Talk:Berlin/Archive 4

Second biggest?
The article states that Berlin is the second biggest city in the European Union, but both Paris and London are bigger. Have I missed something?
 * Yes; you've missed the article Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, which shows that when only city-proper populations are counted, Paris is smaller than Berlin, Madrid, and Rome. However, if you count whole urban areas (see Largest urban areas of the European Union) or metropolitan areas John Carroll then Paris is indeed larger than Berlin. Berlin is actually relatively far down those lists. User:Angr 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But this is still misleading, bacause greater Paris is still much larger than greater Berlin. Measuring city populations by (fairly arbitrary) administrative areas is not necessarily helpful or useful and I would wonder why this little fact is helpful or useful to the overall article anyway!! Maybe you should mention thatit is the 9th largest metropolis (see Largest urban areas of the European Union), although again it would seem fairly meaningless

EU has country status
The EU and its flag got to the point to be mentioned next to the "national" country flag. Several indication lead to this level: Common market, common policies in many fields, election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice. The currency Euro is adopted by 300 mil inhabitants out of 450 mil. There is a EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Passport ,-Drivinglicense ,-Anthem and in the case of Berlin the EU is financing infrastructure, education, social projects ect. In official pressconferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag. Lear 21 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This still doesn't make the EU a country. I am against having the EU flag in the infobox. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the EU has a lot of structure, but it is not a country, see List of countries. Stefán Ingi 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise and clear for everybody; this is not a discussion wether EU is an official country or not. The statement I have made is in favor to show the EU flag in the infobox next to the German flag because of the mentioned reasons.Lear 21 12:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since EU is not a country, its flag does not belong in the box labelled Country. Stefán Ingi 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Daniel and Stefán. The EU isn't a country and should not be in the infobox as if it were. User:Angr 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I´ve been sleeping for rather a long time, but I have to agree with all those that think the flag should be moved. The EU flag has more of a relevance on a national, rather than at city level. In any case, the use of Euros signifies that Berlin IS IN the EU.--IsarSteve 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Lear 21 correctly assesses the influence of EU policy on the governance of Berlin, but it is rather misleading to list the EU next to "country". The EU is a supranational union and mentioned in the introduction already. To what extent does the reader benefit from the addition? I reverted. Johnny w   talk  22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The section says #Government# and follows a striking logic from highest level of influence to the subdivision level. In this respect the EU governs Berlin and can be regarded as a country-like entity. Lear 21 21:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have now made this reversion five times today. That goes against WP:3RR, please revert yourself back. There are four people who have commented here to say that the EU should not be in this box, you are the only one who wants it there. Stefán Ingi 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder if the desire to include the EU flag, has something to do with the inability to accept the "Black-Red-Gold" as the official symbol for Germany and Germans?--IsarSteve 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook names EU already a country. The first paragraph of this article names Berlin within the EU, also watch WP country. [] There haven´t been any contra-arguments concerning the issue, only Njets. As far as I can see most of the Njet-voters are non EU-citizens who are not expected to identify with EU. They should also consider that many do so AND identify with their traditional nation. The EU is economically more integrated than China, but thats a comment not an argument. Stop reverting the flag without a convincing discussion. all the best Lear 21 10:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you revert yourself then without waiting for other user's comments? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the EU-flag version is on for about 2 months now, and substantial deletion has to be discussed first. It works this way not the other way around. Lear 21 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion. No one wants it there but you. If it's been there for 2 months already without complaint, that just means no one noticed it till now. Now that we've noticed it, we don't like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reported you for a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The only conclusion would be removing both Germany and EU, but wouldn't be a sufficient description of the Government section. Lear 21 12:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should Germany be removed? It is the country in which Berlin is located. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename
Shouldn't this article be "Berlin, Germany"? in most other aticles, such as Jacksonville, Florida and St. Augustine, Florida the names have the state/ country the city is in. Please state your opinions on this,  Daniel_123  ►  21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If people search for Berlin, they are most likely to mean the German capital. Because editors realize that there are other cities called Berlin, there is a link at the top of this article that leads the Berlin disambiguation page . Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

wasn't Berlin under Nazi control in the end of ww11.

hello, i am researching Berlin
i am researching berlin for my german 1 class, and i need crucial information about it's background and features oh yeah

support to encounter recent vandalism
The recent vandalism in the history section, probably conducted through socket puppets, has to be stopped. Any support is welcome. Lear 21 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image of the Berlin wall
Who can fix the image  ??? It seems to be nothing wrong with it, while clicking it. But it does not appear in the article. Lear 21 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's happening for you too, huh? I thought it was just me. I have no idea; I'll ask at WP:VP/T. —Angr 14:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it the Firefox-Browser ? 84.189.97.188 15:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.7 on Windows XP; I don't know about Lear 21. —Angr 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also use Firefox 1.5.0.7 on Windows XP, and the recent edit on the picture didn´t help. Lear 21 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it worked for me briefly, but now it's back to how it was. Very vexing. —Angr 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I just installed Firefox 2.0 and the problem remains. Lear 21 13:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I´ve made an upload of the same picture and it seems to work, although producing strange digital artefacts while loading the article. Lear 21 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

boroughs
Are the borugh assemblies elected separetly from the city assembly? That is, can they have a different political majority from the city as a whole? I think that should be clarified.
 * I believe the answer to both your questions is yes. —Angr 11:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review or FA-candidate ?
The article seems to be very mature now. Any suggestions or assessments about future developments? all the best Lear 21  т с For comments :Peer review/Berlin/archive1 Lear 21 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit revert
Lear21, why did you revert my edits to this article? Union Berlin is definately more relevant than the other non-soccer teams. Compared with ALBA Berlin, for example, Union has over 4,000 members while ALBA only has 500 just to name one statistic. I also bet you that an average German is more likely to know Union than ALBA, further it has had a much greater relevance in history.

Further, why should the graph about the population numbers in Berlin cover only the time since 1880? Is the time before that not just as relevant?

Shouldn't an assertion that obviously contradicts a statement in another article be sourced as is the case with the claim that Berlin is the sixth largest urban area in the EU?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * About the sports teams: I don't think the table of teams is very relevant, it might be better to start a subarticle Sports in Berlin where more could be said about the importance of Union Berlin etc. Kusma (討論) 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * About the population graphs: I am unhappy with both, as the 1250 one should start at 1650 or have two different scales, while the 1880 one does not give enough context. Can't we remove both and improve Berlin population statistics instead, which can easily have both graphs?
 * About the x-th largest city by definition y: 7th largest seems correct per our article, so it should be changed. Or it could just be dropped anyway.
 * Generally, Lear21, please do not revert all edits by one editor because you disagree with part of it. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the urban area change, but then, why didn´t you altered it? Third division sport teams, can hardly be included, they havent even relevance in local media: Berliner Z, Tagesspiegel,Die Welt etc. The table is standard in all american city articles and delivers quick overview instead of lists. The graph is of major value and also provides quick insight, especially starting with 1880 when Berlin started to grow and NOT from 1250 on happening 600 years nothing. You also couldn´t identify the important episode. all the best Lear 21 19:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 1880 is a pretty bad cutoff date, as Berlin already had 1 million inhabitants then, and we're missing out on a lot of earlier growth. The name of Berlin's volleyball coach is pretty irrelevant, and I would prefer to remove the sports table - prose is always preferable to tables, especially if the tables are full of not-so-important information. Just because American cities have this as a standard doesn't mean we have to adopt it for Berlin. Kusma (討論) 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes ALBA Berlin more relevant than Union Berlin? Sure they're in the First Division, but basketball as a whole is a lot less notable in Germany and like I said I'm sure Union Berlin is a lot better known. This is not just about the table but also the paragraph about sport in Berlin. Do you think that should be deleted as well? And what makes the population of Berlin in the year, 1999 more relevant than in 1576, for example?--Carabinieri 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At Kusma:I also like having a graph starting in 1701. But we haven´t. Stop arguing what is not there.For now its the very best we can get. Same with a sports table. You want to write profound prose.You are welcome...! Stop picking the weakest point in the table. The engl.Wiki standard is acceptable, presenting the issue in a short way.

At Carabinieri: You convinced me with Union. I expand the table. To both:The article is already very long, all expansion should be in related main articles.all the best Lear 21 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Making a graph starting in that year would not be much of a problem. One could easily do that using excel, creating a new graph would even have the advantage that one could translate the parts of it that are still in German. But I still don't understand why it shouldn't start as early as data is available.--Carabinieri 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of readability problems. And the relevant history of the city starts earliest in 1648.Lear 21 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would actually prefer removing that photo from MyFest, which doesn't really seem to be illustrating anything and instead making the graph larger. Why is the history before 1648 irrelevant? And if it is irrelevant, why is it mentioned in the history section?--Carabinieri 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I´m not starting a chat. The image illustrates that people are living in this city.Demography! In an ethnically diverse way. Lear 21 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Berlin task force of WikiProject Germany, or, maybe, separate project?
As the capital of Germany and an extremely historically important city in its own right, I wonder if there's any interest in setting up a work group or WikiProject dealing with Berlin. It could either be a stand-alone project, like the WikiProject Sydney, or a work group of WikiProject Germany. Personally, I think that organizating it as some sort of substructure of Germany might be best, as that would allow for potentially greater interaction between the two and spare the Berlin people the effort of having to create all the templates, departments, and what have you. But that's just my opinion. I would be very happy to hear the responses of the rest of you, positive or negative, to either or both proposals. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest a task force to avoid template clutter on the talk pages. I'm going to start a smaller subproject of the Germany project sometime soon. If anybody is interested in either starting a project or a task force, please discuss at WT:GER. Kusma (討論) 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, to both of you! I certainly think the Berlin-Issue has the potential for a standalone Wikiproject. But! Right now, I´m not that convinced of enough contributers to make it a fully rolling one. So, some combined forces of Germany project/portal seem more realistic to me. I´m very split about this decision. all the best Lear 21 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Berolina - Berlin Bär (Berlin Bear)
The name Berlin is connected to the Berlin Bär (English: Bear) (Old High German: Bero, thus the name Berolina, Angle Saxon: Bera, Indo-Germanic-Indo-European: bher-os) emblem, used as Berlin's Sigilum since the 13th century in conjunction with the Brandenburg Eagle. On a document of 1280 two upright bears are depicted. The varying Berlin sigilum over the centuries depict the Brandenburg Eagle together with the Berlin Bear, later usually one instead of the earlier two. This is probably due to the single city, which developed from the earlier twin cities.

In 1231 the Ascanian Brandenburg Margraves, brothers Johann I. and Otto III. received at Ravenna from Emperor Frederick II the Mark Brandenburg. At the same time the emperor verified the Brandenburg margraves Lien over Pomerania. Since the death of the young margraves father, Margrave Albrecht II. in 1220, the emperor held Brandenburg untill the boys became of age (17 and 16). One of the Margraviate's seats was at the site of the future Berlin at the river Spree.

The first written mention of towns in the area of present-day Berlin dates from the late 12th and early 13th century. Spandau is first mentioned in 1197, the inner towns of Berlin-Cölln (remembered in Neukölln), in the center Berlin and to the right the estate of the Brandenburg margraves started to be built about 1200. All three are at a different arm of the river and are connected by bridges. Köpenick is documented in 1209, though it and Spandau both did not join Greater Berlin until 1920. The central part of Berlin-Cölln is about at todays Fisher Island). It was first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in the area of what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244. From the beginning, the twin cities formed an economic and social unit. In 1307, the two cities were united into one. Over time, the twin cities came to be known simply as Berlin, the larger of the pair and the other parts as districts of Berlin.

The name Berlin is connected to the Berlin Bär (bear) emblem, which for the first time was used on a document in 1280. Before that only the Brandenburg Read eagle was shown. Dr. Theodor Zell, Naturforscher scientist studied secret nature trails of wildlife. His book Geheimpfade der Natur placed such a crossing, the only wildlife crossing across arms of the Spree river banks at the very place were first Coelln, then Berlin was founded. 200 other cities or towns in Germany have names relating to bears, over a hundred are named after swine or bore and a number after the wolf. Lately it also has become fashionable to sport the idea, that Berlin may be related to the Old Polabian stem berl-/birl- "swamp". +

The fact is, that the Berlin Bär is continuously used as emblem on the sigilum seal of Berlin from 1280. That showed two upright bears (for the twin cities), and later depictions show one bear. Berliner Stadtwappen

For more information on the Bär (bear) as city arms of Berlin and Bern, both Imperial cities at that time see:

Heraldry of Berne

Labbas 15 December 2006 -

!! more likely !! Lear 21 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good site- thanks Lear 21- I typed in: Berlin Siegel -search and got the Berlin Siegel of 1280 with 2 upright bears. Labbas 11 December 2006

Link to Travel Article
I wondered why the travel article I suggested was removed? It wasn't at all "bloggy", though the site had chosen the format. The reason was removed by an unregistered user, with "blogs not needed in this section," as their justification. The article had good photos and was a well written and engaging (if partial) history of Berlin. It's at Old World Wandering

Not sure if this is the correct place to mention this, still new to wikipedia. Please excuse me if it is not.


 * I don't know what you mean by "not at all 'bloggy'"; it's written in the 1st person, which is bloggy enough. It's also a travelogue; but this is an encyclopedia article, not a travel guide. The site doesn't seem to me to meet the guidelines at WP:EL for external links. —Angr 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very useful, hadn't seen the guidelines for external links. Ta.

Berliner is doughnut
So was Ich bin ein Berliner "I'm a doughnut" or "I'm a Berliner"?

In fact Kennedy's sentence was correct; the doughnut thing is a commonly believed legend, so it's OK to withdraw my edit. See the Wikipedia article Ich bin ein Berliner.

Chris Dillon.

! Happy new year !
best wishes to all contributers. Lear 21 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo!
Isar Steve and Lear, would you please have your discussion here instead of in the summaries of virtually empty edits. Thanks. —Angr 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yessirrr.... --IsarSteve 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) :-)

Ich hab noch einen Koffer
The Lyrics are
 * Ich hab’ noch einen Koffer in Berlin -
 * Deswegen muss ich nächstens wieder hin. -
 * Die Seligkeiten vergang’ner Zeiten -
 * Sind alle noch in meinem kleinen Koffer drin.-

There is a sentiment of coming back to Berlin, thats why she keeps another suitcase in Berlin. I´m not a translator but it sounds even more like melody for me. another captures more the longing. all the best Lear 21 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, translating "ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin" as "I have another suitcase in Berlin" sounds like "I have two suitcases here in Paris, and one more in Berlin", an extremely banal and unemotional statement. (Wo sind meine Koffer -- hier ist einer, hier ist noch einer, und ach ja, in Berlin habe ich auch noch einen.) Translating it "I still have a suitcase in Berlin" on the other hand does capture the longing to return (Ich wohne lange nicht mehr dort -- aber noch habe ich einen Koffer in Berlin!). —Angr 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A late insight, but you convinced me. Lear 21 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that the original statement, without the context, is unemotive and ambiguous. Did she forget her suitcase in the airport there or something?  That's what it sounds like.  I think the options are translating some of the context into it, or providing more -- something like:


 * I've still got a suitcase in Berlin,
 * And soon I'll be goin' back for it.
 * The good old times gone by,
 * Are still packed in my little suitcase.


 * Scott.wheeler 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the song literally mean, I STILL keep a bag/case in Berlin..? Taken together, Marlene's personal relationship with Berlin as well as the political situation at the time. I'm sure the song really means "I still have an affiliation with Berlin". --IsarSteve 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is vandalism on some of the page. 86.41.72.219 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Ross

Berlin ranking in the introduction
Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU only within city limits, but it is absolutely not the 2nd most populated urban area or metro area in the EU. This sentence in the introduction trying to portray Berlin as the 2nd most populated EU city is completely misleading readers. Paris and London are by very far the two largest and most populated cities in the EU, by very far, so trying to portray Berlin as #2 is simply fallacious. Berlin's administrative borders were considerably enlarged in 1920, encompassing almost the entire urban area of Berlin, whereas in other countries the city borders haven't been changed since medieval times and encompass only a small area at the center of much larger urban areas, so comparing population within administrative borders is simply flawed. Personnaly, I am in favor of removing any ranking from the introduction of the article, but if the ranking is left, then it should mention that Berlin is only the 7th most populated urban area in the EU, because population within city limits is a very biased measure. Keizuko 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Keizuko, I would be interested in the citation for this, -- Dmytri Kleiner, dk@telekommunisten.net --85.178.25.209 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

City ranks in terms of city limits is a standard intro mentioning in almost all city articles in almost all languages. The urban area or metro area is not, because of variyng measures. The urban area information is also covered in the infobox. Let me add something personal, which I very rarely do. Your uncivil behavior and false accusations disqualified you to be taken seriously for further contributions. And let me clear about this as well: Be sure that this is the last time I comment any of your suggestions. Lear 21 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Threats is not going to help. Perhaps you need to spend a few days away from Wikipedia to cool off a bit. Keizuko 16:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lear - your recent revision is actually quite hard to understand. "Most populous city within city limits" does not easily offer meaning to the casual reader, and is confusing writing.

I'm going to set it back for the moment, pending a better solution. If there's going to be quibbling about clarification of a misleading sentence in the first paragraph of the entry, my real suggestion is to remove the sentence - it is not much of a feature of Berlin that it is the second-largest EU city by an adulterated measurement that not an actual measurement of largest cities. It's a bit like saying that Australia is the most populous continent in the world, counting rabbits.

Placed in the body of the article, the sentiment could be amplified with more context. I'd like to see if there's a consensus for removing this very suspect statement from the intro. - Corporal Tunnel 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ranking mentioned in the introduction is a standard entry in city articles. Considering the population within city limits as well ( compare USA article 'largest cities'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lear 21 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, quite so. In particular, I note that in the USA article the statistics you refer to appear 2/3 of the way down the article, and they are explained clearly.  Ranking information when it is true is indeed a salient aspect of city articles.  Sadly, the statement currently ending the first paragraph of this piece is something between deliberate misinformation and outright lie. - Corporal Tunnel 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't compare this article to United States, because this is an article on a city and that's an article on a country. You can, however, compare this article to Los Angeles, California, the U.S.'s second city, and read the very first sentence: "Los Angeles ... is the largest city in the state of California and the second-most populous in the United States." For Berlin to say in its third sentence, "With a population of 3.4 million in its city limits, Berlin is the country's largest city, and the second most populous city in the European Union" is completely accurate and honest; it's nowhere near "deliberate misinformation and outright lie". It's not Berlin's fault that with the exception of London, other European cities haven't chosen to incorporate their suburbs into their city limits. —Angr 12:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles is both the second-most populated city within city limits in the US, and the second-most populated metro area in the US, so the LA article is not misleading. This article, however, is very misleading because Berlin is nowhere near the second-most populated urban or metro area in the EU. I'm re-adding the urban area ranking for now, to better inform readers, but personally I am in favor of removing all sorts of ranking from the introduction. Keizuko 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Urban Centers
I intend to change the hyperbolical subtitle "Urban Centers". But before I do, I'd like some comments on this idea.

All the places listed in this section are not by any stretch of the imagination "centers".. not even "shopping centers" :-)

I propose that the subtitle should be changed to either: "Places of Interest",  "Important Locations" or  "Interesting Locations", but maybe someone else has a better idea?

--IsarSteve 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Name Changed to Places of Interest --IsarSteve 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is not tourist guide. Half of the entries are truly urban centers. Lear 21 12:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean by "Urban center" and give an example--IsarSteve 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just taken another look an cab't see anything that looks like a "center" --IsarSteve 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

'Places of Interest' is not an encyclopedic term and sounds more like a tourist brochure. Alexanderplatz, Potsdamer Platz, Kurfürstendamm, Hackescher Markt are urban centers. Lear 21 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Unfortunately the places you name are NOT centers... Potsdamer Platz is the center of what? Are you getting confused with Einkufszentrum? And anyway these so called centers are only four of at least thirty other different "sites or places of interest" listed. As I mentioned previously.. I'm open for ideas on a new subtitle.. but Urban Centres has got to go.. If you don't like that, lets go to arbitration... so think up something better than this "Urban Centers".. And don't get too hooked up on this "tourist guide" business.. that's not what I'm interested in.. "Places of Interest" was meant as a provocation to get something changed. --IsarSteve 23:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lear, you're right that calling it "Places of interest" makes it sound like the article is a tourist guide, which it shouldn't be. However, Steve is right when he says that the section is, in fact, a list of places of interest. Looking through some featured articles about cities, such as Belgrade, Sarajevo, and Boston, Massachusetts, I see that none of them has a section anything like this. Belgrade, however, does have a separate List of notable buildings in Belgrade, Sarajevo has a separate Sites of interest in Sarajevo, and Boston has a separate Sites of interest in Boston, Massachusetts. Perhaps we should remove this section altogether and put it in a new article Sites of interest in Berlin. —Angr 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The urban centers section is one of the weakest, thats certainly true. It is mixed up with various content which makes it very difficult to sum up in a short topic. Comparing other major city articles (and not small towns) the section is the equivalent to 'districts' or 'neighbourhoods'. 'Urban centers' comes closest to this kind of topic, which is not perfect but the content is neither. On the other hand the mentioned sites and areas are key information about the city and must be kept and not deleted. See Paris, London, Chicago, New York City for further development of the section. Lear 21 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Subdivisions section corresponds to the "Districts" or "Neighborhoods" sections of other articles. The "Urban centers/Places of interest" section corresponds to Paris (and separate Paris landmarks); while London, Chicago, and New York City have nothing like this section at all. I'm still in favor of moving most of this information to a new article called something like Sites of interest in Berlin, and removing the current header altogether, so that what remains will simply be part of Berlin. —Angr 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

View London, Paris, Chicago, New_York_City, these are comparable sections. Proposed outsourcing of crucial Berlin areas like Alexander Platz, Brandenburger Tor, Potsdamer Platz etc. is not acceptable. Introduction of 'Boroughs' containing most of the urban centers content would be a solution. Lear 21 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but it should be combined with Berlin. I don't want to follow Paris, as that's too listy instead of being written in brilliant prose. We could follow the examples of London and New York you linked to above, but only if we keep the section as brief as those two sections are. —Angr 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Subdivision section is meant only political, whereas the urban centers content comprise built environment, landmarks and neighborhoods which belong to cityscape/geography. Lear 21 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought Paris looked very crisp, but Chicago was my favourite. A question to Lear 21 Why do think the other cities don't use the term "Urban centres"?  I still get the feeling you want to keep that title. Please, try and erase it from your head..  I think Angr's suggestion to use Sites of interest in Berlin is a good idea and fits in better with the content matter. --IsarSteve 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverse question: Why do think the other major city articles dont use 'Sites of interest' either? Because its a a tourist branding. I don´t have any preference for the old topic at all, but for now it comes closest to the heterogene content. Plus, it fits in thematically in geography and cityscape. Lear 21 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * er.. um.. maybe you should go and read Angr's first entry on this subject again! This is getting rather tedious --IsarSteve 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR City article! You don´t want to compare the article Berlin with town article Belgrade. Lear 21 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At last the Berliners LMS comes to the fore... I'm slowly but surely getting very tired of your blocking.. to put it crudely ..as far as Urban Centres is concerned - you don't know what you are talking about!--IsarSteve 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Lear, but Belgrade absolutely counts as a major city; it has a population of 1.5 million, it's the capital of its country (and all the predecessors to its country for the past 100 years or more). And since it's a featured article, its style is what we should be aiming for. —Angr 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

hello sorry to butt in. but i was following the discussion, and i think putting 'sites of interest' although may not be consistent with WP:MOS, it is not wrong. however putting 'urban centers' seems outright wrong IMO. it does not correspond with the content of the article. from my understanding Berlin is an urban center itself. (see urban area). hence, places within Berlin should be called districts, neighbourhoods, or suburbs. unless u want to write a story about Berlin as an urban center, then perhaps u can use urban center as a title, i guess. mein zwei cent. kawaputra 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment: At least one other person understands what I mean about "Urban Centers"!--IsarSteve 13:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no preference for the old term! Come up with other solutions than 'sites of interest' or new suggestions to develop the section. Orientation for a new sample of the Berlin content should be drawn from London, Paris, Chicago, New_York_City, San_francisco, Sydney. Belgrade article is not suitable at all. Neither structure, layout or references are of convincing quality. Lear 21 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * *1.Lear, Why don't you come up with some suggestions as well! Instead of continually moving the goal-posts and using blocking tactics!
 * *2.Does anybody have anything against maybe using "Highlights"? e.g. "Berlin Highlights" :-),  "City Highlights" :-(  or in Chicago Style "Cityscape Highlights" :o(  or even "Landmarks and City Highlights" ... naja  It would probably be best  just using "Landmarks", but anything is better than "Urban Centers" ??--IsarSteve 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Merging/Deletion of Category:Streets in Berlin
Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in Berlin', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single Streets and Squares category. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. --Keefer4 | Talk 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of Infobox and changes being reverted so quickly by one editor
It seems the that one editor&mdash;Lear21&mdash; has claimed ownership of the Berlin page and will revert many good faith edits so quickly that other editors almost never have a chance to see the changes. In order to avoid a childish edit-war, where changes are reverted quickly with inappropriate edit summaries, I will make changes to the talk pages so that other editors have a chance to review and comment. Hopefully, this will lead to a consensus to make changes on the article page that will make it easier for all to view and edit.

At the present time, the infobox on the article page is a manually constructed infobox that is difficult for the novice editor to edit to. It also looks different from other standard infoboxes used by other German cities (and states). There should be a consistent look and function for all infoboxes of a certain subject and manually constructed infoboxes should be avoided and replaced with a standard infobox. If a particular editor has a suggestion to improve the layout or look of one of the standard infoboxes, then that editor should make a suggestion at the talk page of the standard infoboxes. Here are the three standard infoboxes that are currently used by almost all the other German cities or states and thousands of other city articles in Wikipedia. They are fairly easy for the average editor to add/change information to and more importantly they offer a uniformed look and function that is in line with many other city articles. Please feel free to edit these infoboxes if you feel that you could add something to them. Please comment below the infoboxes. &mdash;MJCdetroit 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the Bundesland template a couple of months ago because all state entries were using manually-constructed infobox (except for Hamburg, which used Infobox Town DE, and that template is gradually being phased out by Infobox German Location). There have been no problems with its use on the other state entries, just here.

The formats of the above Germany-specific infoboxes are not set in stone, and I'm always open to suggestions regarding their appearance and functionality. Changing the Bundesland template (which, now that I look at it again, is perhaps a bit too big) to an appearance similar to the manual infobox currently used for Berlin is also an option. But, either way, the manual infobox that is currently used here should be replaced with a standard used for other German entries - either as a city or a state (the latter making the most sense). To resolve this we need discussion and not blitz-reverts so that people don't even see what the options are. - 52 Pickup 07:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Infobox German Location and Infobox German Bundesland : the Topics in the left column in should be changed to Country, Mayor, etc (fat written letters). It would create a coherent design to the Berlin infobox and even to the Infobox City. The color of the infobox borders, lines, matrix should also adapt the lighter grey tone of the Berlin infobox. Lear 21 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These changes can be done, no problem. Changing the colours of the two templates to something similar is good, since it removes the distinction between state and city. But ultimately Berlin should also use the Bundesland template. - 52 Pickup 15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Along with Lear 21, I've made the modifications that I wanted to make to Infobox German Bundesland. The new look can be seen above. Therefore, I say that this template is ready for use on the Berlin page. Lear 21 has modified the manual infobox for Berlin to give a similar appearance. This is nice, but it is still a manual infobox and its slightly diffrent appearance still makes the Berlin entry inconsistent with the other entries for German states and cities. There are a number of objections that Lear 21 has for the use of the Bundesland template (along with my responses):
 * Berlin is a state and a city: So is Hamburg and, to a lesser extent, Bremen. The Bundesland template contains some fields that only Berlin and Hamburg should use, and some that Berlin and Hamburg alone should not use. So any city-specific information can be handled here.
 * Berlin is a capital: Irrelevant. Every major capital city in the world (London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc.) uses a template that is used by other locations within that country. Berlin should be no different.
 * The Berlin article should display its location in Europe: An interesting point. I'm not sure what other people think about this. But IMO, the currently-used map displaying Germany's location within Europe is redundant and better suited to the Germany article. So my solution to this was to make a new map. Taking the map used for Moscow, I made Image:Berlin In Europe.png and it can be seen in the above infobox, instead of the previously-used map which is visible in the Infobox City version above. The map image used for different states is unimportant - map types can be different between entries, but infobox design should be consistent and entry modification should be easy for everyone. And the only way to do this is via templates.

So, now that I have made a lot of changes and addressed every one of Lear 21's points, I now say that the manual infobox on this page be dropped in favour of the above Bundesland version. So what does everyone say? - 52 Pickup 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the old map better but I'll roll with it&mdash;maps can be improved. The use of a standard infobox is very much preferred to a manual infobox.  It provides consistency between articles and is tended to/updated much more often and by more editors than pages that use manually constructed boxes; even if the editor who constructed it is very active.  Switching Berlin to standard infobox would go a long way with helping to convert other articles that use manual infoboxes too.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bundesland layout is yet not satisfying. The orientation is the now existing Berlin infobox / roughly. The major deficiencies to be improved are: Lear 21 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One COA and One flag ( Civil flag prefered), not more
 * One map and another (the Berlin case) otpional /Image:Berlin In Europe.png is not acceptable
 * Time zone and Coordinates below the map ( style is be to dicussed)
 * Dividing lines to every entry in Administration section, plus Introduction of the State
 * NUTS region above Country (more logic), plus optional flag presence (EU and Germany flag)
 * Dividing lines to every entry in B S section
 * No external links in Population
 * Dividing lines to every entry in F I section, and Website to the left
 * Infobox German Location should introduce dividing lines


 * There's just no pleasing some people... Everything that you list are not "deficiencies to be improved" but "issues to be resolved". And the format of Infobox German Location will not be changed any more at this moment without group discussion. A group of people worked on this and enough has been changed already just for your benefit, apparently for nothing. But I am waiting for a consensus. I am only just one person. As are you. - 52 Pickup 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don´t mind the Infobox German Location. The Bundesland template is what is most capable to be integrated in the Berlin article. And there should be a coherent look among the states, but only with a convincing layout quality. Lear 21 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Going over each point:
 * One COA and One flag ( Civil flag prefered), not more
 * Using one flag is fine with me, but how do you handle the case for Bavaria where there are 2 versions? The state flag is the one more commonly used so that one would be used - but the actual flag that each entry uses is not important.
 * This one [Image:Flag of Bavaria (lozengy).svg] Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One map and another (the Berlin case) otpional /Image:Berlin In Europe.png is not acceptable
 * Why not? As it is at the moment, your version contains a redundant map. You now have one image telling you where Berlin is located in Europe. I have no idea why you're not satisified with this. I have never seen any other entry giving an additional continental image. If you can show me a situation where this is standard, then fair enough.
 * Already answered. Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been answered. I made that new map showing Berlin's location and you weren't satisfied. So what's the problem now? Again: show me one case where a continental map is used as standard in a case like this. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Time zone and Coordinates below the map ( style is be to dicussed)
 * Time zone normally goes at the very bottom (it is a minor piece of information). Many argue that having a time-zone field for a German entry is pointless since all of Germany has only one time zone anyway.
 * Time zone next to the Europe map makes sense.Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Europe has multiple time zones. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dividing lines to every entry in Administration section, plus Introduction of the State
 * Dividing lines should be used sparingly, since they make the box bigger and make it less clear to read. This is how it is normally done for states. Look at Florida.
 * Having a "state" field for an infobox that describes states is totally pointless. Berlin is not a city within the state of Berlin, Berlin is a city and state at the same time.


 * NUTS region above Country (more logic), plus optional flag presence (EU and Germany flag)
 * Having NUTS before country is less logical. You have to start with the largest subdivision first (i.e. country). Using flag icons within infoboxes is a heavilly disputed issue in some parts. Personally, I don't mind either way.


 * Dividing lines to every entry in B S section
 * Again doing it for every entry makes no sense. Having a line between population and population density for example unnecessarily breaks the infobox up too much
 * Either lines for every entry, or none. For layout reasonsLear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. Did you look at the Florida entry? Or try the entry for the Dutch province Gelderland. For layout purposes you group relevant fields together (area with area-metro - population with density) for clarity. So sometimes you must have no lines. On the other hand, having no lines at all would jam everything together, making it unreadable. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No external links in Population
 * You need to cite where you got the data from - so people can check there occasionaly to see if it needs to be updated. If you have a problem with this particular field, just leave the pop_source field blank for this entry but do not delete the code from the template: people on other entries still find it useful
 * No external links in Wikipedia articles. Messes up the layout.Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Format it like the  parameter at Infobox City. See Toronto for sample use. –Pomte 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was hoping to avoid writing the full citation code text for every entry, but the tags don't like template variables and just say [ Source] in the references section. But now I have changed it to match the way it is done for Infobox City, and changed all the German state entries to match, including a reference section where necessary (eg. Bavaria). It does look better now, but it was a fair amount of work. The Location infobox will also need to be changed - but there are a about 50 articles that will be affected by the change, so it will have to be done carefully to avoid making a mess. - 52 Pickup 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dividing lines to every entry in F I section, and Website to the left
 * Here is the only case where dividing lines manke sense.


 * Infobox German Location should introduce dividing lines
 * At the moment, the Location box has lines in the FI section as you propose but not everywhere in the other sections. For the reasons given above, that should stay. - 52 Pickup 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The German Location Template, The Bundesland Template and the current Berlin Infobox have achieved major progress the last days in terms of coherent design aspects. Further integration does not seem convincing because of dividing layout concepts. all the best Lear 21 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to end it here. A lot has already been done. What this needs is involvment from more people. - 52 Pickup 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm convinced. It looks great&mdash;switch it. MJCdetroit 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Flag / Coat of arms and the Germany / Europe map constellation is established, we can introduce the new Bundesland template. The current Berlin infobox is the model. Lear 21 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NO, the current Berlin infobox IS NOT the model just because YOU say so. I think Mr Pickup has been more than accomindating to all of YOUR requests.  YOU have had YOUR say.  Now it is time to hear from others.  SO, what the hell do other people think?  Is the Bundesland template acceptable for use here with other editors as it has been in the other German states? &mdash;MJCdetroit 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I say calm down unless the table is seriously detrimental to readers. One of the templates should definitely be used for the purposes of maintainability and standardization over time. Minor issue: It is sort of against WP:STYLE to capitalize all subheadings: "Basic statistics" and "Other information" look fine. The population row in Infobox German Location should look less confusing with  rather than  . –Pomte 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am. The main reason for being strongly worded was to get the attention of other editors.  It is better to get more editors involved besides Lear21 and 52 Pickup.  We know their opinions (along with my two cents) at this point.  It is best for others to voice an opinion&mdash;for, against, whatever.  What isn't good, is not getting involved and letting two (sometimes three)  editors banter back and forth over minor issues.  Just trying to get more involved and it looks like it may have worked.  Thank you, Pomte. &mdash;MJCdetroit 13:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Didn't you mean valign=bottom? Please correct if I'm mistaken. - 52 Pickup 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why bottom? I think the word "population" should line up with the number. Like "Governing parties" and "Licence plate code", if those wrap on your screen as well. –Pomte 07:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The alignment goes funny only when the citation point is given, since that then presses the number downwards. I've tried changing the alignments in a number of ways, but I just can't get it to look right. The best I have been able to do so far is to set the word "Population" to the bottom if a citation is given, to try keep level with the population number (the Bundesland template is also set this way). Feel free to play around with it. In Infobox City, this problem is averted by having the numbers on a different line. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without getting too deep into the quirks of how exactly the template is formatted (those can be discussed indefinitely): the whole point of using templates is to have a standard layout for every article. Using hand-constructed "infoboxes" is strongly deprecated for this very reason; articles should not each have a differently-designed box at the top. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put the Bundesland box from above into the article. If its design is insufficient, fix the design, but do not use a hand-made construction per Kirill. Kusma (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If other people want the maps in, then I'm prepared to reformat it. But I think I've done enough for the moment just to please one person. - 52 Pickup 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template standards are very important and need to be spread, but not at cost of less design and content quality. The Europe map must be part of the infobox and one of the two flags are redundant. all the best Lear 21 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Europe map is not necessary and the flags are different. Kusma (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The continental perspective is of higher relevance for a smallmidsize country like Germany. Especially when the neighbour countries are not put in context like the current Germany map. Lear 21 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't really read through all of your comments right now, but I have read that you want comments from other editors. I am currently worried about the flags/maps. I would prefer 1 flag and the coat of arms, and a map of Europe (or at least of Germany with its neighbors), where only German borders and Berlin are highlighted. Showing only Germany really doesn't make much sense, you cannot understand Berlin w/o a focus on it's location in Europe.-- Johnny w  talk  23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something where not just Germany is shown, but it's connection to neighbouring countries, ocean, etc.? For example, like the US states (eg. Florida) or the French Regions (eg. Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur). That would be a nice idea, but so far I haven't found any such maps for Germany and I don't have time to make any at the moment. I had the same idea regarding the maps available for previous states of Germany - for example, the map on the German wiki for the Kingdom of Prussia (Image:Deutsches Reich (Karte) Preußen.svg) gave the position of Prussia nicely within the German Empire, but it lacked further context. So I made a new one which told you more (Image:Map-DR-Prussia.svg). You just have to make sure that you do not zoom out too much - otherwise the map starts to lose its meaning. If such maps were available for the German modern states, then the separate European map would be even less necessary than it is now. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rearding the flags, it does look a little messy having two, but they both appear necessary. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Berlin does have two flags, so we shouldn't hide one of them. Kusma (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Suggest linking civil flag and state flag to Flags of German states so the reader can know about the difference. However, it does say the state flag is for government use only, and we're not a government. Is it widely used to warrant this? –Pomte 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking is a good idea. If the flags had separate articles a link could be made similar to that available for coat of arms (see Baden-Württemberg). As for which flag(s) to use, I live in Hesse and you next to never see the civil flag here. The same could be said for when I used to live in NRW. It's hard to say. - 52 Pickup 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I lived in Berlin my entire live, and to be honest, I hardly see any flags waving in Berlin so it's hard to tell.. but I'd reckon the state flag if any. And to help out I'll create a map as I proposed tomorrow, maybe you'll like the idea, too. Johnny w   talk  18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The civil flag is of minor political relevance. The official Landesflagge (State flag) is the one representing the Bundesland. The new map would at best show Berlin in EU - Europe highlighting Germany as a country. The emphasized Germany should also show all German Bundesländer. The (Image:European Union vector map III.svg) gives a color orientation. Lear 21 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use a special map for Berlin only. If we want an infobox, we should use a standard infobox for all states; if we use different kinds of maps or different choices of flags it defeats the idea of standardization. If there are problems with the current infobox, they should be debated at Template talk:Infobox German Bundesland. Kusma (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlin has capital status as well, compare Washington, D.C. for using different maps. The old infobox and the new Bundesland template differ in only few design aspects. Until the map and flag problem is not addressed the old infobox will be kept in place. Lear 21 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Washington, DC doesn't have a map that shows where in North America it is, either, so I don't quite see your point. Kusma (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP introducing unsufficient Infobox templates. Again The civil flag is of minor political relevance. The official Landesflagge (State flag) is the one representing the Bundesland. No other flag is needed here. The continental map is of high relevance and necessary to the understanding of the Berlin location. Until these problems are not solved in the Bundesland Template a replacement of the old infobox won´t happen. Lear 21 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The flag "problem" is solved in the Bundesland template, as it works with only one flag just as well as with two. The continental map with EU is rather silly, as there is no relevance of the EU countries for this article. your last sentence violates WP:OWN: Wikipedia works by consensus, not by forcing your will on others. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. WP:OWN...I thought this existed as a policy and now I know. &mdash;MJCdetroit 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia belongs to everybody correct. AND : Wikipedia is not a Democracy where some editors can delete important content without arguments. Serious statements have been made to keep the European map, also by editors other than myself. Instead of deleting try to convince a programmer to adjust the Bundesland Template. Again, an infobox without the European map is not acceptable. Lear 21 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply will be best be summed up at this address .  MJCdetroit 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is not necessary to have a map of Europe here, and that it would be bad to include one in all of the states articles. I consider it acceptable to disagree with my position. I do not consider it acceptable to call any infobox that you don't like "not acceptable". Kusma (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting important content is not acceptable. I´m in favor for changing the template, but only when content or quality is raised and not lowered. A map of Europe is installed for more than half a year in this article. It is rather suspicious that you complaining about it now. The city of Berlin and Germany as a country are political and geographical highly integrated in Europe. This is expressed in a map. Lear 21 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument that something should stay because it has been here for so long is an empty one. By looking at the edit history for this article (and the archives of this talk page), it is clear that for a long time you have swiftly reverted many well-intentioned edits for very little reason apart from your personal disagreement. The status of Germany within Europe is better left to the Germany article. And as for Berlin's importance within the EU, why aren't those cities that are even more important for the EU's function (eg, Brussels - seat of the European Commission - or Strasbourg - seat of the European parliament) not treated in the way that you want done here? Why? Because they follow the standards for cities of their respective countries. I agree with Kusma, having 2 maps for every single state is a bad idea. The request for two flags for the infobox has been made for the other states (except for those where there is only 1 flag). The desire to have 2 maps has only been put forward for this one.  So for the Berlin entry, one of the maps on the right should be used in place of Image:Germany Laender Berlin.png if you want to show Berlin's location within Europe, but not both. - 52 Pickup 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if I had to choose I'd pick the first map "Berlin in Europe". Keep it simple. &mdash;MJCdetroit 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the same map, but at higher resolution and showing a smaller section of Europe, e.g. only Germany and it's neighbors.-- Johnny w  talk  16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would make sense. - 52 Pickup 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the major American city articles integrate more than one map in the infobox. Keeping both maps would bring "Berlin" in line with the other Bundesländer and its location as a city in the EU. It needs a customized solution here. Plus: There is probably no doubt that the second map "EU location Berlin" is of superior content and aesthetic value. Lear 21 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to disagree with your claims that the "EU location Berlin" map is aesthetically better. The colour scheme used needs reworking, and it is near unreadable when used at the size that you propose - it's way too small. The only way that such a full map of Europe can be of any use is if you make it bigger. The German Location infobox has the ability to display a second map at the infobox base, generally in order to zoom in further on the region (examples: Wiesbaden and Husum (Schleswig)), but I don't see why this shouldn't be used to zoom out if absolutely necessary. The Bundeland template so far does not have this feature, so I have modified the above Location sample to demonstrate. But that colour scheme still needs work. - 52 Pickup 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnnyw, that showing Germany's location within the EU is not needed. Just show Germany and her neighbors. &mdash;MJCdetroit 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to adjust the SVG accordingly but having trouble, it seems messed up when I try to open it with GIMP. If anyone knows an alternative image or is more capable, it'd be appreciated =) Johnny w   talk  09:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A program like Inkscape should do the job for the map, but still having a map displaying the whole of Europe is pretty pointless. I have just modified the infobox to show only the civil flag - at first this was to see how it would look, but while in the middle of it I got a PM from Lear21 threatening to revert all 15 other infoboxes to manual ones because he simply couldn't have both flags present. I really don't care either way, but I can do without having to deal with such childish behaviour. - 52 Pickup 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the point, I wanted to crop the image to focus on Germany with the adjacent countries only.. since I am having an exam on Friday, I won't lift a finger for a couple of days.. I hope you guys behave in the meanwhile. There really is no point in fighting this much, remember: Angry mastodons died out a long time ago.. keep your chins up :) Johnny w   talk  15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * De-evolving 15 infoboxes...yea...that's not gonna happen. There's too many people to prevent that.  It's good to see that Johnnyw takes his studies seriously because the one thing this world doesn't need is another dumb-ass.  Good luck on the exam! &mdash;MJCdetroit 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this discussion for quite a while but there wasn't really much I could say... I cropped 52 Pickup's Berlin in Europe image a bit. I must agree that two maps look rather clumsy though the two flags should stay. And I too hope that your exam went well Johnnyw. YuanchosaanSalutations! 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [[Image:Berlin_In_Europe-2-.png|thumb|right|Redone image]]
 * Well, the exam behind me (I think I did alright :), I rather had s.th. like the second one in mind: Johnny w   talk  11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)



The article now uses the Bundesland infobox, so this part of the discussion has finally been resolved. The only infobox-related problem left is that of one or two flags, but that should continue over at Template talk:Infobox German Bundesland. The issue of what image to use for the location map of Berlin, but that should probably be shifted to a new section if you want to discuss that further. - 52 Pickup 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hacker Culture
I added a section on hacker culture to the main article. If you live in Berlin (or even if you are involved in technology & culture outside of Berlin) it is well known that the city is a major centre for this community, the Transmediale festive alone is easily as important and noteworthy as the Carnival of Cultures or other festivals. Wikipedia Germany is a large participant in Wizards of OS. Yet this section was immediately deleted by an anonymous editor, without any discussion on the talk page. Deleting contributed content without discussion is vandalism, IMO. I have undone this revert and am interested in comments, etc.

I have also noticed (as mentioned above) the activities of Lear21. I have no suggestion on how to deal with such editors, but something must be done, these kinds of editors are a major problem for Wikipedia and free culture in general, they destroy the spirit of Wiki by acting as if they own the page. --Dmytri Kleiner 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Transmediale festival is worth mentioning. Specific hacker activities are to detailed for the main article. Lear 21 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? why is the HQ of MTV not "too detailed" them? Who cares? Also, why is Transmediale OK and Wizard of OS (which wikipedia had a major presence at) not OK? Both are major festivals. Why is it OK to mention several theatres and operas, and even several nightclubs, but not world-famous technology and culture centres like Tesla at Podewil, Bootlab and C-Base? Why is discussing the history of the electrical system relevant, but not the highly influential wireless community network? This sort of pompous, arbitrary deletionism is highly damaging to the wiki community. If you want to make an intelligent argument, please say something substantive, not simple "too detailed." Other Comments? --85.178.7.4 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Dmytri Kleiner
 * I tend to agree (as someone in the Berlin "hacker culture") that the current one-sentence version is roughly what's appropriate for the main article. As a side-note, I feel like section on clubs is overly detailed and at points inaccurate (notably that several of the mentioned clubs have been closed for a good while) and I'll probably trim that down in the near future. Scott.wheeler 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lear21 made a great job to that article. But good work always seems to attract haters. There is really no need for every tiny detail in an article about a city. --Unify 23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Why does it matter which photo is on? Kingjeff 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. A similar edit war is going on over at Frankfurt too. Actually, either picture is reasonable. The images used for cities are either a skyline (eg. New York City), a recognisable landmark (eg. London) or a photo that most people would easily associate with that location (eg. Amsterdam). The only other guideline is that the image should be wider than it is tall - to prevent the infobox from getting too big. So something like that used for Cologne is preferable to the image currently used for Augsburg. Getting back to the case of Berlin, the skyline picture is a nice enough picture and it is wider than it is tall, but it is unfortunately not a very sharp picture. A clearer skyline picture would be nice. The Brandenburg Gate picture is sharp and perhaps more immediately recognisable as Berlin to anyone not familiar with the area, but there are nicer ones that could be used. But there is one important point - the placement of the Brandenburg Gate image was a good faith edit that was reverted in violation of the 3RRR rule and was then itself branded as a 3RRR violation. In addition to this hypocrisy, this article is now semi-protected for reasons better classed as WP:OWN - 52 Pickup 07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

@ 52 Pickup : The editor Dontworry placing the B.-Gate has been reverted by 4 different users, a fifth protected the article and a sixth warned and reported the editor because of 3RRR. No sign of WP:OWN ! The issue: 1) Major cities with multiple historical, cultural and architectural heritage can´t be reduced to one symbol. Berlin´s heterogenic landscape especially has many iconic buildings. Thats why a skyline-picture containing various elements is used by most of the global cities. It avoids the focus on one aspect of the city and provides a panorama impression. 2) See New York, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires and Toronto presenting night shots as lead picture. 3) Berlin´s heritage is one of the most diverse. This must be expressed in the lead picture. The question for THE symbol (Brandenburg Gate) is not the appropriate one for the lead picture in a city article. Watch New York, Chicago, Mumbai, Frankfurt, Cape Town Toronto, Los Angeles, Shanghai ,Melbourne, Washington, D.C. All of these cities avoid THE symbol because they have many. NYC is not showing statue of liberty, San Francisco not Golden Gate, L.A. not the Hollywood sign. Tokyo,Barcelona,Sydney also present not a single icon because there is a reason for it. The lead picture is NOT the place for one symbol. Please respect this unwritten but very obvious logic. 4) The night panorama in place is the best shot available. 5) The B.-Gate is already part of 3 images, no need for another. Lear 21 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All perfectly acceptable reasons. If you had put them here in the first place instead of reverting what was at first a good faith edit, then there would be a clear point for discussion instead of the edit war that has come up. I don't really care either way, but this has gotten silly. I'm not saying that the panorama picture should be dropped - I already know that that is the best shot available. Also, I know that skyline pictures are used and have I used them myself for many articles - I was the one who originally put the Frankfurt skyline picture in place, until someone came up with a better quality skyline picture (and I agree that that picture is more representative than the Römer). BUT it is NOT set in stone that a skyline image should ALWAYS be used, regardless of the many features a location may have. For all of the locations that you listed (note that i also mentioned NYC in the previous comment), there are others who use a single landmark - such as London, Paris, Rome and Moscow - and their use is very effective. There is no rule either way. The purpose of the picture is to be representative of the location, not necessarily a literal picture of the whole place. From a distance, most major cities look the same anyway. - 52 Pickup 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Skylinepics are very helpful, they give an idea of how the city looks like. A single symbol can't do that. --217.83.63.171 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 52 Pickup ... The reverting war is the rather immature way Lear21 always works.. I notice he has also taken to using the royal "we".. He has long forgotten the wiki-Idea of an Article being a joint work. Being a Berliner himself, he can't seem to recognise how Berlin is seen from "outside Berlin".. Check back through the archives and you'll see what I mean.. consequently many other "good" contributors to this page before you have lost faith in it and now ignore it.

To state that Berlin's heritage is "diverse" is absurd... It's German through and through with a bit of 18th-19th Century "french dressing" on the top. No more, no less. What Berlin does nevertheless have is a lot of History, which isn't the same as heritage.

Another point, I would like to delete the image of the U-Bahn... it clearly doesn't represent the Berlin U-Bahn (or Underground Railway) because it shows the railway overground.. this is taking diversity too far! The Berlin U-Bahn should be illustrated with an underground image to distinguish it from the S-Bahn. --IsarSteve 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * @ User:IsarSteve : The established quality of this article lead to an internationally acknowledged source of reference. The content and diction has influenced articles in the anglosaxon sphere from NYT, FT, The Times and many others. Comercial sites, International Property firms, Congress organizers, Student Exchange Programs from Harvard University have drawn information and word choice from this article. See my userpage if you are in doubt of my international experience. Be sure that my education includes an external Berlin perspective. Many hundreds of articles published in the last 10 years in almost all English speaking countries dealing with Berlins history and contemporary situation are of my knowledge (see "References" section). Be sure that these influences, the comparison with all other Berlin Wikipedia articles (in other languages), and the knowledge of numerous Non-German history books and Berlin Tourist Guides are contributing to the very complex and DIVERSE! content of this article. Lear 21 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Lear, appealing to authority is not an appropriate response to the doubts of a fellow editor in my opinion. @everyone: He addresses two issues: the image of the U-Bahn (although I love the Oberbaumbrücke), a shot of a more typical, read "underground", station might be justified (maybe with a move of the image to the Oberbaumbrücke-article). The second is the claim about the diversity of Berlin's heritage, which could be discussed (in a different thread of discussion please) more objectively if we knew the exact statement IsarSteve objects to - if he is merely objecting to your statement above, well then we could forget about the heritage statement and just agree on the fact that Berlin as a city, is diverse, which can hardly be disputed and supports the argument of having a skyline or s.th. similar as the opening image.. Johnny w   talk  15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lear 21 and Johnny w  Thank you both for your comments. I would agree that "THE" Berlin  of 2007 is a diverse city, but I'm afraid its heritage isn't. It is light years away from catching up with London or New York in that respect. That is in my opinion, one of its strengths and wasn't meant negatively.
 * I do object to the heritage statements above because Berlin wasn't even classed as a "Weltstadt" (World City) until the early twentieth Century. It was the capital of a small German State that came good in 1871. I'm happy to expand on this somewhere else if necessary.
 * Regarding the U-Bahn image. I agree that the Oberbaumbrücke is one of the U-Bahn's and Berlin's most interesting structures, but it isn't purely an U-Bahn structure and of course its presence here is to depict the Berlin U-Bahn, which is actually an "underground railway". There are many "scenic" U-Bahn stations that are architecturally interesting but more importantly Underground! : Heidelberger Platz, Onkel-Toms-Hütte, Nollendorfplatz or Krumme Lanke to name just a few. That is why I think the image should be changed.
 * I also object very much to Lears attitude to other contributors opinions and although I haven't been active here for quite a while I still do keep up with what's going on.--IsarSteve 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would rather see the skyline than a single structure (B-gate) in the infobox. Although, it is a "cool" photo and probably could be incorporated a little lower in the article. In regards to the skyline photo, can someone get a picture of the skyline  during the daytime? &mdash;MJCdetroit 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer was a necessary reaction of an unbased allegation of user IsarSteve. This user is notorious for his snippy provocations and ongoing accusations without being content orientated. Concerning the U-Bahn image: I have no preference for changing or keeping the current one. But! The Oberbaum U-Bahn as a train is presented completely in length, color and angles, which is of high value. The U-Bahn in motion is not only a unique way of displaying visual content but also symbolizes the mobility culture of the city´s public traffic system. Not being underground is a lack but the positive qualities are dominating. If there is no stunning U-Bahnhof with U-Bahn the Gif-Image should be kept. Lear 21 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No they are not unbased allegations, anyone can read the current Berlin talk page and make up their own minds. @ Lear 21 Well thank you for giving me notoriety.. I always wanted to be famous :o)  Strange that in my time on Wikipedia (since 2002/03), no one other than you has thought it necessary to mention it. No no, I'm not notorious, I just dislike the way Lear21 tries to colonise the Berlin article. It's not his "personal page"  therefore everyone else's opinions are just as valuable as his. He doesn't have the right to always have "the last say" on everything, although he apparently thinks he does and I've said so in the past...


 * Regarding the image replacement for the Oberbaumbrücke image, why does it have to be "stunning"? Lets get back to basics here: U-Bahn = Underground Railway = Image of train Underground .  As already mentioned by  Johnny w  the Oberbaum image could be used elsewhere....--IsarSteve 06:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

People in the rain
There seems to be a problem with the pic of that 2 people in the rain under "climate". It doesn't have much meaning but it gets pushed into that article with an edit-war. Sadly no argument is brought up for that pic but a lot against them. But I'm tired of rv it again now. --Unify 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous word "Berlin"
I was reading about how Kitchener Ontario used to be called "Berlin Town", so I thought I'd come here and see a disambiguation page for that old name, and the musical composer, and the big city in Germany.

Instead, the German city is all I see here, no disambigutation at all. Please fix!
 * There's a link right at the very top that says "For other uses, see Berlin (disambiguation)". —Angr 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement (minimal requirements for FA)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. *Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1626 km, use 1626 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1626&amp;nbsp;km.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 331.5 km. **MJCdetroit (see below)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program  (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * ** I took care of the some of the WP:MOSNUM edits from the list above and struck them out. I used the American spelling of meter because the page started out that way.  If someone insists on using the British spelling instead&mdash;go for it. &mdash;MJCdetroit 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, please don't. I carefully made sure all the spellings were American sometime last year because that's how the article began. I'll give it another once-over soon. —Angr 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more than ok with me. I didn't mention that the spellings tended to change from American to Imperial the further down in the article I got.  That's why I made that statement.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only British spelling I found was one instance of "programme". What others did you see? —Angr 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed there are still many bits of pieces I wrote in the article. At that time I wrote them in the "Queens English" :-) and I think "Programme" was one of my misdemeanours.. --IsarSteve 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (the notorious!)

Plattenbau
"In the eastern part, many Plattenbauten can be found"

I guess there are more in Westberlin, just take Hansaviertel, Gropiusstadt, parts of Wedding and Märkisches Viertel. --217.83.70.198 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
[[image:[[image:Information.svg|25px]] Note - RFC template below marked nowiki - should have been auto deleted after 30 days but appears to have been breaking the bot somehow, possibly due to length of reason, use of in template, space around "=" in "section" parameter? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request for comment about the population rank issue. It seems to me that Berlin's rank within the continent of Europe is at least as relevant--if not more relevant--than its rank within the EU. Thus if we are going to mention that it's the second largest city in the EU, we should also mention that it's the fifth largest city in Europe (counting Istanbul, which brings me to the next point--does Istanbul count as the second largest city in Europe when some of its territory is in Asia?) —Angr 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that by mentioning anything about its size relative to cities in other countries is just going to lead to unnecessary friction. Why not mention how large it is compared to cities in Northern Europe (or should that be Central Europe), Eurasia, the World etc.? Take a look at say Madrid and Copenhagen, these articles get along nicely without such comparisons. We should be able to write an introduction to the article about Berlin without having to argue about where exactly İstanbul lies. Stefán 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing all such mentions (except we should still say it's the largest city in Germany); I do object to mentioning its size within the EU but removing the mention of its size within Europe as having "minor relevance". —Angr 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, both Madrid and Copenhagen mention that these are the largest cities in the respective countries. The Madrid article even (un?)helpfully purports to provide a source for this claim. Stefán 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The ranking of city population data is a standard entry among the vast majority of city articles introduction. It is useful to estimate the relative size within a certain framework. The first priority is traditionally the country. Because of Germany´s advanced degree of integration within the EU, this is the second point of reference here. Note that the whole Berlin article profoundly draws data from its EU ties ( Map in infobox, data in Economy section, metropolitan area in intro !) In this respect the EU ranks maintain a certain consistency within the article itself. Because of space and relevance restrictions the introduction can´t include endless listings of one city data aspect. The following sentence about the metro area size and rank is the sufficient data to describe the size of the city population. Lear 21 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the introduction is slightly too long, and removing a couple of not-too-relevant comparisons (all the "Nth biggest city" lists are comparing apples to oranges to some degree) is an easy way to shorten it a bit. "Capital and largest city of Germany" is undisputed, does not depend on asking whether "Europe" or the EU is the most relevant comparison data (I agree with Angr that it should be "Europe", though, and see little reason not to compare cities in the EU with Zürich, Moscow, or Istanbul. Think a few years back before EU enlargement: wouldn't you want to compare Berlin to Warsaw and Vienna?) Kusma (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Re Lear. Madrid and Copenhagen were the first two capitals of countries in the EU I looked at. But the following articles also only mention that these are capitals and largest cities: Helsinki, Tallinn (where its arabic name is discussed), Vilnius, Dublin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Luxembourg (city). These mention something more: Paris (is one of the most populated areas of its kind in Europe) Stockholm (largest within Scandinavia) London (largest within EU within city limits) Riga (largest in the Baltic states). There are around 10 cities to go but I'll stop here because it is clear to me that it seems an overstatement to say that The ranking of city population data is a standard entry among the vast majority of city articles introduction. Stefán 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything beyond 3rd place is not worth mentioning in the entry. Especially not in bulky constructions like the 10. most impotant after city xx, yy, aa, bb, cc, dd, ee, ff, gg and so on. --Unify 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Istanbul is in Europe. It extends both on the European (Thrace) and on the Asian (Anatolia) side of the Bosphorus, and is thereby the only metropolis in the world which is situated on two continents. I also agree with Unify that anything beyond three is not worth mentioning; and with Kusma that less is better. One population comparison is fine, two are pedantic. --Bejnar 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"It seems to me that Berlin's rank within the continent of Europe is at least as relevant--if not more relevant--than its rank within the EU." If that is important, than the article should have a section titled "Berlin's importance in the continent of Europe." But why would that really be relevant in an article about Berlin, rather than an article about the largest European cities? The existing language in the introduction is fine: it provides context for understanding Berlin within its own nation, and then within the political group which the nation is in. How would a third level of orientation, of Berlin within its continent, help people better understand the article about Berlin? VisitorTalk 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? The article has no section titled "Berlin's important in the European Union". Nor should it, since Berlin as a city has no particular relevance within the EU. Any international relevance Berlin has, it has in Switzerland and Norway just as much as France and Sweden. Europe is relevant because Berlin is a European city. The EU is irrelevant, or at best less relevant, because it's an artificial subset of European countries that share nothing in common to the exclusion of non-member states. Berlin's size within the EU is no more relevant than its size within NATO or the UN. —Angr 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lear 21 violating Ownership of articles
I just reccently made some contructive edits to the page like correcting poor grammar, adding higher quality pictures, and a number of other things which I thought would improve the article's quality, which I am pretty sure it did. But then I look back at the article and my work was reverted for absolutely no reason. I am almost certain this was User:Lear21 because I traced back the anonymous user who reverted my work back to Germany. As we all know User:Lear21 has a history of being extremely protective with this article and not letting anybody else contribute to it unless he likes it/agrees with it. Also User:Lear21 is not 100% fluent in the English language nither was this anonymous user because a person that speaks fluent English would not revert back to a version with spelling errors. Aside from correcting the bad grammar I replaced two pictures, one of the Brandenburg Gate with a higher quality image from a better angle, the other picture I replaced was the picture of mayor Klaus Wowereit standing next to drag queen (A picture added by Lear21) in favor of a picture of Klaus Wowereit by himself. I really do not see anything wrong with these edits I made, does anybody else? (Daniel Chiswick 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)).

Here is the IP adress 85.179.26.60 (Daniel Chiswick 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm the one who undid your replacement of Wowereit's picture, and as I said in my edit summary, I did so because the picture you used doesn't have adequate source information. I tagged it for deletion at Commons. If the uploader provides the source info, and the picture is kept, we can use it. I didn't revert anything else you did, though. —Angr/talk 04:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about, but I am talking about something different. After you replaced the picture I put one up with a scource and after that the person I believe to be Lear21 changed it the the picture of the mayor standing next to the drag queen. I have nothing against LGBT people but the picture just looks out of place, so I replaced it with a picture of just the mayor to give the page a more professional look. Also the user reverted good contributions like the higher qualty picture of the Brandenburg gate and my corrections of spelling errors, so naturally I reverted them back but after I did I brought the issue up here so as not to start an edit war. (Daniel Chiswick 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, there is an IP revert which was not helpful. However, nevermind how convinced you are that Lear 21 is behind it there was no reason to be so harsh against him in your first post. I am certain that there are people who have Berlin on their watchlist who will reinstate any edit which improves the article, grammatically or otherwise. Finally, I hope we will be able to keep the first picture you put in of Wowereit, the other one seems out of focus (the cropped version seems even less clear, although that may be my eyes playing funnily). Stefán 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The new picture shows his face more clearly, the other one did not. If this picture is too blurry I believe their is another close up which is scourced and is higher quality. I said I am 'almost certain' it is him because it fall into his pattern, if he did not then I apologize for accussing him of something he did not do. I am just simply trying to prevent and edit war because it results in nothing but trouble and people getting banned. (Daniel Chiswick 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion this would be the best picture because it is not blurry, shows the mayor up close enough to not have to enlarge it, and it is him by himself. I do not really know much about it's copyright status because I did not upload it but I believe it lists the scource of the picture and who took it. (Daniel Chiswick 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes, I agree that this is the best picture and I believe it is safe for use but Angr is the image expert here and I would prefer to follow his advice. Stefán 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even with a higher focus the proposed new image presents him a bit chubby. The 'cut out' is not perfect but more statesmenlike. @ user:Daniel Chiswick: provocation ignored, Arschgeige. Lear 21 10:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it is that makes you feel that the cutout is more statesmanlike or why that should be an important property. I still think we should use the other one, Image:Wowereit.jpg. Regarding your last comment, name-calling has no place on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. Stefán 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

thumbnail size
Thumbnail size should not be forced, see Image use policy - Rules of thumb 10. It seems that Lear21 (aka IP 85.xx) prefers some strange sizes as 190px (while 180px is standard) or 140px for upright pics instead of the flexible upright command or just setting his personal Help:Preferences. Lear doesnt like that rule calling it 'nonsense', but still he doesnt own wikipedia. I don't want to start a new edit war as we had so many here already but still that problem has to be resolved for a Good articles. --217.83.48.109 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The image size is a parameter like any other part of the article like text and tables and can be changed. If there is a policy on a fixed size than its useless and nonsense. Most of the images getting unrecognizable in this article with reduced size. Lear 21 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the thumbnail size is unrecognizable for you, you can go to your preferences and set a new size for them. That's why it's discouraged to force thumbnail size, because different people have different monitors with different resolutions. It's better to just say "thumb" and allow the reader to decide what size that means in his preferences setting. —Angr 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

93 % of Wikipedia readership never edit. I assume that even a vast minority of the left 7 % ever considers altering their preferences. Lear 21 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that picture sizes that may look right on your screen may look totally ridiculous on someone else's. Your forced thumbnail size is actually smaller than the size unforced thumbnails appear for me -- even when I'm logged out so my prefs don't play a role -- so it's your version that's approaching unrecognizability, not the unforced-size version. —Angr 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Same for me: 190px (or even 140px) is to small if you use highres 1600x1200 on an 19' screen. Consider someone using a PDA with 640xsomething resolution or less with 190px, pics are way to big then. Besides its not the place to discuss that here. Try to play around with your screenres or with other monitors to see that effect. --217.83.61.19 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the forced pixel widths from all images, as recommended by the manual of style. Plenty of articles, including FA standard articles such as Australia and Indonesia, look fine without explicit images sizes. There is no logical reason I can see for Berlin being an exception. (Caniago 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

GA on hold
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.


 * The article is heavily under-referenced. Every statement which is likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering a ratio of 80 kb / 81 references the article is not under-referenced. Comparable GA city articles like Chicago, L.A., Miami have a same amount or even less references. To claim that every statement needs an inline citation is hardly convincing for a GA article. It is rather a requirement for the FA status. Lear 21 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But the 81 references are unevenly distributed across the 80 kb of article. The History, Geography, and Cityscape sections are pretty under-referenced; other sections may actually have more references than they really need. —Angr 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the listed references are highly credible. Some section could be more referenced but remain accurate and well written in its core. Note that this article has already gained A-class in several projects ! Lear 21 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As little progress has been made in the past nine days, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. I advise nominating for GA again once citations have been found for the following statements:
 * "The first written mention of towns in the area of present-day Berlin dates from the late 12th and early 13th century. The suburb of Spandau is first mentioned in 1197, and Köpenick in 1209, though these areas did not join Berlin until 1920. The central part of Berlin can be traced back to two towns: Cölln (on the Fisher Island) is first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244."
 * "In 1307, the two cities were united politically."
 * "In 1448 citizens rebelled in the “Berlin Indignation”"
 * "In 1451 Berlin became the royal residence of the Brandenburg electors, and Berlin had to give up its status as a free Hanseatic city"
 * "In 1539 the electors and the city officially became Lutheran."
 * "A third of the houses were damaged and the city lost half of its population."
 * "More than 15,000 Huguenots went to Brandenburg, of whom 6,000 settled in Berlin."
 * "By 1700, approximately twenty percent of Berlin's residents were French, and their cultural influence on the city was immense."
 * "After this expansion, Berlin had a population of around four million."
 * "1920s Berlin was an exciting city known for its liberal subcultures, including homosexuals and prostitution and well known for its fierce political street fights."
 * "Berlin's Jewish community, which numbered 170,000 before the Nazis came to power."
 * "Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British and French airlines. Lufthansa and other German airlines were prohibited from flying to West Berlin."
 * "Both hills have an elevation of about 115 meters (377 ft)."
 * "Berlin's built-up area creates a microclimate, with heat stored by the city's buildings. Temperatures can be 4 °C (7.2 °F) higher in the city than in the surrounding areas."
 * "reminders of Eastern Bloc ambitions to create complete residential areas with fixed ratios of shops, kindergartens and schools."
 * "The Fernsehturm (TV tower) at Alexanderplatz in Mitte is the second highest building in the European Union at 368 meters (1,207 ft)."
 * "The city can be viewed from its 204 meter (669 ft) high observation floor."
 * "Funkturm Berlin is a 150 meter (492 ft) tall lattice radio tower "
 * "It is the only observation tower, which stands on insulators, and has a restaurant 55 meters (180 ft) and an observation deck 126 meters (413 ft) above ground"
 * "The act increased the area of Berlin from 66 square kilometers (25.5 sq mi) to 883 square kilometers (341 sq mi) and the population from 1.9 million to 4 million."
 * "The Berlin State Opera on Unter den Linden is the oldest; it opened in 1742."
 * "He is currently the subject of international popularity and controversy."
 * "With an area of 43 hectares (106 acres) and around 22,000 different plant species it is one of the largest and most diverse gardens in the world."
 * "The Volkspark in Friedrichshain, which opened in 1848, is the oldest park in the city."
 * "Among them are the German Heart Center, one of the most renowned and successful transplantation centers"