This page 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. |
The article is now protected due to edit-warring for seven days. Please engage in constructive discussions and find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, please place a note at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to editors questions on my talk page: Yes, we always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As for the other question regarding the "ugliness" of the tag, well, that is the tag all articles get when they get protected due to content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To estimate the city size in terms of population, 2 measures are sufficient. First priority and standard measure is the city population within city limits. It is the territory, where political power is exercised (the mayor or governor).This measure is used in almost all Wiki city articles, several other media and encyclopedia. A ranking system deriving from this number is accurate, standard in Wikipedia and results in the conclusion: Berlin is the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU. The phrase is unquestionable accurate and needs no rephrasing like "...2.most ... city proper". Every other measure (urban / metro area) or even ranking system is not credibly sourced by one authority or (in this case: 9.largest...) includes non-city-agglomerations leading to heterogen lists. To estimate the "true" size of the city in broader sense, the number of the metro area (LUZ) is given and therefore sufficient. Endless adding of population subcategories will also lead to overcrowded introduction paragraphs and looses focus, which is not helpful. The demanded extra information by user:Keizuko is useless without the related number of 3.7 mil and is on the other hand already included in 'Demographics' and the infobox. Lear 21 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is not a trivial problem of too much information in the introduction as Lear21 is cunningly implying; it's actually a POV problem. For months now, Lear21 has been preserving this "Berlin is the second most populous city in the European Union" sentence in the introduction by systematically reverting any editor who dared to change the sentence. Note that this mirrors the German Wikipedia where Berlin is also trumpeted as the second largest city in the EU. Interestingly enough, this claim doesn't appear in any other Wikipedia I know of (French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, etc.), it only appears in the German Wikipedia.
This claim is based purely on administrative borders, by comparing municipalities within their administrative borders across the EU. The problem is that different countries across the EU have different ways to draw the administrative borders of their municipalities. In some countries like France and Greece, the municipalities are very tiny and encompass only the most central part of cities, whereas in other countries like Germany and the UK the borders of the municipalities are set so that the municipalities include a lot of the suburbs, and so the municipalities are very large. Comparing the population living within municipalities across EU countries is therefore like comparing apples and oranges.
Not only that, but if at least the entire urban area of Berlin (disrespective of administrative borders) was the 2nd most populated in the EU, the claim that Berlin is the 2nd most populous city in the EU would have some credential, but in reality Berlin is only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. The municipality of Berlin is very large, having been enlarged in 1920, and encompasses most of Berlin's suburbs. The municipality covers 892 km² of land within which there live 3.4 million people. In Paris, for comparison, the central municipality is very small and encompasses only the most central part of the agglomeration, but if you take 892 km² of land around Notre Dame Cathedral, there live about 7.5 million people within these 892 km². In London, if you take the 892 km² around Trafalgar Square there live about 6 million people within these 892 km². I'm not going to make the calculation for Madrid, Barcelona and Milan, but these figures show that claiming that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU is a bit POV and can only lead to endless controversies.
Personally I agree with Angr that the sentence should be completely removed from the article. If people absolutely want to keep a ranking in the introduction, then the ranking should mention that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city within adminstrative city limits in the EU but only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. Keizuko 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
City | Area | Population (2006) |
---|---|---|
Paris | 892 km² around Notre Dame Cathedral |
7.5 million |
London | 892 km² around Trafalgar Square |
6.0 million |
Madrid | 892 km² around Puerta del Sol |
4.2 million |
Berlin | City-State of Berlin (892 km²) |
3.4 million |
Germany is part of the EU, like California is part of the US. It is relevant therefore to present EU cities in comparison like any other political entity (China, Russia). @Angr: Read the EU article to understand what is the difference between NATO and EU. The real issue: Administrative city territories remain first priority and point of references. This is standard and NO POV ! Again: NO POV! No other criteria is more factual. The city of Berlin IS the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU, there is nothing to debate about. It is not the business of an introduction to put every statement in perspective. It is rather the business of city articles with special city territories (like the mentioned Paris) to explain the nature of their city size. The subsections have room for more details. The 'ninth largest' is not significant enough to be a mentionable feature in the introduction and is not even sourced by an international authority. Lear 21 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the EU article and related sources. Come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Lear 21 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If consequently applied, I could also argue: Austria is German speaking, why not include it´s population to Germany´s 82. mil. A city is defined by it´s city limits, every other criteria can be dealt with in subsections. The Metro Area of 4.9 mil is mentioned and that is sufficient. Sorry, but an unsourced 'ninth-largest' of whatever is not relevant for the introduction. Lear 21 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not relevant how other parts in the world define the City. This article includes an EU measure and an EU list. In the EU the vast majority have city limits and an administrative territory. If there are existing exceptions (Paris, Athens) it must be dealt within the respective articles. Lear 21 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll just point out here that I find it extremely contentious here that after something of a debate, where it is clear that there is not a concensus, immediately after protection is removed, Lear 21 reverts, for all practical purposes resuming the edit war. My personal preference would be to list its ranking as an urban area and "within city limits". As long as they're wiki-linked to the appropriate lists, readers can explore more context as they choose. As for relevance or not ... well, I find it interesting. People keep turning to logical extremes here as if they had any bearing on casual statements. "This is the only real measure of a city..." Well, a city is a concept, they've existed since before people drew imaginary lines and counted the people inside of them. "The EU is just like NATO..." Well, no, it's not. The EU is a special case somewhere between a state and a supernational union and it certainly has a lot more relevance in day to day life than NATO. The real questions aren't "Is this The One True Way of Measuring or Is This Just A Treaty Organization?" but "Can we say something meaningful that people are interested in reading?" In the latter case I think the answer is "yes" and that the "frozen" wording was a pretty good attempt at such. Scott.wheeler 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The urban area criteria is not a standard measure and superfluous. It is neither found in American city articles and a more than rare criteria among European city articles. This is also expressed by the fact that the respective INSEE list is only available in 3 languages. City rankings referring to city limits and metro areas are accepted and most spread among the vast majority of city articles (plus: translated in several major languages, resulting to higher relevance). AGAIN: In the 21. century cities have borders and are statistically measured and ranked. AGAIN 2: The 'ninth largest' of whatever is not significant enough to be mentioned in the introduction. Lear 21 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that city size can be measured by several indicators. Among the Wiki City articles the least used term/ indicator is the urban area. The vast majority concentrates on the City limits and Metropolitan area. It is also most represented in the infoboxes. This is already the case here. Note that an introduction can´t provide multiple details on the same topic. If there is a need to further elaborate it can be done in subsections. By the way, this too, is already the case in the Berlin article. It clearly identifies several indicators including its numbers. Lear 21 09:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This articles integrates the highest standards (FA) and most spread layouts and contents among Wiki City articles. Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, which is rarely used by European City articles and even more seldom by any other city article? Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, while already 2 exist, which are Standard and are adopted by the most important Wiki languages? The current version even inlcudes the reference itself (INSEE), this is improper citation and is No standard by any quality article. I repeat: NO standard at all! Furthermore: User:Keizuko has no record of integrating this superfluous indicator in any other City article apart from this one. Neither London , nor Rome, nor Madrid. Answer: The user is unable to accept the factual reality presented in this articles introduction. THAT is POV! The well established trimmed version will be reintroduced tommorrow. all the best Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
@Angr: Read the EU article, learn why the EU is the 'second' country to EU citizens, AND, come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Plus, and even more important, your raised topic is not the issue of this discussion. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is wether to include a 3. indicator concerning the city size or not. Your topic has been discussed wiht your attendance some months ago. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.....Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded.....CIA World Factbook [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.41 ( talk) 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My 2 cents: The larger EU Map is far better. The english wikipedia ist probably the most international one, many users have no idea where single countries like Germany are located exactly. You can't compare that to the native german wiki. It makes sense to show both the postion of Germany in Europe and Berlin in Germany in a single pic. There is no need to cut out information.
The city size: The second sentence about Berlin shouldnt start with a link to an unknown french statistical organization. Comparing urban areas is another difficult topic. The Ruhr area is not a city but a broad cluster of several independent cities which would never identify themself as a single city. The same applies to the 'double cities' of Brussels-Antwerp. Maybe we can find a better soultion here. -- Unify 14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the protection to afford a chance to involved editors to prove that they can edit without engaging in edit wars (and to stop one of you from continued harassment of my talk page). I will be keeping a close eye on the article, so please note that any further recurring edit warring may result in the temporarily loss of editor's editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The map Image:EU location Berlin.svg provides a comprehensive understanding of the city´s location compared to the single Germany map without borders. It should be reinstalled to the Infobox. It has been suggested that the map Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg is in line with other Bundesländer infoboxes. BUT: Berlin is primarily recognized as a city AND the capital. The capital status is dominating in this case. The landlocked location of Germany within Europe and the degree of integration in the EU creates the necessity of a broader perspective. It has been suggested that the European map is not in line with other city articles. This is true but neglects the fact that most of the maps in Wiki City articles are unsufficient in the first place. Worst examples are London and all American City articles, which can´t provide a proper location in their respective countries. Exception: Washington, the capital. The EU-Berlin map is of superior content quality, there is no need to cut down valuable extra information. Lear 21 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a larger first map of Chicago with its position marked in the States as I had no Idea where it was situated (excuse my bad education) and a more detailed map in the article. But the Chicago article introduces something interesting, a 'double map' with both wide and detailed view. Maybe someone could create something similar for Berlin and other european cities. -- Unify 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the map of the EU should not and will not be added because on all other articles about capital cities of EU member states there is no map of the EU. Unless you go and change the maps in all the other articles then you can change the one on here, until they the map needs to stay the way it is. Lear21 is German and has a huge bias toward the EU, that is the only reason why he is doing this. If you changes the map again just revert his edits, and if he continues report him to an admin agian. Daniel Chiswick 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Much of that discussion reminds me of AON. Non of the other european city articles is featured (at least I havent found one), so we dont need to copy their 'first pic'. @Daniel: Be careful with your accusation towards other users. Looks like you have some personal bias too. -- Unify 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Athinaios, Unify and this one [2]. @ Scott.wheeler : It is certainly a 'precedent' among EU cities, but an improved one. This city article has introduced repeatedly new layout features, which have been later adopted by several other Wiki languages and other city articles. As other users have suggested there are no conventions on that issue as well. @MJCdetroit and Daniel Chiswick: Read the EU article or other sources like CIA World Fact Book or IMF statistics and understand why the EU is a relevant category in this case. Plus: The Europe map IS presenting the location within Germany and adds the European perspective. THAT is of higher value. As long as there are no other convincing solutions available (Washington), the Europe-Berlin-map will be reintroduced as it was for more than a year. Lear 21 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If this [3] is true, I see a minor contradiction but no principal fault. Lear 21 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
People might come to this article to know where Berlin is. The map showing Berlin among the German states does a much better job at this than the larger map, showing the whole of Europe. Eg. on the smaller map, we can see the shape of state of Berlin. Now, if somebody sees the map but doesn't know where Germany is, I propose we add a link above the map to the Germany article where there is a map showing the location of Germany within Europe. Stefán 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
@Athinaios: "The islands are not part of the European Union, but are part of the Customs Territory of the European Community, by virtue of Protocol Three to the Treaty on European Union." The EC is part of the EU! This discussion could certainly go on with endless details to be mentioned. Fact is: The map and the EU territory is 99.9% correct. 0.1% remains disputed. I call this accurate, as many written claims have a disputable potential. @Edinborgarstefan: The Europe map shows clearly the location within Germany AND provides the EU perspective. This is more information quality. The shape of the city state Berlin is presented twice and in detail in the respective sections. Lear 21 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to use Inkscape to modify the map and create a combinted one. But its pretty confusing. Maybe someone is more talented. -- Unify 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
@Athinaios: It was obvious that the Channel Islands argument is going to be a hairsplitting one. But I´m going to be more precise: The EU map locates all 27 member states correctly = 100% accuracy! There are territories included, which are neither EU members but are included in the EC. These territories amount to less than 0.01 % either in population or area. The conclusion is that the map is correct to about 99,99%. all the best Lear 21 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Lear 21 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Daniel (and others), your argument "It is Berlin, Germany and not Berlin, Germany, European Union" is at least disputable. I don't know how much time you have spent in Berlin or elsewhere in the EU, but if you live here and look at stuff like a) what it says in and on your passport/driving licence, b) the currency you use, c) the economic systems you are part of, and d) where the laws that apply to you originate from (and so on and so on), it is indeed, to a considerable extent, Berlin, Germany, European Union. Is that somehow annoying to you? If so, may one ask why? As regards the other part of your argument "no other article on capitals of EU members have maps like this", first of all, it's not true. Look at Madrid, Helsinki and Stockholm. You should probably start the same discussion there. Also, even if Berlin was the only article were a European map was used, so what? There is no set standard or guideline for articles on European capitals, to my knowledge, and since wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, there is no reason why one should see other articles as precedents to that extent. The argument has to be about which map is more informative or useful, not about what information is or isn't contained in other articles. Personally, I would still be in favour of a dual map (like the Washington, D.C., Madrid or Liechtenstein ones), although strictly speaking, in my view, one of the two maps that are now constantly alternating on this page shows the position of Berlin both in Germany and in Europe. Alas, I'm not good at making maps. athinaios ( talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Dont know if its suitable for here, but its written in the Sofia page that it is Sister City with it, nothing is mentioned in Berlins page. 91.64.139.1 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, but I do not agree with that "too long" tag. The articles for Paris, New York City, London, Toronto, Boston, Chicago and even Manchester, are all longer; Edinburgh, Beijing and Moscow are nearly as long. At the least, anyone who tags it as too long per se should make some suggestions as to what to crop or move elsewhere. athinaios 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think this translation for "Ich bin ein Berliner" is excessively awkward? I would've thought the most obvious would be just "I am a Berliner". But by any means, I really don't like the current one. Any thoughts? -
EstoyAquí(
t •
c •
e) 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "I am a Berliner" is stronger.
--
Another-sailor (
talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The correct designation for the two world conflicts is "First World War" and "Second World War", as the German terms used by their official histories are Erste Weltkrieg and Zweite Weltkrieg" - should they not be used here? "World War II" is a specifically American term. The Germans, French and Commonwealth nations all officially use "Second World War" as the 'correct' designation. The language that the article is written in would seem to be irrelevant to that... 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There should be Erste Weltkrieg und Zweite Weltkrieg. Kontrolleur Cro 10 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.139.60 ( talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From an AP story filed Jan. 31, 2008:
This page 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. |
The article is now protected due to edit-warring for seven days. Please engage in constructive discussions and find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, please place a note at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to editors questions on my talk page: Yes, we always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As for the other question regarding the "ugliness" of the tag, well, that is the tag all articles get when they get protected due to content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To estimate the city size in terms of population, 2 measures are sufficient. First priority and standard measure is the city population within city limits. It is the territory, where political power is exercised (the mayor or governor).This measure is used in almost all Wiki city articles, several other media and encyclopedia. A ranking system deriving from this number is accurate, standard in Wikipedia and results in the conclusion: Berlin is the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU. The phrase is unquestionable accurate and needs no rephrasing like "...2.most ... city proper". Every other measure (urban / metro area) or even ranking system is not credibly sourced by one authority or (in this case: 9.largest...) includes non-city-agglomerations leading to heterogen lists. To estimate the "true" size of the city in broader sense, the number of the metro area (LUZ) is given and therefore sufficient. Endless adding of population subcategories will also lead to overcrowded introduction paragraphs and looses focus, which is not helpful. The demanded extra information by user:Keizuko is useless without the related number of 3.7 mil and is on the other hand already included in 'Demographics' and the infobox. Lear 21 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is not a trivial problem of too much information in the introduction as Lear21 is cunningly implying; it's actually a POV problem. For months now, Lear21 has been preserving this "Berlin is the second most populous city in the European Union" sentence in the introduction by systematically reverting any editor who dared to change the sentence. Note that this mirrors the German Wikipedia where Berlin is also trumpeted as the second largest city in the EU. Interestingly enough, this claim doesn't appear in any other Wikipedia I know of (French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, etc.), it only appears in the German Wikipedia.
This claim is based purely on administrative borders, by comparing municipalities within their administrative borders across the EU. The problem is that different countries across the EU have different ways to draw the administrative borders of their municipalities. In some countries like France and Greece, the municipalities are very tiny and encompass only the most central part of cities, whereas in other countries like Germany and the UK the borders of the municipalities are set so that the municipalities include a lot of the suburbs, and so the municipalities are very large. Comparing the population living within municipalities across EU countries is therefore like comparing apples and oranges.
Not only that, but if at least the entire urban area of Berlin (disrespective of administrative borders) was the 2nd most populated in the EU, the claim that Berlin is the 2nd most populous city in the EU would have some credential, but in reality Berlin is only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. The municipality of Berlin is very large, having been enlarged in 1920, and encompasses most of Berlin's suburbs. The municipality covers 892 km² of land within which there live 3.4 million people. In Paris, for comparison, the central municipality is very small and encompasses only the most central part of the agglomeration, but if you take 892 km² of land around Notre Dame Cathedral, there live about 7.5 million people within these 892 km². In London, if you take the 892 km² around Trafalgar Square there live about 6 million people within these 892 km². I'm not going to make the calculation for Madrid, Barcelona and Milan, but these figures show that claiming that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU is a bit POV and can only lead to endless controversies.
Personally I agree with Angr that the sentence should be completely removed from the article. If people absolutely want to keep a ranking in the introduction, then the ranking should mention that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city within adminstrative city limits in the EU but only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. Keizuko 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
City | Area | Population (2006) |
---|---|---|
Paris | 892 km² around Notre Dame Cathedral |
7.5 million |
London | 892 km² around Trafalgar Square |
6.0 million |
Madrid | 892 km² around Puerta del Sol |
4.2 million |
Berlin | City-State of Berlin (892 km²) |
3.4 million |
Germany is part of the EU, like California is part of the US. It is relevant therefore to present EU cities in comparison like any other political entity (China, Russia). @Angr: Read the EU article to understand what is the difference between NATO and EU. The real issue: Administrative city territories remain first priority and point of references. This is standard and NO POV ! Again: NO POV! No other criteria is more factual. The city of Berlin IS the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU, there is nothing to debate about. It is not the business of an introduction to put every statement in perspective. It is rather the business of city articles with special city territories (like the mentioned Paris) to explain the nature of their city size. The subsections have room for more details. The 'ninth largest' is not significant enough to be a mentionable feature in the introduction and is not even sourced by an international authority. Lear 21 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the EU article and related sources. Come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Lear 21 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If consequently applied, I could also argue: Austria is German speaking, why not include it´s population to Germany´s 82. mil. A city is defined by it´s city limits, every other criteria can be dealt with in subsections. The Metro Area of 4.9 mil is mentioned and that is sufficient. Sorry, but an unsourced 'ninth-largest' of whatever is not relevant for the introduction. Lear 21 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not relevant how other parts in the world define the City. This article includes an EU measure and an EU list. In the EU the vast majority have city limits and an administrative territory. If there are existing exceptions (Paris, Athens) it must be dealt within the respective articles. Lear 21 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll just point out here that I find it extremely contentious here that after something of a debate, where it is clear that there is not a concensus, immediately after protection is removed, Lear 21 reverts, for all practical purposes resuming the edit war. My personal preference would be to list its ranking as an urban area and "within city limits". As long as they're wiki-linked to the appropriate lists, readers can explore more context as they choose. As for relevance or not ... well, I find it interesting. People keep turning to logical extremes here as if they had any bearing on casual statements. "This is the only real measure of a city..." Well, a city is a concept, they've existed since before people drew imaginary lines and counted the people inside of them. "The EU is just like NATO..." Well, no, it's not. The EU is a special case somewhere between a state and a supernational union and it certainly has a lot more relevance in day to day life than NATO. The real questions aren't "Is this The One True Way of Measuring or Is This Just A Treaty Organization?" but "Can we say something meaningful that people are interested in reading?" In the latter case I think the answer is "yes" and that the "frozen" wording was a pretty good attempt at such. Scott.wheeler 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The urban area criteria is not a standard measure and superfluous. It is neither found in American city articles and a more than rare criteria among European city articles. This is also expressed by the fact that the respective INSEE list is only available in 3 languages. City rankings referring to city limits and metro areas are accepted and most spread among the vast majority of city articles (plus: translated in several major languages, resulting to higher relevance). AGAIN: In the 21. century cities have borders and are statistically measured and ranked. AGAIN 2: The 'ninth largest' of whatever is not significant enough to be mentioned in the introduction. Lear 21 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that city size can be measured by several indicators. Among the Wiki City articles the least used term/ indicator is the urban area. The vast majority concentrates on the City limits and Metropolitan area. It is also most represented in the infoboxes. This is already the case here. Note that an introduction can´t provide multiple details on the same topic. If there is a need to further elaborate it can be done in subsections. By the way, this too, is already the case in the Berlin article. It clearly identifies several indicators including its numbers. Lear 21 09:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This articles integrates the highest standards (FA) and most spread layouts and contents among Wiki City articles. Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, which is rarely used by European City articles and even more seldom by any other city article? Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, while already 2 exist, which are Standard and are adopted by the most important Wiki languages? The current version even inlcudes the reference itself (INSEE), this is improper citation and is No standard by any quality article. I repeat: NO standard at all! Furthermore: User:Keizuko has no record of integrating this superfluous indicator in any other City article apart from this one. Neither London , nor Rome, nor Madrid. Answer: The user is unable to accept the factual reality presented in this articles introduction. THAT is POV! The well established trimmed version will be reintroduced tommorrow. all the best Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
@Angr: Read the EU article, learn why the EU is the 'second' country to EU citizens, AND, come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Plus, and even more important, your raised topic is not the issue of this discussion. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is wether to include a 3. indicator concerning the city size or not. Your topic has been discussed wiht your attendance some months ago. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 ( talk) 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
.....Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded.....CIA World Factbook [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.89.41 ( talk) 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My 2 cents: The larger EU Map is far better. The english wikipedia ist probably the most international one, many users have no idea where single countries like Germany are located exactly. You can't compare that to the native german wiki. It makes sense to show both the postion of Germany in Europe and Berlin in Germany in a single pic. There is no need to cut out information.
The city size: The second sentence about Berlin shouldnt start with a link to an unknown french statistical organization. Comparing urban areas is another difficult topic. The Ruhr area is not a city but a broad cluster of several independent cities which would never identify themself as a single city. The same applies to the 'double cities' of Brussels-Antwerp. Maybe we can find a better soultion here. -- Unify 14:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the protection to afford a chance to involved editors to prove that they can edit without engaging in edit wars (and to stop one of you from continued harassment of my talk page). I will be keeping a close eye on the article, so please note that any further recurring edit warring may result in the temporarily loss of editor's editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The map Image:EU location Berlin.svg provides a comprehensive understanding of the city´s location compared to the single Germany map without borders. It should be reinstalled to the Infobox. It has been suggested that the map Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg is in line with other Bundesländer infoboxes. BUT: Berlin is primarily recognized as a city AND the capital. The capital status is dominating in this case. The landlocked location of Germany within Europe and the degree of integration in the EU creates the necessity of a broader perspective. It has been suggested that the European map is not in line with other city articles. This is true but neglects the fact that most of the maps in Wiki City articles are unsufficient in the first place. Worst examples are London and all American City articles, which can´t provide a proper location in their respective countries. Exception: Washington, the capital. The EU-Berlin map is of superior content quality, there is no need to cut down valuable extra information. Lear 21 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer a larger first map of Chicago with its position marked in the States as I had no Idea where it was situated (excuse my bad education) and a more detailed map in the article. But the Chicago article introduces something interesting, a 'double map' with both wide and detailed view. Maybe someone could create something similar for Berlin and other european cities. -- Unify 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the map of the EU should not and will not be added because on all other articles about capital cities of EU member states there is no map of the EU. Unless you go and change the maps in all the other articles then you can change the one on here, until they the map needs to stay the way it is. Lear21 is German and has a huge bias toward the EU, that is the only reason why he is doing this. If you changes the map again just revert his edits, and if he continues report him to an admin agian. Daniel Chiswick 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Much of that discussion reminds me of AON. Non of the other european city articles is featured (at least I havent found one), so we dont need to copy their 'first pic'. @Daniel: Be careful with your accusation towards other users. Looks like you have some personal bias too. -- Unify 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Athinaios, Unify and this one [2]. @ Scott.wheeler : It is certainly a 'precedent' among EU cities, but an improved one. This city article has introduced repeatedly new layout features, which have been later adopted by several other Wiki languages and other city articles. As other users have suggested there are no conventions on that issue as well. @MJCdetroit and Daniel Chiswick: Read the EU article or other sources like CIA World Fact Book or IMF statistics and understand why the EU is a relevant category in this case. Plus: The Europe map IS presenting the location within Germany and adds the European perspective. THAT is of higher value. As long as there are no other convincing solutions available (Washington), the Europe-Berlin-map will be reintroduced as it was for more than a year. Lear 21 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If this [3] is true, I see a minor contradiction but no principal fault. Lear 21 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
People might come to this article to know where Berlin is. The map showing Berlin among the German states does a much better job at this than the larger map, showing the whole of Europe. Eg. on the smaller map, we can see the shape of state of Berlin. Now, if somebody sees the map but doesn't know where Germany is, I propose we add a link above the map to the Germany article where there is a map showing the location of Germany within Europe. Stefán 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
@Athinaios: "The islands are not part of the European Union, but are part of the Customs Territory of the European Community, by virtue of Protocol Three to the Treaty on European Union." The EC is part of the EU! This discussion could certainly go on with endless details to be mentioned. Fact is: The map and the EU territory is 99.9% correct. 0.1% remains disputed. I call this accurate, as many written claims have a disputable potential. @Edinborgarstefan: The Europe map shows clearly the location within Germany AND provides the EU perspective. This is more information quality. The shape of the city state Berlin is presented twice and in detail in the respective sections. Lear 21 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to use Inkscape to modify the map and create a combinted one. But its pretty confusing. Maybe someone is more talented. -- Unify 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
@Athinaios: It was obvious that the Channel Islands argument is going to be a hairsplitting one. But I´m going to be more precise: The EU map locates all 27 member states correctly = 100% accuracy! There are territories included, which are neither EU members but are included in the EC. These territories amount to less than 0.01 % either in population or area. The conclusion is that the map is correct to about 99,99%. all the best Lear 21 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Lear 21 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Daniel (and others), your argument "It is Berlin, Germany and not Berlin, Germany, European Union" is at least disputable. I don't know how much time you have spent in Berlin or elsewhere in the EU, but if you live here and look at stuff like a) what it says in and on your passport/driving licence, b) the currency you use, c) the economic systems you are part of, and d) where the laws that apply to you originate from (and so on and so on), it is indeed, to a considerable extent, Berlin, Germany, European Union. Is that somehow annoying to you? If so, may one ask why? As regards the other part of your argument "no other article on capitals of EU members have maps like this", first of all, it's not true. Look at Madrid, Helsinki and Stockholm. You should probably start the same discussion there. Also, even if Berlin was the only article were a European map was used, so what? There is no set standard or guideline for articles on European capitals, to my knowledge, and since wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold, there is no reason why one should see other articles as precedents to that extent. The argument has to be about which map is more informative or useful, not about what information is or isn't contained in other articles. Personally, I would still be in favour of a dual map (like the Washington, D.C., Madrid or Liechtenstein ones), although strictly speaking, in my view, one of the two maps that are now constantly alternating on this page shows the position of Berlin both in Germany and in Europe. Alas, I'm not good at making maps. athinaios ( talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Dont know if its suitable for here, but its written in the Sofia page that it is Sister City with it, nothing is mentioned in Berlins page. 91.64.139.1 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, but I do not agree with that "too long" tag. The articles for Paris, New York City, London, Toronto, Boston, Chicago and even Manchester, are all longer; Edinburgh, Beijing and Moscow are nearly as long. At the least, anyone who tags it as too long per se should make some suggestions as to what to crop or move elsewhere. athinaios 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else think this translation for "Ich bin ein Berliner" is excessively awkward? I would've thought the most obvious would be just "I am a Berliner". But by any means, I really don't like the current one. Any thoughts? -
EstoyAquí(
t •
c •
e) 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, "I am a Berliner" is stronger.
--
Another-sailor (
talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The correct designation for the two world conflicts is "First World War" and "Second World War", as the German terms used by their official histories are Erste Weltkrieg and Zweite Weltkrieg" - should they not be used here? "World War II" is a specifically American term. The Germans, French and Commonwealth nations all officially use "Second World War" as the 'correct' designation. The language that the article is written in would seem to be irrelevant to that... 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There should be Erste Weltkrieg und Zweite Weltkrieg. Kontrolleur Cro 10 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.29.139.60 ( talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
From an AP story filed Jan. 31, 2008: