Talk:Switzerland/Archive 2

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 3; Archive 4;

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Votes

Official Name in Local Language & Geneva/Lucerne

Appenzell Innerrhoden, Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Aargau, Basel Stadt, Basel Landschaft, Bern, Fribourg, Geneva, Glarus, Graubünden, Jura, Lucerne, Neuchâtel, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Ticino, Uri, Valais, Vaud, Zug, Zürich

I vote for "to use the official name in the (main) local official language". The only exceptions in the Google test are Lucerne and Geneva. I suppose because of (far-eastern) tourists (Luzern) and the lack of ability to speak french of native english people ;-) --Diftong 15:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ryan_Cable

Mixed Approach

Appenzell Inner-Rhodes, Appenzell Outer-Rhodes, Aargau, Basel-City, Basel-Country, Bern, Fribourg, Geneva, Glarus, Grisons, Jura, Lucerne, Neuchâtel, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Ticino, Uri, Valais, Vaud, Zug, Zurich

I prefer these spellings. Appenzell and Basel IMHO benefit from English; I think Zurich (without umlauts) comes with Geneva and Lucerne under English spellings. I'm not sure about Berne/Bern yet. Bern seems more common, but the Berne Convention really makes me hesitate. Kokiri 00:03, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's fine with me (BTW I read Outer). Finally, as 'conventions' changed the spelling between XIX and XX we could do the same and use Bern in case you decide that way. -- User:Docu

Changed this approach to include Bern rather than Berne.

I think a mixed approach is best, but I don't know enoough about Switzerland to comment on the details. I'd be inclined to use Innerrhoden and Ausserrhoden myself, but not if the words look like line-noise to those with no familiarity with German... Onebyone 12:08, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Strictly Google

Aargau, Appenzell Innerrhoden, Appenzell, Ausserrhoden Basel Stadt (222 vs. City: 59), Basel Landschaft (66 vs. Country: 40), Bern, Fribourg, Geneva, Glarus, Graubünden, Jura, Lucerne, Neuchatel (!), Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, St. Gallen, Thurgau, Ticion, Uri, Valais, Vaud, Zug, Zurich

Are the Google numbers above quoted for searching in all languages, or only English? Maximus Re x 00:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Term Switzerland", but not restricted to English only. However, with the word Switzerland in it, the results should only be in English. See above for more. Kokiri 01:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Claim that everyone's happy with health system in CH

Hi, that ref you put in is for hospitals only, whereas the claim in the article is for the health system as a whole. Were citizens only polled, or was it representative of all residents? More importantly, the measuring organisation is not neutral: its voting members are healthcare insurers, cantons, and hospital lobby groups. I think the claim needs to be removed. Tony (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I see what you mean. But it is not written that everybody is happy, but rather "in general highly satisfied". That's not the same.

Further, yes, it is "only" about hospital, that's correct. I did not search very far. But I think it is quite representative (my personal view - I live in Switzerland). And I will try to find more.

Regarding the voting members: Yes, that's correct, and I understand cantonal representatives are strong advocates for the public interest ("we"). Do not forget that there are also other joining members. Further santesuisse and the Swiss insurers are under tight control of the Federation.

From my very personal (Swiss) experience I currently can just express that the kind of health care is not a political issue at all (see recent vote about its change to a single public insurer), but rather such issues as costs (and costs). ;-) But yes, this is not formally sufficient. I will try to find more! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, ZH. Healthcare is always political, whether openly expressed in that way or not: it has a lot to do with social equality, aside from general quality issues (which is why I wonder about the high proportion of non-citizens residing in CH, including Gastarbeiten). You write: "the federal insurers are under tight control of the Federation"—yes, I don't disbelieve your good-faith statement, but something in me wonders what that really means without enormous independently gathered evidence. (I'm not asking you to explain here; but rather pointing out that regulations, particularly in such a subtle and complex area, are difficult to penetrate and understand ... and we write for generalist readers. I just think the claim in the text is problematic unless an overtly neutral source (or several) can be found, and not just for hospitals. Anyway, some readers, particularly Europeans, might interpret the claim as slightly defensive: "We don't have a free public system, but don't worry, it's successful—trust us." I'm not the trusting type, with the experience of my own country's tangled web of a health system. Is the claim necessary in what should be a factual summary? Also, are the "private" insurers for-profit? Tony (talk)

Well, you could even say everything in life is political ;-) But yes, your are right, healthcare in particular. I just wanted to express the indeed high acceptance of universal health insurance in Switzerland (and probably in Europe in general). I added two additional references. One about the satisfaction regarding the insurers (commissioned by K-TIPP, an consumer protection magazine), and one about the satisfaction regarding general practicer (executed by a professional survey company, gfs.bern, commissioned by the insurance comparer comparis.ch and by 20 Minuten Online, the largest free tabloid in Switzerland).

Why do you relate "high proportion of non-citizens residing in CH" with health care? Health insurance is compulsary even for border commuters. Be aware of that Switzerland is a quite tiny country – goegraphically and workforce-wise – with high salaries (and low unemployment) and probably even higher living costs. The cost of living (and insurance premiums?) drops dramatically just over the borders! So if you are e.g. a German and get a working permit in Switzerland, then you prfit from both advantages, a high(er) salary and lower living costs (and even lower taxes, because after 180(?) days working days p.a. you have to pay taxes in Switzerland). So it is highly attractive to be a "Grenzgänger". A "Gastarbeiter" however lives here and has to pay insurance premiums (and taxes) as well and gets the same treatments as everybody! So it is not related to health insurance.

Well, of course, as long as you live in a capitalistic world, there will always be lobbying, you cannot evade it. In other words (these statements are always my personal opinion, of course!) this is one major reason why health care is so expensive here, besides high quality in health care (of equipment e.g.), insured people do not really suffer from high health care costs (except for the high premiums one has to pay anyhow), generally high living costs (and expectations)... and others. Nevertheless, the statement is about the satisfaction by the people regarding the outcome of health care, not about its costs. Therefore the satifaction about the insurers are naturally lower than the other two surveys about health care performance. But you are free to choose which insurer you would like to subscribe.

I suspect I do not fully understand your last point regarding "We don't have a free public system, but don't worry, it's successful—trust us." What do you percieve as defensive? Just a half a year ago the Swiss people voted against the proposed change to a single public insurer instead of the many private ones with a quite strong vote of 62% voters against the proposal (by a popular initiative), being not the first public initiative being rejected during the last decades regarding comparable subjects. But the universatility of health insurance is no issue at all, otherwise in the political history of our country you would easily find several trials for a public initiative to break it up (I know of none). There is no chance to find enough people (100'000) to support such a initiative, so nobody does it.

For your particular questions see Health care in Switzerland and its external links.

Regards -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ZH, I've now read your reply. Thank you. If you're unhappy with my recent edit, perhaps you could make a suggestion? Tony (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit awkward, since it is expliciting some anyhow contextually obvious aspects, but it is not wrong, if you now what I mean. – But I was rather interested in the answers to my questions concerning your previous statements. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Steam train accident in Switzerland

Please see WT:TWP#Steam train accident in Switzerland - looking for further details on last night's accident. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Federation VS confederation

I know that this might not be an issue worth posting on the talk page, but I'll do it anyway just in case. In the "Old Swiss Confederacy" subsection in the "History" section, there are a couple times where the Swiss Confederacy is referred as a "federation". Because Switzerland's government clearly was not a federation until 1798 at the earliest, is this just a mistake or an act of vandalism that was never reverted, or is there another reason why the confederacy is referred to a federation? --1990'sguy (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think, in general you are right, in this chapter you could replace federation with confederation. But eventually it is a question of language usage in the sense of: a confederation (loosly coupled states) is also a federation¹ (general definition: somehow coupled states), the same way as a federation² (specific definition: strongly coupled states with one federal constitution) is also a federation¹ (general definition). Or when you speak about the concept, then the author uses federation¹, when it refers to the particular Swiss one, one speaks about the confederation. But yes, you could replace it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I changed the wording anyway so any misunderstanding would be avoided. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Federation VS confederation

I know that this might not be an issue worth posting on the talk page, but I'll do it anyway just in case. In the "Old Swiss Confederacy" subsection in the "History" section, there are a couple times where the Swiss Confederacy is referred as a "federation". Because Switzerland's government clearly was not a federation until 1798 at the earliest, is this just a mistake or an act of vandalism that was never reverted, or is there another reason why the confederacy is referred to a federation? --1990'sguy (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think, in general you are right, in this chapter you could replace federation with confederation. But eventually it is a question of language usage in the sense of: a confederation (loosly coupled states) is also a federation¹ (general definition: somehow coupled states), the same way as a federation² (specific definition: strongly coupled states with one federal constitution) is also a federation¹ (general definition). Or when you speak about the concept, then the author uses federation¹, when it refers to the particular Swiss one, one speaks about the confederation. But yes, you could replace it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I changed the wording anyway so any misunderstanding would be avoided. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

European Union

When will Switzerland is going to join the European Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.41 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly after the U.S. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.28.119 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Switzerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All the archived URLs failed, with the exception of the second-to-last source, which was merely fixed rather than archived. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage

I have moved this message from my talkpage. Dr. K. 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

Regarding ETH it is a technical university try visiting there homepage and see the actual name spelled out. They also dont have subjects like Law, Medicin, religion, economics and psychology.

Regarding international reputation of the two technical universities, then they are not more famous than for example university of Zurich which is a member of "League of European Research" together with Oxford and Cambridge amongst others. And university of Zurich is just as highly ranked according to many rankings (ranked 54 in the world according to the prestigious ARWU) and is considered the best place to study fields like Law, medicin and economy amongst other fields in Switzerland.

There is no current sources (no footnote) to the statement that st. gallen and the other school is the leaders in business. I've just checked for my self and others are just as highly ranked in that field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beboj3140 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see my last three edits at the article where I supplied reliable sources to support these statements on top of the ones already existing in the article. Also the reliable source calls ETH a "top university" not a "top technical university". Try reading the reliable source that I added to that effect. If there are other universities in Switzerland as good as these you can add them, but do not remove the existing ones which are supported by reliable sources. Dr. K. 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

but you have to be aware that i can easily find rankings contradicting to those you have found since 1000 exist therefore such things should not be on the page and is commercializing. also calling ETH an university is misleading since it it not an actual university. but fine i will find some sources and write Zurich is also a top university in the country and the leader in som fields

Resolving the debate over Swiss University Rankings in this article

Going nowhere. Restart discussion using a new thread if need be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As seen above, there has been some ongoing discussion and disagreement on the language, rankings and relative importance of two Swiss universities: the University of Zurich and the ETH Zurich. So I believe it's important to remind ALL editors that Wikipedia is NOT a battleground for people to advance their own personal opinions or agendas. Editors are reminded that edit-warring to advance your own personal favorite universities over other universities, is not acceptable here and violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, those edits will likely be reverted anyway and persistent violations of those policies and guidelines will likely result in those editors being blocked. So please keep all your personal views about your favorite - or disliked - university out of your editing on this project.

Also remember, that any personal information you believe you have about those universities, doesn't matter. Per WP:NOR Wikipedia would cease to function if every editor could act as if they are an expert on the subjects of articles. This is why we require reliable sources. So please, no more arguments - or edits - based on what you believe is your personal knowledge of any of these universities. So either find good, independent and reliable sources - or please refrain from making those edits. Again, no agendas while editing!

To that end, I have removed redundant references to both universities. The rankings are listed and the sources all remain intact. That is more than sufficient. You must trust Wikipedia readers to see those rankings and appreciate BOTH schools and know that both schools rank high internationally, according to sources. This is not the place to advance or settle rivalries between universities.

Hopefully this will satisfy all editors. If not, rather than changing the article, please just express your concerns here and we'll discuss them until we find a satisfactory conclusion or at least reach some consensus. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the removed sentence: In addition, ETHZ "consistently ranks the top university in continental Europe" is not redundant to the world rankings because it is very different to them as it signifies first place repeatedly as opposed to number 20 or other worldwide. So it should be restored. Dr. K. 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

if the above is to be written then i believe it would be equally important to write that "University of Zurich is ranked among the world's top universities". University of Zurich is also Switzerlands highest ranked classical university. ETHZ is technically a technical university (which the name also implies) which means you can't study the classical subjects there. Beboj3140 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Before I address the latest editors' concerns, I will confess to some genuine surprise - and disappointment - that we're still having this discussion; because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas. It's good this discussion is taking place here, rather than being fought in the article. But again, I urge editors not to edit according to their personal biases. This really needs to stop.

Dr.K., I actually reviewed the source of the quote you'd like to include. The web link is run by a UK based company named QS, which aspires to be "the world’s leading media, events and software company in the higher education field." In their description they say: "QS links high achievers from the graduate, MBA and executive communities around the world with leading business schools, postgraduate departments at universities and with employers, through websites, events, e-guides and technical solutions." All that means, is they appear to be an aggregator site that simply reprints info from a university's own website. In this case, the entire paragraph, which includes: "Consistently ranked the top university in continental Europe" is basically lifted almost verbatim from ETH Zurich itself - as you can see here in the last page of a 2008 brochure published by ETH Zurich. So this claim is actually just self-promotion that comes from a biased primary source. Without knowing the real source of the claim - if there is one - its credibility, timeframe, methodology and/or independence from the university; it's pretty clear that this claim is just hyperbole and not fact. So it does not belong in the article. The article generally states the university to be among the top schools. That is supported by the sources. So that is all that can be said.

Also Beboj3140, ETHZ Zurich is a real university. It is not a technical school, or a technical university. It is a university. It awards bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees. It has associations with 21 Nobel Prize winners. As such it is one of the world's top universities. Just as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech are also both considered among the world's top universities as well, and neither is diminished or called just a "technical university," simply because you would not attend them to study "the classical subjects."

So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments. That section of the article is good as it is, because it references both universities with multiple sources and lists the high rankings of both schools. In an article that isn't even primarily about either school, that's more than sufficient. Should any readers requires more info, with all the links and wikilinks, they'll certainly know where to look. I hope this settles everything. X4n6 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

... because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas., So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments.

Assume Good Faith much? Can you explain to me why would I have an agenda about an article I never edited before, prior to 25 July, on a subject that is very remote to my interests? I came to this article after I noticed the other editor making a rather clumsy edit on Europe and I noticed he also made certain editorial errors here, so I endeavoured to correct them. I did not introduce any sources to this article; I only used the existing ones. I also put the phraseology of one of the sources in quotation marks to indicate that it was verbatim from the source.

When you removed the sentence you did not mention anything about aggregators or primary sources. You just talked about "duplication". You actually left the sources in the article and did not comment about them, indicating by your actions that you do not find them objectionable.

Now, when I first replied to you in good faith, addressing the only issue, the duplication issue, which you raised, you start attacking comments about "agendas" and "biases" without having any right or reason to do so because I only responded to the single issue that you raised. Please retract these unjustified attacks, otherwise you can continue this conversation on your own. Dr. K. 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't complain about WP:AGF and then not follow it yourself. Regardless of how you wish to characterize your involvement, I attempted to resolve a clear edit-war to which I was not even a party. That should be obvious to even the most casual observer. Are you denying it? Because starting with your first edit here, which was a perfectly reasonable edit btw, to here, here, here, here, here, here, not only were you warring, but you also passed the threshold into WP:3RR. And as an experienced editor, you also know that even when you believe (or may be right) - warring is still warring. As an experienced editor, you should also be familiar with WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Also even you must admit that is a pretty active edit log for a user who claims this is all "on a subject that is very remote to my interests." It also excludes your edit here, which came after I had believed we'd finally resolved this issue. So under the circumstances, my comment: ... because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas., So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments. seems more than justified and supported by the edit log.

But regarding your content dispute with me here, your response after the comment I posted which began this section, was instructive. You wrote: "it signifies first place repeatedly," and that was the red flag for me, as it made the quoted claim sound sketchy at best, but requiring more review at least. Because no university "consistently ranks the top university". Harvard constantly battles Yale. Or MIT, or Princeton or Stanford or the University of Chicago or Penn. Oxford constantly battles Cambridge. I'm unaware of any schools "consistently ranked the top universities" anywhere. So I researched the source and reported what I found, and lo and behold, the source appears to be the in-house promotional arm of the university making the claim. Quelle Surprise! So what I originally believed was a redundancy - because the high rankings were sufficient to suggest the quality of the university - and the "top university" appellation struck me as unnecessary in an article that wasn't even primarily about this or other universities - the additional research led to the additional conclusion that the quote itself was likely just self-promotional and undocumented puffery.

So I stand by both what I did and what I said. If you still feel attacked, as unfortunate as that is, it's also entirely on you. But it's certainly nothing I need to "retract", or even be concerned with; especially since you phrased it in such an uncivil manner. I am just reminded that "no good deed goes unpunished." But luckily, as this is ... "on a subject that is very remote to my(your) interests.": I'm sure you'll have no difficulty taking your own advice and I "can continue this conversation on your(my) own", while you move on. X4n6 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Quote from your diatribe above: Because starting with your first edit here, which was a perfectly reasonable edit btw, to here, here, here, here, here, here

So, not only you are continuing your PAs but now you have crossed into imaginary events territory. Your first two links link 1 and link 2 involve IP 161.38.221.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Unless you have clairvoyant powers how on Earth do you have the gall to connect me to that IP address? The next two diffs were consecutive and they only count as one edit under 3RR; so were the last two. Plus I was correcting factual errors made by the other editor and fixing citations through Internet Archive in many of these edits. So they were good-faith attempts to fix the other editor's mistakes, including fixing his original research, not edit-warring; not that I hold my breath you will recognise my GF, given your serial violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV during this conversation.

So to conclude: You add two random diffs from an IP user that you only know why you connected to me. Then twice you count consecutive edits to beef up your baseless accusation that I was near 3RR while failing to recognise and acknowledge the value of my edits.

On top of your walls of text, which were WP:TLDR and I didn't bother to read, these clumsy accusations show a propensity for personal atacks and violations of the civility policy. I am afraid that any further discussion under such adverse conditions, as you have created through your continuing violations of our core policies, would be a total waste of time. I think you can talk to yourself from now on. You have earned it.

Oh, and in the future, don't try to accuse other people of 3RR violations. It is obvious that your grasp of WP:3RR is not anywhere near satisfactory. Same goes for your misguided IP sockpuppet accusations. Dr. K. 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

While I would like nothing more than give you the point-by-point refutation and smackdown that you so richly deserve, why should I bother? It's now abundantly clear that you fail WP:POINT; suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; and are now just (Personal attack removed). X4n6 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Historical nonsense

In the History section it says ' Steadily harassed by the Germans, in 58 BC the Helvetii decided to abandon the Swiss plateau...', which doesn't make sense taking into account that the formation of the German people didn't take place before 10th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.214.193.220 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it is ambiguous: I corrected it, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Climate Change

Glaciers are very important to Switzerland's geography. Due to climate change, the have begun to recede and could possibly disappear in 100 years. The risk of natural disasters increases because of this. The number of days with temperatures reaching 30 degrees Celsius in Ticino increased from one or two per year in the 1960s to roughly 15 today. These changes are even more evident in Geneva and Zurich. The winters are also changing, producing fewer days of snow and delayed seasons. With the snowfall starting later, tourism is heavily effected. One of Switzerland's main attractions is alpine skiing in the Swiss Alps. With a smaller window of time, the less money the country can take in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuiskatelyn (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Insert ", although it is a relatively poor nation in terms of raw recourses such as fossil fuels." before 'It has the world's nineteenth largest economy by nominal GDP and the thirty-sixth largest by purchasing power parity.' (this is found in the ECONOMY section) (This information is available in the french page for Switzerland but not the English page.)

Clawhammer98 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Switzerland. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Success! All work. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Given guns to keep at home but not given ammunition

@ZH8000 - It seemed too insane to even bother checking, but it looks like maybe it's true. Especially since they can still buy their own ammunition to keep at home, right? Maybe I could see it as a cost cutting measure. Though it is still so hard to believe that I think it needs a clear cite. The cite given doesn't seem to say anything about it. Can you quote the sentence from the cite that says they no longer issue ammo with the rifles? Has there been a reason given for why they would stop issuing ammo? Do they prohibit the possession at home of ammo that fits the rifle? Do they allow the purchase of ammo for it, but expect some people to not buy or possess the ammo for their rifle? Mindbuilder (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I cited the wrong ordinance; replaced by correct one. For further explanations see linkd article. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000 - I couldn't find a linked article that explains how they think it will help to stop supplying ammo. But I really only have one question: can they still buy their own ammo for their army rifle and keep it at home? Mindbuilder (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a news article as citation. About buying ammo, the same laws apply as for other weapons, see Gun laws in Switzerland#Buying Ammunition; i.e. you need to obtain a weapon acquisition permit (easy to get) or a weapon carrying permit (almost impossible to get). I don't think the new regulation was a cost cutting measure, you weren't allowed to use the ammo anyway, so I don't see how the costs would make a difference. I think the main reason was to decrease suicides and gun violence by not having ammo readily available. --Novarupta (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If it easy to buy ammo for your service rifle, then I would imagine almost everyone would buy a little ammo to keep with the rifle. So this appears to be one of those feel good gun control measures that have a very tiny effect at reducing gun violence. The US has similar laws in some states, such as banning some guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, or pistol grips, while the same gun is legal without those insignificant features. Thanks for answering my questions. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mindbuilder (is this meant to be an omen?), you possibly do not know it yet, but this is not the place to discuss your private opinions, conclusions, and assumptions, how right or wrong they may ever be, or to place any open questions about any subject you have no knowledge of. WP is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM)! And especially stop implying anything here. WP is not a free speech message board (WP:NOTFREESPEECH). Quite to the contrary, if you want to be an author on WP then you are expected to have some knowledge about the subject, anything else makes no sense and is considered to be vandalism. So please stop producing your unsourced, freely speculating assumptions and allegations here. And in particular, stop changing text you obviously have no knowledge of. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

At the Gun laws in Switzerland talk page, ZH8000 says that you can't buy ammo for a service rifle if you don't own it or another private rifle of the same caliber. I could see in that case that a significant fraction of militia that have the rifle at home, might not keep ammunition at home. That could have some non-negligible effect on impulsive crime or suicide. I'm going to leave it at that for this topic. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

WP ZMB (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

1. the Vatican has the only other square flag in the world. The Swiss flag is a red square with a white cross in the centre. 2. provided they can gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days. If succesful, a national vote is held and voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kosack (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:2F0E:52A7:3D00:A47E:BB17:4B60:66F2 (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Federal status of Bern

I restored the following link to an official page of the Bundeskanzlei, entitled "Bundesstatus Stadt Bern" or "Federal status of Bern", [1], which is essential I think: the fact is that a project of law, in order to award to Bern the status of federal city, has been worked on and is now suspended. This information stresses the fact that Bern has so far no official status as a federal city, and the link should remain. Note that the German wikipedia has a page on this issue, [2]. Sapphorain (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, once every year again. – And wow, there are a lot (!) of issues to raise here:

The note in the leading section does not say what you criticise in your undo change summary ("Bern is not federal city de jury"), since the note correctly says: "Bern is referred to as "federal city". Swiss law does not designate a capital as such, but the federal parliament and government are located in Bern, while the federal courts are located in other cities." This text is fully compliant with the given sources. – Please, read it carefully and correctly!
And it is called "de jure", not "de jury". This is Latin, after all!!
WP:CIRC ... Never ever valid!! There simply are too many (potential) errors on WP, as you prove by yourself.
MOS:LEAD: You add a subject and a source, which are not suitable for a lead section, since it discusses very particular details, namely the legal relationship of the Confederacy with the city of Berne and an intermediate and obsolete discussion, instead only the current constitutional reality. If you like to document these detailed, historic explanations then create a new paragraph, or even better, a new article about it. But such details are not suitable for an introductory text.
And please, try to be correct in your claims (e.g. Berne was never a federal city de jure, as you claim in a previous change summary: "Bern is federal city "de facto", but not ~~anymore~~ "de jure", ...").
Even the text you refer to – not surprisingly, after all – does not claim anything different! Quite the contrary actually: "Aucune réglementation adéquate ne définit à proprement parler le statut de la ville fédérale ni ses relations avec la Confédération (dans le domaine de la culture, par ex.); les seules règles qui existent sont celles qui régissent la sécurité et celles concernant l'Ecole cantonale de langue française de Berne." – Again, please read it carefully!
And finally, it does not make sense to use a different note about the same subject for the info box and the lead section.

Therefore, I reused the same note for the info box. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Your note indeed says that Bern is "referred to" as federal city. "Correctly", though, I don't know, since no source is provided in this note.

2. No need to be conceited. I am reasonably fluent in Latin. The misspelling is only contained in the comment and came from an uncalled for spelling checker.

3. This comment is cryptic and doesn't make any sense to me.

4. The "current constitutional reality" dates back to 1999. The "obsolete" "discussion" you refer to took place between 2002 and 2004, and the mention of what came out of it (i.e. nothing) is perfectly fit for a lead section.

5. Bern was a federal city de jure in the 1848 constitution.

6. But it does. You apparently didn't read the sentence that just follows the one you mention: "Il faut donc créer une norme légale qui fixe le statut de Berne en tant que ville fédérale et énumère les tâches lui incombant à ce titre."

7. I agree. But this was already the case before I added the link to the legislation attempt of 2002-2004. If you wish to suppress this redundancy be my guest. But please don't remove the link I added.Sapphorain (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: I actually baffled how I should consider your reluctance to understand the given arguments.

Actually, you did not add any new argument nor did you falsify any of the given ones above. Therefore any further response would actually be futile. But just for the sake of redundancy, once more:

If you would be more attentive, just a bit, you would have been aware of that there are two given sources since the note was produced.
Yes.
Obviously. I am not surprised. Are you that lazy reader?! RTFM!
Yes, but your referred discussion has been finished (and didn't change anything!!) and does not contribute to a fast introductory understanding.
NO, IT WAS NOT. Prove it otherwise! Show me the constitutional text saying so! – Actually, you can't.
For holy sake! This text is the declared intention of the referred Federal project. NOT THE STATUS QUO. Tell me, what is so badly hard to understand in Il faut donc créer ???? Neither did the project complete. THERE WAS NO OUTCOME.
I will remove this link to an intermediate project, since it does not contribute any further understanding than the already given links. Quite the contrary as you just proved by yourself.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@ZH8000: We at least have one thing in common: I am also baffled by your reluctance to understand the given arguments. I am in addition baffled by the nerve you have to warn me for edit war on my talk page, being yourself, if this is true, the other warrior. The reason I reverted you is not only because you replaced the link I gave by partially correct/partially incorrect information, but mainly because you deleted in the process the crucial information on the 2002-2004 legal attempt: I considered I didn't have to painfully select what was good and what was bad in your contribution, since you deleted mine in the process. Anyway: for the time being I added a new section concerning the problem of the capital or federal city, without deleting any of your partially incorrect contributions on the subject. Sapphorain (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Obstinacy is not a virtue, indeed. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Roger Federer won 19 grand slam titles...not 18. Please change it. Michelaino69 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Done by Sarah Canbel (talk · contribs). Thanks for reporting the error.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Switzerland. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bar.admin.ch/archivgut/00591/00601/00602/index.html?lang=en%23
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015165418/http://www.schweizer-deutsch.ch/uploads/media/einige_Beispielseiten_2007-07-05_01.pdf to http://www.schweizer-deutsch.ch/uploads/media/einige_Beispielseiten_2007-07-05_01.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815131226/https://www.sz.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d2/d56/d756/f759.cfm to http://www.sz.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d2/d56/d756/f759.cfm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/ocea/vaus/infoch/chhist.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/en/climate.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/en/climate/climate_today/swiss_climate_maps.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213031154/http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/de/home/militaerdienst/rekrut/wehrpflicht.html to http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/de/home/militaerdienst/rekrut/wehrpflicht.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114023617/https://www.credit-suisse.com/upload/news-live/000000022454.pdf to https://www.credit-suisse.com/upload/news-live/000000022454.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723201800/http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fdataoecd%2F20%2F25%2F35345692.pdf to http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fdataoecd%2F20%2F25%2F35345692.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00499/00503/01777/index.html?lang=en
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfe.admin.ch/forschungnetze/01223/index.html?lang=en
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parlament.ch/e/service-presse/parlamentsdienste/aufgaben/Pages/default.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.duden.de/presse/weder-fisch-noch-vogel
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weforum.org/reports/human-capital-report
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.estv.admin.ch/dokumentation/00079/00080/00736/index.html?lang=de&download=NHzLpZeg7t%2Clnp6I0NTU042l2Z6ln1acy4Zn4Z2qZpnO2Yuq2Z6gpJCDdYR6fGym162epYbg2c_JjKbNoKSn6A--
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://delche.ec.europa.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Homepage_Dokumente/Presse_und_Information/Reden/2008-11-13_European_Year_of_Intercultural_Dialogue_2008__AFS_Intercultural_Programmes_Kaefigturm.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427033455/http://servicesv2.webmichelin.com/frontnews/servlet/GetElement?elementCode=56670 to http://servicesv2.webmichelin.com/frontnews/servlet/GetElement?elementCode=56670

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) 17:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Bern is referred to as "federal city" (German: Bundesstadt, French: Ville féderale,

-> fédérale

Fixed it. --Novarupta (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Allied forces explained the bombings, which violated the 96th Article of War, resulted from navigation errors, equipment failure, weather conditions, and errors made my bomber pilots.

-> by

Why is Swiss cheese called Swiss chesse?

Why do I have to answer this ? Theslinginghotdog (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Switzerland. 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) 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Switzerland. 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) 03:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Government

Isn't Switzerland a federal republic? Also, shouldn't the words "direct democracy" in the infobox have a link attached to them? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

Indeed, and that's what is in the infobox: Federal semi-direct democracy under multi-party parliamentary directorial republic UCaetano (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, in the info box the word "federal" links to federation and not federal republic. (104.33.76.108 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

The capital or Federal City issue / Terrorism?

At the ending of the part with regards to the issue in the subdivision "4.5 The capital or Federal City issue" stands the following sentence: Terrorism in Switzerland has occurred periodically since the 1970s. Switzerland has experienced both domestic and international terrorism over the past several decades, though domestic terrorism was primarily low‐level violence.[78]. This has nothing to do with the issue at hands and is sorely misplaced methinks? Should this not be either removed or placed elsewhere within the article? -- fdewaele, 5 January 2018, 11:21 CET.

Done. Thanks for the hint! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

where the largest cities are to be found: among them are the two global cities and economic centres Zürich and Geneva. should be: where the largest cities are to be found: among them are the two global cities and economic centres, Zürich and Geneva. 74.140.139.46 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume the change is to add a comma after "global cities and economic centres". I don't really agree with this change. The comma suggests that the clause is non-restrictive. That is, it suggests that there are in fact only two global cities and economic centers, which are Zürich and Geneva, and I would argue that's not true. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: I concur with Anon126. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Switzerland. 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) 23:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Link to www.aboutswitzerland.org

Hi there, We would appreciate if in addition to the link to www.eda.admin.ch you could add the (deep)link to the official portal about Switzerland (Showing details of Society, History, Politics incl. Democracy, Economy, Science, Education and Environment. Plus Infographics for download, specials on cheese, watches, mountains and many more) www.aboutswitzerland.org

Thanks, the team aboutswitzerland

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add this section: Prison System and Inmates In Switzerland The Criminal Code provides four types of sentencing options for both felonies and misdemeanors, which are custodial sentence, monetary penalty, serving a sentence in instalments by day, and semi-confinement. Custodial sentences are classified as, “sanctions involving the deprivation or restriction of liberty” (“Federal Office of Justice,” 2010). These sentences usually last from 6 months to 20 years but can last up to a lifetime. This is the harshest penalty for crime that the country of Switzerland has. Semi-confinement is typically for a sentence of around one year. During the sentence the offender continues his professional activity or training outside the institution and spends rest and recreation time in the institution. Monetary sentencing in Switzerland doesn’t exceed 6 months and is typically serving a sentence through community service instead of in a facility (“Federal Office of Justice,” 2010). Switzerland has a lot less inmates and a lot less institutions of corrections compared to other countries. Switzerland has 115 institutions that execute sentences as well as criminal measures (“Federal Office of Justice,” 2010). A lot of these facilities aren’t used for long sentences because they don’t have a lot of inmates serving long sentences, but there are thirty medium to large-sized institutions that house inmates serving longer sentences. Switzerland’s facilities typically have fewer than 100 inmates at one time and only four prisons have a capacity of over 200 (“Federal Office of Justice,” 2010). Their total prison population is 6,912 inmates. There are 82 prisoners per 100,000 people. Switzerland has a small number of female prisoners, being 5.6%. Most of Switzerland’s prison population is foreigners, accounting for 72% of the total prison population. Although, Switzerland is not having issues of overcrowding they are almost at the maximum capacity of their correction facilities, having only 7.8% left for new inmates (“Federal Office of Justice,” 2010).

Federal Office of Justice. (2010). The execution of sentences and measures in Switzerland. Retrieved from (PDF) byFederal Department of Justice and Police FDJP, Federal Office of Justice FOJ Hedricke (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The link you provided as a reference is invalid. SPINTENDO 00:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"Switzerland has a lot less inmates and a lot less institutions of corrections compared to other countries. ... There are 82 prisoners per 100,000 people." :

First sentence is not correct. Swiss rate lies among the figures of many European countries: List of countries by incarceration rate. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Link under the section "External Links --> Travel" needs to be changed to the English site (now it is linked to the French one, http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/accueil.html Tourism). Easiest would be to link to the generic main page: http://www.myswitzerland.com. Eichruss (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The page that's currently linked, for which you provided the url above, gives every appearance of being in English. The French page is at https://www.myswitzerland.com/fr/accueil.html%20Tourism. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

This edit request to Switzerland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some of the translated languages are incorrect. For example French would not say "Confédération suisse" but instead "Confédération helvétique" Alppierrat (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (The Swiss government web site does indeed say "Confédération suisse".) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Southern Europe

Maxim3377: None of the sources that are used in the Southern Europe article mention Switzerland as being partly southern European. All the different groupings that are mentioned in different "xxx-ern Europe" articles (such as World Factbook, UN, Eurovoc etc.) place Switzerland in either Western Europe or Central Europe. The claim that parts of Switzerland is situated in southern Europe is therefore an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims needs exceptional sources, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

The three sources you have added are not by far sufficient for the formula "in western, central and southern Europe" in the lede. The Enc.Brit. article about the river Ticino does not mention anything about southern Europe. Being a tributary to the river Po does not make the river source area southern European. By that way of thinking, Switzerland would also belong to eastern Europe, since Switzerland contains the source of the river Inn, a tributary to the Danube. As far as I am able to see, the Treccani article does not mention "southern Europe" or similar. It mentions the "southern slopes of the Alps", but there is nothing in the definition of Southern Europe to support using that as a delimitation criterium. Those two sources are also tertiary sources and can hardly qualify as exceptional sources. The third source, an article about spiders from a 1900 journal, is not even worth considering as a reliable source for divisions of Europe in the 21st century.

What would be needed in order to keep the lede formula, is reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) that are stating explicitly that Switzerland (or part of it) can be considered to be included in a definition of southern Europe. It would also require that this claim was discussed in the main text before it is mentioned in the lede. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, not to present facts or claims that are not elsewhere mentioned in the article. Se WP:LEDE. --T*U (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you explain me why Como is southern Europe and Lugano not?)Hydrology is clear.If Ticino is central Europe so all Po Valley (Italy) and similar is same.Or both or none.Same for Rhone area.Maxim3377 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The definition of southern Europe can not be defined only by watershed/hydrology. That would make Switzerland (and Germany) also part of Eastern Europe through the Danube, and it would make Ukraine part of northern Europe through Wisła. I am sure you understand that this is nonsense.

Also, we need sources that actually talk about southern Europe etc. The Global Environment calls Po a southern European river, which is obviously correct, but it does not say that all areas drained into the Po basin are part of southern Europe, which is what you claim. So that source is not valid for this context. The 1877 "source" is as useless as the 1900 one: It says absolutely nothing about definition of divisions of Europe.

You also need to learn how Wikipedia works: Please read here about verifiability and here about reliable sources. It is also useful to learn about original research here and about synthesis here. About editor interaction you can read here about consensus and about edit war here. Also useful is to read about the BRD cycle here: When you make a Bold edit and is Reverted, you should not try to push your version through edit war, but Discuss in the talk page in order to get consensus.

I would suggest that you self revert your addittions to the articles where your edits have been contested, then read yourself up on the Wikipedia guidelines before you present your suggestions in the relevant talk pages. That is how Wikipedia works. --T*U (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Both references are good.Is canton Ticino central Europe?It's a news for CNN.Please classify geographically here Ticino.Where is it?Central or Southern Europe?For all geography experts it's south Europe.Maxim3377 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that before all one should agree about the type of definition: if we are talking about physical geography, Maxim is obviously right. Ticino and a couple of Grigioni valleys lie mostly south of the alp watershed, so they are clearly in southern Europe. On the other side, geopolitically Switzerland cannot be defined a state belonging to southern Europe. Alex2006 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)