Sorry for the distraction. Please see below for discussion of the Zurich article! -- (WT-en) Nojer2 14:44, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

Zurich Hostel[edit]

I haven't been able to find it, neither online nor on foot. Perhaps we should list one of the other hostels for which we can get a phone number and stuff. Meanwhile I've added Martahaus, which does have hostel facilities. If anybody has stayed at the Zurich Hostel, maybe they can put it back with details.

Zurich Youth Hostel HI is far out of the city center. Forget it. The City Backpacker is located in the middle of the old town and very nice. It has mostly Backpacker guest. Self catering kitchen. Internet station. (it is near Martahaus (with online reservations without extra fee or reservatiosn fees.
I've added the hostel back to the list. It is located near Bhf Wollishofen. So that's not really far out of the city. In good reach with the public transport. They have a page on the net (as all hostels do). The rooms are nice and price is good.

Weird unidentified characters[edit]

I'm seeing one or two weird unidentified characters after or before umlouts in this article. e.g. in the clubbing section it mentions the word: Fö�rrlibuckstrasse. The browser fails to identify them, and shows an error character instead. Not sure if I should fix this by deleting the unidentified character, or maybe my browser is causing me to miss something (both IE and firefox). -- (WT-en) Nojer2 06:53, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I see Fö�rrlibuckstrasse too. It is a previous contributor's editing error. [1] indicates a possible corruption. I think it should be Förrlibuckstrasse. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:25, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)
OK I also fixed it in the word 'caf�' and in the interlanguage link to 'de:z�rich' -- (WT-en) Nojer2 03:30, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

There's a new Zurich Hostel in the center of the old town, Limmatquai 88.1, the prices are, in comparaison, really cheap, so i added it. Sometimes it's called Zurich Hostel- Hostel Krone.

ZicZac Rock-Hotel[edit]

So, I can't find any info on the Zig-Zag, Zig-Zac, or "rock and roll" hotels in Zurich. I know the place exists, and it's a great one to recommend, but can some resident find the real name and address (and an URL, if possible)? --(WT-en) Evan 13:30, 6 Dec 2003 (PST)

URL of the ZicZac Rock-Hotel:

Hotel Otter[edit]

Hotel Otter emailed me to say:

From:	"WuesteBar"
To:	<my_email_address>
Subject:	AW: Which rooms have ensuite shower/WC please?
Date:	Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:31:34 +0100

Hello ...my_name...

the appartment has a private shower but the toilet is just on the 
There is no other room with a private bathroom.

Best regards

Judith hirzel
Hotel otter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bob [mailto:...my_email_address...] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. November 2004 22:11
Betreff: Which rooms have ensuite shower/WC please?

Dear Hotel Otter,

I am interested in a double room or
appartment for a weekend in December,
but could you tell me which rooms
have ensuite shower and WC?
I understand that most rooms share
the facilities on the floor, but
does the appartment have its own?
Do any of the large double rooms
have ensuite?

I have edited the article's Sleep section acccordingly. A similar query to martahaus hotel has gone unanswered. -(WT-en) Wikibob | Talk 01:07, 26 Nov 2004 (EST)

I stayed in hotel Otter. Indeed they are shared bathrooms, but they're not shared between too many people actually. Basically there's a bathroom on each floor, and it's a narrow tall building, so I think there's just two or three rooms per bathroom. -- (WT-en) Nojer2 08:54, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)
My wife and baby and I usually stay at the Martahaus, which although mostly a hostel has a number of rooms with shower and toilet which are really comparable with any other hotel.. the rooms are consistently very clean -- (WT-en) Mark 15:54, 1 Dec 2004 (EST)


The claim that Zähringerstrasse would be a unsafe place is simply not true. A crime can happen everywhere at any time in the world, and the Zähringerstrasse is not less safe than the surrounding streets. It's obvious that Niederdorf is not Zurich's first adress, and in areas with a lot of bars and night clubs you always risk to be victim of a crime. So please stick to the facts and talk about serious problems. entries[edit]

I moved all the above hotels from the article page to here, because: (a) they were all today added by a single IP ; (b) they each link to; (c) none of them give a price range. I expanded one: "Ambassador à l'Opéra" and left it in the article. It would be more useful if such contributors could give more information, such as:

  • price range of single to double rooms
  • location of hotel in more detail, such as kilometres from Hauptbahnhof

(WT-en) Wikibob Talk 18:51, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I have replied to User: to say "Yes, give prices and distances." See more at User talk:(WT-en) Wikibob#Thanks where I suggested also including noting whether rooms are non-smoking, number of tram stops from a landmark, and whether up a hill. (WT-en) Wikibob Talk 12:42, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Get out[edit]

Is the Get out section a little out of control? It's very long... (WT-en) texugo 02:27, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]


In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you already changed it because honestly it looks almost exactly as the current one. Change it if you like... ϒpsilon (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks exactly the same to me. What's the difference? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This banner shows "a 40-50% wider perspective of Zürich" as the old version shows just a view from the leftmost church tower to the bluff under "Global file usage". That's really the only difference. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the new one is a sharper image, I guess. Looks somewhat better to me. ויקיג'אנקי, would it be possible to always show both current banner and the new suggestion? Thanks! Danapit (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Will do. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "Zürich" instead?[edit]

I mean... It is the official German name, after all. And Zürich is part of German speaking Switzerland. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same. Wikipedia mentions both names, but the name of the WP article is with "ü". ϒpsilon (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised that wikipedia puts Zürich first, as I see the other option of Zurich much more often in English usage and personally I would support to leave it at that. Looking at the Wikipedia Talk page however, it seems that it's not that clear and that there has been extended discussion on this topic with the consensus being that the version with the umlaut is the more common one even in English speaking sources. Drat70 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe "Zurich" is the more common spelling in English contexts. I'd leave it as it is. We do need A LOT of work in the "See" and "Do" sections though. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no umlaut in American English, at any rate, and by the way, we tend to pronounce it "Zer-ikh". I'm sure that'll make you cringe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
If I am reading this right, it's pretty close to standard German pronunciation. Swiss German has a more "oo"-like sound there. If anything makes me cringe is the thought of Swiss pilots and ATC speaking Schwyz to each other and somehow counting on themselves understanding this and not crashing into the Alps or other planes. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't the letter "z" pretty much always have a "ts" sound in German? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It does, I didn't even assume one can pronunce it differently when you spelled "your" version out. That said, the American "z" sounds quite similar to "ts" to me compared to the "hard" one we use around here. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Phonetics aside, I thought we always go with the common international convention which would be 'Zurich' without the umlaut. Check out any international Swiss page such as Swiss airlines. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You are very right. We can consider this sorted I guess. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Reorganise the see section[edit]

In my opinion the 'see' section of this article needs more structure. I have started doing this by making a subsection for museums.

However, I'm a bit at a loss on what to do about some of the other listings: 'Bahnhofstrasse', 'Niederdorf', 'Langstrasse', 'Zurich West' are not sights per se, but roads or whole areas of the city, which indeed all have notable features worth a visit, but which seem out of place between churches and museums. 'Lake Promenade' is the area along the lake.

I'm not quite sure how to fit those in. One possibility would be to make a small section under Understand (see for instance Berlin/Mitte#Areas_of_Mitte) explaining the different areas of the city (or at least the city centre), but I'm a bit scared that might get a bit convoluted because we would have to add descriptions of many more areas of the city which are maybe not that interesting to the traveler. Drat70 (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Drat70 - I'd say the answer is "more subsections", ideally encompassing all "See" listings. I'd start with one for churches, one for interesting streets or neighborhoods, and perhaps others; those that don't fit elsewhere can go in a "Miscellaneous" subsection.
Alternatively, you could also move the information regarding neighborhoods to a new "Orientation" subsection of "Understand", though ideally that would be in the context of a discussion that includes all notable neighborhoods of Zurich.
Though I was the one who nominated it way back a year or more ago, I'm beginning to have my doubts about whether Zurich is a viable DotM candidate at this time. I doubt that I personally will be able to contribute much to getting it whipped into shape - I've more pressing concerns over at Aarhus, which is next month's DotM, and there are some long-overdue updates yet to be made at the Buffalo district articles, not to mention fleshing out listings at Fast food in the United States and Canada - so I'll leave this question for others to answer. (It's not as if we couldn't easily find a replacement.)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a "talk" section?[edit]

If anything this paragraph:

"The official language is German, used in all official publications and announcements, and practically everyone can speak it, but the native language of the masses is Swiss German. The most common dialect is called Züritüütsch. English and French are also widely spoken and often used in official publications and announcements alongside German. Any of these languages will work well for communication. It's often wise to speak German rather than attempting to speak Swiss German; some people may think you're trying to make fun of their language.

I pulled from the "understand" section would belong into "talk" and not there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Big city article template doesn't have a talk section. I'd put it back in Understand, maybe under a subheading. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, how many people reading this will not read the Switzerland talk section? I think for cities with unique language situations, a tlak section might be worthwhile, but we should not "demand" it for every city of a certain size Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No, why should we demand that? But anyways, to add information like this to city articles, the Understand section is the right place . ϒpsilon (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Well putting it in a standard template even when we say "this section is optional and should only be filled if there is something non obvious to put here" is de facto demanding it. That said, I find it confusing to have the same type of information (which languages one can communicate in at the destination) in one section in region or country guides and a totally different section in city guides. I for one would not look for language information in the understand section, even though I do like to read it recreationally. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I would also argue that this information belongs to the country and region article. There is nothing much special about the dialect spoken in the city of Zurich as 'Züritüütsch' is also spoken in the rest of the region. However, it might make sense to at least mention that Zurich is in the German speaking part of Switzerland, as people unfamiliar with Switzerland might not know where the language borders lie. Drat70 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Hobbitschuster, I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to the paragraph you removed from the Zurich article, if we decide to keep that piece of text it should go back into the Zurich article's Understand section, possibly under a level 3 heading like I did yesterday in the Helsinki article. As the Understand section should "Give a deeper understanding of the city, such as its history, its culture, its mores, its politics, its relationship to other cities and the country it's in. Jokes and stereotypes about locals, etc.", if there is anything worth mentioning about the language(s) spoken at a destination, Understand is to my understanding the place to put that information. The template should stay as it is. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
But why don't we then put stuff about language in the understand section of region articles? I think it should be consistent if it is possible and I see no reason for there to be no consistence here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If the language thing (or anything else for that matter) is relevant to the whole Zurich region (or maybe even a larger part of the German-speaking Switzerland?) instead of just the city, then it should be put into the region article or maybe the country article. --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There'll always be some duplication. How likely are people to read those articles as well if they read the Zürich article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume people think of their travels as visiting 1. destinations (individual cities, national parks) located in 2. countries - unless they're visiting islands or regions that are remarkably different from the country they're located in. Therefore region articles are less read than other articles, people sort of forget that they are going to a region too. And WV is mostly edited by those same travelers rather than tourist office employees, so this is also why our region articles are underdeveloped compared to city and country articles. The problem with the ignored and empty region articles has been discussed before (e.g. a few years back Ryan had a plan for developing region articles to be more prominent) with no results.
Anyhow, if the thing is relevant to more than just Zurich, let's add it to the region article where already public holidays are listed. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Far away camp sites[edit]

There are 3 camp sites in this article at the moment, which are 20km or more away. Does it make sense to keep them?--Renek78 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I would keep fischers fritz as it's quite close and still within Zurich. Camping Waldhof I think we should move to Uster as it's actually quite close to there. Reussbrücke I would definitely remove, because it's really quite far from any of our destinations. Züri-Leu I'm not sure whether it's actually closer to Zurich or to Horgen. Drat70 (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Drat70! I updated the article.