Talk:Berlin/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Berlin. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Protected

The article is now protected due to edit-warring for seven days. Please engage in constructive discussions and find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, please place a note at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to editors questions on my talk page: Yes, we always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the other question regarding the "ugliness" of the tag, well, that is the tag all articles get when they get protected due to content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction / City size

To estimate the city size in terms of population, 2 measures are sufficient. First priority and standard measure is the city population within city limits. It is the territory, where political power is exercised (the mayor or governor).This measure is used in almost all Wiki city articles, several other media and encyclopedia. A ranking system deriving from this number is accurate, standard in Wikipedia and results in the conclusion: Berlin is the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU. The phrase is unquestionable accurate and needs no rephrasing like "...2.most ... city proper". Every other measure (urban / metro area) or even ranking system is not credibly sourced by one authority or (in this case: 9.largest...) includes non-city-agglomerations leading to heterogen lists. To estimate the "true" size of the city in broader sense, the number of the metro area (LUZ) is given and therefore sufficient. Endless adding of population subcategories will also lead to overcrowded introduction paragraphs and looses focus, which is not helpful. The demanded extra information by user:Keizuko is useless without the related number of 3.7 mil and is on the other hand already included in 'Demographics' and the infobox. Lear 21 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for a little cultural-context (not in response to Lear 21) -- Germans tend to be semi-offended by metro-area rankings since they list the very-obviously-not-a-city, decentralized, Ruhrgebiet as the largest metro-area in Germany. Scott.wheeler 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is not a trivial problem of too much information in the introduction as Lear21 is cunningly implying; it's actually a POV problem. For months now, Lear21 has been preserving this "Berlin is the second most populous city in the European Union" sentence in the introduction by systematically reverting any editor who dared to change the sentence. Note that this mirrors the German Wikipedia where Berlin is also trumpeted as the second largest city in the EU. Interestingly enough, this claim doesn't appear in any other Wikipedia I know of (French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, etc.), it only appears in the German Wikipedia.

This claim is based purely on administrative borders, by comparing municipalities within their administrative borders across the EU. The problem is that different countries across the EU have different ways to draw the administrative borders of their municipalities. In some countries like France and Greece, the municipalities are very tiny and encompass only the most central part of cities, whereas in other countries like Germany and the UK the borders of the municipalities are set so that the municipalities include a lot of the suburbs, and so the municipalities are very large. Comparing the population living within municipalities across EU countries is therefore like comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, but if at least the entire urban area of Berlin (disrespective of administrative borders) was the 2nd most populated in the EU, the claim that Berlin is the 2nd most populous city in the EU would have some credential, but in reality Berlin is only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. The municipality of Berlin is very large, having been enlarged in 1920, and encompasses most of Berlin's suburbs. The municipality covers 892 km² of land within which there live 3.4 million people. In Paris, for comparison, the central municipality is very small and encompasses only the most central part of the agglomeration, but if you take 892 km² of land around Notre Dame Cathedral, there live about 7.5 million people within these 892 km². In London, if you take the 892 km² around Trafalgar Square there live about 6 million people within these 892 km². I'm not going to make the calculation for Madrid, Barcelona and Milan, but these figures show that claiming that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU is a bit POV and can only lead to endless controversies.

Personally I agree with Angr that the sentence should be completely removed from the article. If people absolutely want to keep a ranking in the introduction, then the ranking should mention that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city within adminstrative city limits in the EU but only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. Keizuko 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

City	Area	Population (2006)
Paris	892 km² around Notre Dame Cathedral	7.5 million
London	892 km² around Trafalgar Square	6.0 million
Madrid	892 km² around Puerta del Sol	4.2 million
Berlin	City-State of Berlin (892 km²)	3.4 million

To sum it up (I've also made the calculation for Madrid):

Keizuko 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with stating both rankings? Anorak2 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the ranking of Berlin in the EU relevant at all? It's like giving the ranking of Berlin within NATO or the G8. There's only one administrative region where Berlin's relative size is relevant, and that's the Federal Republic of Germany. By the same token, it's absurd that the map in the infobox is a map of Berlin's location in the EU; again, it's like showing Berlin's location within NATO or the G8. The map should show Berlin's location within Germany, like every other article on a German city does. —Angr 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason is probably that wikipedia has lists of "largest cities in the EU" and "largest urban areas in the EU". I think it's interesting to compare a city to other cities in the same continent, not just the same country. Unfortunately we don't have (reliable) such lists for Europe as a continent. Comparison within the EU is the next best thing, so why not. The wikipedia article for London refers to the same lists. Anorak2 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UT

Germany is part of the EU, like California is part of the US. It is relevant therefore to present EU cities in comparison like any other political entity (China, Russia). @Angr: Read the EU article to understand what is the difference between NATO and EU. The real issue: Administrative city territories remain first priority and point of references. This is standard and NO POV ! Again: NO POV! No other criteria is more factual. The city of Berlin IS the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU, there is nothing to debate about. It is not the business of an introduction to put every statement in perspective. It is rather the business of city articles with special city territories (like the mentioned Paris) to explain the nature of their city size. The subsections have room for more details. The 'ninth largest' is not significant enough to be a mentionable feature in the introduction and is not even sourced by an international authority. Lear 21 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany's being part of the EU is nothing at all like California's being part of the US. The US is a sovereign nation; the EU is a transnational organization like the UN, the G8, or NATO. There's no reason for the EU to be mentioned in the article about Berlin at all. —Angr 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the EU article and related sources. Come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Lear 21 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Angr is right in the sense that the EU is not a unified nation. Each country have their own administrative rules, so it makes no sense to compare huge German and British municipalities of hundreds of square kilometers with tiny French and Greek municipalities of only a few square kilometers. If you want to compare city sizes, you have to use urban areas, disrespective of administrative borders, otherwise it's like comparing apples and oranges. Keizuko 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reality is the EU has no constitution, no military, no head of state, no head of government, no capital, nothing that a sovereign country has. It isn't a country, and it has no relevance for Berlin. —Angr 15:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If consequently applied, I could also argue: Austria is German speaking, why not include it´s population to Germany´s 82. mil. A city is defined by it´s city limits, every other criteria can be dealt with in subsections. The Metro Area of 4.9 mil is mentioned and that is sufficient. Sorry, but an unsourced 'ninth-largest' of whatever is not relevant for the introduction. Lear 21 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A city is defined by its city limits, really? Then what do you do with these cities around the world who do not exist administratively speaking (i.e. there is no municipality), and therefore have no city limits? For example: Lagos, Mexico City, Tokyo. The municipalities in these cities were abolished (in the 1920s in Mexico City, in the 1940s in Tokyo, in the 1970s in Lagos), so if we follow your definition these cities don't exist, they are just a blob of urbanized land in the middle of their countries. You see, that's the problem Lear21, you want to apply a GERMAN DEFINITION to the rest of the world. Just accept that other countries have different definitions of what a city is. A city is not necessarily equal to a municipality as is the case in Germany. In some countries cities are fragmented into lots of municipalities (e.g. Paris which is fragmented into literally hundreds of tiny municipalities), in other countries the municipality level simply doesn't exist and the cities are directly governed by provincial or higher level (e.g. Tokyo and Lagos). Keizuko 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevant how other parts in the world define the City. This article includes an EU measure and an EU list. In the EU the vast majority have city limits and an administrative territory. If there are existing exceptions (Paris, Athens) it must be dealt within the respective articles. Lear 21 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out here that I find it extremely contentious here that after something of a debate, where it is clear that there is not a concensus, immediately after protection is removed, Lear 21 reverts, for all practical purposes resuming the edit war. My personal preference would be to list its ranking as an urban area and "within city limits". As long as they're wiki-linked to the appropriate lists, readers can explore more context as they choose. As for relevance or not ... well, I find it interesting. People keep turning to logical extremes here as if they had any bearing on casual statements. "This is the only real measure of a city..." Well, a city is a concept, they've existed since before people drew imaginary lines and counted the people inside of them. "The EU is just like NATO..." Well, no, it's not. The EU is a special case somewhere between a state and a supernational union and it certainly has a lot more relevance in day to day life than NATO. The real questions aren't "Is this The One True Way of Measuring or Is This Just A Treaty Organization?" but "Can we say something meaningful that people are interested in reading?" In the latter case I think the answer is "yes" and that the "frozen" wording was a pretty good attempt at such. Scott.wheeler 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution may lay in attribution. Rather than assert this or that as a fact, we can simply attribute an assertion to those that make it, as in "According to the EU, this and that, and according to other sources this and the other" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but as just exemplified as our war gets going again, on anything well known and even slightly contentious, finding sources to support opposing viewpoints is trivial. Concensus, common sense, and basic editing skill can't be replaced by an arbitrarily long list of sources.  :-) Scott.wheeler 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lear21 used the lack of source as an excuse to revert the article to his disputed version, so now at least he can't use this as an excuse anymore. Otherwise, I agree that the only way to solve this is finding some sort of consensus here. Lear21 stil believes he can solve it by reverting people and wearing us out as he's done for many months now (it seems we're facing a typical case of article ownership here, some people have already complained about it from what I can read in this talk page). The only way out, however, is not reverting and wearing people out, it's finding some sort of consensus. Personally, I still think, like Angr, that we should remove these rankings altogether from the article. They are unnecessary and controverial. We can write that Berlin is "ONE OF the largest European cities", without being more specific, it's perfectly fine, and at any rate much better than the über-claim that Berlin is the second-largest city in the EU. Keizuko 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The urban area criteria is not a standard measure and superfluous. It is neither found in American city articles and a more than rare criteria among European city articles. This is also expressed by the fact that the respective INSEE list is only available in 3 languages. City rankings referring to city limits and metro areas are accepted and most spread among the vast majority of city articles (plus: translated in several major languages, resulting to higher relevance). AGAIN: In the 21. century cities have borders and are statistically measured and ranked. AGAIN 2: The 'ninth largest' of whatever is not significant enough to be mentioned in the introduction. Lear 21 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, you've got to be willing to compromise a little here. It's been mentioned several times here that other editors do not agree that a city and its size are purely defined by its administrative borders. You obviously disagree here, but please note that your opinion, relative to those expressed here, is in the minority. The "ninth in..." is at least relevant to contextualize the first statement and I don't see any reason that it's fundamentally uninteresting. Looking through World's largest cities it seems that most in the top 10-15 list their relative ranking (amusingly, often inaccurately) in the article pages. Also of note on that page is that you have to get to #20 before you hit the first "city" that is a "city proper". (Update: Uff, too many tabs open, fixed the link to the one I'd been looking at.) Scott.wheeler 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that city size can be measured by several indicators. Among the Wiki City articles the least used term/ indicator is the urban area. The vast majority concentrates on the City limits and Metropolitan area. It is also most represented in the infoboxes. This is already the case here. Note that an introduction can´t provide multiple details on the same topic. If there is a need to further elaborate it can be done in subsections. By the way, this too, is already the case in the Berlin article. It clearly identifies several indicators including its numbers. Lear 21 09:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all the countries measure metropolitan areas, so we don't have data for all the metropolitan areas of the European Union, therefore it is not possible to give the rank of the Berlin metro area in the EU. That's the reason why the rank of the Berlin urban area is used, because here we have a homogenous set. Keizuko 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This articles integrates the highest standards (FA) and most spread layouts and contents among Wiki City articles. Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, which is rarely used by European City articles and even more seldom by any other city article? Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, while already 2 exist, which are Standard and are adopted by the most important Wiki languages? The current version even inlcudes the reference itself (INSEE), this is improper citation and is No standard by any quality article. I repeat: NO standard at all! Furthermore: User:Keizuko has no record of integrating this superfluous indicator in any other City article apart from this one. Neither London , nor Rome, nor Madrid. Answer: The user is unable to accept the factual reality presented in this articles introduction. THAT is POV! The well established trimmed version will be reintroduced tommorrow. all the best Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both London and Madrid mention both city-proper population and metropolitan area population, as does Paris. Neither Rome nor Madrid nor Paris, however, mentions the city's ranking within the European Union. And none of these city articles has a map in the infobox showing the city's location within the EU. London's map shows its location within England (not even within the UK!), and Paris's, Rome's, and Madrid's show their locations within France, Italy, and Spain respectively. There is very little precedent for putting so much emphasis on the EU. There is still no reason at all to say anything more than that Berlin is the largest city in Germany and to use the map showing Berlin's location within Germany. The EU is irrelevant to this article. —Angr 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

@Angr: Read the EU article, learn why the EU is the 'second' country to EU citizens, AND, come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Plus, and even more important, your raised topic is not the issue of this discussion. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lear, I have read the EU article, and it reveals that your understanding of it is what is light years away from reality. The EU is not a "second" country to anyone, it isn't a country at all. And there is no such thing as an "EU citizen" (except as a shorthand phrase for "citizen of an EU member state") since each member state has its own citizenship laws and issues its own passports. And my point is essential to this discussion, because the best way to resolve the disagreement between you and all the other editors regarding how much irrelevant information to include is to remove all the irrelevant information. —Angr 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling on this is that it's an interesting, relevant, and sourcable piece of information. Though, to contrast that, I'd prefer the map to be a German-only map. As Lear 21 is obviously very pro-EU and you're obviously fairly anti-EU (for lack of a better prefix than anti- -- I don't mean this in an insulting way to either of you; you just seem to be on relative polls of the EU-spectrum) I'd like to hear some other editors takes on this. Scott.wheeler 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, I'm not actually anti-EU in a political sense; I'm not a Euroskeptic. I just don't think it's appropriate to treat the EU as the political equivalent of the U.S. The sequence "Berlin < Germany < EU" is not parallel to the sequence "Los Angeles < California < U.S.". Rather, it's equivalent to the sequence "Los Angeles < U.S. < NAFTA", and (without actually look at the article to check) I'm fairly certain the article Los Angeles does not mention the city's relative size within NAFTA nor have a map showing the city's location within NAFTA. —Angr 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is wether to include a 3. indicator concerning the city size or not. Your topic has been discussed wiht your attendance some months ago. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed at /Archive 5#EU has country status. And there the consensus was that the EU is not a country and its flag does not belong in the infobox (the map hadn't been uploaded to Commons yet at that point). And there, as here, you were the only person arguing against the consensus. And again at /Archive 7#Standardization of Infobox and changes being reverted so quickly by one editor you were the only person arguing to have the map of Berlin in the EU; everyone else preferred the map of Berlin in Germany or didn't have a preference. (I wasn't involved in that discussion; at that point I had taken Berlin off my watchlist because I was sick of you WP:OWNing the article and not allowing anything to happen without your imprimatur.) And both times you still got your way because you just kept reverting and reverting and reverting back to your preferred version until everyone else was tired of arguing with you about it. And you're doing that again. —Angr 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

.....Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded.....CIA World Factbook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.41 (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: The larger EU Map is far better. The english wikipedia ist probably the most international one, many users have no idea where single countries like Germany are located exactly. You can't compare that to the native german wiki. It makes sense to show both the postion of Germany in Europe and Berlin in Germany in a single pic. There is no need to cut out information.

The city size: The second sentence about Berlin shouldnt start with a link to an unknown french statistical organization. Comparing urban areas is another difficult topic. The Ruhr area is not a city but a broad cluster of several independent cities which would never identify themself as a single city. The same applies to the 'double cities' of Brussels-Antwerp. Maybe we can find a better soultion here. --Unify 14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, other articles on cities in Europe have maps showing the city's location in its country, not in the EU. Anyone who doesn't know where Germany is can click on the link to Germany to find out; frankly, anyone who doesn't know where Germany is is unlikely to be reading an article about Berlin in the first place. Showing something relatively small on a map that's too big for it is really unuseful. For example, compare the old map showing where Slovenian is spoken with the new one. The old map shows half the planet and has a tiny green spot on it for Slovenian; useful for someone who has no idea where Slovenia is, perhaps, but not useful to most people likely to be reading the article. The new map zooms in on the country and its surrounding areas; you might say it "cuts out information", but it's actually a much more useful map as it shows where exactly the language is spoken outside Slovenia (what parts of Italy, Austria, and Hungary). The same goes here: showing a map of Europe with a tiny dot on it for Berlin isn't actually very informative; showing a map of Germany with the entire area of Berlin visible (showing, for example, the relative size of Berlin compared to the other Bundesländer) is. —Angr 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the position of Berlin in both Germany and Europe as a more useful information than the relative size of Berlin compared to Germany in a greater detail (besides the ratio is about 1:400 km²). The Europe map is a vector file, you can click on it and expand it to any size, so you can see Berlin/Germany in detail if you want to. --Unify 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Page unprotected

I have removed the protection to afford a chance to involved editors to prove that they can edit without engaging in edit wars (and to stop one of you from continued harassment of my talk page). I will be keeping a close eye on the article, so please note that any further recurring edit warring may result in the temporarily loss of editor's editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I extend my warning again: discuss and reach an agreement instead of reverting. There is no reason why editors cannot reach a compromise on this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reintroduction of European map

The map Image:EU location Berlin.svg provides a comprehensive understanding of the city´s location compared to the single Germany map without borders. It should be reinstalled to the Infobox. It has been suggested that the map Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg is in line with other Bundesländer infoboxes. BUT: Berlin is primarily recognized as a city AND the capital. The capital status is dominating in this case. The landlocked location of Germany within Europe and the degree of integration in the EU creates the necessity of a broader perspective. It has been suggested that the European map is not in line with other city articles. This is true but neglects the fact that most of the maps in Wiki City articles are unsufficient in the first place. Worst examples are London and all American City articles, which can´t provide a proper location in their respective countries. Exception: Washington, the capital. The EU-Berlin map is of superior content quality, there is no need to cut down valuable extra information. Lear 21 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you should at least make sure that the EU is depicted correctly. Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of Man are part of the Union. athinaios 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Lear, why not just give a map showing Berlin's location in the Milky Way Galaxy? It would provide even more information and context, and be just as useful as this one! —Angr 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone from the other side of the planet, I would rather see Berlin's location within a smaller context—it's country—Germany and not the EU or Europe. If I (or other people) want to know where Germany is located within the EU or Europe, we'll just click the link to Germany which is right under the map section. This is the in the same manner in which if someone reading the Chicago article wants to know where Illinois is in the United States, they'll just click the link under the map of Illinois depicting Chicago's location. From that they'll put two and two together and can figure out where the proper location of Chicago is within the United States (if they had no idea where is was to begin with). People are smart enough to figure out these things. The Berlin-Germany was superior and was more valuable to the outside reader. —MJCdetroit 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a larger first map of Chicago with its position marked in the States as I had no Idea where it was situated (excuse my bad education) and a more detailed map in the article. But the Chicago article introduces something interesting, a 'double map' with both wide and detailed view. Maybe someone could create something similar for Berlin and other european cities. --Unify 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While my personal preference would be for the EU map, for the sake of consistancy I believe that this needs to be changed back to the Germany map. I just went through the 20 largest cities in the EU and Berlin is the only one that is not shown only within its own country. That's a pretty strong precedent. Scott.wheeler 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the map of the EU should not and will not be added because on all other articles about capital cities of EU member states there is no map of the EU. Unless you go and change the maps in all the other articles then you can change the one on here, until they the map needs to stay the way it is. Lear21 is German and has a huge bias toward the EU, that is the only reason why he is doing this. If you changes the map again just revert his edits, and if he continues report him to an admin agian. Daniel Chiswick 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a moment, I don't really understand that. A) Is there some wiki convention for European city articles that prescribes national maps? If not, we should discuss that Euro map on its own informative merits, notwithstanding what other articles do. If there was consensus that the Euro map improves this article, the user in question would ve perfectly entitled to insert it without changing maps in any other article. B) Why exactly is the nationality of the user who favours the Euro map relevant? Does everyone who enters this discussion need to declare their nationality and views on Europe now? C) Germany was clearly visible on the Berlin-in-Europe map, so the map simply offered a bit more information. What's wrong with that? athinaios 08:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of that discussion reminds me of AON. Non of the other european city articles is featured (at least I havent found one), so we dont need to copy their 'first pic'. @Daniel: Be careful with your accusation towards other users. Looks like you have some personal bias too. --Unify 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel is correct—Lear does have a huge bias toward the EU which does cause conflicts at times. If Lear could take the Berlin in Germany map and have a small insert of Berlin in the EU/Europe (similar to Washington D.C.), I would support that. I feel that the larger Berlin in Germany map is more valuable. —MJCdetroit 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But why is the Berlin-in-Germany map more valuable? Both maps clearly show the position and size of Berlin within Germany. The European map also shows where Berlin is in relation to a lot of other places. The only extra information contained in the Berlin-in-Germany map is how far Berlin is from, say, the Border between Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate. Are many users likely to be concerned with that (or even know what it means)? Nonetheless, I think a dual solution, like the DC one may be the best way to solve this, to make both sides happy. athinaios 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Athinaios, Unify and this one . @ Scott.wheeler : It is certainly a 'precedent' among EU cities, but an improved one. This city article has introduced repeatedly new layout features, which have been later adopted by several other Wiki languages and other city articles. As other users have suggested there are no conventions on that issue as well. @MJCdetroit and Daniel Chiswick: Read the EU article or other sources like CIA World Fact Book or IMF statistics and understand why the EU is a relevant category in this case. Plus: The Europe map IS presenting the location within Germany and adds the European perspective. THAT is of higher value. As long as there are no other convincing solutions available (Washington), the Europe-Berlin-map will be reintroduced as it was for more than a year. Lear 21 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, the map is still incorrect (see my comment near the top of this thread). athinaios 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, I see a minor contradiction but no principal fault. Lear 21 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How so? The section of the Channel Islands article you link to contains the following sentence (quote): "The islands are not part of the European Union". The Isle of Man article (by the way, I think you should look at the map used there!) states that "The Isle of Man holds neither membership nor associate membership of the European Union". A minor contradiction? athinaios 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

People might come to this article to know where Berlin is. The map showing Berlin among the German states does a much better job at this than the larger map, showing the whole of Europe. Eg. on the smaller map, we can see the shape of state of Berlin. Now, if somebody sees the map but doesn't know where Germany is, I propose we add a link above the map to the Germany article where there is a map showing the location of Germany within Europe. Stefán 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

@Athinaios: "The islands are not part of the European Union, but are part of the Customs Territory of the European Community, by virtue of Protocol Three to the Treaty on European Union." The EC is part of the EU! This discussion could certainly go on with endless details to be mentioned. Fact is: The map and the EU territory is 99.9% correct. 0.1% remains disputed. I call this accurate, as many written claims have a disputable potential. @Edinborgarstefan: The Europe map shows clearly the location within Germany AND provides the EU perspective. This is more information quality. The shape of the city state Berlin is presented twice and in detail in the respective sections. Lear 21 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are telling me that the islands are part of the Customs Union, the Customs Union is part of the EEC, the EEC is part of the EU, and thus, so are the islands? In spite of the fact that in both cases it is clearly stated that they are not in the EU? They are not even in the UK. Which part of not in the Union suggests a dispute to you? Check here and here. The fact that they may participate in aspects of the EU does not change that. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland participate in the Schengen agreement, but thankfully are not included in the Berlin-in-EU map. The map is not 99.9% correct: as a map of the EU, it is wrong. It may, however, depict Berlin's location within the Customs Union of the European Economic Community (depending on the Italian exceptions). Alternatively, why not make it simply a map of Europe? athinaios 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to use Inkscape to modify the map and create a combinted one. But its pretty confusing. Maybe someone is more talented. --Unify 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to blow the image up to 1000px wide to even see the Channel Islands, but what's visible even at thumbnail size is the fact that Moldova seems to have become a very large lake. —Angr 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

@Athinaios: It was obvious that the Channel Islands argument is going to be a hairsplitting one. But I´m going to be more precise: The EU map locates all 27 member states correctly = 100% accuracy! There are territories included, which are neither EU members but are included in the EC. These territories amount to less than 0.01 % either in population or area. The conclusion is that the map is correct to about 99,99%. all the best Lear 21 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lear, it's not that I don't see your point. But in my personal experience, Manx people (considerably more visible than the Channel Islands) are touchy (for whatever reason) about the fact that they are not in, and that everyone keeps ignoring that. I think they'd argue that they are not even within the UK as a state, which is at least technically correct. My understanding is that both entities claim some form of statehood of their own. Frankly, it does not matter all that much in this particular context (Berlin), so I give up, although it always disappoints me to see that even those who take a positive interest in the EU tend to be very sloppy about its detail. In any case, I hope you succeed in the main argument here, namely whether to have to have the map included here, or preferably that you come up with a good dual solution, but I also hope that an eventual success will not lead to a proliferation of what remains a somewhat miselading map. athinaios 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: This morning, on the way to the shops, I was handed a leaflet advertising a language school. It displayed a map of Europe and small part of the Near East. What caught may attention is that it was also showing two Germanies! Now, in my book, that map is wrong. Considering that another 52 (or so) states are depicted correctly, I presume for you, Lear, it would be 98% correct? athinaios 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While you had some conversation, I fixed the map. --Unify 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiffing. :) What program did you use? Nothing on my PC appears to be able to open svg files. athinaios 13:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the freeware Inkscape, but you might take a look here: Comparison of vector graphics editors --Unify 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Lear 21 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel (and others), your argument "It is Berlin, Germany and not Berlin, Germany, European Union" is at least disputable. I don't know how much time you have spent in Berlin or elsewhere in the EU, but if you live here and look at stuff like a) what it says in and on your passport/driving licence, b) the currency you use, c) the economic systems you are part of, and d) where the laws that apply to you originate from (and so on and so on), it is indeed, to a considerable extent, Berlin, Germany, European Union. Is that somehow annoying to you? If so, may one ask why? As regards the other part of your argument "no other article on capitals of EU members have maps like this", first of all, it's not true. Look at Madrid, Helsinki and Stockholm. You should probably start the same discussion there. Also, even if Berlin was the only article were a European map was used, so what? There is no set standard or guideline for articles on European capitals, to my knowledge, and since wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, there is no reason why one should see other articles as precedents to that extent. The argument has to be about which map is more informative or useful, not about what information is or isn't contained in other articles. Personally, I would still be in favour of a dual map (like the Washington, D.C., Madrid or Liechtenstein ones), although strictly speaking, in my view, one of the two maps that are now constantly alternating on this page shows the position of Berlin both in Germany and in Europe. Alas, I'm not good at making maps. athinaios (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was so bold as to add an alternative image, suggesting a compromise between both options. Feel free to remove/replace or modify it. athinaios (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It think it looks convenient. I uploaded a higher resolution version of it. Anyway its still a raster bitmap .png file and not a vector file. But copy&paste don't seem to work in inkscape, so I don't get the job done. --Unify (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Do we need more than a screen's worth of resolution? I guess why not... I have the same problem you have regarding vectors, but frankly, I think the visual result is the same. I hope we can settle for this a reasonable compromise. Should we make sure that the order given in the title ("within Germany and EU") is reflected by the order in the actual image, or do we assume that no-one's going to be that picky? athinaios (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems watching svg files in your browser, you probably use firefox. The infamous Internet Explorer comes along with a free plugin from adobe to zoom in vector files in your browser (right click on the pic). Firefox is supposed to have full support of svg files in version 3.00 or later. For some reason there is not even a plugin for firefox to zoom vector files (a workaround is the "IE Tab"). I guess the highres png file should be enough for 99.9% of all average joes / otto normalverbraucher. --Unify (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The map shows up just fine (I use explorer). What I meant to say is that at full resolution, it's about 4 times the size of my screen. Better too detailed than vice versa, though. It is, as others have stated, an encyclopaedia, after all. athinaios (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Dont know if its suitable for here, but its written in the Sofia page that it is Sister City with it, nothing is mentioned in Berlins page. 91.64.139.1 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

I don't want to start an edit war, but I do not agree with that "too long" tag. The articles for Paris, New York City, London, Toronto, Boston, Chicago and even Manchester, are all longer; Edinburgh, Beijing and Moscow are nearly as long. At the least, anyone who tags it as too long per se should make some suggestions as to what to crop or move elsewhere. athinaios 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All I know is I have an Internet connection speed of 6000 kbits/second on DSL, and this page takes around 20 seconds to load. I shudder to think how long it takes people with slow connections or dial-up! As for suggestions: most of Berlin#History could be moved to History of Berlin, most of Berlin#Cityscape could be a new article Architecture of Berlin, most of Berlin#Culture could be a new article Culture of Berlin, and Berlin#Berlin quotations could be eliminated altogether. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the too long bit, but the "on my DSL line" argument is silly. You should be able to load 750 kb in one second on such a connection, and images included, I suspect the page is around that. Scott.wheeler 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently 83,881 bytes, which is 655 kb, excluding images. And I guess I should have said "up to 20 seconds"; sometimes it only takes 5 seconds. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is just pedantry at this point, but 83,881 bytes is 82 kb. Scott.wheeler 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant kilobits, not kilobytes. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am a citizen of Berlin"?

Anyone else think this translation for "Ich bin ein Berliner" is excessively awkward? I would've thought the most obvious would be just "I am a Berliner". But by any means, I really don't like the current one. Any thoughts? - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "I am a Berliner" is stronger.
--Another-sailor (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Second World War

The correct designation for the two world conflicts is "First World War" and "Second World War", as the German terms used by their official histories are Erste Weltkrieg and Zweite Weltkrieg" - should they not be used here? "World War II" is a specifically American term. The Germans, French and Commonwealth nations all officially use "Second World War" as the 'correct' designation. The language that the article is written in would seem to be irrelevant to that...139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the German terms are irrelevant here. This article is written in English, specifically American English, so it uses the American English names for the wars. By the same token, cities like Munich, Cologne, and Nuremberg are referred to by their English names (in that case, there's no difference between American English and British English). —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a case of regional English differences either. Search the BBC site for instances of "world war" and you find them using "world war II" about as often as "second world war". It's obvious that in English either term is acceptable everywhere except to the occasional pedant discovering regionalistic contrasts where none exists.Zebulin (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There should be Erste Weltkrieg und Zweite Weltkrieg. Kontrolleur Cro 10 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.139.60 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Etwas neues

From an AP story filed Jan. 31, 2008:

BERLIN - An archaeological dig in downtown Berlin has uncovered evidence that the German capital is at least 45 years older than had previously been established, authorities said Wednesday.

During excavation work last week in the Mitte district, archaeologists uncovered a wooden beam from an ancient earthen cellar, said Karin Wagner of the city-state's office for historical preservation.

It was in exceptionally good condition, having lain under the water table for centuries, and scientists were able to determine from a sample taken that it had been cut down in 1192.

That means it dates to 45 years before the official date of Berlin's birth, 1237 — the year in which documents first mention the settlement, referring to the priest of the Petrikirche church, which stood not far from the site of the new dig.

Sca (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)