Talk:Berlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Berlin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Good article Berlin has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Berlin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Afrikaans,  Serbian or Slovak language Wikipedias.
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  1. Sources must be cited. Verify content in all sections. Use the citation templates {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}.
  2. Images must be freely licensed (public domain, GFDL, CC-BY(-SA))
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Monuments and landmarks (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#Cityscape. —Angr 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

View London#Districts, Paris#Districts_and_historical_centres, Chicago#Cityscape, New_York_City#Boroughs, 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#Subdivisions. I don't want to follow Paris#Districts and historical centres, 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#Districts_and_historical_centres looked very crisp, but Chicago#Cityscape 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#Districts, Paris#Districts_and_historical_centres, Chicago#Cityscape, New_York_City#Boroughs, San_francisco#Neighborhoods, Sydney#Urban_structure. 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/Talk%7EBerlin_0f4f.html"