Talk:Berlin/Archive 7

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.

Contents 1 Standardization of Infobox and changes being reverted so quickly by one editor 2 Hacker Culture 3 Photo 4 People in the rain 5 Ambiguous word "Berlin" 6 Recommendations for improvement (minimal requirements for FA)

Standardization of Infobox and changes being reverted so quickly by one editor

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

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

Infobox German Bundesland used by all the other states of Germany Example: Brandenburg All 16 states together: here Berlin Central Berlin by night seen from the Allianz building Flag Coat of arms Location of Berlin within Europe Coordinates 52°31′00″N 13°25′00″E / 52.516667, 13.416667Coordinates: 52°31′00″N 13°25′00″E / 52.516667, 13.416667 Time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2) Administration Country Germany NUTS Region DE3 City subdivisions 12 boroughs Governing Mayor Klaus Wowereit (SPD) Governing parties SPD / Left Votes in Bundesrat 4 (of 69) Basic statistics Area  892 km² (344 sq mi) Elevation 34 - 115m Population 3,405,000 (11/2006)[1][2]  - Density 3,818 /km² (9,889 /sq mi)  - Urban 3,700,000  - Metro 4,262,480 (12/2004) Other information GDP/ Nominal € 80.3 billion (2006) Postal codes 10001–14199 Area codes 030 Licence plate code B Website berlin.de

Infobox City used by almost 4,000 articles on Wikipedia Example: London   Berlin Flag Coat of arms Location within Germany Location within Europe Coordinates: 52°31′07″N 13°24′30″E / 52.51861, 13.40833 Country Germany NUTS-Code DE3 State Berlin Subdivisions 12 boroughs Government  - Mayor Klaus Wowereit since 2001  - Governing Parties SPD / Linkspartei Area  - City 891.82 km² (344.3 sq mi) Elevation 34 - 115 m (112 - 377 ft) Population (05/2006)[1][2]  - City 3,398,888  - Density 3,818/km² (9,888.6/sq mi)  - Urban 3,675,000  - Larger Urban Zone 4,940,000 Postal code 10001–14199 Area code(s) 030 Website: www.berlin.de

Infobox German Location used by over 300 German articles on Wikipedia successor to {{Infobox Town DE}}) Example: Frankfurt Berlin Coat of arms Location Administration Country  Germany State Berlin District Urban district City subdivisions 12 boroughs Governing Mayor Klaus Wowereit (SPD) Governing parties SPD / Left Basic statistics Area 892 km² (344.4 sq mi) Elevation 34 - 115 m Population  3,398,888  (31/05/2006)[1][2]  - Density 3,810 /km² (9,869 /sq mi)  - Urban 3,675,000  - Metro 4,262,480 (12/2004) Other information Time zone CET/CEST (UTC+1/+2) Licence plate B Postal codes 10001–14199 Area code 030 Website www.berlin.de Location of Berlin within Europe Coordinates: 52°31′07″N 13°24′30″E / 52.51861, 13.40833

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

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

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

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

Along with Lear 21, I've made the modifications that I wanted to make to Infobox German Bundesland. The new look can be seen above. Therefore, I say that this template is ready for use on the Berlin page. Lear 21 has modified the manual infobox for Berlin to give a similar appearance. This is nice, but it is still a manual infobox and its slightly diffrent appearance still makes the Berlin entry inconsistent with the other entries for German states and cities. There are a number of objections that Lear 21 has for the use of the Bundesland template (along with my responses):

• Berlin is a state and a city: So is Hamburg and, to a lesser extent, Bremen. The Bundesland template contains some fields that only Berlin and Hamburg should use, and some that Berlin and Hamburg alone should not use. So any city-specific information can be handled here.
• Berlin is a capital: Irrelevant. Every major capital city in the world (London, Moscow, Tokyo, etc.) uses a template that is used by other locations within that country. Berlin should be no different.
• The Berlin article should display its location in Europe: An interesting point. I'm not sure what other people think about this. But IMO, the currently-used map displaying Germany's location within Europe is redundant and better suited to the Germany article. So my solution to this was to make a new map. Taking the map used for Moscow, I made Image:Berlin In Europe.png and it can be seen in the above infobox, instead of the previously-used map which is visible in the Infobox City version above. The map image used for different states is unimportant - map types can be different between entries, but infobox design should be consistent and entry modification should be easy for everyone. And the only way to do this is via templates.

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

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

The Bundesland layout is yet not satisfying. The orientation is the now existing Berlin infobox / roughly. The major deficiencies to be improved are:

• One COA and One flag ( Civil flag prefered), not more
• One map and another (the Berlin case) otpional /Image:Berlin In Europe.png is not acceptable
• Time zone and Coordinates below the map ( style is be to dicussed)
• Dividing lines to every entry in Administration section, plus Introduction of the State
• NUTS region above Country (more logic), plus optional flag presence (EU and Germany flag)
• Dividing lines to every entry in B S section
• No external links in Population
• Dividing lines to every entry in F I section, and Website to the left
• Infobox German Location should introduce dividing lines

Lear 21 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Going over each point:

• One COA and One flag ( Civil flag prefered), not more

Using one flag is fine with me, but how do you handle the case for Bavaria where there are 2 versions? The state flag is the one more commonly used so that one would be used - but the actual flag that each entry uses is not important.

This one [Image:Flag of Bavaria (lozengy).svg] Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• One map and another (the Berlin case) otpional /Image:Berlin In Europe.png is not acceptable

Why not? As it is at the moment, your version contains a redundant map. You now have one image telling you where Berlin is located in Europe. I have no idea why you're not satisified with this. I have never seen any other entry giving an additional continental image. If you can show me a situation where this is standard, then fair enough.

Already answered. Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been answered. I made that new map showing Berlin's location and you weren't satisfied. So what's the problem now? Again: show me one case where a continental map is used as standard in a case like this. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Time zone and Coordinates below the map ( style is be to dicussed)

Time zone normally goes at the very bottom (it is a minor piece of information). Many argue that having a time-zone field for a German entry is pointless since all of Germany has only one time zone anyway.

Time zone next to the Europe map makes sense.Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Europe has multiple time zones. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dividing lines to every entry in Administration section, plus Introduction of the State

Dividing lines should be used sparingly, since they make the box bigger and make it less clear to read. This is how it is normally done for states. Look at Florida.

Having a "state" field for an infobox that describes states is totally pointless. Berlin is not a city within the state of Berlin, Berlin is a city and state at the same time.

• NUTS region above Country (more logic), plus optional flag presence (EU and Germany flag)

Having NUTS before country is less logical. You have to start with the largest subdivision first (i.e. country). Using flag icons within infoboxes is a heavilly disputed issue in some parts. Personally, I don't mind either way.

• Dividing lines to every entry in B S section

Again doing it for every entry makes no sense. Having a line between population and population density for example unnecessarily breaks the infobox up too much

Either lines for every entry, or none. For layout reasonsLear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Did you look at the Florida entry? Or try the entry for the Dutch province Gelderland. For layout purposes you group relevant fields together (area with area-metro - population with density) for clarity. So sometimes you must have no lines. On the other hand, having no lines at all would jam everything together, making it unreadable. - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• No external links in Population

You need to cite where you got the data from - so people can check there occasionaly to see if it needs to be updated. If you have a problem with this particular field, just leave the pop_source field blank for this entry but do not delete the code from the template: people on other entries still find it useful

No external links in Wikipedia articles. Messes up the layout.Lear 21 11:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who? - 52 Pickup 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Format it like the population_footnotes parameter at {{Infobox City}}. See Toronto for sample use. –Pomte 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping to avoid writing the full citation code text for every entry, but the <ref> tags don't like template variables and just say [{{{pop_source}}} Source] in the references section. But now I have changed it to match the way it is done for Infobox City, and changed all the German state entries to match, including a reference section where necessary (eg. Bavaria). It does look better now, but it was a fair amount of work. The Location infobox will also need to be changed - but there are a about 50 articles that will be affected by the change, so it will have to be done carefully to avoid making a mess. - 52 Pickup 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dividing lines to every entry in F I section, and Website to the left

Here is the only case where dividing lines manke sense.

• Infobox German Location should introduce dividing lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say calm down unless the table is seriously detrimental to readers. One of the templates should definitely be used for the purposes of maintainability and standardization over time. Minor issue: It is sort of against WP:STYLE to capitalize all subheadings: "Basic statistics" and "Other information" look fine. The population row in {{Infobox German Location}} should look less confusing with vertical-align:top rather than vertical-align:middle. –Pomte 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am. The main reason for being strongly worded was to get the attention of other editors. It is better to get more editors involved besides Lear21 and 52 Pickup. We know their opinions (along with my two cents) at this point. It is best for others to voice an opinion—for, against, whatever. What isn't good, is not getting involved and letting two (sometimes three) editors banter back and forth over minor issues. Just trying to get more involved and it looks like it may have worked. Thank you, Pomte. —MJCdetroit 13:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Didn't you mean valign=bottom? Please correct if I'm mistaken. - 52 Pickup 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why bottom? I think the word "population" should line up with the number. Like "Governing parties" and "Licence plate code", if those wrap on your screen as well. –Pomte 07:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The alignment goes funny only when the citation point is given, since that then presses the number downwards. I've tried changing the alignments in a number of ways, but I just can't get it to look right. The best I have been able to do so far is to set the word "Population" to the bottom if a citation is given, to try keep level with the population number (the Bundesland template is also set this way). Feel free to play around with it. In Infobox City, this problem is averted by having the numbers on a different line. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Without getting too deep into the quirks of how exactly the template is formatted (those can be discussed indefinitely): the whole point of using templates is to have a standard layout for every article. Using hand-constructed "infoboxes" is strongly deprecated for this very reason; articles should not each have a differently-designed box at the top. Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put the Bundesland box from above into the article. If its design is insufficient, fix the design, but do not use a hand-made construction per Kirill. Kusma (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Europe map is not necessary and the flags are different. Kusma (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, I can't really read through all of your comments right now, but I have read that you want comments from other editors. I am currently worried about the flags/maps. I would prefer 1 flag and the coat of arms, and a map of Europe (or at least of Germany with its neighbors), where only German borders and Berlin are highlighted. Showing only Germany really doesn't make much sense, you cannot understand Berlin w/o a focus on it's location in Europe.--Johnnyw talk 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean something where not just Germany is shown, but it's connection to neighbouring countries, ocean, etc.? For example, like the US states (eg. Florida) or the French Regions (eg. Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur). That would be a nice idea, but so far I haven't found any such maps for Germany and I don't have time to make any at the moment. I had the same idea regarding the maps available for previous states of Germany - for example, the map on the German wiki for the Kingdom of Prussia (Image:Deutsches Reich (Karte) Preußen.svg) gave the position of Prussia nicely within the German Empire, but it lacked further context. So I made a new one which told you more (Image:Map-DR-Prussia.svg). You just have to make sure that you do not zoom out too much - otherwise the map starts to lose its meaning. If such maps were available for the German modern states, then the separate European map would be even less necessary than it is now. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rearding the flags, it does look a little messy having two, but they both appear necessary. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlin does have two flags, so we shouldn't hide one of them. Kusma (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest linking civil flag and state flag to Flags of German states so the reader can know about the difference. However, it does say the state flag is for government use only, and we're not a government. Is it widely used to warrant this? –Pomte 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking is a good idea. If the flags had separate articles a link could be made similar to that available for coat of arms (see Baden-Württemberg). As for which flag(s) to use, I live in Hesse and you next to never see the civil flag here. The same could be said for when I used to live in NRW. It's hard to say. - 52 Pickup 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I lived in Berlin my entire live, and to be honest, I hardly see any flags waving in Berlin so it's hard to tell.. but I'd reckon the state flag if any. And to help out I'll create a map as I proposed tomorrow, maybe you'll like the idea, too. Johnnyw talk 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The civil flag is of minor political relevance. The official Landesflagge (State flag) is the one representing the Bundesland. The new map would at best show Berlin in EU - Europe highlighting Germany as a country. The emphasized Germany should also show all German Bundesländer. The (Image:European Union vector map III.svg) gives a color orientation. Lear 21 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a special map for Berlin only. If we want an infobox, we should use a standard infobox for all states; if we use different kinds of maps or different choices of flags it defeats the idea of standardization. If there are problems with the current infobox, they should be debated at Template talk:Infobox German Bundesland. Kusma (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Berlin has capital status as well, compare Washington, D.C. for using different maps. The old infobox and the new Bundesland template differ in only few design aspects. Until the map and flag problem is not addressed the old infobox will be kept in place. Lear 21 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington, DC doesn't have a map that shows where in North America it is, either, so I don't quite see your point. Kusma (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP introducing unsufficient Infobox templates. Again The civil flag is of minor political relevance. The official Landesflagge (State flag) is the one representing the Bundesland. No other flag is needed here. The continental map is of high relevance and necessary to the understanding of the Berlin location. Until these problems are not solved in the Bundesland Template a replacement of the old infobox won´t happen. Lear 21 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The flag "problem" is solved in the Bundesland template, as it works with only one flag just as well as with two. The continental map with EU is rather silly, as there is no relevance of the EU countries for this article. your last sentence violates WP:OWN: Wikipedia works by consensus, not by forcing your will on others. Kusma (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

My reply will be best be summed up at this address [1].  MJCdetroit 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

In my opinion, if I had to choose I'd pick the first map "Berlin in Europe". Keep it simple. —MJCdetroit 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the same map, but at higher resolution and showing a smaller section of Europe, e.g. only Germany and it's neighbors.--Johnnyw talk 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense. - 52 Pickup 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the major American city articles integrate more than one map in the infobox. Keeping both maps would bring "Berlin" in line with the other Bundesländer and its location as a city in the EU. It needs a customized solution here. Plus: There is probably no doubt that the second map "EU location Berlin" is of superior content and aesthetic value. Lear 21 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with your claims that the "EU location Berlin" map is aesthetically better. The colour scheme used needs reworking, and it is near unreadable when used at the size that you propose - it's way too small. The only way that such a full map of Europe can be of any use is if you make it bigger. The German Location infobox has the ability to display a second map at the infobox base, generally in order to zoom in further on the region (examples: Wiesbaden and Husum (Schleswig)), but I don't see why this shouldn't be used to zoom out if absolutely necessary. The Bundeland template so far does not have this feature, so I have modified the above Location sample to demonstrate. But that colour scheme still needs work. - 52 Pickup 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnnyw, that showing Germany's location within the EU is not needed. Just show Germany and her neighbors. —MJCdetroit 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to adjust the SVG accordingly but having trouble, it seems messed up when I try to open it with GIMP. If anyone knows an alternative image or is more capable, it'd be appreciated =) Johnnyw talk 09:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A program like Inkscape should do the job for the map, but still having a map displaying the whole of Europe is pretty pointless. I have just modified the infobox to show only the civil flag - at first this was to see how it would look, but while in the middle of it I got a PM from Lear21 threatening to revert all 15 other infoboxes to manual ones because he simply couldn't have both flags present. I really don't care either way, but I can do without having to deal with such childish behaviour. - 52 Pickup 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the point, I wanted to crop the image to focus on Germany with the adjacent countries only.. since I am having an exam on Friday, I won't lift a finger for a couple of days.. I hope you guys behave in the meanwhile. There really is no point in fighting this much, remember: Angry mastodons died out a long time ago.. keep your chins up :) Johnnyw talk 15:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

De-evolving 15 infoboxes...yea...that's not gonna happen. There's too many people to prevent that. It's good to see that Johnnyw takes his studies seriously because the one thing this world doesn't need is another dumb-ass. Good luck on the exam! —MJCdetroit 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for quite a while but there wasn't really much I could say... I cropped 52 Pickup's Berlin in Europe image a bit. I must agree that two maps look rather clumsy though the two flags should stay. And I too hope that your exam went well Johnnyw.Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Redone image

Well, the exam behind me (I think I did alright :), I rather had s.th. like the second one in mind: Johnnyw talk 11:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hacker Culture

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

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

The Transmediale festival is worth mentioning. Specific hacker activities are to detailed for the main article. Lear 21 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Says who? why is the HQ of MTV not "too detailed" them? Who cares? Also, why is Transmediale OK and Wizard of OS (which wikipedia had a major presence at) not OK? Both are major festivals. Why is it OK to mention several theatres and operas, and even several nightclubs, but not world-famous technology and culture centres like Tesla at Podewil, Bootlab and C-Base? Why is discussing the history of the electrical system relevant, but not the highly influential wireless community network? This sort of pompous, arbitrary deletionism is highly damaging to the wiki community. If you want to make an intelligent argument, please say something substantive, not simple "too detailed." Other Comments? --85.178.7.4 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Dmytri Kleiner

I tend to agree (as someone in the Berlin "hacker culture") that the current one-sentence version is roughly what's appropriate for the main article. As a side-note, I feel like section on clubs is overly detailed and at points inaccurate (notably that several of the mentioned clubs have been closed for a good while) and I'll probably trim that down in the near future. Scott.wheeler 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Photo

Why does it matter which photo is on? Kingjeff 19:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ User:IsarSteve : The established quality of this article lead to an internationally acknowledged source of reference. The content and diction has influenced articles in the anglosaxon sphere from NYT, FT, The Times and many others. Comercial sites, International Property firms, Congress organizers, Student Exchange Programs from Harvard University have drawn information and word choice from this article. See my userpage if you are in doubt of my international experience. Be sure that my education includes an external Berlin perspective. Many hundreds of articles published in the last 10 years in almost all English speaking countries dealing with Berlins history and contemporary situation are of my knowledge (see "References" section). Be sure that these influences, the comparison with all other Berlin Wikipedia articles (in other languages), and the knowledge of numerous Non-German history books and Berlin Tourist Guides are contributing to the very complex and DIVERSE! content of this article. Lear 21 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lear, appealing to authority is not an appropriate response to the doubts of a fellow editor in my opinion. @everyone: He addresses two issues: the image of the U-Bahn (although I love the Oberbaumbrücke), a shot of a more typical, read "underground", station might be justified (maybe with a move of the image to the Oberbaumbrücke-article). The second is the claim about the diversity of Berlin's heritage, which could be discussed (in a different thread of discussion please) more objectively if we knew the exact statement IsarSteve objects to - if he is merely objecting to your statement above, well then we could forget about the heritage statement and just agree on the fact that Berlin as a city, is diverse, which can hardly be disputed and supports the argument of having a skyline or s.th. similar as the opening image.. Johnnyw talk 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lear 21 and Johnnyw Thank you both for your comments. I would agree that "THE" Berlin of 2007 is a diverse city, but I'm afraid its heritage isn't. It is light years away from catching up with London or New York in that respect. That is in my opinion, one of its strengths and wasn't meant negatively.

I do object to the heritage statements above because Berlin wasn't even classed as a "Weltstadt" (World City) until the early twentieth Century. It was the capital of a small German State that came good in 1871. I'm happy to expand on this somewhere else if necessary.

Regarding the U-Bahn image. I agree that the Oberbaumbrücke is one of the U-Bahn's and Berlin's most interesting structures, but it isn't purely an U-Bahn structure and of course its presence here is to depict the Berlin U-Bahn, which is actually an "underground railway". There are many "scenic" U-Bahn stations that are architecturally interesting but more importantly Underground! : Heidelberger Platz, Onkel-Toms-Hütte, Nollendorfplatz or Krumme Lanke to name just a few. That is why I think the image should be changed.

I also object very much to Lears attitude to other contributors opinions and although I haven't been active here for quite a while I still do keep up with what's going on.--IsarSteve 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

People in the rain

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

Ambiguous word "Berlin"

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

Instead, the German city is all I see here, no disambigutation at all. Please fix!

There's a link right at the very top that says "For other uses, see Berlin (disambiguation)". —Angr 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement (minimal requirements for FA)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1626 km, use 1626 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1626&nbsp;km.^[?]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 331.5 km. **MJCdetroit (see below)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• • No, please don't. I carefully made sure all the spellings were American sometime last year because that's how the article began. I'll give it another once-over soon. —Angr 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's more than ok with me. I didn't mention that the spellings tended to change from American to Imperial the further down in the article I got. That's why I made that statement. —MJCdetroit 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The only British spelling I found was one instance of "programme". What others did you see? —Angr 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed there are still many bits of pieces I wrote in the article. At that time I wrote them in the "Queens English" :-) and I think "Programme" was one of my misdemeanours.. --IsarSteve 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (the notorious!)