Talk:Geneva

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

Coat of arms[edit]

Hi, I think the 'Coat of arms of the City and Canton of Geneva' shown on this page is actually for the Canton only, not for the city. But I can't find proof of this. Does someone know? Hwebers

It is for both. Here's the link from the City of Geneva's website: http://www.ville-geneve.ch/en/decouvrir/en-bref/armoiries.htm HTH Kokiri 23:36, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No, it isn't. There a slight difference, look !
There is a difference between the city and teh canton coat of arms: here is the official one for the canton [1] from the law itself [2]. The city's coat is cited above.


I've cut& paste the bit on the canton of Geneva and created a stub rather a redirect for the canton. After all this page states that it is about the city... Kokiri 13:24, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Map Showing Location of Geneva[edit]

How do we add the map showing the location of geneva, similar to that found at Berne and Zürich and Basel? Sophrosune (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Lac Leman[edit]

The name 'Lac de Genève' has only ever been used in Geneva, and not elsewhere in Switzerland (as indicated on the page Lake Geneva). So I will probably remove the reference to this name, and let people look at the main article on the lake if they want more info. Schutz 08:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that even in Geneva, this name is now rarely used. Schutz 08:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lac de Genève crops up now and then but me and everyone I know calls it Lac Leman. Wyss 16:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the recent addition of the german name of Lake Geneva, because the complete area around Lake Geneva is frenchspeaking. Therefore, "Genfer See" is NOT a local name. However, through the link Lake Geneva, the reader can still find this information. --Neumeier 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Clock[edit]

The Flower Clock
The Flower Clock
The Flower Clock

Which image is better ? The second was on the article in the beginning.. then replaced with the first. I changed it back to a modified version of second ( the third image ) because I think it gives a better idea about how big the clock is in terms of size. Also, the first image's colour seems faded. Anyhow, what do others think ? sikander 08:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Population of Geneva[edit]

Is the metropolitan population of Geneva really equivalent to nearly 2 million people? This would make Geneva one of the largest cities in Western Europe, and vastly bigger than Zürich. The link page goes to a site in German that doesn't appear to immediately address the issue. Geneva is easily viewed on arrival via plane during the day, provided cloud cover is not too thick, and the largest concentration of development is obviously and overwhelmingly concentrated in the Canton of Geneva, which hosts under half a million people. The total population of the ONLY neighbouring Swiss state (Canton) of Vaud is around 650,000, of which about 200,000 live in Lausanne city limits. Even if 400,000 Vaudois could be counted as part of the Metropolitan area of Geneva, which I imagine is not very likely, that still leaves almost a million people unaccounted for. Where do these million people live?? Annemasse? Ferney-Voltaire? Divonne-les-Bains?-Wikipedia sources suggest that the combined population of these three next largest towns around Geneva barely exceeds 40,000 people and the only other town of note within close reach to Geneva, Thonon-les-Bains (population about 30,000), is separated from the Geneva metropolitan area by substantial tracks of sparsely-populated countryside. I, therefore, would tend to assume that the Geneva urban agglomeration figure has been inflated by at least 7-800,000 people. Any thoughts? --Dogma2000 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number comes from here [3], but it make reference to the "région lémanique [region of the Lake Geneva] vaste territoire qui englobe les Cantons de Vaud et de Genève, le Département de la Haute-Savoie, quelques territoires fribourgeois, valaisans et de l'Ain. I found more usuals numbers here [4] : 650000, 700000, and 750000, depending of the definition of the metropolitan area. I shall put the number of 700000 in the article. --Neumeier 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International organizations[edit]

Why was Geneva picked for so many international organizations? Sfisher 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but one reason might be because it is in neutral Switzerland. NauticaShades 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a lot of truth in that, but the Red Cross is there because that's where its founder, Henry Dunant, came from. Ireneshusband 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides tradition, critical mass of already present international organizations, political stability and swiss neutrality, there is also the quality of life and good international tranport links. Some of these reason (neutrality, stability, approximative geographic centre of Europe) were even more important during the first half of the 20th century, when League of Nations and other international organizations were created in Geneva, but also UPU in Bern, IOC in Lausanne, and BIS in Basel. --Neumeier 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all started with the Red Cross for the reasons above, then the League of Nations. The League very nearly went to Brussels, but Wilson and others pushed for Geneva because of religious reasons (Wilson's staunch protestantism) and not wanting the seat of the League to be in the center of the conflict the organization was supposed to prevent from ever occurring again.[1] Hennings.iheid (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really an International Committee of Committees?78.147.136.72 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kuntz, Joëlle (2011). Geneva and the call of internationalism: a history. Geneva: Republic and State of Geneva. pp. 47–54.

Geneva and Gex[edit]

Passing mention should be made of the agreement with France over provisioning from Haute Savoy and Gex.

Calvin and Loyola[edit]

One of my history lecturers said it was a minor fancy of his that John Calvin and Ignatius Loyola met on the road outside Geneva in passing - one going in the other leaving.

62.6.121.44 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do things work at the border?[edit]

The article says that some of the public transit routes cross into France. Does this mean that the border is not policed in any way? How long has it been like this? Ireneshusband 10:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All main border crossing points have a customs post on them. A few are manned more or less permanently (such as the crossing to Ferney where the F bus goes). Others for limited hours. Others only very occasionally. Even where there are permanently manned crossings, they do not stop everyone. The system relies on people finding a customs officer to declare anything necessary and not crossing without appropriate documentation. There are also mobile patrols which can stop people anywhere within a fairly large distance from the border, which probably provide more of a deterrent to abuse than the fixed checks.
The buses will usually pass straight through the post with just a nod from the border guard, but I have certainly been on buses a few times where it has been stopped and everyone on board required to show a passport/ID card.
Trains vary. The TGV trains to Paris require you to pass through a passport control point in the station, which is usually manned, before you get on the train or after you get off. I can't remember what the system is for the trains to Annemasse - I would guess at it being the same, but less frequently manned. Some trains crossing borders into or out of other parts of Switzerland have occasional checks by border guards who get on the train at the relevant points from time to time (if I recall correctly, peforming the checks on the train as it moves between the stations either side of the border, presumably on the basis of a bilateral agreement giving authority to act on the train within either territory).
Passport checks between Switzerland and France will (as such) soon be eliminated when Switzerland's entry to the Schengen system is implemented, but the customs checks will remain, which will presumably allow them the right to demand documentation if there is a customs-related need for it. Bradype 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When taking regional trains into Annemasse from Geneva Cornavin, you do have to go through a manned customs booth before having access to the train. Lostvalley 09:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN Headquarters?[edit]

Picture of UN building states is the the UN Headquarters. While I wish the UN was not HQ'ed in NY, Geneva does not have the UN headquarters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.143.130 (talk • contribs)

But geneva has the ECMA HQ. Shouldn't this be stated in the article?

Public Schools[edit]

In the education section of the article the "public school" system is described and one particular school is singled out as one of the oldest public schools. Can someone clarify in the article whether this is talking about public schools in the American sense of state schools or the English sense of independent/private schools? alihaig 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wordtothedude Collège Calvin is a public school in the American/European sense: a state school. —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

Climate[edit]

This section is very poorly worded and hard to understand. I'd rewrite it but I'm not even sure what they writer was trying to say. Definitely needs cleaned up.

Hipsterdoofus 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with this comment, I couldn't understand any of it and I'm not at all sure what to do about it. I'm not even sure if words were left out or sentences completely re-structured. Help wiki!

~Larkyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.24.252 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


History Neutrality Dispute?[edit]

Where is the neutrality dispute that the current version mentions about Calvin? If no dispute is in progress those should be removed. JLMarais (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were there to protest some inappropriately critical statements about John Calvin. I have boldly rewritten that section and removed the tags. Calvin's tenure in Geneva was certainly controversial, and it is appropriate to discuss that controversy. But Wikipedia should not make controversial statements as if they were fact. Controversial statements should be attributed to a source and should be balanced. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

I have removed three entire sections of the article: "Monuments and landmarks", "Museums and Galleries", and "Parks", as they were all copied from various subpages of http://www.geneva.info/. There are non-infringing versions in the history, if someone wants to take the time to re-insert them. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect "density" figure in Infobox[edit]

For whatever reason the infobox is not converting the desnity correctly into square miles. With the area and population of the city, the density is comfortably 30,000 persons per square mile, but I can't figure out how to fix it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guide[edit]

Much of the article reads like a travel guide. See Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL. To be encyclopedic, a section like the one on cinemas (which I've removed, along with some others], should give the number of cinemas, their specialities, their histories and what makes them distinctive from other world cities — of course with the sources cited. Information like this can be obtained for the article from many good travel books.

Let's band together to make this the best article on any European city, but not a travel guide. Amitiés, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander von Humboldt 1,585.65 USD[edit]

Class[edit]

Why is this article only a B-class article? I think it needs reassessing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

It appears that the History section of this article was heavily dependent on an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1910. We should try to reduce this trend, particularly given that (a) Geneva is famous as a major center for Protestantism, and focusing heavily on the Catholic perspective detracts from having a neutral point of view in this article, and (b) there is nothing in the History section that discusses the last 100 years of the city's history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm willing to help translate the history section from the French Wikipedia; even better if I can get some assistance. The page is at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneve#Histoire . What do you say? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I brought in the 20th Century history section from the French Wiki, leaving out some of the tendentious material and that without a Source. The other sections, I suppose, can be left for later or for more skillful editing. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Ginebra' in Spanish[edit]

And what about the Spanish 'Ginebra'? Spanish-speaking people tends to think that Geneva ('Ginebra' in Spanish) is Genoa ('Génova' in Spanish). It's a common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a National Capital[edit]

This has to be a national capital to be on the "top" list. Not even Los Angeles or Istanbul are there! Here is the list: National Capitals Wallie (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of life index[edit]

There's still a reference to an older, 2007 Mercer study on Quality of Life. The 2009 study has been out for several weeks now: http://realestate.msn.com/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=19711427#3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexus forever (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is Notable?[edit]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/28/switzerland.wto.violence/index.html?section=cnn_latest

violent protest 28 Nov 2009 against WTO in which cars were set fire to and windows were smashed

Stevv (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall the graduate institute be part of the header of this article ?[edit]

Added on Nov 13, the sentence " In the heart of the International Geneva is located the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies an institution of advanced research and teaching which proposed MA and PhD programmes and prepare international actors to respond to the challenges of tomorrow's world." sounds a lot like the institute's recrutement flyer: http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/iheid/users/admin/public/central_dep/flyer_recrutement.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.8.73 (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Geneva is a Celtic name??? Verification? The French page says Geneva is originally Ligurian, which would make a lot more sense considering location and history!? 90.184.243.14 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology is not clear. This was the territory of the Helvetii, a Celtic tribe. But look at the etymology of Genoa, with which commentators say it is cognate. But I don't think the Celtic empire extended to Liguria. The Latin etymology (from "knee") is not convincing to me. Basically, no one seems to know. Perhaps you could enlarge on this in the article. Nick Michael (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the origin was Saint Juniper - in Italian Ginepro. /p/ to /v/ is a common slip and then you have the male/female forms Ginevro/Ginevra. Ginevra is the Italian name for the city. But maybe the St. Juniper/Ginepro connection is only true for the Italian form? I suppose the English form Genava could very well have Celtic roots in a way independent of the Italian/Ligurian form? 90.184.243.14 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper d. 1258 so it can hardly be connected! These place-names very often go back to prehistory. Nick Michael (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva[edit]

(moved from my talk) Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You today reinstated a statistic deleted by 84.227.201.125: [5], calling it "unexplained removal of referenced content." Although it was not me who deleted this statistic, I must call it into question:
1. The reference is dead.
2. The "greater Geneva Bern area" does not exist. It is like referring to "the greater New York Washington DC area" - meaningless. I have been through the federal statistics, e.g: [6] cited by the editor who originally posted it (don't know when, but it's immaterial) and I can find no reference to such an "area".
3. The federal statistics refer, logically, to the political area of Genève canton-ville (Geneva is the name of a canton, whose "capital" is the city of Geneva), with a combined population of 457'628 inhabitants (31.12.2009). The city of Geneva alone has 189'313 inhabitants (31.12.2009). These figures are taken from the official web page of Geneva: [7].

I therefore propose deleting the following:

While the municipality itself (city center) has a population (as of 31 December 2009) of 185,958[1], the Geneva metropolitan area has 1,240,000 residents, according to a 2007 census. The Greater Geneva Bern area has 2,800,000 residents.

and replacing it with:

While the municipality itself (ville de Genève) has a population (as of 31 December 2009) of 189,313, the canton of Geneva (which includes the city) has 457,628 residents (as of 31 December 2009).

As you have taken the trouble to try to maintain the integrity of the article, I would just like your approbation before effecting this edit. Many thanks. Nick Michael (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal assessment declined. Brought here for public attention. Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

There are several "notable people" in this section who are not natives of Geneva: Henriette d'Angeville, Stanislav Smirnov, Nedd Willard. Are there any Wikipedia criteria for being a "notable person"? Obviously a native should be included; but should people who moved there also be included? Or who lived there - and for how long? Or should it be restricted to people who were/are officially Genevese citizens? Every Swiss person has their official commune of origin (which is noted in their passport and other state documents) - but people who are officially Genevese were not necessarily born in Geneva, since a Swiss citizen takes his/her father's commune of origin, and many generations may be born and live in a completely different part of the country to their commune of origin: indeed, someone of Genevese origins may never have even visited Geneva. The whole thing is a very grey area... Nick Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has responded to my question above. No one has suggested criteria for deciding what makes a "notable person". I propose re-titling the section "Notable natives" and including only those persons born in Geneva (canton of). Without a comment within a few days, I'll make the changes. I bet that'll make someone react! Nick Michael (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no opinions..? Do you think that Terry Southern, who lived for less than three years in Geneva, should be included in Notable people? Nick Michael (talk)

Inaccuracies in introduction.[edit]

Geneva (...) is the second-most-populous city in Switzerland (after Zurich) and is the most populous city of Romandie (the French-speaking part of Switzerland).

I'm not claiming to have any expertise in Swiss anthropology, but i noted some indifferences when browsing through related articles.

After comparing another article about Switzerland Cantons[1] to this article about Geneva, i found that Bern, Vaud, Aargau, and St. Gallen, are more superior to Geneva when it comes to population. Furthermore i found more discrepancies in the last set of bolded words, Geneva is not the most populated french speaking city, Vaud claims that title.

Vaud is a canton, not a city (despite urban sprawl), have a look at List of cities in Switzerland for more information. mgeo talk 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geneva is both a city and a canton, this article is about the city. Vaud and Aargau are both cantons, Bern and St. Gallen are both cities and cantons. Tobyc75 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish between cities and cantons: the city of Geneva (ville de Genève) is a separate political entity to the canton of Geneva (république et canton de Genève). The confusion arises where a canton is named after its capital city (Geneva, Bern etc.). The capital city of Vaud is Lausanne, which eliminates the confusion in this case.
The city of Geneva is the second most populous city of Switzerland, and the most populous city of Romandie. The canton of Geneva however is very small, both geographically and demographically. Nick Michael (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when a canton is a republic?!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.5.114 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Canton of Geneva. The Genevese are very proud of being a republic. And why not! Nick Michael (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Cantons_of_Switzerland. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

History section[edit]

Is extremely long; I'm proposing shifting most of it into its own article. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The History section is long, and Geneva was an independent state right through to 1815 (albeit with periods of French domination, I think). Is there any active discussion towards doing this at present? AWhiteC (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, is any one going to make the split? Op47 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me! Done! Hard work! Anybody want to check what I've done? Look out for the thing I forgot – there's always at least one. AWhiteC (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, it looks fine to me. Op47 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage sites of national significance[edit]

The "Heritage sites of national significance" section seems messy to me and out of place for an average article about a city. Looking forward to some better solution rather than deleting them all recklessly.Lerox-Donut (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Cityscape[edit]

I suggest adding this image to the article's section "Cityscape." Thoughts? Griberg 23:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View of Geneva from Mont Salève.

There's one already there, taken from an almost identical point. Don't know which is better, but the current one gives a better view of the city relative to its surroundings, whilst your candidate shows the Jura better. Nick Michael (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nick Michael. That would be a bit redundant with the picture in the Geography section. The current panorama in the cityscape section is not perfect but it is a more interesting view point because from there you can see how the buildings look like in Geneva. mgeo talk 12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Urbanisation in Geneva[edit]

Hey i don't really know how to use Wikipedia, but can anyone help me with the subject mentioned above? I need it to complete my Geography project. Please and Thank You :)Debslf (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of help are you looking for? Are you supposed to create an article on the subject of urbanization or write a report? What sort of information are you looking for? Tobyc75 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supposed to do a research paper about Geneva's urbanisation, like about the urbanisation over the years, causes of urbanisation, consequences of urbanisation and to suggest solutions to manage urbanisation in the city concerned, which in my case is Geneva, Switzerland. Debslf (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Hi,

just to let you guys know that as a native speaker from Lorraine (NE) I'd pronounce Genève with a schwa between the 'g' and the 'n' (so, more like French « je nève » if it existed). I gather it would be true of most people in Lorraine and, I would tend to think, of most French speakers in France. I don't know about Swiss speakers though. At least I guess it would deserve some room in the introduction but I'm not sure what the guidelines say.

Cheers, Denhetreil (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borges[edit]

The article on Geneva shouldn't lack a mention of J L Borges. I propose his inclusion in the list of notable people, thus:

Jorge Luis Borges, Argentine writer, who lived as a youth, died and was buried in Geneva, and considered it one of his "Homelands"[1]

In case this type of mention is considered inappropriate, please let me know before I do include it in the article's text. (Of course I totally oppose the notion that "notable people" list should only include natives of a specific city, as was earlier proposed). Desiderius82 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Borges, Jorge Luis. "Obras Completas". Buenos Aires: Emecé, 1996, v. III, p. 497.

Timeline of Geneva[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert (as of 5 January 2017)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a source to itself, ok. However, I fail to see how a citation would be required for an enumeration of businesses located in a city. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An uncommented bare enumeration with internal wikipedia links doesn't need a citation (but would probably need a comment!). And as soon as the enumeration is completed with appreciative or depreciative comments ("long tradition", "major international producer"), and with additional information ("have their headquarters and main production facilities in Geneva"), a citation is needed. Sapphorain (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved citation tag to more appropriate location 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Geneva. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Geneva. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Geneva. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortifications[edit]

Hello,

Just wanting to inquire about the fortifications shown on the maps of 1850s? I have found a map of 1860 showing no fortifications (I cannot conceive of them only taking 10 years to dismantle) - there does not seem to be any traces of them I can see in the cityscape itself? Are they just a popular myth?

There is also literature saying that the city did consider walls at one point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughbadou (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No myth. There are a few walls still standing. If you google-image "Genève fortifications" you'll get a good idea of what they were really like, and one or two showing their (unfortunate) demolition. Nick Michael (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

....Still not sure what to think - sorry to doubt you....I can see pictures of what looks like buried tunnels-it just doesn't seem to be at the scale shown on the maps. I have been trying to find an explanation for the form of ile Rouseau also.

Not sure why I’m trying to convince you. This is starting to feel like the Roswell UFO incident! As a last attempt perhaps you’d look at the chronological maps of Geneva here:

http://www.amiel.org/vie/cartographie/grandsformats.htm

As for the Ile Rousseau, it’s not a true island but an artificial one, part of the fortifications built between 1585-1588 in order to secure the entrance to the lake of Geneva. Nick Michael (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks for the map link .... I see a map (apres 1850-55) that has an area labelled tranchees (clearings? if I am correct?) However then there is a nice map of 1865 that shows the fortifications only in half-tone. Weird. I still don't know. From my locale it seems like prospective fortifications...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.68.110 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What of: FC. Davidstar Cabalvingrad Geneva?[edit]

yours, Sean Yearwood, the black and white Jew and Targeted Individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.162.35 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CERN[edit]

I removed the collage in the box because one of the its images may actually be in France. CERN is divided between the two countries. In addition, very few people can actually see this equipment, so we should use an image which is more emblematic of the city. The other mentions of CERN in the article are a bit overemphasized also. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Greetings fellow editors. I am here from GOCE to copy edit this rather fine looking article. If I do anything you don't like, or don't understand, feel free to flag it up here.

Up where? And don't forget to sign your posts. I'm sure it was just an oversight. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

The Average Temp and Precipitation chart is only up to 1990. That's 28 years ago. Does anyone have access to a more recent chart? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not mind if it were deleted, but I suppose I would be outmessaged if I suggested such a thing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be bold as a copy editor, but not that bold . Although at 28 years old I was tempted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query 2[edit]

On a similar note, a lot of the Demographics section is out of date. Much is harking back to 2000! Surely we can do better? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

The Heritage sites of national significance section is virtually unreadable in its current format. IMO it is also unduly large for this type of article. Compare with Paris, which manages with a redirect and a short prose section. I would strongly recommend moving the contents of this section to one or more dedicated articles. (Again I would commend the way the three articles linked to Paris#Tourism#Monuments and attractions handle this.)

I was tempted to blank the lot, but decided that was pushing my remit as a copy editor a bit far. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation 3[edit]

I would suggest that the Notable people section is little read. Again can I recommend a redirect. (With NO exceptions. If they are that important they will be mentioned in the article anyway on their own merits.) Picking a city at random, note how London handles this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

A relevant but somewhat different suggestion (6 months later!). I have just finished editing the Notable People section for Lausanne, here - Lausanne#Notable_people. Geneva could be re-done in a similar fashion. Any thoughts?

ArbieP (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the lengthy process of editing the notable people section to make is much more readable. I have edited the five subsections. Unfortunately this evening reader User:Sapphorain has reverted two of my lengthy edits. Whilst I may agree that one or two of the people edited/deleted might come back, I don't agree that reverting whole edit is the way to do it. That also deletes citations and other edits. Might we discuss here putting some people back and reinstating my original edits, please

Browsing through your lengthy edits I very quickly came to two very big mistakes, and quite certainly there must be others as I didn't verify entries of people I am not familiar with. I am not interested in sorting out what is correct and what is not, so I reverted to the last sane version. Sapphorain (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comment. You describe something of a blunderbus approach. Taking Nicolas Bouvier first, there is no mention of Geneva in his own article - so including him in a list of notable people from there seems wrong. Taking Edmond Fleg next, I would agree he's moderately notable and from Geneva and he could stay. But reverting the whole edit removes other good edits. You say "you're not interested in sorting out what is correct and what is not"; in that case, might I gently but firmly suggest you do not revert the complete edit and all the work that contributed to it. Please give serious reconsideration to what you are doing. ArbieP (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC) ArbieP (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A large single edit containing a number of correct entries and also a number of incorrect ones is one single large bad edit as a whole. I would suggest you consult reliable sources before suppressing and modifying entries according to your own personal feelings or according to what you read in other wikipedia articles (wikipedia is not an acceptable source for itself). Regarding Nicolas Bouvier you might want to read [8], and regarding E. Fleg [9]. Sapphorain (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Sapphorain. Thankyou for your comments and the two links above. I have updated Nicolas Bouvier's article, using your reference and now think it's legit to include him as a Geneva notable. I had no problem reconsidering Edmond Fleg. The reason for deleting a few of the existing notables was two-fold - scant notability or no documented connection with Geneva. The need to shorten the list is because there are over 500 people in ((Category:People from Geneva)) many of whom are more deserving a place in this list. See reference above to Lausanne#Notable_people which is the objective of the exercise here. Later in the day I propose to cancel your reversions and then re-instate Messts Bouvier and Fleg. That will also have the benefit of bringing back the many external citations to reliable sources which your reversion has deleted. If you would care to specify what are "the number of incorrect" edits you refer to, please say, and I will seek to deal with them.ArbieP (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way. As a quick check shows you also deleted Henri Dufaux, and much worse, Frank Martin, I think you are in no way reliable to correct your many mistakes. I will revert any attempt to reinstall your complete works. Sapphorain (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Sapphorain. Thankyou for your further comment. Henri Dufaux's wiki entry is about as thin as it can get, which says nothing for his notability; including him in the list takes up space which should be filled by others with clear and established notability. I'm content to re-instate Frank Martin (composer), my recollection is that the lead phrase "who lived a large part of his life in the Netherlands" suggested his notability owed little to Geneva. I'm sorry you seem to be threatening an edit-war. As you will see from earlier entries on your own user talkpage (June 2018), our task is to "try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus." So far, I'm willing to re-instate three of the four people you've suggested, Nicolas Bouvier, Edmond Fleg and Frank Martin (composer). Are there any more, please? I am content to defer cancelling your revertions to allow you more time to identify the ones which you refer to above as "quite certainly there must be others" and as "your many mistakes" ArbieP (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretending not to understand. After two quick searches through your bulky recent edits, I found a few big mistakes proving you are editing without checking sources and following your own feelings. You are not reliable. And I am not interested in loosing my time in order to find the probable other mistakes you did. Please leave this section of notable people as it is now. It is better as it is as anything you could modify in it. Sapphorain (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Sapphorain I think we might make more progress if you drop remarks about my reliability and "editing without checking sources and following your own feelings".I would like to revert your deletions and see the improved narrative and citations restored. I've done the analysis of what my edits would delete. They are listed below. I have already indicated willingness to re-add Nicolas Bouvier and Frank Martin (composer). I note that Edmond Fleg was not to be deleted anyway. Those for deletion seem to be of limited notability and/or limited connection with Geneva; kindly provide your view.

ArbieP (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in claiming that the deleted people in your list "are of limited notability and/or limited connection with Geneva", I can only repeat that you are yourself, although delightfully polite, of limited reliability and competence. Because at least 6 of them, Ernest Bloch, Henri Dufaux, Marcel Golay, Max Thurian, Cécile Biéler-Butticaz and Caroline Barbey-Boissier-Butini are Genevans (i.e. burghers of Geneva), and are all sufficiently famous to have their own entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Also, a commemorative plaque has been installed were Cécile Butticaz used to live in Geneva. All others in this list are at least sufficiently notable to have their wikipedia page, and are either Genevans or have strong connections with Geneva. For the last time please do not remove any of them. For the last time because I don’t intend to keep on arguing with a person, however exquisitely polite, who is so stubbornly clinging to a false claim. Sapphorain (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Sapphorain Thankyou for your comments. I think we can now make some progess. (1) I accept what you say about "the 6 Genevans" - I trust you will add the citation to their Wiki pages. Mr Golay needs an English Wiki entry of his own but in the meantime a link to the German language wiki may suffice. (2) For the sake of simplicity and prompt resolution of this discussion, I will accept the re-inclusion of six more people who were born in Geneva. I have established that Mr Favre lived in Geneva from the first citation of his wiki entry and updated it accordingly. (3) That leaves us with just two more: Germaine Aussey and Edna Best. Their wiki entries say they died in Geneva, but nothing about them living, working or otherwise contributing to the life of Geneva. For these reasons I am not persuaded that they are Notables of Geneva. We need to arrive at a consensus to avoid your threat of an edit-war. I have moved quite someway to accept the re-inclusion of many people I initially deleted and I now ask you to accept the deletion (non re-inclusion) of just two people. I will then cancel your reversions and re-instate the people referred to above. That will have the important mutual advantage of re-introducing a number of external citations in my edit, which I hope we will both agree will be a good thing.

FOR DELETION

BORN OR LIVED IN GENEVA

FOR RE-INCLUSION

ArbieP (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


As outlined above I have now (1) reverted the two reversions made by User:Sapphorain on 26 December 2018 and (2) re-added the (15) people listed above except for Germaine Aussey and Edna Best. The net result of this is that my 20 external citations now reappear and two people are omitted. I hope that is the end of the issue. If not Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is needed. ArbieP (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ German Wiki, Marcel Golay

Citations in the Notable people section[edit]

Good evening Sapphorain

I note that in the article on Geneva#Notable_people you have deleted a number of citations to the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica and replaced them with citations to the French version of the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. May I make three points about this, please.

(1) I note that your concern is (to quote one example) "Replaced old and unreliable reference describing him as « Swiss » by a better and more recent one: …..[he] died 251 years too early to become Swiss. This seems to point to your understanding of the word "Swiss" as being political rather than geographic and I have seen from earlier comments on your talk page that this is an issue of concern to you. It is a concern shared by some in somewhat equivalent circumstances over the use of the word "Irish". Might I invite you to read through the link below about what Encyclopædia Britannica says about aspects of Swiss history [[10]] and ask you to see how the words "Swiss" and "Switzerland" are used when referring to aspects of political change that I'm sure you're familiar with. I hope you will see the difference between a political and geographic meaning.

(2) The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland is in French, or by choice German or Italian. I've not seen a link to an English version. Encyclopædia Britannica is in English. Replacing the link to one with the other limits what an English speaker with little or poor French can learn from a citation.

(3) May I politely but seriously request that whilst you are welcome to add your links to the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, you do not delete the links to Encyclopædia Britannica. Readers can then chose which to follow ArbieP (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you are driving at when attempting to oppose « political » and «  geographic » Switzerland. Until 1815 the republic of Geneva was, neither politically, nor geographically « Swiss » . When some event that took place in the 18th century is described as having occurred in « Geneva, Switzerland », this is called an anachronism, and it is true neither politically nor geographically. And Genevans from that time did not consider themselves as «  Swiss » (Jean-Jacques Rousseau insisted that he was a citizen of Geneva, and had even some harsh words about the Swiss in general). But of course it is perfectly understandable that the HDS should cover everything linked with the (geographical) territory of the actual (political) Switzerland. And the E. Britannica does exactly that in its article on Switzerland.
Of course the fact that the HDS exists only in four langages is a problem. But it is very recent. And the fact that the E. Britannica edition available online dates back to 1911 (and is in reality only a copy from Wikisource on the accuracy of which we have no control) is a much bigger problem I think. Sapphorain (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZIP[edit]

Regarding the ZIPs covered by the city please check it out here. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very messy an unclear. Please provide a clear source using words and sentences. Sapphorain (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(And there is no point in arguing here in the discussion, until a clear source is provided in the page itself).Sapphorain (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't get it more official since this is a official publication by the Swiss Federation and undisputable. It is even written law. Again, it is your task to prove you are right accordig WP:BRD. So please stop playing the stubborn child, please. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your task is to provide a valid source. A source must be included in the page, not in the discussion about the page. Sapphorain (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Reformation Hall still standing?[edit]

The League of Nations seems to have first convened in this 1860s building, but I cannot find a single contemporary mention of it. Was it torn down? Was it included in the Palais des Nations, where there seems to be a conference room or alike by that name? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The building in which the League of Nations first convened in Geneva (from November 1920) is the Palais Wilson, which is an 1870s building. To my knowledge it has never been called (nor has contained a) "Reformation Hall". But before it convened in Geneva, the League of Nations had a brief activity in London (from January 10, 1920). So maybe the building you are looking for is in London? Sapphorain (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Geneva for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Geneva is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geneva until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English pronunciation[edit]

@ZH8000: Did you just seriously revert me while ignoring the edit summary, gave me the 3RR warning on my talk page and then scolded me for not writing an edit summary on Sion, Switzerland after ignoring the edit summaries here (you shouldn't template the regulars by the way)? Are you serious?

Directly above those messages (now removed from my talk page), there's a thread in which Nardog has explained to me why jin-EE-və is a correct respelling. You ignored that as well. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ZH8000:

/æ, ɛ, ɪ, ɒ, ʌ, ʊ/ (a, e(h), i(h), o, u(h), uu) are checked vowels, meaning never occurring at the end of a word or before a vowel. When a checked vowel is followed by a consonant and a stressed vowel, which is rare nonetheless, it is acceptable in some cases to attribute the following consonant to the same syllable as the checked vowel, as in bal-AY, even though in IPA it is usually attributed to the following syllable, as in /bæˈleɪ/. However, when the following consonant is a voiceless plosive (/p, t, k/) […]

This is what the help says. Now, since /n/ is nothing like a voiceless plosive and i and ih are not really intuitive spellings (the first because it has multiple English pronunciations, the latter because it is never found in any English words), we should avoid them as often as possible and in this case syllabify differently. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 07:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IvanScrooge98: I see, both of you are strictly (and mindlessly) following some given rules (I confirm that and I do not challenge these), but you are simply neglecting the reality. The reality is that GE-NE-VA (Geneva is not composed by two parts, 'Gen' and 'Eva', btw) is not spoken that way you imply. And you do not give a source which supports your claims, none (WP:VER is still a major requirement)! Your misunderstanding may result from the fact that 'Geneva' is not (derived) from an English term? - For further fruitful discussion, please provide sources which support your claims regarding the accentuation of 'Geneva'. Thanks -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZH8000: This means that you don't understand that rule. There's little difference between /dʒɪnˈiːvə/ and /dʒɪˈniːvə/ in English. /dʒɪnˈiːvə/ doesn't imply that a glottal stop can be put in front of /iː/. English isn't German.
Please take this to Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key. You're the one who's challenging the consensus. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They speak French in Geneva! – I still expect sources (WP:VER) to your accentuation claim. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZH8000: Start a thread on Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key. You're clearly misunderstanding the first note in the respelling key. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZH8000: nothing to add, except– what has French got to do with the English exonym Geneva? And how can jin-EE-və be misinterpreted and result in a different pronunciation than intended? イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kbb2 wrote: "English isn't German.". -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was saying the only way one would mispronounce the transcription would be applying to it phonological rules from other languages, which is pretty unlikely, don’t you think? イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 14:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But why German??? -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Standard German syllables never start with a vowel, and therefore -⁠EE- would end up being [-ˈʔiː-]; it was an example. But this is English. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 14:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply since Help:Pronunciation respelling key#Syllables and stress says: "Syllables are separated by hyphens ("-"). The stress on a syllable is indicated by capital letters." -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are still syllables. We are only moving consonants to better convey pronunciation, as long as it’s predictable, and it is here. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 14:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, so, it should read /jiN-EE-va/?? -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. What is the point of capitalizing an N alone before a dash? The syllable nucleus is always represented by the vowel (syllabic consonants are always unstressed and not uninaimously considered as phonemic in English). That’s why it is fine to have consonants “belong” in another syllable. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 15:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I would expect it to be written as /ji-NEE-va/. Comparable to " For example, the word "pronunciation" (/prəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃən/) is respelled prə-NUN-see-AY-shən." from Help:Pronunciation respelling key#Syllables and stress. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have explained already why putting i at the end of that “syllable” is not the best solution. Not going to repeat myself. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These still are only respelling-inherent logic (rules), but do still not make obvious why it contradicts the IPA-code /dʒɪˈniːvə/.
(TBC, for the moment I have to leave). -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s not obvious, all it takes for a reader is clicking on the respelling and reading the help, which is there for a reason. If you don’t agree we should transcribe Geneva (and thus any other similar cases) like this, once again, please try to challenge the consensus at the proper page. Thank you. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 15:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZH8000: The reality is that GE-NE-VA (Geneva is not composed by two parts, 'Gen' and 'Eva', btw) is not spoken that way you imply – I'd like to know what you mean by this. Can you explain how exactly jin-EE-və and jih-NEE-və differ in terms of the pronunciations they suggest? Nardog (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nardog. The two pronunciations you give are pronounced exactly alike, as much as I can tell. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? I was asking ZH8000 specifically. Nardog (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My personal page is at User:BeenAroundAWhile. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Regarding this edit, the WP:Edit summary of "Well, then," was confusing, so I reverted the change. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal objection about added map photo[edit]

I doubt that photos of Swisstopo's maps are legal copies.

In https://www.swisstopo.admin.ch/en/home/meta/terms-and-conditions.html under Copyright it says that "Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the websites of swisstopo are the exclusive property of Swisstopo or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder.".

The referred free use only relates to geological data and their services, not the reproductions of maps/pictures.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Swisstopo maps are under a free license. See National Maps of Switzerland. These are already used in many places. Yann (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, all these examples have been published by Federal Office of Topography themselves. So, no evidence at all. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZH8000, have you read the terms of use specifically applying to geoservices and geodata? It says: "The free geodata and geoservices of swisstopo may be used, distributed and made accessible. Furthermore, they may be enriched and processed and also used commercially." So, in our case, the file in question is an automatically generated pdf map by the geoportal, it is as free to use as tiff map sheets or simple screen captures. Zach (Talk) 13:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geneva&oldid=1194060389"