Talk:Berlin/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Treptower park is missing

Why has the author missed Treptower Park? If he or she thinks that soviet soldiers do not deserve any respect, at list he or she should have recognised their existance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, be bold and add it in if you can, preferably with a source so we don't have to do it later :). Homestarmy 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Homestarmy. Remember that this is a wiki, which means (1) there is not one single author of this article, and (2) you can add to this article to cover whatever you think is lacking. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I've now added a sentence about Treptower Park to the section "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks". Feel free to expand, although large-scale expansion should go to the article Treptower Park, not here. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Soviet War memorial at Treptower Park is not listed anywhere in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, that one omission isn't enough to kick the article off the "Good articles" list. The lack of references throughout the article, on the other hand, is. I also wouldn't like to see it restored as a Good article until the education section is expanded, as mentioned below. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The criteria is to be broad, not perfectly broad, and calls for references, not perfect ones :/. One little missing bit of whatever it is out of a whopping 72K or whatever article tends not to register to reviewers heh. But once there are more references, in my opinion, this article has an instant shot at FA. Homestarmy 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, once there are more references, the article has an instant shot at being restored to GA (where it never should have been without them in the first place). I don't think it's anywhere near FA status. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The missing monument is the most unsufficient argument I ever heard. Who lead the discussion on denomination and where is that publicised ? Sashandre

Good articles are very unbureaucratic; this is the discussion. Anyone can remove an article from the GA list. And anyone can add an article to the GA list. But frankly, I was just about to remove it from the GA list myself because of the lack of references and the extremely stubby "Schools" section, when I noticed that someone else had beaten me to it and removed it from the list for an entirely different reason. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the book references at the bottom look general enough to cite a pretty good chunk of this article, but then, I don't have much idea what's in them. A couple more wide-reaching references might be available on some of the sections, maybe the climate one or the sports one, but they might all be in german and I can't understand german :(. Homestarmy 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Schools section

The section on schools needs expansion. Education in Germany lists all sorts of things that vary from state to state in Germany; what is the state of affairs in Berlin? Also, the article currently says that secondary schooling lasts 6 years, but that can't be true across the board: again according to Education in Germany, Hauptschulen go to 9th grade, Realschulen to 10th grade, and Gymnasien to 12th or 13th grade. If they each start in 7th grade, then Hauptschule lasts 3 years, Realschule 4, and Gymnasium 6 or 7. Again, what is the situation in Berlin? Angr (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the length of this article already, i'd say expanding on it too much might be a bit of overkill, though since it is about a city, i'd say something more specific than education in all of Germany might be called for. Perhaps find a list of some schools, and put "Education in Germany" as a see also or something? Since we're on a specific topic, it doesn't seem to me like going into an explanation of all of Germany's education system should be necessary. Homestarmy 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The section already says "See also Education in Germany". The thing is, school curricula and requirements are determined at the state level in Germany, and Berlin isn't only a city, it's also a state. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, is there an article on Education in the state of Berlin? Homestarmy 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If there were, I think the best title would be Education in Berlin. But I'm not talking about adding an article's worth of info to the section, just two or three more sentences. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Forests?

I would be in favor of renaming "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks" simply "Green spaces" and discussing Berlin's forests as well. Not many cities have as high a percentage of their land dedicated to forest as Berlin. It's true in both parts of the city, but a friend of mine who grew up in West Berlin said having so much forestland where you felt like you were completely out of the city was "what kept us sane" during the years that West Berlin was walled in and it was impossible to take a day trip outside the city limits. I'll see what I can do myself, but I don't have a lot of free time, so I'll need help if other people agree this would be a valuable addition to the article. I certainly think it's something that makes Berlin different from most other large cities in industrialized countries. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Green spaces" seems not specific to me, a sentence about the forest character of Berlin should be there. Either in "Setting" or "parks".Sashandre

Forests are quite different from parks (they're managed differently and used differently), which is why I went for the more general term "Green spaces". I'm not sure to what extent zoos would belong in the section "Green spaces" though, or if it's appropriate to have botantical gardens, parks, and forests under "Culture" at all. Maybe we should leave zoos in "Culture" (to my mind zoos are like more like outdoor museums than they are like parks), and move botanical gardens, parks, and forests to "Setting" (which should perhaps be re-named "Geography"). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

City bounderies of Berlin include big forest and lakeside areas, I think that should be mentioned in the Setting-section( or Geography, but that would be doubled). Parks and Botanical Gardens are purely cultivated through science ,design and political will, a clear case for me to be in culture.Sashandre

I also think it would be better to list all parks under "Green spaces", but I think the problem lies somewhere else. English speakers don´t use the "Begriff" "Kultur" in the same way as Germans do. Just to translate it to "Culture" doesn´t mean it sounds right to English ears.. Therefore "Green spaces" seems to me the best way to include forests and parks and the Berliner saying "ins jrüne"!IsarSteve

Images

Sashandre, I don't understand why you removed Image:BerlinEastSpree.jpg but left Image:Spreebad kl.jpg. Not only is the first a much better-quality photo (higher resolution, fewer distracting artifacts), it much better illustrates the Spree in relation to the city, showing as it does such Kennzeichen as the Oberbaumbrücke and the Molecule Men--only in the distant background, granted, but the second photo doesn't have anything distinctly Berlin in it. No one who knows Berlin could possibly mistake the first picture for Warsaw. (Neither could anyone who knows Warsaw, I'll warrant.) Angr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angr, I´d love to have a satellite-photo or at least an aerial view of Spree-Berlin-Characterstics but this here is just to foggy.I can hardly identify Oberbaum or Treptowers. It could be any central european city for non Berliners. The current picture has simply a combination of Spree / Recreational/ and former Industrial areas. By far not perfect but at least crisp and in focus. By the way, very contemporary as well...Sashandre all the best

Sashandre, I'm disappointed you felt the need to remove my image - I spent some time considering whether to add it or not, but I felt it worthwhile in the end... The whole article only contains images of "things", there's not a single image that shows a wide view of Berlin. Berlin is a large, flat city, with a huge range of things (residential, commercial, industrial, rail, waterways, roads), all of which were shown in that photo. I added it because I felt the article needed an 'overview' of the setting. And, while I'll admit it could be better in terms of clarity, I felt it sufficiently good for these purposes. I'd be interested in other opinions, but I'm minded to put it back. AlanFord 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanFord, you are right! Berlin is flat and Berlin needs a satellite-photo or at least an aerial view. But we need one from the city centre and not from the outskirts. The photo quality (foggy) also can´t meet the high standard on this page, so it lacks on significance and on quality. Both together adds to no appropriate improvement. Sashandre all the best for you

Berlinale logo

I have requested Fair use review concerning the use of the Berlinale logo in this article. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I´m fine with that. I think it can stand it . see also BBC on London page! Sashandre

Insufficient agrument and monument

Well, the body of my parents' relative among the bodies of other 20,000 soldiers rests under that 'insufficient monument'. And every bloody year, I visit the city to pay the tribute to those whom, as I belive, I owe a lot. And the author of this article, since he or she writes about Berlin, must know everything, or at leats a lot about the city. Yet, the huge park, which is not a steet light, was not mentioned in the artice, as if it had never existed. Finally, the fact that such huge monument had not been mentioned in the artice, is called 'insufficient argument'. I wonder if the Holocaust Memorial or Museum of Indian Art was missing in the article, would the remark about its absence be 'insufficient argument' as well?

Once again, there is not one author of this article, and if you feel something is missing, it's best to add it yourself. That's what it means to be a wiki. The argument that the article can't be a Good article because it's missing a mention of Treptower Park and the monument is "insufficient" simply because it's so easily fixed. It would have taken much less time and effort for you to write a sentence or two about the park and add it to the article than it took you to delist the article from the Good Articles list and write a complaint here on the talk page about the oversight. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Degrading?

IsarSteve, what exactly is "degrading" about the photo of Klaus Wowereit you removed? He obviously didn't consider it degrading or he wouldn't have posed for it. I think a photograph of the openly gay mayor at a gay pride event standing beside a drag queen who has just been crowned Miss CSD illustrates Berlin's personality perfectly. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1.I agree with Angr on the mayor picture, it is the only people picture anyway... I´m also about restoring the Kiez-Kastanienallee-picture, it illustrates the context and is one of most famous neighbourhoods as well. 2.I have to question the new nightlife paragraph. There is no need telling history or nonexisting clubs in this section. I´m about to delete it. Sashandre all the best for you

3. that´s exactly my point, just because somebody is Gay, he doesn´t have to be shown with a Drag Queen. Would Diepgen have be shown with ""Miss German "Tits & Bum" 1994""? No certainly not. Regarding nightlife, thats not my amendment. OK lets delete all specific mention of Clubs and just mention Nightclubs.. IsarSteve 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If Diepgen would have posed for such a photo it would be noteworthy. Apparently he hasn't though, otherwhise such a photo would exist. The fact that a famous personality chooses to take part in such an event and chooses to use it as an opportunity to advertise for (the city|his career|whatever) is interesting and worth mentioning. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would Diepgen have posed for a photograph with "Miss German Tits & Bum 1994" in the first place? This isn't a candid shot where Wowereit happened to be in the same frame with the DQ, they are standing together for the explicit purpose of having their picture taken together. Angr (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kastienallee image just goes to illustrate the East Berlin bias in this article. What is so famous about Kastanienallee??? Not much, I would have thought, Kreuzberg better illustrates "The Berlin situation". I still think the image of Wowi is very clicheed.. exactly what non Gays want to see.. Also at a first glance it does look like it´s his "Gattin" and she is the "Red Queen" LOL! IsarSteve 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, Sashandre what do you actually mean when you say "famous"? do you mean "berühmt" or do you mean "sehr bekannt" or just even "bekannt". I would suggest again, that Kastienallee is neither "berühmt" or "sehr bekannt" just plain old "bekannt" which I think, doesn´t merit an image. Now I´m off to bed, so no more for today IsarSteve 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Even not being gay one can reckognise that Wowereit´s attitude is a broader approach to represent the city´s state of mind.Time magazine called him #Glamour Guy#, the picture captures that. Prenzlauer Berg is the focus Stadtteil of german & international immigration in the last 15 years. It is widely regarded as home to the new arts of all kinds, especially Kastanienallee( also known as Castingallee). The picture illustrates the fact of having large Boroughs made of several Stadteile, as described in the text.Sashandre

What counts as "trendy" with tourists and self-styled "artists" changes over time. It used to be Kreuzberg, after 1990 it became Prenzlauer Berg for a while, and now it's probably Friedrichshain. It's OK to mention this fact, but between you and me these are the parts of the city to avoid, so they shouldn't be overemphasized that much. The real Berlin takes place elsewhere. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK if you think so, but an image of Schloss Charlottenburg would do the same thing, be more interesting and also illustrate a Berlin touri-attraction. The new Borough of Wilmersdorf-Charlottenburg has all the same qualities as Pankow, more so in fact, in that has seen an enormous intake of Russians since 1989, not to mention the use of Charlottengrad. IsarSteve 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section on Subdivisions needs anything else than the map of the boroughs, which I've just moved to the right side and made larger. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Berlin is a multicentered, multi-lifestyled and multihistoric metropolis; the article should provide a broad view on that.There is no real Berlin. Emphasizing the map is fine for me, but having a Kiez picture is appropriate as well.It covers the typical Gründerzeit housing and is spread in all of the city. There is simply no other other high quality pic available which captures a situation like that.By the way ,Kreuzberg was rather home to counter-culture and not the arts.Sashandre

GDR> East Germany

I´d like to change the use of "GDR " in the article to "East Germany ", which I think is the term most commonly used (and understood) in the English speaking world, to denote The "Deutsche Demokratische Republik ". Therefore, before I do so, I´d like your comments. IsarSteve 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only people I ever hear call East Germany the "GDR" are Germans speaking English. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'd agree. What's more, I've seen people mistake the GDR for West Germany.[1] I think it's the "Democratic" bit that does it. ProhibitOnions 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that link you provided is just weird. They don't seem to be mistaking the GDR for West Germany, though. The sentence says "In 1985...in what was formerly East Berlin, at that time still in the German Democratic Republic" which is perfectly true. The confusing part is what follows: "but later part of the communist-controlled Soviet bloc." Perhaps "at that time" refers to the time of the Haymarket Riot (1886), in which case they've confused the GDR with the German Empire. Angr (t • c) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK I will change the article this week, although it´s maybe better to wait a couple of days more to allow (more?) discussion. IsarSteve 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Holocaust memorial

Its not the entertaining issue, but I think we need a visual representation (Memorial) of the Third Reich. The site is by now one of the most visited in Berlin. It features a Documentation center (kind of museum). I´m going to put it back in Museum section, where it once was ...Sashandre

It isn't a museum, it doesn't belong in the Museums section. Since we already have a picture of the Reichstag, I'm replacing the inside view of the Reichstagkuppel in the "Famous sights" section with the Holocaust memorial picture. Angr (t • c) 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The glass dome itself is one of maybe 5 iconic landmarks of the city this cant be neglected. Sashandre

It isn't neglected, we already have a picture of the Reichstag higher up in the article, glass dome and all. Angr (t • c) 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The dome inside has singular value and is of iconic quality. The situation now in the #famous sights# -section is not satisfiying, showing 2 second-level sights related to WW2.The museum section is not perfect but what is on this page. If we can´t find a solution I suggest keeping the glass dome. Sashandre

World Cup

For the time being the World Cup is the most dominant event on Earth. A modern internet-encyclopedia can and should react on that, otherwise I could take a look in my Britannica and read about Nazis still in power... Afterwards it can be deleted again; thats contemporary Wikipedia. London is presenting the olympic logo !6 years! in advance .... Sashandre

I'm not saying we shouldn't mention the World Cup at all, just that we don't need a huge picture of a shoe with people climbing all over it at the expense of a picture of one of the most important cultural sites in Berlin. How about a compromise: The Philharmonie large and on the right, the shoe small and on the left. Angr (t • c) 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, I moved the shoe down to fill up the white space to the right of the table. That way it doesn't interfere with a larger right-side image of the Philharmonie. Angr (t • c) 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Most dominant event on earth is a slight exaggeration. Anorak2 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I cant see any layout improvement. Both pictures where there before. Philharmonie has to be small because section is small. Shoe has to be in old position because the table looks better. It is so obvious don´t you think? Sashandre

Maybe the table displays differently for you and for me. For me, the table displays flush left and has a huge white space to the right of it. By moving the shoe down, the white space is filled. And I'm hoping the section where the Philharmonie is won't be short for very long, because I intend to expand that section when I get some time. Angr (t • c) 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sashandre, why did you remove the {{unsourcedsect}} tags from "Higher education, research" and "Economic trends"? Both sections need sources to back up their statistics. I also don't understand your removal of all West Berlin nightclubs. The only "nonexisting" nightclub in the section was the LaBelle; the others are still in operation. IsarSteve has already pointed out that this article exhibits a distinct East Berlin bias, and removing the West Berlin nightclubs just makes it even less NPOV. Calling it a "highly volatile section" is just laughable -- I only added that paragraph yesterday, and no one touched it until you deleted it. That's not "volatile". You also removed my request for expansion from the "Schools" section. That section is pitifully small now and contains nothing of interest at all; either it must be expanded or deleted altogether. The way it is now is simply a joke. Angr (t • c) 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about Unter den Linden.. I really don´t mind if the Palace is mentioned or not..but as written .. 10, 20 or 30 years is in the future!! I do object to Grand Boulevard >heads west..this doesn´t sound good.. Avenue is the correct term for tree lined road.. also Roaring twenties doesn´t just apply to North America.. It´s the term used in the UK for the 1920´s.. are we writing this for English speakers or German speakers?? Golden Twenties doesn´t in my opinion, have a meaning for English speaking people..it just sounds >foreign< IsarSteve 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The economic figures seem about right, see http://www.statistik-berlin.de/framesets/berl.htm Anorak2 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

see degrading disc./ see 1920 Berlin/ see Roaring twenties/ Cant find {{unsourcedsect}} tags in 30 major cities around the globe/ There is no West-Berlin anymore, nor East-Berlin. Only high & low significance. The West has historically a low one.Volatile refers to sec. changing. If there is something to expand or to be referenced, do it. Remove Palace or I do it! Sashandre all the best for you

where has the Collaboration gone to now?? There were some things that you deleted , that I thought should have stayed, but as I wrote you, I thought it was good to see fresh ideas, and let them go. Now you must accept, that your work can also be altered by others.. The order to remove something I´ll ignore.. If you feel you must change something, then do it.. but so will I and others too! IsarSteve 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can't find {{unsourcedsect}} tags in 30 major cities, then either they already cite their sources, or their editors aren't working towards getting the articles up to Good Article status. Your opinion that the West has a historically low significance is both untrue and insulting. While the historic center of the city is in the former East, the West gained significance during the years of division while the East stagnated. Since reunification, the East has come a long way towards regaining its significance, but it hasn't eclipsed the West. Both sides of the still all-too-real Mauer im Kopf are equally significant now, and it's simply a violation of WP:NPOV if we allow the article to give readers the impression that only (pre-1991) Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg, and Friedrichshain are "the real Berlin". The West Berlin nightclubs you deleted are -- excepting only the LaBelle -- just as significant as the East Berlin clubs you kept. Angr (t • c) 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Angr seconded. the contents of this article should absolutely represent important features regardless of location within the borders and likely also the sourced conceptual or fictional reality of Berlin. I further wonder at your reasoning for the removal of the Berlin City Palace -- I would assume it should remain. The english article Roaring_Twenties links de:Goldene_Zwanziger and, as such should be linked and written as Roaring Twenties. ∴ here…♠ 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical sites

I haven´t amended this section yet... but due to the recent friction over deletions etc., I want to put a few points forward: In this section, it is mentioned that

1 The Brandenburg Gate and Unter den Linden are symbols of Berlin, Prussia, and now Germany... I really can´t accept that Unter den Linden is a symbol of Prussia or of Germany.
2 Gendarmenmarkt, a renaissance square in Berlin, is surrounded by.... In my opinion it is certainly not a renaissance square
3 Lastly, the ranking seems once more to be a bit biased... I would say preference should go to Schloss Bellevue, where Germanys No.1 person resided, or these days works. I don´t think the last but one place on the list, before Schloss Charlottenburg is suitable.

I´d like your opinions on whether these points should be changed.. IsarSteve 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. without Germany, Prussia certainly 2. neoclassical 3. see Politics ....all the best

1. Unter den Linden is the central axis of the Friedrichstadt which was mostly built under Frederick the Great. So it's connected to Prussia anyway.
3. Schloss Bellevue isn't that important historically. There are many castles in and around Berlin with a similar significance, some of them larger and more representative. It has been chosen to be the (at the time, second) seat of the Bundespräsident mainly because of its location, and rather provisionally at first. I guess chance played a role. Anorak2 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, my problem is, I still can´t see Unter den Linden as a symbol of anything. It´s a nice place to be.. but a symbol? of what? of town planning perhaps??IsarSteve 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Second largest city?

Berlin is NOT the second biggest city in Europe as written in the article. Rome, Paris, London are definately bigger and many other cities as well...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danieldk (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. Berlin is indeed the second largest city in the European Union after London, when the population of the city proper only is considered. Compare this with Largest urban areas of the European Union, where areas outside of the city proper are considered (and in some cases conurbations of several cities are grouped together). By that definition, Berlin is only the seventh largest urban area of the EU. Then there are the largest European metropolitan areas, which uses a different definition again; Berlin is only twelfth on that list. However, you're wrong to say that Rome is definitely larger than Berlin; on all three lists Berlin is larger than Rome. Angr (t • c) 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
But Rome is older :)
Please also note that Europe != EU. Anorak2 11:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
True enough. The list of largest European metropolitan areas includes cities outside the EU. Counting only cities in the EU on that list, Berlin is ninth, not twelfth. Angr (t • c) 11:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Sights

I tried to update Berlin >Famous Sights today, but the edit was almost immediately reversed by some "unknown" person. At the moment Alexanderplatz reads as follows:-

  • Alexanderplatz is featuring the Weltzeituhr and is a former East Berlin's shopping area. It was home to the Centrum-Warenhaus, which once was the GDR's department store.

It just makes you cringe to read it.. Whether as square can feature something, is open to debate, but the next sentence that the centrum store was the GDR´s (remember we also agreed to call it East Germany"), department store. So because this "Unknown person" keeps reversing edits..I ask somebody else to re-write Alexanderplatz. I thought maybe on the lines :- Alexanderplatz named after a Russian Tsar, is about 200years old.. etc., Dominated by the station and two 1920s Buildings desingned by Peter Behrens etc.,

So please re-write this part of famous sights.. I´m going to blank it again right now.. IsarSteve 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture

First of all it has to be said that the Brandenburg Gate picture is an excellent one which truly meets the criteria of style, quality and significance. But it focuses rather german history and fails to transport the message of an international, multicentered, global city. The half skyline picture including a station, the TV-Tower and a highrise building (center of commerce) can provide that. I can also report that this view is very much shared by an internet and my personal community (living abroad). Up to now I never used this argument in the last discussions , but I think it broadens the view this time.

Sashandre all the best

The Brandenburg Gate is supremely iconic of Berlin. Friedrichstraße train station isn't. The Friedrichstraße picture can go lower down in the article, but frankly it's just weird to have the first image in the article on Berlin be anything other than the Brandenburg Gate. Look through the other languages' articles on Berlin: more of them have a picture of the Brandenburg gate as the first or only picture than anything else. Angr (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I must say, I particularly like the Friedrichstr. image, although for non-German readers, I would imagine that The Brandenburg Gate IS THE SYMBOL of Berlin and of German division. Friedrichstr. station as a "Border Point" has its place in "Deutsch-Deutsche Geschichte", the division of the country and Berlin. So I think it is pertinent to show it as well. IsarSteve 16:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, except this image isn't of that Friedrichstr. station, but rather of the new one, which looks like any other train station. Angr (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Angr is right. Much of the "historic" center of Berlin is not a decade old. The Brandenburg Gate at least attributes importance to the historical significance of Berlin, which has undeniable shaped the city and its inhabitants forever. The problem remains though, that Berlin is just one of those towns which you are unable summarize using a single photograph, which is why we have to settle for the image with the most significance. If there were a picture of the Pariser Platz, along with the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and some of the newer governmental buildings, it would be better suited... But I guess in this case, I can't be picky. --Johnnyw 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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. I have to reject the argument that there is only a trainstation. We do see the TV-Tower which has iconic quality and is dominating the face of the city. The River Spree is also a part of the picture as well as a highrise building which are both shaping the city´s appearance. The Brandenburg Gate in all other languages has been introduced by myself to start with at least one picture.... The English-Berlin WP is a reference language and should be more than that ,providing a cosmopolitan image of the lead picture Sashandre


First I have to admit I've been the one changing the main image to Brandenburg Gate a few times the last couple of days. Instead I should have begun a discussion about it. Sorry for that. Living abroad and not in Berlin anymore, I can state that people, asked for a symbol of Berlin, mostly name the Brandenburg Gate. It is THE symbol for the division and reunification of Berlin. The picture of Bahnhof Friedrichstraße is definately a quite nice one, but absolutely inadequate as a the needed strong symbol of Berlin. Television towers exist all over the world, and train stations too. Almost nobody outside of Berlin - and even some people in Berlin - would recognize this photo as taken in Berlin. And I have to reject your impression that the television tower "is dominating the face of the city". It dominates surely the borough of Mitte, but not much more. The "cosmopolitan aspect" that you're talking about can surely be elaborated in the article. 82.123.218.171 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear now that the consensus is to have the Brandenburg Gate as the lead picture. Everyone who's expressed an opinion on this has said so, except Sashandre. I'm switching the positions of the Brandenburg Gate and Friedrichstraße photos now. Sashandre, please don't switch back. Angr (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all I can sum up. Berlin´s heritage is one of the most diverse. This must be expressed in the lead picture. The question for THE symbol is not the appropriate one for the lead picture. Watch New York, Tokyo Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Singapore, Shanghai ,Melbourne , Washington, D.C. All of these cities avoid THE symbol because they have many. And yes, the Tower dominates the most significant parts of Berlin. Sashandre

Yes, there is a consensus. You are the only one who wants it your way. Everyone else who has expressed an opinion wants it the other way around. Please respect that. Angr (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

.......and move on. IsarSteve 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already tried to look for a picture that not only shows the Brandenburger Tor, but other aspects of the city as well. So far to no avail. Nevertheless, as soon as I find one, I'll propose it here, maybe a better solution is possible.--Johnnyw 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

one opinion has sympathy for the innercity-pic, one sees the problem of showing only B-Gate, one is without identification,one is for B-Gate and one (me) has strong arguments which haven´t been countered. Ergo no consensus at all and especially not pro B-Gate...Sashandre

I see me, IsarSteve, Johnnyw, and 82.123.218.171 all agreeing that given the choice between the Brandenburg Gate photo and the Bhf. Friedrichstr. photo, we prefer the Brandenburg Gate photo to be the lead photo. You're the only one who wants Bhf. Friedrichstr. as the lead photo. That looks like broad consensus to me. Angr (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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. Stop reducing the city to one symbol, it also denies the city´s multiple character. Thank you ! Sashandre all the best

New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles all use skyline images as their lead picture. (In the case of New York City, that is its icon -- especially since it includes the Empire State Building, which is far more iconic for New York than the Statue of Liberty is.) But they don't use a picture of some train station. Do we have a good skyline image of Berlin? If so, let's use it. If not, let's use the iconic image we do have: the Brandenburg Gate. Angr (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: The only skyline I can find of Berlin is Image:BerlinVogelschau1850.jpg, but it's a little out of date. There's also Image:Berlin Siegessaeule Panorama.jpg, which could be cropped, but the majority of the most interesting buildings are very small and far-away. Angr (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a picture at the Yahoo Image sharing service flickr that is quite interesting: [2] . I thought about contacting the photographer about releasing the rights to that photograph... what do you think? It shows most of Mitte: the Charité, the Spreeinsel (which is a world cultural heritage site), of the course the river Spree, the Rote Rathaus, the Nikolaikirche and the Fernsehturm. --Johnnyw talk 22:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The flickr picture would be definitely an improvement. It has my support. Ask him for this one [3] , too. Sashandre

I like the skyline of Mitte photo a lot too; it's just too bad it's a night shot. The same view on a sunny day would be perfect! If he won't release the photo, maybe he'll at least tell us where he was when he took it; then someone can go there on a sunny day and take a photo of the same view. Angr (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, there does not seem to be any way to contact people via flickr (maybe only by registering to that service?)... I am still looking for alternatives. --Johnnyw talk 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I´m going to put the pronunciation of Berlin in the infobox. Eliminating is the second option . I don´t think this item has an important significance.It also destructs the fluent text. Sashandre

No other city article keeps the pronunciation in the infobox. Same thing with pronunciation of people's names. And why all this talk of removing it and calling it inappropriate to being with? When did Berlin become unique?
Peter Isotalo 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
People's names are a completely different matter, since people don't usually have different names in different languages the way cities do. Linking the first occurrence of the word "Berlin" to the sound file implies that the word should be pronounced [bɛɐˈliːn] in English, which it shouldn't. I'd be okay with doing it the way it is at Paris though: in the section on etymology we can say something like "The name Berlin, which is pronounced [bɚˈlɪn] in English and [bɛɐˈliːn] in German, comes from the Slavic root..." and then link the German pronunciation to the sound file. Speaking of etymology, I'd like to see some source indicating that (1) there even is a Slavic root "berl" meaning "swamp" and (2) this is really the source of the name. Angr (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Duden says that while the origin of the name "Berlin" is uncertain, it presumably originates in a Slavic positional designation, that would be used in connection with 'birl-' or 'berl-' ('swamp'). "geht aber wohl auf eine slawische Stellenbezeichnung zurück, die zu apolab. [altpolabisch] birl-/berl- ‚Sumpf’ gestellt wird" (Duden – Geographische Namen in Deutschland 1999, 60). Berliner Notzin (pdf) Not sure if I translated the text correctly.. --Johnnyw 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Berlin is hardly a name that requires a pronunciation guide in English. It's just too intuitive, and the point of having native pronunciation audio files is to illustrate someting that might actually be new to English-speakers. This is still not a problem in many other city articles but for some reason it's defined as a major problem here. I simply can't picture a situation where someone would listen to the sound file, not understand that it's supposed to be in German and then complain that it doesn't sound English enough.
And I don't see why we need to bloat the etymology sections even more by adding rather superfluous English pronunciation info to them.
Peter Isotalo 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Berlin does require a pronunciation guide in English, because Berlin the capital of Germany is pronounced differently from the various Berlins in the United States, most or all of which are pronounced with the stress on the first syllable. (This isn't true of the various Parises in North America, which are pronounced the same as the city in France, and yet Paris tells us both the English and the French pronunciation.) And considering the discussion of the name is currently two sentences long, I hardly think moving the pronunciation info there is "bloating". Angr (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

no mentioning of debt in the article

I was surprised not to read of the huge amoung of debt that Berlin has accumulated since the reunification. Even more was I surprised when I had to look around the German WP for quite a bit to find any information regarding the subject. Actually, I thought about including a short mentioning in the intro paragraphs. Berlin's debt has accumulated to rougly 60 billion Euros, and — it is claimed — that Berlin is virtually unable to rise out of this debt by themselves.. Even if this is not actually the case, most of the politics in Berlin are predetermined by this factor, a lot of the cultural institutions are endangered, the universities/public hospitals/... are cutting down on basically everything that's expensible... Using the words of Berlin's finance minister: "if Berlin were a private company, the city would have gone bankrupt long ago" [4] --Johnnyw 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A very good point, and one that's definitely worth mentioning. I wouldn't put it in the lead section, though, as that's supposed to be just a summary of the entire article. I'd make it a subsection of "Economy". Angr (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Done and open for reviewing/editing etc. =) --Johnnyw 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay/lesbian subculture

No mention of the gay/lesbian subculture than thrived during the 1920's and was destroyed by the Nazis. Berlin had more gay/lesbian/trans bars and clubs in the 1920s than Toronto, Ontario, Canada does today. The movie Bent is about this, but I don't have a book or internet source to quote.

A very good point. We do have an article on Nollendorfplatz, which is still a gay neighborhood today as it was during the Weimar era. I expect if someone were willing to do the research, a very good article could be written on LGBT culture in Berlin. Angr (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New pics

So, I just got back from a short trip to Viktoriapark, where I took some pictures of the skyline of Berlin. They're not great art, and unfortunately there aren't too many icons of Berlin visible from up there, but here they are anyway in case anyone sees fit to include them.

I also took the photos that I just added to Viktoriapark. Angr (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing

Making any article on a German subject into an article on the suffering of Jews is POV as well as anti-German racism. It is totally inappropriate to flood a brief history section with suffering of Jews, when other much more significant aspects of its history are only dealt with in a sentence, if adressed at all (all wartime destruction: one sentence. No mention of large numbers of refugees at all. No mention of massive Soviet war crimes against population of Berlin). This is an article about the city of Berlin. It is not an article about Auschwitz which is in Poland and not in Berlin. It is appropriate for a history section to mention that Berlin had a large Jewish population, and that it was for a large part destroyed. Details on Auschwitz etc. which is unrelated to the history of Berlin are to be left to the holocaust article.

The Soviet photo is a well known, staged war propaganda photo (perhaps one of the most famous from the war). It clearly needs to be identified as such, to not give the false impression that the photo was actually taken when Stalin's men actually entered the Reichstag, or taken by a neutral third party for neutral purposes. Just the way 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the photo is staged propaganda or not (and I'm far from convinced it is -- if it had been staged there would have been no need to retouch it later to remove the two watches, etc.) is completely irrelevant to this article. There is no benefit to this article for the caption for that picture to scream "Propaganda! Propaganda!" And the idea that the Reichstag was at that time a symbol of "parliamentarian democracy" is simultaneously laughable and revolting.
And yet you keep removing the entirely relevant sentence about Nazi propaganda during in 1936 Olympics in Berlin, replacing it with the nonsensical sentence "Berlin arranged the 1936 Olympics". Berlin is a city; cities can't arrange anything. You also continue to remove the entirely relevant sentence about Kristallnacht and the deportation of the Jews from Berlin claiming it to be "POV as well as anti-German racism". No, it's neither. It's a neutral description of the facts of the Holocaust as it affected Berlin. This is an extremely important part of Berlin's history and will not be left out of the article. Angr (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Your vandalism is reverted once again. You haven't even read my comment, or you are a fanatical anti-German POV pusher. It's POV to flood an article with disproportionate description of alleged wrongdoings, and you don't this in articles on the capitals of other countries, or their country articles. In the London article, the history section is not massively dealing with London's role as capital of a state that was responsible for horrible crimes across the world, trade of African slaves included. It would be POV because London is a city article. What happened in Africa or America is not relevant to the city history of London, just like what happened in Poland is not relevant to city history of Berlin. If you want to write about Auschwitz, then the Berlin article is nothing for you, because anti-German flooding and spamming will be removed. And no, it's not OK to claim that some government "used the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin for propaganda purposes", just as it would not be ok to claim that the Bush regime "used [sports event] for propaganda purposes". This is your opinion, not a neutral fact. The 1936 Summer Olympics was arranged in Berlin, end of story. If you want to describe it further, like some of the innovations, it should be done in a neutral way. You need to make yourself familiar with our NPOV policy. Just the way 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You want to use 76 words to describe wrongdoings against Jews. Every detail must be mentioned according to you, even what happened to the "last Jews". Similtanously, you want to use 0 words to describe a much higher number of refugees, and 0 words to describe massive Soviet war crimes. You want to use only 25 words dealing with the entire rest of its war-time history and horrible total destruction of a city (which your own country was responsible for). If you fail to see this is disproportionate and thus POV, I cannot help you further. The 20th century section is one page only, and either it must be extremely expanded (which is not a good idea), or everythings needs to be kept short. Just the way 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The mentioned paragraph about the extinction of the jewish community seems not disproportionate to me. There might be overemphasizing in other german related articles but rather not in this one. In this case the city itself (Nazi government) decided to murder a relevant part of german-jewish culture of their own city society. This cultural life had been built up over centuries and was then ended. It is of significance for world history and especially of the city´s history. Sashandre

The article is hardly "flooded" with "disproportionate description[s] of alleged wrongdoings" ("alleged"?!? Are you going to deny the Holocaust next?). It has a couple of sentences about what happened in Berlin making it extremely relevant to the article on Berlin. No mention of the slave trade at London, because the British never enslaved Londoners, while the Nazis did transport Berliners to death camps. Claiming that to say so reflects a "fanatical anti-German POV" is absurd, because those Jews were Germans! As for the 1936 Olympics, perhaps the neutrality of the sentence can be improved, but no serious historian denies that the Olympics were used by the Nazis for propaganda purposes. If you want to discuss Soviet war crimes that took place in Berlin, go ahead, but focusing on the propaganda potential of one photograph isn't achieving that goal. However, if any substantial addition to the history of Berlin is going to be made, it ought to be made at History of Berlin, not here, as the page as already twice as long as it ought to be. Angr (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You tell me British slave trade that was carried out from London isn't relevant to London, because only some Black "sub-human beings" were victims, and not the British "masters"? Again we see different rules for Germany-related articles than articles of all other countries. Crimes of the British doesn't need to be mentioned in the article on their capital, while the article on the German capital must mostly deal with wrongdoings.

When you use 75 % of the space to describe wrongdoings against Jews, and 25 % to describe the entire rest of it's war-time history, you are flooding. Appropriate would be, say 20 % of the war-time description, and only thing specifically affecting Berlin (it had a large Jewish community, which was 170,000 and not 160 as you are claiming, that was destroyed). This is not the holocaust article. Things that has nothing to do with Berlin should not be mentioned. What happened in Poland belong in other articles than the Berlin article.

You don't mention the expulsion, are you going to deny the expulsion next? You don't mention terror bombing, are you going to deny that too? If the page is already twice as long as it ought to be, you should be cooperating on shortening it. In your version, one aspect of history is given disproportionate attention. If you want to keep such a lengthy description of wrongdoings, I will have to write ten times as much as the current version on other aspects of war-time history. Just the way 10:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Also, I see no reason why Image:Train station Berlin Friedrichstrasse 5.jpg should be on the top of the article. What is significant with that picture? I suggest the Brandenburg Gate should be kept (like this one). Just the way 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Prussia

Please stop changing 1918 to 1871. Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia for its entire existence, from 1701 to 1918, and continued to be the capital of the Free State of Prussia thereafter. Just the way 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic

Also please leave the link to the German Democratic Republic. The article is, after much discussion, located at German Democratic Republic, not "East Germany". German Democratic Republic is the correct name of the country. "East Germany" is 1) a colloquialism (just like "America" is for the United States of America), 2) POV, 3) ambigious. Just the way 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

no, no,that´s not correct. The word "Democratic" is ambigious, not "East". If you want to refer to the GDR in German, dann bitte, benutzt DDR, but in English use "East Germany" IsarSteve 00:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to support the "GDR" version even though it can be confusing to others. East Germany is colloquial and should be only mentioned in brackets and history section in need of explanation reasons. Sashandre
what tosh!! GDR is not the term used in any English-speaking country for the German Democratic Republic ..was FRG ever used when talking about West Germany ?? Of course not!! ..In fact GDR is only used by Germans, mainly East Germans, trying to speak English... IsarSteve 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
German Democratic Republic is the correct English name. The colloquialism "East Germany" was carefully avoided in all formal situations. "East Germany" is ambigious, because in Cold War West Germany, "East Germany" was the name reserved for the lost provinces, while the GDR was referred to as SBZ, Mitteldeutschland and finally as DDR. FRG was not used for reasons stated at the article BRD, the name used in the west was "Federal Republic of Germany", short: Germany, and informal/colloquial: West Germany. Just the way 11:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the "tosh" crowd on this. The GDR was perfectly happy to refer to itself as "East Germany" at the Olympics and elsewhere. It's irrelevant what ex-Nazis living in West Germany in the 1950s meant by "Ostdeutschland" in German. "East Germany" in English means the country that styled itself the "German Democratic Republic" — although, as many pundits pointed out, it was none of these things.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
With your racist remark (referring to victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing as "ex-Nazis"), you have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in this conversation. As a matter of fact, the term East Germany was reserved for the Stalinist Polish/Soviet-occupied areas by social democrats, liberals and christian democrats, by the German government and the German parliament. For this reason the term was never applied to the GDR in the English language by governments of English-speaking countries. Just the way 13:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The GDR was, by the way, never perfectly happy being referred to as "East Germany" (which it also wasn't). From the GDR point of view, this was a way to deny the GDR recognition as an independent state, implying it was part of another state. Just the way 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your position clear with your incivil personal attack. ("Racist" indeed. I should block you.) By their own choice, the two Germanies competed in the Olympics from 1966 as "Germany (Federal Republic)" and "East Germany." Your assertion that the term "East Germany" was never used to refer to the GDR is, quite frankly, nonsense. We are talking about English usage here, not German or French. Even so, here in Germany only neo-Nazis and their ilk refer to Poland as "Ostdeutschland" today.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You are the person who should be blocked for making racist comments against Germans. Please refrain from calling people Nazis. That is totally unacceptable behaviour. The term "East Germany" was never used in formal situations in the English language. Just the way 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1. I am a German. 2. I said there were ex-Nazis in West Germany in the 1950s who used the term "Ostdeutschland" differently than we use "East Germany" in English; where's the racism? 3. You are wrong; what were the Olympics, if not a formal situation? Enough troll-feeding for tonight.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You referred to victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and almost the entire German population as "ex-nazis". If you referred to all Jews living in Israel in the 1950s as "ex-Bolsheviks", that would be racism too. It is a complete lie on your part that Ostdeutschland was used by "ex-nazis in the 50s". It was used by social democrats, liberals and christian democrats, and it always meant the provincens under Soviet and Polish administration until the beginning of the 1970s when SPD changed its foreign policy, however the CDU opposed that change and the term was used until German reunification. Today it is mostly used by the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide organized in the Bund der Vertriebenen. Just the way 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Olympics are not a formal situation, but a sports event. Just the way 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you are from Newcastle and your native language is English. Enough troll-feeding for tonight. Just the way 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous... is Just the way saying that ALL West Germans were victims?? Furthermore, is he saying that NO nazis lived in West Deutschland after 1945?? Both obviously not true. By the way, the "Formal Term" for the UK is <United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland>, luckily for us, the colloqiual form is used for Wiki purposes. That is my Maßstab!! IsarSteve 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed riciculous. The person holds that the term East Germany was only used in that sense by "ex-Nazis in the 50s", thus referring to the entire German population including victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing and even people who just had spent ten years in Nazi concentration camps like Kurt Schumacher as "Nazis". In German there is word for that: Volksverhetzung. Just the way 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


"commonly known in English as East Germany" taken from the GDR page of wikipedia .... (it doesn't matter what it is called in German) just the way, don't be offensive and bother people with your POV because it apparently isn't a NPOV (me=german) 84.189.204.155 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Klaus Wowereit

A more suitable image needs to be found. Just because a person is gay, his sexual orientation doesn't need to be primary thing he is associated with as a politician. Representing him with a drag queen is heavily POV. A politician should be represented with a neutral photo. Just the way 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We´ve been here before!! Although I agree with you in principle, other people seem to think it´s OKIsarSteve 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If you have a better free-use picture of him, put it in. But there is nothing non-NPOV about the picture of him with a drag queen. The picture does not place undue emphasis on his sexual orientation, as anyone is allowed to stand next to a drag queen to have their picture taken. Angr (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture 2

I try contacting these photographers [5] (my favourite), [6], [7] and how about this one [8] ?

Sashandre all the best

They're not bad, although I'd still prefer a daytime shot to a night shot. Also, be sure not to just ask for permission to use the photo in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia policy is that images can't be used "by permission". Rather, they have to be willing to release the image under a fair license, such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons License that permits commercial use and derivatives, for example CC-BY-SA-2.5. Angr (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like No. 5 the best, maybe Angr isn´t a night owl and doesn´t know what the city looks like in darkness?? IsarSteve 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I do know what the city looks like in darkness, but an encyclopedic picture ought to be fully illuminated. Angr (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As usual, I have to reluctantly agree.. LOL IsarSteve 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The perfect picture is a daylight panorama, I agree. I spent hours to find one at flickr, but none could meet the standard. The current one is very close to quality we want ,I think. Sashandre all the best

Sashandre, did the photographer of Image:Berlin TV Tower and skyline.jpg contact you and say CC-BY-SA-2.5 is okay? Because the image at Flickr still says "All rights reserved", which is not the same thing! Angr (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Great! Angr (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He confirmed with an e-mail the new licence written in the Wikipedia/Commons rules and by CC-BY-SA-2.5 Standard.Sashandre

To-Do-List

I agree on topic (1.),(4.),(5.). On (2.): A few more sentences in `setting´ may be in zoo,parks...are ok.Its not an important aspect. On (3.):LGBT is highly represented through picture and sentence,every other extention in new articles. On (6.): Citation has to be kept short. book template is not acceptable. On (7.): The lead is comparable to most of the city articles and covers the relevant parts. Details can be discussed. On (8.): Total disagreement.Length is widely tolerated because of exceptional article-status (also length of country-articles). Major City-articles vary from 50-80kb, Berlin has 63kb.The history section is very short in comparison and has very high relevance, especially 20th century Berlin. I´m going to delete this topic and (7.) from To-Do-List. Sashandre all the best

Perhaps we have different goals for the article. I would like the article to become a featured article someday, but it won't make it unless at least points 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are addressed. It could probably make it to FA without 2 and 3, and possibly without 4, although I personally couldn't support it unless all 8 points were addressed. But if featured-article status is not your goal (and given the crappy quality of a lot of recent featured articles I wouldn't blame you if it weren't), then you needn't worry about all the points. I would ask you not to delete anything from the to-do list, however, in case other people are interested in bringing the article up to FA standards. Angr (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

FA - Status is a desirable goal. I watch the development of around 40 global cities(city-articles) in engl.Wiki towards this aim.I also compare the development in 10 other Wiki-languages concerning city-articles.By now only 3 midsize cities/articles gained FA status ; Boston, Detroit, Michigan and Seattle. Given these ´models` (1.) and (5.)is a problem (6.) and (8.) is not,(7.) could be questioned. BUT, through my investigation I learned that FA status is very difficult to gain and to keep for the majority of global cities/articles for a number of reasons.One is a typical dilemma. How to present a city reasonable and based on facts AND show the relevance and the city´s character without exaggeration or disproportion. I like to develop a combination of both, without compromising one to much.To aim FA is not a contradiction. The Berlin-article is in many respects one of the very finest in the world of city-articles by now, with or without FA. I will support accuracy and expansion (certainly not more than 70kb) but will also keep the complex character of the articles content. Sorry, (7.) and (8.) can´t prevail. Sashandre all the best

Without 7 and 8 there is no hope of ever achieving FA status. If you insist on reverting all attempts to implement points 7 and 8, the rest of us may as well give up trying to improve this article. Angr (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s untrue .... watch the mentioned FA - cities, the current length is the smallest problem of all. Same for the leading 4 paragraphs ... what part is it exactly do you worry? Problem (1.),(4.)(5.) plus the not existing Economy-section seems much more urgent. Sashandre all the best

Watch the current FA candidates. People consistently object to articles that are too long (generally >50 kb) and whose leads don't comply with WP:LEAD. Angr (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have seen it for yourself ...The FA-Rules are hardly working on city-articles because of the special premises.Though it is fine goal... As I said, only aiming to FA-status in terms of length will fail in this case.Nobody would have the idea to cut NYC,Paris,Los Angeles down to 40 kb.Even though there is still many room to improvement.And by the way , we didn´t even request FA-candidate, so it doesn´t make sense speculate about the outcome. Sashandre

Version 0.5 tag / article nominee

The new tag has been added. Because of the recent grading debate I´d like to draw the attention to this page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. The next step of upgrading could be A-class-status. Sashandre

Boroughs of Berlin

At the very bottom of the page is a template named #Boroughs of Berlin#. How is it possible to modify it? Or, who is able to do it / or has access to it? The part 'Boroughs prior to 2001' needs to be deleted because it is outdated.Sashandre

No, it needs to be kept because Berliners still invariably think of the pre-2001 boroughs, and most articles are written about those, not about the post-2001 boroughs, which have no reality in the minds of locals. User:Angr 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Angr is right, the post-2001 boroughs are irrelevant to everyday life here, apart from administrative issues. --Johnnyw talk 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also Berliners who want back the Berlin wall, or count in D-Mark ... The phrase has at least to be renamed in #Neighborhoods# within a new template.Sashandre

The template is just fine the way it is. It has the post-2001 boroughs on top, and the real boroughs at the bottom. Renaming it "neighborhoods" would mean greatly increasing its scope, as it would then have to include things like Moabit, which were not boroughs before 2001 either. User:Angr 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What real boroughs ? Any other name is fine for me too.The division East/West has to be deleted as well.Sashandre

I was facetiously referring to the pre-2001 boroughs as the "real" boroughs. I would however also be in favor of keeping the East/West division, because that too is still very prominent in Berliners' minds, as well of being of tremendous interest to non-Berliners. User:Angr 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Nazi-Kaiser-Kennedy-Berlin, whatever. Everything is interesting to anybody ! The Berlin wall is down for 18 years now. I don´t want to be forced creating a new template only because I cant find this one. The last option would be deletion because of outdated facts. But this is not my interest ....Sashandre

If you don't want to "be forced" to create a new template, don't. Just leave this one the way it is. It's not outdated because virtually everyone in Berlin still thinks of Berlin as being divided up this way. User:Angr 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Berlin consists of 12 totally different Boroughs and even more different Stadtteile. Don´t speculate what Berlin thinks,just be factual correct, I know you are. Sashandre

Berlin consists of 23 different boroughs and even more different Stadtteile, as well as 12 figments of the government's imagination. That's factually correct. User:Angr 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hitler still in power ... don´t disappoint me! I´m not not discussing this one. Fact is, there are Boroughs and no East and West, please delete this from the template when you are able to ,or I have to delete the whole one, thank you ,last sentence! Sashandre

No, you don't have to delete the whole one, and if you do you will be reverted because you have no consensus to do so. User:Angr 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are 100 people who say East Berlin is the still existing capital of the GDR , its still wrong. If you really think so, which I doubt, you might be better off taking a break. Sashandre

Standardisation

Sashandre in your latest purge, you deleted a Stendahl quotation, Now I´m not against pruning things per se, the quotation wasn´t that important, but you have now suceeded in deleting both mentions of "Märkische Sand" in the article. You seem to have an obsession of standardising everything. I feel your deletions make the article faceless, Berlin is Berlin but Chicago oder "sonst wo" is somewhere else, the articles shouldn´t all be the same. Being built on sand makes Berlin special, what other inland cities have beaches like Berlin?? No mention here!! A polite request from me, when you decide to delete something, think about what has been lost and try and add the (compressed) information somewhere else... --IsarSteve 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi IsarSteve, good point. Please add a sentence on the inland beaches in #recreation# or about the sandy character in #Geography#. / I can´t share your opinion about standardisation or faceless´article,I feel the opposite. The article improves in complexity,character, quality and dephts in my eyes.Sashandre

OK, I´ll do that --IsarSteve 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

More photos

Well, at least one good thing came out of having the World Cup Final as well as other important games in Berlin: There are now lots more Berlin photos at Flickr! I have just uploaded the following to Commons:

Anhalter Steg over the Landwehrkanal in Kreuzberg

Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing

Tegel Airport from the air

Sunset behind the Berlin skyline

Apartment blocks in Gropiusstadt

Elephant entrance to Berlin Zoo

Berlin panorama

Konzerthaus on Gendarmenmarkt

Turmstraße

Which if any of these would we like to add to this article? User:Angr 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Design City Berlin

I've compiled a list of links to many design institutions in Berlin (mesuems, agencies, schools, magazines, etc.), it is here — http://bact.blogspot.com/2006/07/design-city-berlin.html . -- 172.182.55.93 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Berlin Wiki Meetup

Suggested date, time, location
Suggestion: Monday, August 7, 2006 - 7 p.m./19.00 h Schleusenkrug , in the Tiergarten.


Some of us English-speaking Wikipedians from Berlin are going to meet up in August. If you'd like to join us, sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Berlin. Lear 21 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)