Talk:List of cities in Germany by population

Untitled

The numerical entries do not agree with those in the German-language entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.177 (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Location of the red dot for Hamburg wrong

... perhaps the dots for the other cities are wrong too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.130.120.71 (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I fixed Hamburg's location on the map and checked the others. Littlecarmen (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of information

It is unclear why the list would need to be limited to only the largest 39 >200,000 as the list is by no means excessively long with those >100,000. Those removed include state capitals and include other significant cities that are cores of their urban areas. It is also unclear why states would be removed, as that is very relevant information and informative for sorting. It's additionally unclear why the census counts and change since then was removed, as population growth is a relevant statistic to population, and the most recent official population numbers can be included alongside an estimate. All of these are commonly used in other lists of cities and their removal should be explained. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Information should be as per the source. The 2011 data is older and does not order the data, and therefore there is no need to show the change info. The 2015 data does not include the state information. It’s arguable as to how long the list should be, but there’s no reference as to why it should be long enough to list all state capitals, or 'cities that are cores of their urban areas'. However, at least the population is exactly as the source, unlike the other points made above. Eldumpo (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Our data does not need to follow the exact same format as the source. It is not WP:OR to take the verifiable data and sort it. So what if the source does't give the state? It's not like it's changed in the meantime! It's not unverifiable information that we just made up! And it is in the 2011 source. It is not WP:OR to give the sourced 2015 data and the sourced 2011 and provide the percent change. No, there's nothing forcing us to give all the capitals, but there's nothing forcing us not to - this data IS in the sources! Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Our information should be as the sources. That’s the basis of Wikipedia, otherwise it’s arbitrary as to what information is included. The source didn’t think it necessary to list the states (nor does the 2011 source appear to do so), so why would we. It’s not about disputing the facts, just why it is encyclopaedic to include info not at the source. In reality neither source should be used as they fail Primary. Eldumpo (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Primary sources are absolutely essential to articles like this! I'd trust the official government sources more than some secondary source - this don't not involve WP:OR and synthesis of other's statements here! You have a really messed up view of how Wikipedia articles are written. Just because certain information is not in this particular source does not mean that we may not add additional relevant information. How many articles on Wikipedia are based on one single source with no other information? How in the world is having the state each city is located in 'arbitrary'? And you are wrong: the 2011 Excel spreadsheet does provide the states. The format of this spreadsheet gives the entire country as the first row, followed by a state and the largest cities in that state below it, then another state and its cities, as indicated with the Regionalschlüssel column. But I'll guess you can't read German and the Erläuterungen tab of the file. They just didn't format it the same way as the table in this article because they are a statistical agency providing the data in a certain spreadsheet format, but guess what? We're an encyclopedia and are allowed to do that! Perhaps we can use this article as a source for the states, if it's not obvious from the other source and the common sense of just following the wikilinks and this being uncontroversial information. Maybe instead of just removing material without a source, you can add a source instead! Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Primary states that an article should not solely be based on a primary source. It’s not about not believing the source but establishing notability. The city mayors source you posted was previously the source for the article, and obviously any secondary source would have to be regarded as reliable. The tone of your above response is a little insulting ('are you kidding', 'guess what', 'but I'll guess you can’t read German'). You may not agree with what I’m saying but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a sensible discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a way forward is as you say to add the city mayors source just for the states and then remove the 2011 population/change columns from the list and just base on 2015 source. Eldumpo (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The 2011 census data is from a reliable source and relevant to the article. We can add the city mayors source, though it is does not provide its own sources or even year of data and rounds the counts. No one is challenging the notability of the content of this list or its validity. I have trouble assuming good faith in you because 90% of your edits appear to be removing content from articles with no discussion or explanation beyond "cn", rather than seeking new sources and improving them. This article was decidedly diminished in quality when you decided to delete, delete, delete relevant, sourced information. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please check out some of the WP:Featured lists: all sorts of them are based primarily on primary sources. Academy Award for Best Actor sources each award to the Academy. List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 is sourced to Billboard. List of Governors of Alabama is sourced to the State of Alabama. And the most relevant one, List of United States cities by population, is sourced to - guess what? - the US Census Bureau and nothing else! And it has the most recent estimate, last census count, and % change, but the list's notability or reliability is not in question. What to avoid is relying excessively on primary sources with "an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and more so not to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself", which would be WP:Original research and is not done in this article. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Idea: dynamically fetch the population

Hi, I just discovered, that in the Template:Infobox German location the population is dynamically fetched from a database, see Template:Population Germany. I think it would be great to use the same logic here to display the same numbers. tokes 03:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokes (talk • contribs)

reading a bit I found that it works that way (here for Munich):
pop = 1510378
date = 2023-12-31
source = Genesis Online-Datenbank des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Statistik Tabelle 12411-003r Fortschreibung des Bevölkerungsstandes: Gemeinden, Stichtag (Einwohnerzahlen auf Grundlage des Zensus 2011).
with key being the value of "Gemeindeschlüssel" for that cities' infobox tokes 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Ulm.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

100000

1000 27.109.114.14 (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)