Talk:Berlin/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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: 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)

{{RFCgeo | section = Request for comment !! reason=Is it worth mentioning in the lead that Berlin is the second largest city (by city-proper size, not metropolitan area) in the EU? If so, is it also worth mentioning that Berlin is the fifth largest city in Europe as a whole (counting Russia and Turkey, which aren't in the EU)? And does Istanbul really count as being in Europe? !! time=18:48, 8 August 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 Wikipedia: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))

Klaus Wowereit

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 [1]. 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 Wikipedia: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"