Talk:Berlin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Criticism

Could we have a "Criticism" headline? I think there is lots to put in there. 84.128.232.7 (talk)

lol --217.83.35.226 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because it is bad policy to separate "criticism" from everything else. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

JFK

In the quotes JFK thought he said he was a citizen but a mis translation went awry and he said he was a doughnut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.66.109 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what he said was just fine. Please read Ich bin ein Berliner. —Angr 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In some parts of Germany "Berliner" means both a citizen of Berlin and something like a doughnut. However, when saying "ich bin ein Berliner" ("I am a Berliner"), it is screamingly obvious that he is talking about the city. 85.178.51.86 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct and if yot watch film material, you'll see that the people who were present at Rathaus Schöneberg, understood Kennedy's words as meaning 'I'm a Berliner citizen'. It was only later that the Doughnut thing came about.--IsarSteve (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel a better, albeit not quite literal translation would be "I am one with the people of Berlin". As an actual Berliner, you would say "ich bin Berliner", adding the "ein" would be false. As a foreigner, it would not be proper simply to say "ich bin Berliner". -Ich (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "ein" is not wrong; it actually simply emphasises that you are from Berlin. A more literal translation would therefore be "I am a Berlin citizen". A lot can be read on this at Ich bin ein Berliner, especially on its Talk page. Alandeus (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Soccer matches in berlin 27th April - 29th April

I am going to be in Berlin between the above dates, I really would like to experience a game whilst there. Can anyone help? i know football is played m,ainly on a saturday but was wondering if the are teams from lower leagues playing on other days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.122 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can find at http://www.berlin.de/special/sport-und-fitness/events/ is a team handball game on the 27th. —Angr 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent copyedits

Seem fine to me, the difference between 105 citations and 118 is not really worth discussing, in any case the quality, not the quantity is important. I'd rather a section be cited by two journal articles than 10 blog posts. One thing that is odd though, why was the image of "Berlin in ruins" changed for one of "Prisoners of war" ? I'd say the former was more appropriate for an article about the city. - Francis Tyers · 05:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Climate chart

Berlin
Climate chart (explanation)
J F M A M J J A S O N D     42     3 −2     33     4 −2     41     9 −1     37     13 4     54     19 9     69     22 12     56     24 14     58     24 14     45     19 11     37     13 6     44     7 2     55     4 0 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C █ Precipitation totals in mm Source: worldweather.org 2007-07-26
Imperial conversion J F M A M J J A S O N D     1.7     37 28     1.3     39 28     1.6     48 30     1.5     55 39     2.1     66 48     2.7     72 54     2.2     75 57     2.3     75 57     1.8     66 52     1.5     55 43     1.7     45 36     2.2     39 32 █ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F █ Precipitation totals in inches

I converted the weather data to the climate chart template. Maybe someone can exchange it with the old table. Entengruetze (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizens?

Is there a link to a list of notable citizens? I didn't see one... Malick78 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the information that Berlin was created by Slavs?

What's the reason for omitting this important information in such a long and otherwise detailed article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I love these kind of statements. In 1192 that land was already under the control of the German Askanier, so it is not sure who founded Berlin and Cöln. --217.83.22.240 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Berlin

I find this revert rather strange. We have a lot of historical pictures of Berlin that should be in the article, not a pseudoathentic von Werner painting that can be found in other articles as well (and that does not take place in Berlin). Crucial moments there are a lot.--Ziko (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also strange that an IP comes with the same argument but does not use this talk page.--Ziko (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The proclamation of Berlin as capital city is a significant historic event influencing the development of the city. It needs visual representation. The introduction of two images of the same central area (Unter den Linden) seems an unconvincing duplication. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ziko is right, The said image has nowt to do with Berlin.. Let's see if you can drum up some support L21.. if not .. I'm for a delete.. --IsarSteve (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More generally, Lear, you're back to your bad habit of refusing to let anyone else edit the article but you. You shouldn't be edit-warring at all, but if you must revert other people's changes, at least only revert the ones you actually disagree with. Lazily restoring an old version just means that other intermediate edits you don't have an issue with get reverted too, creating collateral damage that other people then have to clean up after you. —Angr 13:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The two pictures of Unter den Linden show the development of Berlin in the time. Lear does not answer my arguments about the Werner-painting.--Ziko (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I see that also the Frederick-picture has been restored. Fritz build Sanssouci in Potsdam and prefered to live there, not in Berlin. It is really strange to use the little space in the history section for pictures that only secondarily relate to Berlin, instead using images of Berlin itself that cannot easily used in other articles but are perfect for this one.--Ziko (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange, normally Lear or that 'unknown' person 217.83.xxx.xx are so quick to reply.. I suggest we give him until 6 Jan 2009 to reply.. what do you think? --IsarSteve (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be no problem to introduce one new image to the 17th-19th century section. But I certainly suggest to keep the "Proclamation" image. It is true that it is not located in Berlin but the following developments after the Proclamation are inevitably bound to the fact that Berlin became the capital of a newly found nation state. It is almost irreplaceable. BTW, 2 pictures of the same location with almost the same visual content does not make sense.

Frederick the Great is one of the most famous citizens born in Berlin. It is no mistake to have him at display here. Lear 21 (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The image of Unter den Linden fits in, IMO, much better than the previous image..--IsarSteve (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Berlin is NOT the 3rd most visited tourist destination in EU

Check this or endless other stats about the same topic. It's a common urban legend, which I don't know where it does comes from, sometimes is even quoted by reputable media, it's nevertheless totally groundless and always unsourced. I then remove that claim, until sourced figures are provided. --Fertuno (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very unreliable source. An cherrypicked commercial organisation in London advertises travel to London. You mentioned the quotes by reliable media sources, we should stick to them instead. --217.83.16.148 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checked that page, numbers are wrong. The actual number of guests is 7.59 Mio in 2007, not 2.3 as stated in that page. That gives Berlin the 3rd rank. See the official numbers: [1] --217.83.16.148 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Those in the link I provided are just international tourists. Even if you take into account domestic tourists, 7.59 mil guests over one year are far from making Berlin the 3rd most visited city in the EU. I can collect data from at least thee or four EU cities other than London and Paris with higher figures (nominally Rome, which have 11ish million guests per year, and Barcelona - which have 8ish million guest per year, and possibily others too). To make such a claim some sort of official document is needed where all EU cities are compared with real figures. Until then, that claim should go since it's absolutely unscientific. --Fertuno (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your link is dubios and contains wrong number, I dont see how you can rely on that while calling the official numbers absolutely unscientific. Even worse you just gave numbers of Rome and Barcelona which contradict to your page, Bareclona just doubled the number of guests from 4 to 8 Mio...? Maybe you are are confusing guests (smaller number) and overnight stays (larger number) but you didnt give any source so that is unsure. Berlin has 7.6 Mio guests and 17.3 overnight stays, which makes an average time of 2.2 days per guest in 2007. And yes pelase get the exakt numbers of Rome, Barcelona, Moscov an Madrid from the national departments of statistic (and nothing else). The statement in the article is properly sourced and should not be removed unless you can provide a reliable source for your theories. --217.83.15.167 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Official number are not unscientific. It's claiming Berlin is No.3 tourist destination in the EU which is. 7.6 miln guests mean Berlin was visited by 7.6 million people, not that Berlin is No.3 tourist destination. This is an official document from the Rome Mayor's Office that state (page 26) Rome has had 10.070.377 guests and 25.911.925 overnight stays in 2007, and it is just an example out of many. Anyway I don't see why I should post them. It's YOU who are claiming Berlin is ranked No.3 in EU so it's YOU who should provide a source to that claim, finding the exact number for all majour EU touristic destinations that clearly demonstrate Berlin is No.3. The burden of demonstration is always upon the shoulders of the positive asserter. --Fertuno (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Transport in Berlin

The article Transport in Berlin offers the opportunity to cover this subject in detail without cluttering the Berlin article. It is difficult to maintain both articles therefore I have created a summary. This is common practise in Wikipedia Transport in London. Articles continually develope and change. Inwind (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The subarticle is very much appreciated. But the main article needs to present the decisive parts of all transport modes. This is a standard content of almost all city articles. Lear 21 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the more general article needs to present a brief summary of the more specific article, especially when the main article is already around 90 K big. The more stuff that can be moved out of this article and into subarticles, the better. Nothing that you keep returning to this article is particularly earth-shattering anyway: a sentence about bikes in the U- and S-Bahn, a table about how many people take which form of public transportation each year, and a paragraph about Tegel's location and the fact that Tempelhof is closed. Hardly "decisive parts of all transport modes". And once again, you just reverted to an old version rather than only re-adding the content you're interested in, meaning you also restored typos that had been corrected and deleted info that had been added in the meantime. —Angr 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The new version excluded all information about public transport, which is clearly basic standard content of city articles. It must be maintained. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a sentence about the BVG and the U-Bahn, Straßenbahn, and buses. Info about the S-Bahn was already there, but it's disproportionately long; most of it should be moved to Berlin S-Bahn if it's not already there. —Angr 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Klaus Wowereit addition

While on RC patrol, I stumbled across this edit, which at first I reverted thinking it was of the 'X is gay lol' variety. After discovering it to be (sort of) correct, albeit poorly worded, I put it back in. Perhaps editors who are more involved with the article than I am could decide whether to keep it there and if so how to re-word and source it. AlexiusHoratius 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. While it's true Wowereit is openly gay, he hardly "declared his passion for homosexuality"; he merely said, "For anyone who doesn't already know, I'm gay, and that's a good thing." His sexual orientation is appropriately discussed in the article Klaus Wowereit, it's hardly relevant to this article. —Angr 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more I thought it should probably be removed. I was hesitant to revert it as simple vandalism, but I agree that the wording was very poor and it probably wasn't notable enough for this article. AlexiusHoratius 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

I've made some changes to the translations of the quotes at the end of the entry, which got reverted. I've inserted them again--there's no reason to use "come down" instead of "fall", which is much closer to the German "fallen" and also retains the meter of the original phrase. The last quote is a lot trickier, yet the old version is almost non-sensical and thus bears little resemblance to the original. "Condemned" is not the right verb here and using infinitives as in the original here may be a better way to go--that is not to say that it's perfect at this point, but the previous version was definitely worse. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The wall will fall" rhymes in English, while "Die Mauer wird fallen" doesn't in German, and since this isn't poetry and "the city will live" doesn't rhyme, having the rhyme in the translation sounds awkward. Also, in English, "fall" sounds too accidental, like he was predicting the wall would fall in an earthquake or otherwise of its own accord, while "come down" better suggests that it was to be torn down by the people. "Verdammt" really means "condemned" or "damned", but certainly not "jinxed", which implies some sort of magic spell (in German, "jinxed" is perhaps "verhext" but not "verdammt"). And since "condemned to" is followed by a noun in English, not an infinitive (cf. "condemned to death" vs. *"condemned to die"), "condemned forever to becoming and never being" is appropriate. Finally, "to change eternally" is really not a good translation for "ewig zu werden" as the implications of changing are totally different from the implications of becoming. —Angr 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Angr, thanks for your explanations. You're right, the statement is not classical poetry, but it's a poetic and meaningful phrase with an inherent rhythm that should be retained. The endings in "leben" and "fallen" do rhyme and the words contain two syllables--"live" and "fall" do not rhyme, but they both are monosyllabic and thus retain a similar meter. Moreover, while prompted by popular unrest by the initial opening of the wall was quite accidental, and it did have the same finality that is contained in "fall". Besides, commonly people speak of the "the fall of the wall", as in several places in this entry. Lastly, condemnation implies an official action such as in "condemned for demolition"; so while similar in origin, "condemned" and "verdammt" carry slightly different meanings, and, as you pointed out, "condemned to" requires a noun, so it further alters the original phrase significantly (I did not recognise the original phrase in the earlier translation). I'm not in any way claiming that my changes have nailed it, but I'd like to urge you to take them into consideration rather than simply reverting them. Malljaja (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"2,000 years of German-Jewish history"?

The first authentic document relating to a large and well-organized Jewish community in the regions the Romans called Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, and Germania Magna and within the current borders of Germany dates from 321. (W. D. Davies, Louis Finkelstein (1984). The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge University Press. p. 1042.) The information given: "2,000 years of German-Jewish history" is Historically Incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.21.11 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates removed

The articles no longer displays coordinates, can someone restore them? Angr removed them and keeps reverting. Thanks. -- User:Docu

Very coy. The only reason the article doesn't display coordinates any more is that you edited {{Infobox German Bundesland}} so it no longer accepts the parameters lat_deg= |lat_min= |lon_deg= |lon_min=. But the coordinates should display correctly now. —Angr 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you just broke 15 other articles. It looks like you mainly go through pages to revert people. Please take care and look at edits in detail.

BTW I'm ok if you reduce the precision to 4 or 5 decimals, it's more close to the given precision. -- User:Docu

Per WP:GEO#Precision, precision should be no more than 1 decimal for a city of Berlin's size, but actually, coordinates should be given in the human-friendly degree/minute/second format rather than the decimal format. —Angr 08:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Unverified statements, e.g.:

• West Berlin was now de facto a part of West Germany with a unique legal status (if it had legal status then surely it was de jure as well as de facto?)
• Migrant numbers
• third most-visited city destination in the European Union.
• it was the only major opera house in West Berlin (how do you define "major"; so, there were others?)
• Europe's largest zoo in terms of square meters; most visited zoo in Europe; presents the most diverse range of species in the world.

Counter-intuitive claims, e.g.:

• Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British and French airlines.
• East Berlin's partnerships were canceled at the time of German reunification and later partially reestablished.
• Eleven synagogues (active or historic?)
• While these buildings once housed distinct collections, the names of the buildings no longer necessarily correspond to the names of the collections they house.
• Berlin is known for its numerous beach bars along the river Spree (never heard of them before)
• holds the Qatar Total German Open annually in the city. Founded in 1896, it is one of the oldest tennis tournaments for women (Qatar Telecomm didn't exist in 1896!)
• City authorities aim to establish a European aviation hub with a gateway to Asia (just Asia?)

Poor prose/grammar, e.g.:

• In 1989, pressure from the East German population brought free across the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, which was subsequently mostly demolished.
• Oranienburger Straße and the nearby New Synagogue were the center of Jewish culture before 1933, and regains being it today.
• which are traditionally renowned for highest academic standards
• It also rus the Airport express, as well as trains to intercountry destinations like, Moscow, Vienna, Salzburg, e.g. (not a complete sentence)

Idiosyncratic phrasing, e.g.:

• The previously built-up part in front of it is the Neptunbrunnen, a fountain featuring a mythological scene.
• The design of little red and green men on pedestrian crossing lights, the Ampelmännchen, are also rather spread in Eastern parts.

Maybe the quotes should be spread through the article to illustrate specific points rather than bunched up at the end? DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Air transport

"The city serves as a continental hub for air and rail transport". Rail transport, yes, but air transport? Until some years ago, the city could hardly serve it's own needs. The capacity is higher now, but it is a stretch to claim that Berlin serves as a air transport hub, even though the city aspire to be one (which large city doesn't). Frankfurt is clearly the German hub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.187.188.26 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Berlin is the main hub city for Air Berlin, and may be a hub for some other airlines as well. +Angr 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cityscape

A picture of a so called "Buddy bear" has been recently introduced to the section. In fact, temporary initiatves can not be considered to be part classical Cityscape content. The image was removed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Temporary initiatives"? Those Buddy bears have been around for years and are definitely part of the current Berlin cityscape. +Angr 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A cityscape is largely dominated by built, longstanding architecture and infrastructure. Buddy bears are not part of this definition. The section seems to be overcrowded after the addition of the BB image as well. Lear 21 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With exhibitions on all 5 continents, the Buddy Bears have become a distinctive and unique symbol of Berlin, promoting tolerance, international understanding and peace. Buddy Bears in many foreign embassies in Germany represent their different countries and Berlin in equal measure. The Buddy Bears and the Brandenburg Gate - symbols of the free spirit of Berlin. Carlos A. Rubinstein, Buenos Aires - Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.20.39 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The buddy bear does not even show the Bear in a real Berlin environment. It looks artificial without a built cityscape around the statue. Lear 21 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The new image still produces the impression of an overcrowded section. The Bears are not even identifiable. In the end, the Bears have not enough relevance to have an image placed at Cityscape or Architecture. Lear 21 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At least you've stopped comparing them to dogshit. +Angr 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you use the "new" Cityscape image taken in 2009 in better quality instead of the old cityscape picture ? Link: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Berlin_skyline_2009.jpg --85.178.215.156 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

True, the 2009 picture is nicer, crisper, and has truer colors.Alandeus (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already replaced the old one two days ago but somebody reverted it.. maybe because I'm just an IP? ;) --85.178.215.156 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The newly proposed lead image is dominated by a single blue color scheme. It has not the multicolored appearance compared to the longexisting lead image and can be therefore considered of lower quality. Lear 21 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter what the quality is like - both are good -, the 2009 image is up to date: The old Palast der Republic is now gone. It was visible just above the Brandenburg gate in the 2006 picture where it is being torn down. Nothing remains of it in the 2009 image, therefore this image must be used.Alandeus (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The skyline always changes. 99,9% of the old image content is still valid. The new image does not match the high standard of quality images at this article. Lear 21 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Content, i.e. being up to date, must be more important than quality, in particular when the quality differences are negligible. I don't see how the quality of the older 2006 image should be better than the 2009 image. The newer one is larger and sharper. The older one is just more "multi-colored" because of the purple haze on the horizon. Well, I have news for you: On sunny days, we usually do have a clear blue sky over Berlin. Therefore, I am updating the image to 2009; the Palace of the Republic simply shouldn't be there any more. Please, do not revert to the old 2006 image unless you can clearly prove quality reasons.Alandeus (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don´t worry, the Palace of Republic can almost not to be identified in the established version. Bring an image proposal which can match the aesthetic standards at this article and this issue can be discussed again. Until then, the higher quality image needs to remain. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What cannot be established is why the 2006 image should be aesthetical better than the 2009 image! The aesthetic standards of the 2009 image are just fine if not better, because clearer and larger. Plus, it is up to date, which ought to be an overriding argument. Case in point: if the Palace of Republic can almost not be identified as you say, then the quality of that image cannot be too good, right? Therefore, back to the 2009 image. Alandeus (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don´t understand the picture change. The old pic was clearly more beautiful. KJohansson (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear KJohansson: A quick summary for you: Old picture had Palace of Republic in it, which is no longer there. Old picture has purple haze while new picture has blue sky to horizon, which is not a criterion for beauty.Alandeus (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alandeus: Compare the image quality from other city articles like Paris, London, New York in the lead. The standard of visual content set at the Berlin article is outstanding and should not be diminished. Nobody can identify the site of Palace of the Republic in either image. It is neglectable. If your rationale of the necessetity of "up to date images" is going to be applied at every single image regardless of the aestethics, this article would turn into a slump in no time. This needs to be avoided. Lear 21 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

@Lear 21: How is the 2009 image lesser to the 2006 image? So far, I have seen no arguments concerning this! I'd say the 2009 picture is of better quality, e.g. because it is clearer. Moreover, for being "up to date"; that is one thing what Wikipedia lives of and that does not mean anything will turn into a slump necessarily. If I don't get a convincing response soon, I shall reinstate the 2009 image.Alandeus (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Try as I might I could not readily identify the Palace of the Republic in the picture. However, for an article like this I think the current picture should take precedence. As far as aestethics go, this is an encyclopedia. The image must be illustrative of its subject, aestethics is secondary. By the way, I like the 2009 picture better. So given that different people will have a different aestethic understanding of the two images, the safest thing to do would be to use the more modern image.imars (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, in the old 2006 Cityscape Picture, the Fernsehturm (television tower) still has advertisements (the pink bubbles) which were there during the world cup in 2006 (pink color because it was sponsored by the telekom). This is not the usual looking of the television tower. This is awkward! There are good reasons to take the new picture. The Image Quality (resolution, sharpness) is much better in the 2009 version --85.178.211.83 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the Palace of the Republic? The remains of it can be seen as it is being torn down just above the Brandenburg Gate.Alandeus (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

On my screen the 2009 picture looks almost only grey and blue. It looks cold and uncomfortable. Both picture have exactly the same perspective of the city. The beautiful pic is the logical choice. KJohansson (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One man's meat is another man's poison. There is no way to objectively argue about which picture is more beautiful. imars (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It can be very objectively argued that the 2006 pic appears to be multicolored, sunny and 3 dimensional. These are 3 criterias which are not fulfilled by the 2009 pic. It looks flat, grey and dark and can be objectively discribed as ugly. (of course, people exist, who find dark, grey tinted photos with no depth attractive) Ugly pictures does not belong in the lead. KJohansson (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't know that Wikipedia seems to be about someones personal favor ("oh, this one is beautiful") instead of facts. And how can a 2D Image be 3 dimensional? Why is that so?. The old image is not up-to-date. Despite of this, the colors in the old picture might look beautiful to you, but that's not the point here. The new image is blue - yes! the sky is usually blue or gray and not multicolored! It is sharper, it is larger.. and the most important point (and I'm really aghast about the fact that this is actually being ignored here) it much more up-to-date. --85.178.217.105 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

May I add that "ugly" is always subjective and never is something objective. Anyway, to the three criteria submitted above: 1) Both are multicoloured. 2) Both are sunny. 3) Both are 3-dimensional in the sense that they show depth. Actually, there is more grey in the purple haze than in the blue sky if you want to be objective. Finally, the purple haze is a reminder of smog, which has become quite rare here in Berlin. So that is also something we can do without, objectively. We do want to be up to date. In conclusion, if there are no more serious arguments for the old picture submitted by the end of the day, I shall reinstate the 2009 picture and consider any undo attempts as vandalism.Alandeus (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Counting the pixels of the 2006 image it is easy to admit that 99,5 of the image is correct and accurate. This can hardly be said of many written content at Wikipedia. Only if somebody clicks the image itself, the ruins of the palace can be identified. This said, if there are two identical perspectives available, the higher aestethic value must be an argument. I can agree with the arguments that the 2009 image looks somewhat gray, darkish, boring and even flat. Lear 21 (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

True, the 2009 picture does seem to be more grayer and just slightly darker than the 2006 one, but is that bad? This is because of the low, late evening sun on the facades of the buildings as compared to the mid-afternoon sun of the latter picture. (The cross of light on the TV tower is an accurate indicator of this.) This yellow light, however, washes out contours and interesting details. Additionally, the colors of various landmarks are falsified; for example, the "Rote Rathaus" (red town hall) is not red. This too makes the image less correct and accurate. Actually, this lack of contours is what makes the 2006 image look flatter. Moreover, besides the missing Palast of the Republic, there is at least one new building built in the new image, which I find less boring because of all the details you can find, in particular in the greater resolution. How many structures need to change before you can let go of a dreamy old picture? Alandeus (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to voluteer to count the number of gray pixels in each picture? That would at least be objective. ;-) imars (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Form follows function as they say. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia and not an art gallery.Alandeus (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Compare the lead image of Paris, Barcelona, New York City, Rome, Chicago, Moscow, Sydney, Beijing. All of these city articles and many more use diversified image compilations and from an photographic point of view, bright, colorful even expressive atmospheres. If you are not able to accept or to realize that, than this discussion is probably out of your competence. This is an internationally read article with international quality standards, including exceptional high image standards. Bring images which can meet these standards, but please stop promoting crap. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not getting any closer to a solution here. Might I suggest mediation or a vote?imars (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick side-by-side look. The 2006 picture seems pretty fuzzy, and between that and the blown highlights, it's tricky to see much detail. Also, it seems a little too warm, probably due to the sunset, while the 2009 picture looks sharper, with better range and truer white balance. Of course, some people may prefer a warmer image, but that's easy enough to change in the image. IMHO, a slightly warmed version of the 2009 skyline may be preferable.-Steve Sanbeg (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A warmed version of the 2009 picture.. here we go: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_skyline_2009w.jpg

How about that? Btw:@Lear: You should play it cool... do you have a problem with bad manners? If I have a look at your talk page I would say... YES! If all your 500+ contribs to wikipedia have been due to edit wars (with your personal opinion as reason) then thanks a lot for that! --85.178.220.223 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP user, you should take your own advice and play it cool. imars (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement, but it still looks a little overexposed. I've uploaded another version media:Berlin_skyline_2009wl.jpg, which I think gives it a bit more saturation. Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve! I personally like the warmed version without the added saturation, but that is just my opinion. imars (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I like Steve's first, warmed version better too. The trees in the Tiergarten park are unnaturally dark in the -wl version. I think we should go (compromise?) with that. Moreover, so far no one has been able to prove that the 2009 image does not meet "international quality standards". One standard that should to be maintained is being up to date. (Images do not need to look like painted by Turner, no matter how aesthetic…)Alandeus (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the first warmed version, thought it would be a good idea to create an account (I'm the former 85.178er). In my opinion, the image by steve is too dark --Casp11 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I overdid that a bit. I just did a new one with a more subtle adjustment, media:Berlin_skyline_2009wl2.jpg. Although, I think the 2006 photo does have the same issue, so I'd prefer any of the warmed 2009 versions -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful picture, Steve! It ought to be inserted now. Alandeus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at other city articles lead images. Have a look at other languages at Wikipedia Berlin articles. Have a look at the standards at this articles´ image quality. The 2009 image does simply not meet the standards. It is very simple. Lear 21 (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If the standards are very simple, then what are they? If they can't be described, then they can't be that simple. Honestly, looking at your other examples, I don't see what they have in common with this one. None of those are blurry, none of those have blown highlights, only one has wildly inaccurate color balance. Obviously, you're seeing something differently than I am. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at several articles of Berlin in other languages and what did I find? Most had the 2009 image! Didn't find the 2006 one. So, is for instance the German Berlin site substandard now? There ought to be some uniformity across languages where possible. Since no objective reasons where ever given why the 2009 image does not meet standards, this one should remain the skyline picture for Berlin. Any reversal to the 2006 image must therefore be considered vandalism from now on. Alandeus (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop introducing dark, ugly pictures. I also made a look around other Wikis. The 2009 pic must have been introduced very recently because the 2006 image was the top image for a long time. KJohansson (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has introduced any dark, ugly pictures, as File:Berlin skyline 2009wl2.jpg is neither dark nor ugly; but the 2006 is ugly without being dark. It has bad colors, overblown highlights, and it's out of focus. Quite apart from being 3 years out of date, it's simply very low quality. It ought to be replaced with the 2009 image in all Wikimedia projects and then deleted. And yes, the 2009 image is very new: the original version was uploaded to Commons less than 48 hours ago, and the "warmed" version less than 24 hours ago. +Angr 12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lear: Do you want to help us out by replacing the old ugly image with the 2009er version in the other articles (Germany, etc.) ? ;) --Casp11 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is how an excellent lead image in a city article should look like: Houston. The 2006 Berlin panorama comes close in terms of color and depths. The 2009 image fails. Have a look at the Tiergarten green spaces, the trees appear dark and brown. Sorry, even the slightly better warm second version looks gray. @ Alandeus: The community at the German language Berlin article does not support high quality images in general. As I am the one who is also responsible for most of the layout/ images there I can tell long stories of endless discussions about abandoning DDR-like shadowy images in order to install bright and focused ones. The German Berlin article is read by Germans, a minority on the planet. This article here is read internationally so higher standards are demanded. Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion thats a perception disorder. If there is a "DDR-Like" (GDR-like) picture, then it is the 2006 cityscape image. The old picture is neither bright nor focused. It has ugly JPEG-artifacts and contains less detail.. But who am I telling this to.. --Casp11 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The high standards required for this page are exactly why we should use the 2009 image, which is much higher quality, and not the hideous 2006 image which makes Berlin look like Los Angeles in the 1970s. The Berliner Luft isn't nearly as bad someone looking at that picture would believe. +Angr 19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, to me it appears that Lear21 and KJohansson approve of the 2006 picture. Me, Steve Sanbeg, Angr, and Alandeus prefer the 2009 picture. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) So, Wikipedia editors prefer the 2009 picture at a ratio of 2-to-1 so far. So I reverted back to the 2009 picture. Please stop the senseless reversion until you can either provide an objective argument, call for a vote, or call in arbitration to change the picture. imars (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the 2009 picture.. So its 5:2 --Casp11 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Houston image is very nice. The sky is as blue as the Berlin-2009 image, but the trees seem to be a bit browner. Plus, it is not nice as large as the latest Berlin image. I always thought things were bigger in Texas. And why should a lesser standard apply for Germans than for the rest of the world, just because they are a minority (Haben wir denn nichts Besseres verdient?) Anyway, again I vote for the perfectly fine, honest and up-to-date Berlin-2009 image. (If we carry on like this, we may soon have to take a 2010 image into consideration...) Alandeus (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 image is gray and dark. That can be objectively recognized. As I it no one of the Pro-Dark-Fraction has any experience in layout or a record of aesthetic implementation at Wikipedia articles. This is quite contrary to the record of my account. The quality and the content of images I installed at several articles has been accepted and copied in various other city and country articles. The different language editions have copied the images chosen by my account as well. Sorry, a predominatly dark image at the top of one of the most read articles at Wikipedia has to be avoided. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alandeus: I reckon that merely 1% of all readers actually click any of the presented images, so the size of the 2009 image is not important as well. 99% will only see a small image as they scroll through the article. Its a matter of priority setting. The priority here is to present a bright panorama were all buildings are at least in some sunlight. This is the case at the 2006 image. It is not the case at the 2009 version. Lear 21 (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 image is neither gray nor dark; I think you need to adjust your monitor settings. The 2009 image is superior in color and brightness both at thumbnail size and at full size. +Angr 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"...buildings in some sunlight": This is getting rather petty! The '09 buildings all get enough sunlight, of course. In fact, they are bound to get more sunlight as the sunlight is higher. Should anything be missing - if there is, let us know - it would be negligible. And for those "1% of all readers actually click any of the presented images", wouldn't it be nice for them to enjoy the great resolution? Alandeus (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either image can really be called dark; looking at the histogram, both are predominately in the brightest 20%. The 2009 is just a bit darker, mostly since it maintains some shadow detail, using the entire range with the midpoint in the mid tones between highlight & shadow. In the 2006 image the darker 30% is almost empty, with the mid point in the shadow region; which is what gives it that washed out appearance, where it seems to have a whitish haze over everything, and even the darkest shadows don't get very dark. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The monitor settings are fine. Even finer is my ability in comparing other city articles and aestethic images. The 2009 image presents a pitchblack Tiergarten, the whole image transports a depressive panorama. @ Alandeus: To be honest, I don´t care about the estimated 1% of readers who might click the admittedly better resolution at the 2009 version. I care about the 99% of readers who, once in a lifetime watch and read this article. There can´t be a flat, gray-blue image at the top which looks cold, cold, cold. Lear 21 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The depressing image is the 2006 one that makes Berlin look smoggy and unlivable. Berlin's sky isn't purple-gray and the trees in the Tiergarten are not a sickly shade of yellow. On a clear summer day here the sky is blue and the trees in the Tiergarten are a rich green, exactly as the 2009 image shows. The 2006 image is an insult to Berlin and a disincentive to people who might want to visit. +Angr 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

@Lear 21: Please stop reverting the picture. The majority of those involved in the discussion prefer the realistic 09 image. Countless objective incl. histogram arguments have been made for it as well. Your "cold, cold, cold" is an exageration along with your mostly subjective arguments. Just let go of the 06 image, please. Alandeus (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a 1% estimate, I'd be interested in seeing it. By my own estimate, based on one of the page view logs, 10% of views are for File: pages. I'd assume most of those are looking to see additional detail, so I don't think sending 10% of our views to a page where limitations of the image (focus, highlights, etc) obscure all of the detail they're looking for is appropriate. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been blocked indefinitely.

• Just thought you might want to know that sockmaster Lear 21 (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked. Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a suspected sock and KJohansson (talk · contribs) is another confirmed egregious puppet who has edited these same articles and needlessly wasted so much of our time. I would suggest that you all keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since many of you probably know of some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Power City Index

Should we include this somehow ? http://www.examiner.com/x-16352-Japan-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m10d22-Worlds-top-cities-ranking It is a study of world cities with Berlin in the top 10. Friedrichshainer (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the PDF [2] Friedrichshainer (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been added to the introduction. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates

The long established visible templates contain relevant information about Berlin. These need to be presented in a non hidden way. Lear 21 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and has been blocked indefinitely. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Population

"With a population of 3 people , Berlin is Germany's largest city."

Are you sure? Seems rather small!

Somewhere in previous edits the population was stated as 3.4 million, but I don't know exactly where or why it was changed. I'll leave more knowledgeable people to correct this, as there seems to be a lot of debate surrounding Berlin's data...

Skhryeliwan (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Berlin and tourism

As suspected, the very common urban legend according to which Berlin is one of the most visited tourist destinations in the EU (if not the 3rd one) is a complete work of fiction. Here you are the real statistics. http://www.euromonitor.com/_Euromonitor_Internationals_Top_City_Destinations_Ranking --Fertuno (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bringing that incorrect table again? The numbers from that consulting agency are plain wrong. All discused some sections above. --217.83.63.1 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)