![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Most of the article was duplicated. Marcello 23:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I changed the gamma/contrast of the picture (a bit drastically) in order to make the cathedral more visible. Unfortunately the cloud effects are now less visible and some quality is reduced. The original is still at cologne_cathedral.png if somebody decides to try and do a better job (probably quite easy :-) ). sodium
Does anyone know the original source and copyright status of the text? Much is duplicated at -- http://www.koeln.de/portrait/e/
If this is a copyright violation on our side it was done many months ago (sometime before Feb). Therefore this could just as well be a copyright violation committed by the website you cite against us. So I vote for simply keeping the text in this article and let it evolve into someting different than the other website. This is why it is very important to check new contribs for violations. -- mav
www.koeln.de is run by the City Council of Cologne. They have their own PR writers and don't need to copy anything. I think it's more likely that we copied from them. Cologne is the first word I ever typed into the Wiki search engine - it's my home town. When I read it I thought: "copied from a tourist brochure!". I'll be working on the page to make it "ours". User:Renata Sept. 20th, 2002
Boy that will be a lot of work. If you really think it is a violation it might be easier to delete the offending material and start from scratch (using the info in the offending text but not the prose or unique organization). Information cannot be copyrighted, only the artistic choice of words and unique organization.-- mav
Which agglomeration is referred to in the opening paragraph (with the population of 1.8 million)? Cologne and Leverkusen? It should be made clear, or removed. Anyone know the answer? -- Lancevortex 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Add what you want. Add whole NRW if you want, then you have 18 million.
Yes, it's all so vaguely defined isn't it? I think the article is much better for not mentioning it at all. -- Lancevortex 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Germanies statistics of inhabitants has some gross oddities indeed.
"The city was the capital of a Roman province until occupied by the Ripuarian Franks in 462"----source?
I'm not sure anyone is actually reading this talk page but just in case... The two panoramic images are beautiful but they're really too large to put as is: they split the article in half and on most computers, readers will have to scroll to view them entirely. I propose to put them as thumbnails. On the other hand, the pictures of the landmarks could be arranged in a horizontal gallery. I also think the new Bundesarchiv pictures include unique images of floods, including some from the 1930 flood. Floods are almost a part of the culture of Cologne and I think an image or even a gallery of images would make sense.
What river runs through the Cologne River
"The eleven flames are a reminder of the Britannic princess St. Ursula and her legendary 11,000 virgin companions who were supposedly martyred by Attila the Hun at Cologne for their Christian faith in 383 A.D." Yet according to the Attila the Hun article, Attila's dates were c. 406–453. Surely some mistake? -- Lancevortex 10:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay. We're trying to make this article mirror "current English usage" if I'm not entirely mistaken? I really don't know where dict.leo.org came up with PhilharmonicS (emphasis added) as a translation for Philharmonie, but that's NOT "current English usage." My 1997 Oxford-Duden dictionary translates Philharmonie as "Philharmonic" (no S). In general usage, the word "Orchestra" tends to get dropped from a lot of names, thus the Boston Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Boston Symphony" (or sometimes BSO). The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Chicago Symphony" or the CSO. The New York Philharmonic Orchestra and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra (two big US Orchestras that actually use "Philharmonic" in their full names) are referred to as the New York Philharmonic and the Los Angeles Philharmonic respectively. Further, lets skip Google for a moment, as I find Google tests to be unreliable. Instead, let us check English product releases. I typed "Cologne Philharmonic" (no S) into www.amazon.com, and not only got a result for Cologne Philharmonic, but also for Berlin Philharmonic. Again, no "S." "Cologne Philharmonics" ("s" added) gives a result of "We didn't find any matches for "Cologne Philharmonics". Did you mean cologne philharmonic?" And just for giggles, let's check another online biography of James Conlon. The Kennedy Center, at http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=5027&source_type=A reports that "He was simultaneously Principal Conductor of the Gürzenich Orchestra-Cologne Philharmonic ...." Again, NO "S." Finally, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary has NO entry for "philharmonics", but they DO have one for "philharmonic." I am changing this article to reflect the singular, which is the current, CORRECT English usage. -- JohnDBuell 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Most city articles I have reviewed include a culture section. Could someone with a knowledge of this please add this? See Berlin#Culture for an example. This would provide a place for things like, "Cologne has a well-respected gay community and has long been known for its easy-going and tolerant attitudes" which shouldn't really be in the Economy section IMHO. Otherwise the article looks very nice. Thanks, Walkerma 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Cologne lies at the River Rhine and the city's world famous Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom) is seat to a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, just as important to the city as its specially brewed Kölsch beer. Cologne University is one of Europe's oldest universities and internationally renowned for its economics department."
This isn't encyclopaedic at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.161.30 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
This article contains a lot of external links within the body text. They should be changed to references/footnotes. - 52 Pickup 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we rename the article to Köln? I think it's kinda pointless to use a French name for a German city on the English Wikipedia, to be honest. Salaskan 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
For completeness and for your edification, read the content of the above section #Name, esp. the comments of a native of Cologne. -- Mareklug talk 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cologne has a long history and current importance in trade, commerce, and industry. Someone with knowledge of these aspects could write several paragraphs that would vastly improve the article. CoppBob 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
i stumbled upon the fait of the jews of cologne reading the history part of the city. it is clearly an attempt, as seen so often, to put the fait of the victims on the same level as that of the perpetrators or to put it into the realm of the uncertain. how else can one have the nerve to write: 20,000 jews of cologne were "displaced" of which 11,000 "are believed" to have been murdered. i suppose we can say that about the whole holocaust: so-and-so many millions of jews from europe were "displaced" of which 6 million "are believed" to have been murdered. absolutely disgusting! Sundar1 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The number of 11,000 has been estimated, this is what the word "believe" signifies. I don't see any attempt to put "their fate into the realm of the uncertain", but I'll go and change the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.230.118 ( talk) 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I contributed a picture of a cyclist and a subsection of context, after a visit to Cologne. I was impressed by how different things are for cyclists, compared with the USA and Britain. I think this is an interesting aspect of the city and of Germany generally, but I'm not sure how to go further on this issue. Most of what I wrote was deleted by a user who obviously knows a lot more about the subject than I do and clearly feels there is nothing specific about Cologne in what I wrote - e.g. a link to the segregated cycle facilities page.
Some Transport by Country pages have a cycling section, others don't (including Germany). Presumably not everyone thinks that cycling is transportation. I'm going by the example of Transport for London ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk)who very definitely include cycling and have detailed policies and implementation programmes.
I could add a category to Transport in Germany but I'm really not qualified to write much about the country as a whole - whereas I did spend some time cycling around Cologne and figuring out how the system works. Any views / ideas? ProfDEH ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Text says close to 10 million people live in Koln, summary sidebar says almost a million. One is likely wrong. Hpicot ( talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
" Cologne is also renown as the 'Gay Capitol of the world.' " was a sentance at the end of the demographics section, separate from the rest of the article, and without citation.
i removed it, it appears to be vandalism.
98.250.1.143 ( talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (also occassionally known as AeturnalNarcosis)
I've removed almost all external links, with the exception of the sister projects and the official city site. Links about the various tourist attractions should be on the relevant articles. This is consistent with pages on other majors cities. Pichpich ( talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the sentence deleted by an anonymous who replaced it with "Cologne's population is 1,022,627 ( December 31, 2004).". There are many Cologne fanatics who want their city to be a "millionaire". So watch out for their changes.
Oh well, we're watching so many things, aren't we? But do I sense some hidden fanaticism here? In order to clarify this issue I humbly suggest to state the official source in the article as is good wikipedia style. But then, if we just wait a little while... mr-t 12:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats quite a surprise: for differing German statistics! Still I d rather trust the closely involved city data than the federal state's statistics. The local state's statistics offices are in Duesseldorf (right?); considering the envy of Duesseldorfers to Cologne, those people might have manipulate the data?
No question Dusseldorf is smaller; but that doesnt stop them from wanting Cologne to appear smaller too.
The explanation is simple: Federal statistics count population by first residence, while city statistics include people with second residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.56.53 ( talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The photographer of the recent replacement replaced the original image just before nominating his picture for a featured picture. When checking where the FP nomination was used I noticed he put it in the infobox so when I looked at what was there before I found in my opinion a superior image he replaced with his picture. So I'm bringing it here to the talk page to see which image consensus would like in the infobox. — raeky ( talk | edits) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
the history section here is comparably long, while the main article history of Cologne has a lot of sections requiring expansion. I think, moving some of the text would make sense (?). CGN2010 ( talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth put a bot on this page correcting the Latin name of Cologne? I have close ties to the city and know for sure that its Latin name is Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis.
It could use a subsection "theater/theatre" listing the town's subsidised venues and companies, like the opera house and the Schauspiel Köln. Beyond that, Cologne has a vivid fringe scene with dozens of independent companies and venues. -- 217.243.215.150 ( talk) 07:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I find the Audio sample of the German Pronunciation of Köln quite unnatural. It's too stretched and therefore sounds as if the speaker was drunk. The correct pronunciation is shorter. -- 217.235.187.122 ( talk) 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Cologne → Köln — A German city should be at its German, not French, name. 75.28.52.27 ( talk) 01:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In order to prevent an edit war: English and German source with translation. However, the name including translation may suit the history section better. -- Traveletti ( talk) 06:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cologne - Panoramic Image of the old town at dusk.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
On 29 October 2011 my referenced history to a published account of the Battle of Cologne, based on official U.S. Army documents and books, was removed by a contributor who insisted on total censorship because of favoritism to a German news source of 2005 that agreed with his own private vision of history. This censor-master contributor then unilaterally decided by his sole judgment who should be able to read what version, by deleting contrary accounts altogether. I did not know that Wikipedia allowed referenced military history to be wiped out in favor of revisionist versions considered “more reliable” by individual judgment. Upon discovering on 8 January 2012, this hatchet-job aimed at destroying facts unpopular to a particular person's viewpoint of the war, I reinserted my referenced and published account. I suggest the culprit who censored my contribution and deprived the world of anything but his own version be more careful in the future and learn to abide by the rules of Wikipedia and historical decency. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The official United States Army in World War II series volume Special Studies: Chronology compiled by Mary H. Williams and published by the Office of the Chief of Military History (Washington D.C., 1960), states on p. 424, "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March] and continues into night 4-5. Brauweiler, Loevenich, Freimersdorf and Widersdorf fall to 415th Inf and Koenigsdorf, Buschbell and Weiden to 414th." This fighting was just for the outskirts, and then the main battle began. On p. 425, "5 March: 3d Armd Div and 104th Div begin assault on Cologne early in day and enter the city during morning. 3d Armd Div with CC Boudinot on left and CC Hickey on right, each employing 2 TF's [task forces of armor and mechanized infantry], drives SE into the city, overrunning a number of suburban communities. Continuing E toward Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, 104th Inf Div clears Junkersdorf and penetrates 4,000 yards into the city.” On p. 427: “6 March: 104th Div, continuing assault on Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, clears most of S part of city and gets patrols to the Rhine. Efferden falls early in the morning to 414th Inf." (I did not copy the long sentences about the 3d Armd Div continuing combat on this same day, because this excerpt from the page about the 104th Div is enough to show that the assault into Cologne continued). Finally, on p. 429, “7 Mar: Cologne, third largest city in Germany, falls to 3d Armd and 104th Divs, which overcome organized resistance during morning and declare city secure by 1600. 3d Bn of 413th Inf is committed on 104th Div right for final drive and advances through S outskirts of Cologne to the Rhine”. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Nick's advice about the official account regarding the U.S. Army capture of Cologne is excellent, but should be supplemented by another equally-official US army source that specifically states (as quoted in my response above) "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March]". Thus, the battle of Cologne still commences with the attack on its outer defenses conforming to the timeline in my original description. Use of official accounts is accepted and the German source is valid where agrees with the official US account. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) However, the editorial suggestion of deleting a reference is unjustified censorship. Such censorship, whether of art or literature, makes the Wiki editors in fact censors, and Wiki an instrument of censorship. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Militaryartist ( talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw remarks made in overreaction to the preference of the editors for a pro-SS account of the battle incompatible with the official US army account, even though my remarks are true and based on the facts of this case, with the hope that discussion of the ground battle of Cologne in 1945 can proceed despite the previous unfortunate problems created by certain editors:
1. editorial bullying of contributors (stating my contribution was unacceptable because of false accusations that I effectively stated my account was right but the German media was dishonest (reference Pichpich reason for removal of contribution)
I remind everyone that my original contribution was removed completely on 29 October 2011 by another contributor who claimed his German media account was more reliable. When I discovered this censorship on 8 January 2012, I reinserted my contribution but in fair-mindedness allowed the German version to remain. I prefaced both accounts as to their source and never engaged in what Pichpich claims is unacceptable value judgments. By resorting to falsity and censorship, Pichpich engages in slanderous and unacceptable behavior.
2. unwarranted editorial censorship of references because of personal prejudice without supporting evidence of problems on topic (reference Nick explanation for censorship of reference).
Why is this libel against a published reference being allowed to remain as part of the public record, without any proof as to inaccuracy on the topic at hand? I might add that the official army books also contain inaccuracies, yet they are not trashed.
3. editorial adhesion to inaccurate appraisal of the comparative validity of sources (clearly Nick’s insistence on the German media account being in basic agreement with the official US army account is wrong)
I am amendable to continuation of a factual and objective discussion related to the 1945 battle of Cologne, and will forgive these multiple editorial transgressions in the interest of global information-sharing. However, editorial apologies should be forthcoming to assure an unprejudiced discussion can proceed. Until that time, the fairness of the Wikipedia editorial process is open to question. Finally, I continue to protest my contribution being removed and censored without justification, which constitutes a continuing violation of historical recordation done solely in the interest of wielding personal power and projecting personal opinions by the particular editors in this case. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks are intended as my remarks only pertain to possible infractions of censorship and non-objectivity because I do not wish to be lured into edit-warring, whereby editorial forces (determined to unfairly obstruct my writing and unjustly condemn my reference) can conspire to impose banning by joint authoritarian power against a single contributor being baited by two powerful editors. Upon expunging of inappropriate public editorial remarks, I will erase all statements expressing dissatisfaction toward said remarks, and the discussion of the 1945 ground battle of Cologne can proceed unhindered by discord. -
Militaryartist (
talk)
15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This section really makes little sense. Does it reflect an unidiomatic translation from the original German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.240.17 ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is rJay. I removed many invalid links. Please remember to check all links you make to make sure the page exists before saving the page. Thank you. RJay (official) ( talk) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Due to the free status of Cologne, the archbishops were usually not allowed to enter the city." Really, odd that the archbishop would never be allowed to set foot in the cathedral, don't you think. This should at least be cited. Tibetologist ( talk) 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"In Cologne, the carnival season officially starts on 11 November at 11 minutes past 11 a.m. with the proclamation of the new Carnival Season..."
Where did this date and time come from? It cannot be coincidence that (with the exception of the 11 minutes) this is exactly the date and time of the World War I Armistice on 11 November 1918:
But the Armistice was widely repudiated as a " stab-in-the-back", and seemingly was hardly a cause for celebration in Cologne or anywhere else in Germany. Does the timing of the start of Carnival predate WWI and the Armistice? Or does it postdate the end of WWII, after Hitler was gone?
And why November at all, when Ash Wednesday is still months away? What does it mean to have a multi-month "Carnival Season"? Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to read this... As far as I know, the computer science department is rather small (two professors?), as only Wirtschaftsinformatik is offered and computer science as such is only offered as a minor. Known for their computer science are Karlsruhe, Aachen, and, when it comes to research, Bonn. -- KagamiNoMiko 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite an attempt to talk over at User_talk:2.244.201.100, this anon editor has edit warred in a misguided attempt to impose his/her preferred spelling on this page. The first non-stub version was primarily in American English: [1] The edit warring started with this edit by an editor who hasn't edited for a couple days after getting chewed out by another editor on his talk page for similar edits ( User talk:Surtalnar), but no worries, the anonymous editor has been glad to keep fighting in his place. Anyway, the anonymous editor has only communicated with me via edit summaries (he doesn't understand what a talk page is?), so here we go. Red Slash 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have been created independently of Cologne rather than started there as a section, no obvious relationship between the two articles within the articles and a casual reader might think these are separate cities. Dougweller ( talk) 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
May we add some information about the Heinzelmännchen? -- 77.180.38.66 ( talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I, an Englishman, always refer to this city as Köln. I believe Cologne is the French name for the city; why do we use it as the article name in the English edition of Wikipedia?. -- Chris j wood 12:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Colonia" may be Latin, but "Cologne" is clearly French, as are all words ending with -gne. Salaskan 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I rith na ndúshlán uile a bhfuil aghaidh tugtha ag Vhi um Chúram Sláinte orthu le blianta beaga anuas, ní raibh aghdú ar bith i dtiomantas agus i ndaingne ár bhfostaithe.
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 14:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
i wouldnt say, using the French name in English is irrelevant to Colognians. but i agree that in English, Cologne is more often used than Köln. 88.77.143.83 ( talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Most of the article was duplicated. Marcello 23:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I changed the gamma/contrast of the picture (a bit drastically) in order to make the cathedral more visible. Unfortunately the cloud effects are now less visible and some quality is reduced. The original is still at cologne_cathedral.png if somebody decides to try and do a better job (probably quite easy :-) ). sodium
Does anyone know the original source and copyright status of the text? Much is duplicated at -- http://www.koeln.de/portrait/e/
If this is a copyright violation on our side it was done many months ago (sometime before Feb). Therefore this could just as well be a copyright violation committed by the website you cite against us. So I vote for simply keeping the text in this article and let it evolve into someting different than the other website. This is why it is very important to check new contribs for violations. -- mav
www.koeln.de is run by the City Council of Cologne. They have their own PR writers and don't need to copy anything. I think it's more likely that we copied from them. Cologne is the first word I ever typed into the Wiki search engine - it's my home town. When I read it I thought: "copied from a tourist brochure!". I'll be working on the page to make it "ours". User:Renata Sept. 20th, 2002
Boy that will be a lot of work. If you really think it is a violation it might be easier to delete the offending material and start from scratch (using the info in the offending text but not the prose or unique organization). Information cannot be copyrighted, only the artistic choice of words and unique organization.-- mav
Which agglomeration is referred to in the opening paragraph (with the population of 1.8 million)? Cologne and Leverkusen? It should be made clear, or removed. Anyone know the answer? -- Lancevortex 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Add what you want. Add whole NRW if you want, then you have 18 million.
Yes, it's all so vaguely defined isn't it? I think the article is much better for not mentioning it at all. -- Lancevortex 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Germanies statistics of inhabitants has some gross oddities indeed.
"The city was the capital of a Roman province until occupied by the Ripuarian Franks in 462"----source?
I'm not sure anyone is actually reading this talk page but just in case... The two panoramic images are beautiful but they're really too large to put as is: they split the article in half and on most computers, readers will have to scroll to view them entirely. I propose to put them as thumbnails. On the other hand, the pictures of the landmarks could be arranged in a horizontal gallery. I also think the new Bundesarchiv pictures include unique images of floods, including some from the 1930 flood. Floods are almost a part of the culture of Cologne and I think an image or even a gallery of images would make sense.
What river runs through the Cologne River
"The eleven flames are a reminder of the Britannic princess St. Ursula and her legendary 11,000 virgin companions who were supposedly martyred by Attila the Hun at Cologne for their Christian faith in 383 A.D." Yet according to the Attila the Hun article, Attila's dates were c. 406–453. Surely some mistake? -- Lancevortex 10:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay. We're trying to make this article mirror "current English usage" if I'm not entirely mistaken? I really don't know where dict.leo.org came up with PhilharmonicS (emphasis added) as a translation for Philharmonie, but that's NOT "current English usage." My 1997 Oxford-Duden dictionary translates Philharmonie as "Philharmonic" (no S). In general usage, the word "Orchestra" tends to get dropped from a lot of names, thus the Boston Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Boston Symphony" (or sometimes BSO). The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Chicago Symphony" or the CSO. The New York Philharmonic Orchestra and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra (two big US Orchestras that actually use "Philharmonic" in their full names) are referred to as the New York Philharmonic and the Los Angeles Philharmonic respectively. Further, lets skip Google for a moment, as I find Google tests to be unreliable. Instead, let us check English product releases. I typed "Cologne Philharmonic" (no S) into www.amazon.com, and not only got a result for Cologne Philharmonic, but also for Berlin Philharmonic. Again, no "S." "Cologne Philharmonics" ("s" added) gives a result of "We didn't find any matches for "Cologne Philharmonics". Did you mean cologne philharmonic?" And just for giggles, let's check another online biography of James Conlon. The Kennedy Center, at http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=5027&source_type=A reports that "He was simultaneously Principal Conductor of the Gürzenich Orchestra-Cologne Philharmonic ...." Again, NO "S." Finally, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary has NO entry for "philharmonics", but they DO have one for "philharmonic." I am changing this article to reflect the singular, which is the current, CORRECT English usage. -- JohnDBuell 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Most city articles I have reviewed include a culture section. Could someone with a knowledge of this please add this? See Berlin#Culture for an example. This would provide a place for things like, "Cologne has a well-respected gay community and has long been known for its easy-going and tolerant attitudes" which shouldn't really be in the Economy section IMHO. Otherwise the article looks very nice. Thanks, Walkerma 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Cologne lies at the River Rhine and the city's world famous Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom) is seat to a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, just as important to the city as its specially brewed Kölsch beer. Cologne University is one of Europe's oldest universities and internationally renowned for its economics department."
This isn't encyclopaedic at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.161.30 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
This article contains a lot of external links within the body text. They should be changed to references/footnotes. - 52 Pickup 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Could we rename the article to Köln? I think it's kinda pointless to use a French name for a German city on the English Wikipedia, to be honest. Salaskan 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
For completeness and for your edification, read the content of the above section #Name, esp. the comments of a native of Cologne. -- Mareklug talk 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cologne has a long history and current importance in trade, commerce, and industry. Someone with knowledge of these aspects could write several paragraphs that would vastly improve the article. CoppBob 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
i stumbled upon the fait of the jews of cologne reading the history part of the city. it is clearly an attempt, as seen so often, to put the fait of the victims on the same level as that of the perpetrators or to put it into the realm of the uncertain. how else can one have the nerve to write: 20,000 jews of cologne were "displaced" of which 11,000 "are believed" to have been murdered. i suppose we can say that about the whole holocaust: so-and-so many millions of jews from europe were "displaced" of which 6 million "are believed" to have been murdered. absolutely disgusting! Sundar1 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The number of 11,000 has been estimated, this is what the word "believe" signifies. I don't see any attempt to put "their fate into the realm of the uncertain", but I'll go and change the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.230.118 ( talk) 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I contributed a picture of a cyclist and a subsection of context, after a visit to Cologne. I was impressed by how different things are for cyclists, compared with the USA and Britain. I think this is an interesting aspect of the city and of Germany generally, but I'm not sure how to go further on this issue. Most of what I wrote was deleted by a user who obviously knows a lot more about the subject than I do and clearly feels there is nothing specific about Cologne in what I wrote - e.g. a link to the segregated cycle facilities page.
Some Transport by Country pages have a cycling section, others don't (including Germany). Presumably not everyone thinks that cycling is transportation. I'm going by the example of Transport for London ( http://www.tfl.gov.uk)who very definitely include cycling and have detailed policies and implementation programmes.
I could add a category to Transport in Germany but I'm really not qualified to write much about the country as a whole - whereas I did spend some time cycling around Cologne and figuring out how the system works. Any views / ideas? ProfDEH ( talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Text says close to 10 million people live in Koln, summary sidebar says almost a million. One is likely wrong. Hpicot ( talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
" Cologne is also renown as the 'Gay Capitol of the world.' " was a sentance at the end of the demographics section, separate from the rest of the article, and without citation.
i removed it, it appears to be vandalism.
98.250.1.143 ( talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (also occassionally known as AeturnalNarcosis)
I've removed almost all external links, with the exception of the sister projects and the official city site. Links about the various tourist attractions should be on the relevant articles. This is consistent with pages on other majors cities. Pichpich ( talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the sentence deleted by an anonymous who replaced it with "Cologne's population is 1,022,627 ( December 31, 2004).". There are many Cologne fanatics who want their city to be a "millionaire". So watch out for their changes.
Oh well, we're watching so many things, aren't we? But do I sense some hidden fanaticism here? In order to clarify this issue I humbly suggest to state the official source in the article as is good wikipedia style. But then, if we just wait a little while... mr-t 12:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats quite a surprise: for differing German statistics! Still I d rather trust the closely involved city data than the federal state's statistics. The local state's statistics offices are in Duesseldorf (right?); considering the envy of Duesseldorfers to Cologne, those people might have manipulate the data?
No question Dusseldorf is smaller; but that doesnt stop them from wanting Cologne to appear smaller too.
The explanation is simple: Federal statistics count population by first residence, while city statistics include people with second residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.56.53 ( talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The photographer of the recent replacement replaced the original image just before nominating his picture for a featured picture. When checking where the FP nomination was used I noticed he put it in the infobox so when I looked at what was there before I found in my opinion a superior image he replaced with his picture. So I'm bringing it here to the talk page to see which image consensus would like in the infobox. — raeky ( talk | edits) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
the history section here is comparably long, while the main article history of Cologne has a lot of sections requiring expansion. I think, moving some of the text would make sense (?). CGN2010 ( talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth put a bot on this page correcting the Latin name of Cologne? I have close ties to the city and know for sure that its Latin name is Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis.
It could use a subsection "theater/theatre" listing the town's subsidised venues and companies, like the opera house and the Schauspiel Köln. Beyond that, Cologne has a vivid fringe scene with dozens of independent companies and venues. -- 217.243.215.150 ( talk) 07:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I find the Audio sample of the German Pronunciation of Köln quite unnatural. It's too stretched and therefore sounds as if the speaker was drunk. The correct pronunciation is shorter. -- 217.235.187.122 ( talk) 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 11:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Cologne → Köln — A German city should be at its German, not French, name. 75.28.52.27 ( talk) 01:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
In order to prevent an edit war: English and German source with translation. However, the name including translation may suit the history section better. -- Traveletti ( talk) 06:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cologne - Panoramic Image of the old town at dusk.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
On 29 October 2011 my referenced history to a published account of the Battle of Cologne, based on official U.S. Army documents and books, was removed by a contributor who insisted on total censorship because of favoritism to a German news source of 2005 that agreed with his own private vision of history. This censor-master contributor then unilaterally decided by his sole judgment who should be able to read what version, by deleting contrary accounts altogether. I did not know that Wikipedia allowed referenced military history to be wiped out in favor of revisionist versions considered “more reliable” by individual judgment. Upon discovering on 8 January 2012, this hatchet-job aimed at destroying facts unpopular to a particular person's viewpoint of the war, I reinserted my referenced and published account. I suggest the culprit who censored my contribution and deprived the world of anything but his own version be more careful in the future and learn to abide by the rules of Wikipedia and historical decency. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The official United States Army in World War II series volume Special Studies: Chronology compiled by Mary H. Williams and published by the Office of the Chief of Military History (Washington D.C., 1960), states on p. 424, "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March] and continues into night 4-5. Brauweiler, Loevenich, Freimersdorf and Widersdorf fall to 415th Inf and Koenigsdorf, Buschbell and Weiden to 414th." This fighting was just for the outskirts, and then the main battle began. On p. 425, "5 March: 3d Armd Div and 104th Div begin assault on Cologne early in day and enter the city during morning. 3d Armd Div with CC Boudinot on left and CC Hickey on right, each employing 2 TF's [task forces of armor and mechanized infantry], drives SE into the city, overrunning a number of suburban communities. Continuing E toward Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, 104th Inf Div clears Junkersdorf and penetrates 4,000 yards into the city.” On p. 427: “6 March: 104th Div, continuing assault on Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, clears most of S part of city and gets patrols to the Rhine. Efferden falls early in the morning to 414th Inf." (I did not copy the long sentences about the 3d Armd Div continuing combat on this same day, because this excerpt from the page about the 104th Div is enough to show that the assault into Cologne continued). Finally, on p. 429, “7 Mar: Cologne, third largest city in Germany, falls to 3d Armd and 104th Divs, which overcome organized resistance during morning and declare city secure by 1600. 3d Bn of 413th Inf is committed on 104th Div right for final drive and advances through S outskirts of Cologne to the Rhine”. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Nick's advice about the official account regarding the U.S. Army capture of Cologne is excellent, but should be supplemented by another equally-official US army source that specifically states (as quoted in my response above) "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March]". Thus, the battle of Cologne still commences with the attack on its outer defenses conforming to the timeline in my original description. Use of official accounts is accepted and the German source is valid where agrees with the official US account. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) However, the editorial suggestion of deleting a reference is unjustified censorship. Such censorship, whether of art or literature, makes the Wiki editors in fact censors, and Wiki an instrument of censorship. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Militaryartist ( talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw remarks made in overreaction to the preference of the editors for a pro-SS account of the battle incompatible with the official US army account, even though my remarks are true and based on the facts of this case, with the hope that discussion of the ground battle of Cologne in 1945 can proceed despite the previous unfortunate problems created by certain editors:
1. editorial bullying of contributors (stating my contribution was unacceptable because of false accusations that I effectively stated my account was right but the German media was dishonest (reference Pichpich reason for removal of contribution)
I remind everyone that my original contribution was removed completely on 29 October 2011 by another contributor who claimed his German media account was more reliable. When I discovered this censorship on 8 January 2012, I reinserted my contribution but in fair-mindedness allowed the German version to remain. I prefaced both accounts as to their source and never engaged in what Pichpich claims is unacceptable value judgments. By resorting to falsity and censorship, Pichpich engages in slanderous and unacceptable behavior.
2. unwarranted editorial censorship of references because of personal prejudice without supporting evidence of problems on topic (reference Nick explanation for censorship of reference).
Why is this libel against a published reference being allowed to remain as part of the public record, without any proof as to inaccuracy on the topic at hand? I might add that the official army books also contain inaccuracies, yet they are not trashed.
3. editorial adhesion to inaccurate appraisal of the comparative validity of sources (clearly Nick’s insistence on the German media account being in basic agreement with the official US army account is wrong)
I am amendable to continuation of a factual and objective discussion related to the 1945 battle of Cologne, and will forgive these multiple editorial transgressions in the interest of global information-sharing. However, editorial apologies should be forthcoming to assure an unprejudiced discussion can proceed. Until that time, the fairness of the Wikipedia editorial process is open to question. Finally, I continue to protest my contribution being removed and censored without justification, which constitutes a continuing violation of historical recordation done solely in the interest of wielding personal power and projecting personal opinions by the particular editors in this case. -- Militaryartist ( talk) 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks are intended as my remarks only pertain to possible infractions of censorship and non-objectivity because I do not wish to be lured into edit-warring, whereby editorial forces (determined to unfairly obstruct my writing and unjustly condemn my reference) can conspire to impose banning by joint authoritarian power against a single contributor being baited by two powerful editors. Upon expunging of inappropriate public editorial remarks, I will erase all statements expressing dissatisfaction toward said remarks, and the discussion of the 1945 ground battle of Cologne can proceed unhindered by discord. -
Militaryartist (
talk)
15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This section really makes little sense. Does it reflect an unidiomatic translation from the original German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.240.17 ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is rJay. I removed many invalid links. Please remember to check all links you make to make sure the page exists before saving the page. Thank you. RJay (official) ( talk) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Due to the free status of Cologne, the archbishops were usually not allowed to enter the city." Really, odd that the archbishop would never be allowed to set foot in the cathedral, don't you think. This should at least be cited. Tibetologist ( talk) 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"In Cologne, the carnival season officially starts on 11 November at 11 minutes past 11 a.m. with the proclamation of the new Carnival Season..."
Where did this date and time come from? It cannot be coincidence that (with the exception of the 11 minutes) this is exactly the date and time of the World War I Armistice on 11 November 1918:
But the Armistice was widely repudiated as a " stab-in-the-back", and seemingly was hardly a cause for celebration in Cologne or anywhere else in Germany. Does the timing of the start of Carnival predate WWI and the Armistice? Or does it postdate the end of WWII, after Hitler was gone?
And why November at all, when Ash Wednesday is still months away? What does it mean to have a multi-month "Carnival Season"? Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to read this... As far as I know, the computer science department is rather small (two professors?), as only Wirtschaftsinformatik is offered and computer science as such is only offered as a minor. Known for their computer science are Karlsruhe, Aachen, and, when it comes to research, Bonn. -- KagamiNoMiko 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite an attempt to talk over at User_talk:2.244.201.100, this anon editor has edit warred in a misguided attempt to impose his/her preferred spelling on this page. The first non-stub version was primarily in American English: [1] The edit warring started with this edit by an editor who hasn't edited for a couple days after getting chewed out by another editor on his talk page for similar edits ( User talk:Surtalnar), but no worries, the anonymous editor has been glad to keep fighting in his place. Anyway, the anonymous editor has only communicated with me via edit summaries (he doesn't understand what a talk page is?), so here we go. Red Slash 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have been created independently of Cologne rather than started there as a section, no obvious relationship between the two articles within the articles and a casual reader might think these are separate cities. Dougweller ( talk) 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
May we add some information about the Heinzelmännchen? -- 77.180.38.66 ( talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I, an Englishman, always refer to this city as Köln. I believe Cologne is the French name for the city; why do we use it as the article name in the English edition of Wikipedia?. -- Chris j wood 12:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Colonia" may be Latin, but "Cologne" is clearly French, as are all words ending with -gne. Salaskan 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I rith na ndúshlán uile a bhfuil aghaidh tugtha ag Vhi um Chúram Sláinte orthu le blianta beaga anuas, ní raibh aghdú ar bith i dtiomantas agus i ndaingne ár bhfostaithe.
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 ( talk) 14:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
i wouldnt say, using the French name in English is irrelevant to Colognians. but i agree that in English, Cologne is more often used than Köln. 88.77.143.83 ( talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)