Talk:Berlin/Archive 7

Berlin documentary question

Hi.

With a little help, I've set up a page for a 2009 documentary produced by the BBC and the Open University for Berlin. However, the closest I can find to a section where it might be listed is in the link to the list of films depicting the city - which, as a TV-based documentary, Berlin is not.

Is there a place, either here or in a page linked to from this one, where a listing for the documentary could be added? --Nerroth (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been already added to the External Links section, great doc isn´t it ?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.12.220 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms if already being there, yes and no. The file linked to is from the international broadcast edition, as shown on BBC World News. Compared to the original, it's cut and edited in order to make room for ads. The wiki page for the doc describes the original version, as well as the DVD and booklet for the series. --Nerroth (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

This part stinks so much. It is heavily out of date. Come on, Frederick the Great (200years ago) is influencing todays Berlin eating habit? This part needs a proper rework or should be deleted. Berlin has the most of fine restaurants in Germany. The average "cuisine" is very international, Thai, Falafel, Indian, Pizza, Döner even Burgers are popular. Look at the cafe culture. And what about the German breads ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.15.245 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is about the typical/traditional Berlin fare. And, it can't be denied that people are still munching on potatoes and cucumbers these days. No one denies international restaurants are abundant and German bread is not limited to or special to Berlin, so that does not require special mention. Ever try liver "Berliner art"? Alandeus (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do think there's more to be said, but I'm not sure about simply translating from de:wp. Wasn't there a rule on that? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange. Berlin is supposed to have the most Michelin star restaurants in Germany, why isnt this written here? Berlin is not only Currywurst and Eisbein anymore. It is rather multiethnic and highclass. Ah, and don´t forget the superlarge organic supermarkets, they are very popular....Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.148.45 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Restaurants would be gastronomy, not cuisine - see above (Alandeus), IP. --G-41614 (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Berlin has the most restaurants in Germany anyway. So what. Berlin has the most of anything in Germany (exept mountains...), so what. Mute point. Alandeus (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In my eyes, reducing the cuisine of one of the largest and most diverse cities in Europe to one Currywurst image is a disgraceful offense. The text is even more stupid, suggesting that 21. century Berlin is based on Prussian traditions. Nobody who ever lived in contemporary Berlin could ever agree to this. Please change ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.7.98 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This will not be changed. The "Currywurst" image is used as an example for the listed typical Berlin foods; what is offensive about it? This section is simply concentrating on the most typical and traditional of Berlin foods. No one denies that there is so much else out there. The same goes for Berlin being based on Prussian traditions: Berlin is at the heart of Prussian traditions - what else? - , but much else has influenced Berlin in time as well of course. Do we need to go into all that? Alandeus (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Currywurst is special not just because it's a typical Berlin food but because it's one of the few foods verifiably known to have been invented in Berlin. I believe Ketwurst was invented in Berlin too, though; it could probably also be added to the section if a source can be found for it. +Angr 09:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should this part show of the most traditional? Absurd. The most typical is obviuosly a personal taste of you. Nothing more. I checked quickly the whole article, the part about cuisine seems strangley historical connotated and doesn´t reflect the city of today. Again, please change or remove ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.149.184 (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get the difference between cuisine and gastronomy. Kindly remove yourself asap (no need to shout) or improve the chapter yourself, but without confusing cuisine and gastronomy again (as for myself, it'll be a while before I can do anything sensible with it). What I did, as all can see, was replace the picture. Its fame notwithstanding, considering the popularity af the Currywurst in the Ruhrgebiet and a fast food staple representing something as solid as sit-down-food, I decided on something else to put in. Besides, ask a Hamburgian about the verifiability thing - he/she might feel compelled to contest your claim. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref. 91 asserts that currywurst was invented in Berlin, and there were other sources reporting the same thing that I saw when I found that one. Are there reliable sources for its having been invented in Hamburg? I'm not seeing any sources asserting that Eisbein was invented in Berlin, so I don't understand the relevance of the photo you added. +Angr 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry for the confusion about ASAP, it was not meant as shouting. About the food (aka cuisine) part here, we all should ask ourselves what are the eating habits and culinary offerings of Berlin (a very large divers city). I checked the Paris site, they have a restaurant, which to me makes sense. I´m for a more neutral pic here at Berlin as well. Maybe a famous cafe or hotel. It just looks misleading to have a single Currywurst. BTW, to my knowledge Döner has become an even more popular (more sold) streetfood in Berlin and is (in this form) also invented in Berlin.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.151.241 (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems there's still this confusion about what Cuisine is. Of course there may be different understandings, but since we're at a place where all kinds of information is available, why not utilize this? ... and come up with: "Cuisine [...] is a specific set of cooking traditions and practices, often associated with a specific culture." Unlike the Adlon, or other places if high gastronomical significance, the Eisbein fits the bill. Also, reducing cuisine to no more than dishes that were invented in the specific place would exclude most of the traditional dishes of the world, most of which, being 'traditional', can't be traced to a specific place of origin. Therefore, I hope I have made it understandable why I took the liberty and replaced the Adlon with the Eisbein again (speaking of Eisbein, if you can read de:Berliner Küche). But I will not start an EW over this should anyone feel the need to take offense and revert likewise. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

de:Berliner Küche is a very interesting article; unfortunately, like most articles at de-wp it's completely unsourced and unverifiable, so there's no way to tell whether anything it says is true. +Angr 12:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe Berlin is neither famous for its cuisine nor its gastronomy. At least not in an international context. Shouldnt the article deal about important relevant issues ? As I understood it there was a Currywurst pic in the past, that was also gastronomy, nobody cooks Currywurst at home. So what is the answer ? I believe the whole cuisine part is so weak it could be deleted. If it stays it should provide the most excellent examples of cuisine or gastronomy and not the most disgusting one, which only by looking at it, somebody has to vomit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.11.128 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course people cook currywurst at home (I myself am more likely to eat it at home than to buy it from a vendor), and I agree currywurst is a more relevant picture than eisbein (though both pictures are equally disgusting or non-disgusting). Whether Berlin is famous for its cuisine and/or gastronomy in an international context is irrelevant. +Angr 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I re-inserted the currywurst, because I'd say it is more popular than eisbein in Berlin and also because it was invented in Berlin and therefore has a closer tie to Berlin. Unfortunately, some people get sick looking at the picture. Your regular Berliner usually gets hungry. The selection of the exemplary foods was indecently due to the original source of this section. I just added the liver, mainly because of the name. Lets do keep cuisine and gastronomy apart. Anyone is welcome to insert a new section on gastronomy with restaurant information ranging from the Adlon to the friendly neighbourhood pizzeria. And finally, ASAP is the acronym for 'as soon as possible' is normally not shouted. Alandeus (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out the close similarity between the IP addresses of the user "disgusted" by the Eisbein and who considers currywurst a "disgraceful offense" and the Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lear 21, who has been banned from English Wikipedia and therefore is not allowed to edit here at all under any user name or IP address. +Angr 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know this was a popularity contest.

Currywurst may be more popular, but I'd doubt it fits the definition of cuisine - it's a staple, not a tradition. Though I'll agree to that being POV. Just like it's POV that there's one user who fixes dish at home. Sorry, Angr - nothing personal. But you just don't fit the bill as a source. Speaking of which, if you want verifiable sources on the article on Berliner Küche at de:wp, I suggest you consultate the list of literature at the bottom of the page. All there, just not online. Your inability to check it does not compromise the permissibility of the source. What does, admittedly, is the lack of inline citations. Furthermore, if you've read the article you ought to know that most traditional dishes of Berlin Cuisine are not invented in Berlin, a few exceptions aside. So much for now, --G-41614 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My experience with German Wikipedia is that the literature listed at the bottom of an article is only very rarely the actual source of the material in the article; therefore even an article with such a list must be considered unsourced. I certainly don't think that only dishes invented in Berlin should be mentioned in the Cuisine section, but I do think the fact the currywurst was invented in Berlin elevates it to a position of honor such that if there's only room for one photo in the Cuisine section (and so far, there is), it should be of currywurst (rather than, say, eisbein or the Hotel Adlon). +Angr 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Your experience", ... therefore "must be considered"?!? Interesting, uh, point of view. Not that I'd generally say you're wrong, on the other hand, but still ... :) Regards anyhow, --G-41614 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice how WP:NPOV applies to article space, not to comments on talk pages. +Angr 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but to comply with that you would have to guarantee that your opinion has no impact in the AS. --G-41614 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don´t see the quality or importance of this cuisine bit. Please ask yourself What is the cuisine of Los Angeles or London ? Answer: A broad mix of influences including homemade and professional highclass restaurants. Same in Berlin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.3.69 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear 78.53.3.69: You please ask yourself: WHERE is the cuisine of Los Angeles or London? Answer: I checked those two articles and there was nothing on cuisine or gastronomy in those two cities! Cuisine stands for kitchen, so we are looking into the traditional or typical cooking pots of the locals first of all. Of course, restaurants have kitchens too, but that is another story, so make a gastronomy section out of that if you wish. Why this is interesting is because Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, which focuses on local heritage, and not a tour guide for various restaurants. Alandeus (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The question says it all - LA, and (I'm just guessing here) London as well, have gastronomy, but no cuisine. Berlin does have both, as regrettable (or not) one might find the latter. --G-41614 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Here are a big mistakes to clear:

• "Berlin Cuisine" - lost after 1945, what now are ist "Eating in berlin" - this both themes must separation, equally gastronomy and homely cuisine

The traditional cuisine ist define in some cookery books, and how much tradtitions in the verbal lore from the berlin familys. Since 1945 go 1 million persons, and 1 millon comes with other traditions. Therefore tell 3 berliner, and you become 3 answers, when 2 answers are "Eating in berlin 2010". Part please the disput, then are the result bettter. Oliver S.Y. from de:WP 78.55.67.246 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And your source for that rather tall claim would be ...? --G-41614 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the point in a gastronomy section. As Lear_21 pointed out above, "What is the cuisine of Los Angeles or London ? Answer: A broad mix of influences including homemade and professional highclass restaurants. Same in Berlin." In other words, you get exactly the same overpriced Italian food, Chinese food, French food, and Greek food in Berlin as you get in any other western metropolis. Nothing unique or interesting there; nothing the reader needs to be told. What the reader who doesn't know Berlin might not know is what the traditional local cuisine is (whether home-made or restaurant-bought), and that's what the section does and should discuss. +Angr 13:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I checked the de:Berlin site. They don´t even have a cuisine part. Then I checked other german and international cities, almost none has a cuisine part. Cities unlike regions or countries don´t have a cuisine because cities are diverse. Have you ever considered the large vegetarian biofood scene? The large Turkish cuisine? The Hundreds of Thousands German newcomers? None of them has anything to do with the Berlin cuisine of the 19th century. The only reason to keep such a food-gastronomy-cuisine part is when the region is famous for it. The "traditional" Berlin cuisine is not important enough to be in this article. It was probably a personal idea with a narrow horizon. With all respect, it should be removed. The sources for this part are somewhat weak or not up to date. Sorry to say that: Berlin is worldfamous for a lot of things but certainly not for its historic cuisine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.14.152 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

de-wp has an entire article on de:Berliner Küche; I think we can spare a paragraph on it in this article. +Angr 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The traditional Berlin cuisine is the only reason for it to be in this article. I'm getting hungry now - goining out for a currywust. Schönes Wochenende! Alandeus (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm food historian and I just came over from the german Wikipedia to see what is discussed here. Of course every capital has its gastronomy and Berlin has some culinary specialties which should be mentioned also in this article. A translation of the german article about Berlin cuisine is not really necessary I think because not every detail is really of interest for international readers. So the most important dishes of Berlin which are typical are really Berliner Pfannkuchen, Currywurst, Eisbein, Kasseler (cured and smoked pork), thick cooked peas with mashed potatoes, Rollmops, a dessert called "Berliner Luft" (= air of Berlin) and as turkish import Doner kebab. There is also a special beer called Berliner Weisse. If you are looking for a good source about german food in English I can recommed "Spoonfuls of Germany" by Nadia Hassani which has a chapter about Berlin --88.134.40.238 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Dinah

Excuse my weak english skills. I'm a "native" Berliner and used to live there for about 34 years. I did grew up in Berlin while the wall still was there. During my youth and also later we had some real favorite meals: Some of them where Döner Kebap (Salat + Onions + meat + carlic-sauce + meat in bread; which was actualy invented in Berlin), French fries (Pommes), of course potatoes, but also indian cusine, Currywurst... Eisbein for example I got to know on my first trip bavaria. Other than that it is really difficult to tell what kind of meal is typical in Berlin. We have tons of immigrants since years in the town .. (Berlin is on of the largest turkish city out-side of Turkey). The easierst it is to delete the paragraph or just to mention the multitude of cultures in that great city of germany.

Thanks for your endurance. Verpacker Ing. (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn, and all I thought about was a little tinkering ... considering things seem to have calmed down, now there may be time what to do for real with it. I didn't think it needed a maior expansion. What strikes me most as lacking is the missing distinguation between the traditional cuisine, cuisine in the strictest sense, and the post-war (WWII) developments. Besides, Döner may be a typical part of the fast food available in Berlin. But it would interesting to know who, rather how many people think "Berlin" when they hear Döner? Not that I'd say there's no connection. Same goes for Currywurst (I think more people would associate "Currywurst" with Berlin than Döner, but again, that may be just me). For now, --G-41614 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

EKD drop in membership

I don't think the fact that the membership in the EKD dropped negligibly from 2007 to 2008 is really relevant to the article on Berlin, and emphasizing it doesn't seem to be NPOV either. +Angr 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Population update

Updated the population to reflect latest statistics as provided by http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/pms/2010/10-03-24a.pdf. Both in infobox and demographics. No major changes, population pretty much stagnant. Removed "- Urban 3,700,000 - Metro 5,000,000" , neither the old nor the new source reference these numbers. http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/pms/2010/10-03-24.pdf gives the population of surrounding Brandenburg State (2,514,700) but this cannot be added to the Berlin city population to arrive at a metro number. --BsBsBs (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected due to edit-warring

I've protected the article because of the ongoing edit war regarding whether or not to include the women's volleyball team. I have no opinion on the issue one way or the other, but invite the parties to discuss it here and come to consensus first before continuing to edit-war about it. +Angr 12:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please protect this article in a discreet way, so readers are not distracted, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.15.75 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that really an edit war? I'm not sure if edits about some women's volleyball team requires complete protection for such an important article, but hey, maybe consensus can be reached here. Let's hope so! Should the team be included or not? Jared Preston (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True. This is a non-event. I just checked this woman volleyball club. It has never won anything and is virtually unknown in Berlin. It has not even an English Wikipage. Please unprotect as soon as possible in order to get rid of the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.15.75 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I haven't heard of the club either despite having lived in Berlin for a few years and being interested in sport. It still, however, seems to be that if the club is important enough to be on the Berlin article, then it really should have its own page first. Maybe we could all help to write it!?! Then it would be much easier to reach consensus based on its importance. Jared Preston (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just checked [1] - the team is in fact playing in the 1st league, so it isn't totally obscure. (I also figure that they must have "won something" to get there). So, what is the criteria for inclusion? If it is "all upper-league teams", then it must certainly go in. If it's something else, make it clear. But the criteria cannot be wether or not some editor has heard of it already. Averell (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no requirement that every thing mentioned in an article is "notable" (in the Wikipedia sense) by itself, or that it has its own article. Nor does mentioning it here imply that an article has to be written. Averell (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a good rule of thumb would be to include professionals and exclude amateurs. (I'd say that rule should be extended to musical groups like orchestras and choirs as well as to sports teams.) If others agree with that, the question is whether the team is professional or not. Do the players earn a salary? Is playing for the women's volleyball team the players' only job? +Angr 07:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this an edit war???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.76.140 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Only in the primary soccer/football leagues do the players get full pay. In other sports and minor leagues the athletes have to have a second income. Athlete's payment would thus not be a criteria for Wiki entries. Simply being in the top (or two) league should suffice. Third and other amateur teams would be too many. I'd say this volleyball team should be included. Alandeus (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that, I'd say that being in the top league is a more clear-cut criteria and easiest to check. I tried to check for the "professional" status of this team, but their site didn't tell one way or the other. Plus I'd really like to avoid the situation to include the male team of one sport but exclude the female team of the same sport that plays at the same level. However, we do need some criteria of which sport/teams to exclude - more than a handful of teams should not be listed here and we can't include all fringe sports. Averell (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the "edit war": I'm also thinking that the article should be unprotected and the full protection was a bit over the top. It was a relatively harmless exchange (I've seen much worse). It could have been dealt with by warning the two editors involved to take it to the talk page. Full blocks should be a last resort, and I don't think we should block all other editors out of the article while this obscure issue is being resolved. Averell (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all sorry for my worse english skills. I have to confess that I was the one starting this discussion by adding the female volleyball-team. By looking up the chart with the different sport teams, I did find out that the women where totally missing. So I did add first the women volleyball team, which is playing in the 1. Bundesliga. (link [[2]]). This adding had been deleted a couple times. I was wondering if femals aren´t good enough to be mentioned. Later on the same person did delet my adding again with the comment: "never heard of this club". I like to accompany Averell (see above), who wrote: "that being in the top league is a more clear-cut criteria and easiest to check". Verpacker Ing. (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue with that. Let's just get it in and unlock the page, please. Jared Preston (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody told me that Berlin in fact has more than 20 premier league clubs. Table tennis, hockey, water polo, you name it. Are all of them meant to be included ? I study in Berlin and have never noticed the volleyball girls. The teams listed now in this table seem to be the big important ones. That was my take on it. Berlin is awesome. Globalistum (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can please, please someone ask the person who locked this article to unblock it. The page looks like something criminal is going on ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.9.5 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've unprotected the page as there seems to be consensus to include the women's volleyball team since they're in the 1st league. At any rate, no one has argued against it. +Angr 06:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First league only?

It just occurred to me, with respect to the discussion above, that if we include only sports teams that are in the first league, then we should remove both Hertha and Union, as they're both 2. Bundesliga. That seems an undesirable result, yet we really don't want to start listing every single amateur athletic team in the city. (Hopscotch, jump rope, marbles...) +Angr 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest, Angr? All top league representatives plus well-known/professional clubs? Jared Preston (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion, that's why I'm asking what others think we should do. +Angr 22:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think they should go in, as they are popular even in second league. Also, soccer is hugely popular and I'd argue that a second-league soccer is probably more "important" than a first-league team of any other sport. Averell (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry to interrupt. But where is a majority or good argumentation to include the Volleyball woman. Again, there is not even a Wiki entry, there is not even a single Volleyball Wiki article in German, for the team. Nobody, absolutely nobody in Berlin does know about this woman team. They never won anything, zero. Sorry to sound harsh but there must be a line to include only important, either very successful (championships) or very popular (large audience) professional teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.77.82 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that they have a Wiki entry. Plus there is an entry about the club on the German Wikipedia which is largely about the Volleyball team. I agree we should only include important teams, but what is your line? It cannot be "I think no one in Berlin knows them". Being one of a handful of teams that play in the first league seems to be a success in itself to me. If you have other criteria, let us know. But in the end I really think it's problematic to include the male team, while excluding the female team that plays in the same league at the same level. (I have heard of neither the male or female team until now, but then I don't follow Volleyball at all). Averell (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is no wiki entry is proof enough of being not relevant. Berlin has 145 teams in either the 1. or 2. Bundesliga (premier league). There must be a line, obviously the space is limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.79.228 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Although Berlin isn't a German soccer metropole, I deem soccer important enough to have Hertha and Union included here. Even in Berlin, soccer is the most important discipline. Maybe the number of members of sport clubs, either soccer or volleyball or something else is a good indicator to draw a line. 78.53.40.0 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's in the first doesn't make it notable. I don't think it is. Also, reverse discrimination is not an answer to this either. You don't add the female team because the male team was included, unless the female team is also notable by itself. 72.152.36.78 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Within the chapter "Economy" there is a chart listing Berlin, Brandenburg, Germany, Europe. It seems to my that this list implies that the City of Berlin is a part of the federal state of Brandenburg. But Berlin is a so -called "Stadt-Staat", which means it is a city and also a federal state. A couple years ago they tried to unite the 2 federal states Berlin and Brandenburg. It did not work out because of a referendum.
Any idea how to deal with that chart?
Just delete the Brandenburg-row? Verpacker Ing. (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'd say: just delete the Brandenburg row. +Angr 14:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the chart implies that Berlin is part of Brandenburg; for one thing it has a much greater population. However, the Brandenburg line actually fulfills no purpose here, so it might as well be deleted. Alandeus (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I did delete the Brandenburg line. Verpacker Ing. (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Assemblage_Berlin

Can someone please fix the introductory photo collage (Assemblage_Berlin.jpg)? It seems to be the fashion to present city landmarks in this way, but the some of the proportions are distorted! The Brandenburg Gate in particular is quite squat. The Reichstag also seems to be shorter than in reality. Alandeus (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If no-one corrects the proportions of the introductory photo collage (Assemblage_Berlin.jpg), I suggest replacing it with the former panoramic view of downtown Berlin. May I suggest a deadline of 5 days? Alandeus (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The montage seems to be a default part of every city, anything other should be avoided. FinnishDriver (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Just because other cities tend to have these photo collages doesn't mean this article is required to have one. My problem with the image is that for being a collage of different photos, it doesn't really succeed in showing the diversity of the city. Two of the five photos are of the Reichstag, and others show landmarks that are not that far away from it or from each other. If we're going to show a collage of different photos, it should at least include the Gedächtniskirche as the landmark of West Berlin, and maybe something of Spandau or Köpenick, and maybe some nature like the Grunewald or the Müggelsee. There is life in Berlin outside Mitte and immediately adjacent parts of Tiergarten. +Angr 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

True, I also think the cupola could be scrapped. I also think the montage could be better in displaying more locations (all in all 2 more) with more variety, think of the Karneval, the or Berlinale for instance. But how could a single photo be more valuable? That is nonsense. Right now the montage is without alternative. FinnishDriver (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the composition of the collage. The problem is in the distortion of some of the images. This needs to be taken care of. Alandeus (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Karneval? What Karneval?!? Berlin is in eastern Germany - not the Rhineland! Ok, seriously, is it legitimate to take pictures from commons, unite them in one picture file, then upload the result again? As to the landmarks - Gedächtniskirche, Museum Island, Brandenburg Gate, Reichstag, Grunewald, Admiralsbrücke (street life), Marzahn, ... any suggestions? --G-41614 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference was to Karneval der Kulturen. And yes, as long as all the images are freely licensed (as all images at Commons should be), it's legitimate to combine them into a collage and upload the result. +Angr 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops - yes, that's a good one. There's pics to be had, too. Thnx for the intel. --G-41614 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a citizen of Berlin I also have some problems with the photo collage: It depicts some important buildings, most of them political or religious symbols. However, it is not politics or religion that makes Berlin so important. In my opinion it is mainly its cultural and historical diversity that is so important for the city. I believe "Karneval der Kulturen", "Kunsthaus Tacheles", "Mauerpark", "Görlitzer Park" or "Bar 25" are typicial locations citizens of the city are visiting quite often and that reflect the diversity much better than the Brandenburg gate. Additionally, lakes and forests, which are very important for the city since it is quite green, should also be mentioned. And of course, the Wall (East side gallery?)! Notice, that Berlin is quite liberal. Citizens traditionally don't care about political symbols. They are even jaded of political symbols because of the traumatic past the city went through during the Nazi dictatorship, the bombings, and the separation of the city. I know that it is quite common to narrow a city to some symbols (Paris: Eiffel tower, London: Tower bridge etc.). However, that may fit well for a small city, but not for a city as large as London or Paris, and specifically not for a city as diverse as Berlin. But if you asked me for a symbol I probably would say the TV tower is the city's symbol as it is located in the center and can be seen from everywhere. The tower is not even mentioned in the collage. Note, that the Brandburg gate is much to broad in the image. In reality the proportions are very different. 78.53.40.0 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a Berlin native ... the TV tower? I'm sorry, but that is a total ... before you suggest that consider the fact that there used to be the TV-tower in Berlin(East), the broadcast tower in Berlin(West). Or eastern Berlin and western Berlin, or whatever. The TV tower is certainly NOT "the" symbol of Berlin (and yes, this's POV against POV, but I'd like to see a reason to declare the tower "the" symbol of Berlin). The Gate'd be more like that, like it or not. Other than that, like your suggestions. Although of now I'm sceptical regarding the availability of a pic showing the Bar 25. On another note, I tried to create a new assemblage, but there seems to be something off with the program. Luxo said he'd fix it, so I'll try again and, should I be able to come up with something, will provide links. In the meantime, while I like the idea of the assemblage, nothing wrong with a nice pano ... Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to your work (talk). You are quite right, the Brandenburg Gate is the traditional icon for Berlin, if not Germany. It simply must be included. The current selection of auxiliary images is fine, but I don't mind something else as long as it is unique and in proportion. Alandeus (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 assemblage musthaves IMHO: The TV Tower, the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag. Even more important is probably a panorama, thats why the current compilation seems quite ok. Actually the current nightlife panorama is pretty atmospheric and hits the spot. FinnishDriver (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Having license trouble. Oh, well. Still working on it. TV-tower not a must. Why? --G-41614 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

TV tower not a must if is in the night skyline. Alandeus (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Transport statistics

The article contains a table of statistics for various transport modes in Berlin. Unfortunately the quoted source for this is simply the address of web site containing lots of different statistics, and I cannot find the particular data used here. Which isn't to say it isn't there; statistical german certainly isn't my strong point. Can anybody help improve this cite?. -- Starbois (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gendarmenmarkt

The Gendarmenmarkt is named after the contribution of the French Hugenotts (who found a new home in Prussia after the Edict of Nantes) to the Prussian Army: the "Gents d'armes" (weaponed gentlemen). They had their facilities there. The French cathedral (Französischer Dom) derives from those times, too. It has nothing to do with Napoleon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.200.105 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

77.185.200.105 is apparently correct, thanks for pointing that out. The name was chosen in memory of the "Gents d'armes", a Prussian military unit, that had facilities there in the past. The renaming to Gendarmenmarkt was 1799 several years before the Napoleonic victories in Germany. For a german source see http://www.berlin.de/orte/sehenswuerdigkeiten/gendarmenmarkt/ . GermanJoe (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Currywurst and Frederik the Great ?

I´m sure this king had some influence on many issues, but on todays cuisine ? Hardly ! What about the German bread culture and all the cafe´s in the city ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.91 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have removed the collage with the flattened Brandenburg gate again.

• First of all, that collage (File:Assemblage Berlin.jpg) is absurdly distorted. Whatever the merits or non-merits of collage pictures, this one is completely unacceptable.
• In the discussion a few sections above, I see no consensus for having a collage picture rather than s single landmark or skyline in the first place. The argument that "so many other articles are doing it" obviously doesn't count. Collages are a recent fad, nothing else.
• For general objections against this fad, see my posting at Talk:Paris#Infobox image.

If there is a consensus that we absolutely must have a collage, then for heaven's sake at least make one that doesn't have the best-known landmark looking as if Godzilla had just stepped on it. Failing that, everybody please feel free to replace my choice (Brandenburg gate) with whatever else fits better, this was just a quick rough choice. Apparently there was a panoramic picture there once? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is called Berlin and not Brandenburg Gate. Its absurd to put just one small landmark on top of the article. The collage seems not perfect, true but much better than your proposal. As you mentioned it, this type of article Does has usually a collage. FinnishDriver (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Usually" is simply no argument. And there is no need for the infobox image to cover everything at once. We have the article to cover everything. Images covering the whole breadth of the topic go into the article. People should get rid of this ridiculous idea that everything must be duplicated and crammed into the infobox, as if the box was the article. The infobox image only serves as a symbolic badge, showing something representative about the city for a first, quick visual identification. A single well-known landmark or a single skyline is absolutely appropriate for that purpose. That's how it's always been done (as those of us who have been around on the project for longer than a year will remember), so stop pretending a collage was the only legitimate option.

And whatever your opinion about collages in general, this particular one is not just "not perfect", it is absolutely unacceptable, and I will not tolerate it for a minute. It is false. The Brandenburg Gate does not look like that. The picture is lying about what the gate looks like. It is misinformation. It is worse than having no image at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago I participated in a similar discussion, that one being about what landmarks should be included, and had started working on my own solution. Did not happen due to no-wp events, but what is there now's better than what I had come up with. --G-41614 (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Some negative things

As you have seen I added sopme info about poverty and high number of children "barely able to read". I was sort of stunned that the article claimed that "Berlin has a high quality of living", because to my mind (but I may be totally wrong) I think a lot of Germans would disagree and think Berlin is rather inhospitable. While Berlin definetly is a vibrant city and home of many artists and a great cultural scene, first thing many people think of when they here "Berlin" are poverty, drugs, crime, a failing public school system. Okay, this is may be because many equate Berlin and Neukölln. Yet all the statistics show that Berlin really has some problems.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don´t be fooled by inner German cliche´s about Berlin. Berlin is internationally ranked several times as one of the most livable cities providing an exceptional high standard of living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.150.30 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet, all the claims I made have been proved by reliable sources. Berlins educational systems is considered one of the worst of Germany and Berlins pupils performed poorly on several standardized examinations. Also the claims about persons on the welfare lines are true. Berlin is the German State with the most children on the welfare lines.

We do not have to write "Berlin sucks" into the lead, but I hold the opion that it is POV to only praise it, while many middle class families are leaving it for Brandenburg, because they think it is an unsafe and unhospitable place. I have been to Berlin and I liked it. I think it is a great place for a young person to have some fun. Yet many Germans would never raise there families in Berlin (i know for sure I would not), the media like the "Stern" magazine and so on have actually runned articles about the middle class flight and a short time ago I stumbled over an article about families who enrolled their children in parochoical schools (despite the fact they were not christians) or drove them to school at the other side of town, because the schools in their neighbourhood had become dangerous for them. May be families in Berlin are used to that, but I would consider this a very low standard of living. I do not know what this rankings included (may be they were about the possibilities to visit museums or concerts). You certainly can do this in Berlin, but there is another side. Why can this not be mentioned, when I provided an reliable sources.

I am going to restore the paragraph about poverty, because I think there was not reason to delete it and it was not even in the lead.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What a nonsense. Berlin has one of the highest living standards in the world. 2012 Quality of Living worldwide city rankings: Berlin, ranked 16th (first US city ranked 28th!). [3] --82.113.99.196 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the concept of poverty in highly developed countries has to be seen as relative. In Germany poverty means having still: paid shelter, paid food paid health insurance, free education. In Berlin it also means free transport and reduced ticket fee for culture. The addition of a single section therefore is misleading. Kantianer (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo switch

A photo, declaring itself as 21st century Berlin (In the History), should instantly be recognized. This seems not to be the case with a photo version pushed by Alandeus. It could be anymwhere, because in a typical resolution no landmark is clearly identifiable. Kantianer (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It can't be just anywhere; it is recognizable as a BIG city! To make it Berlin-specific, I extended the caption; pointing out various landmarks. Besides, anyone remotely interested in the details of Berlin can simply click on the image to get a larger display in which he or she can even zoom into. Finally, the 'iconic' skyline is represented at the top of the article. Your old 2006 picture has been thrown out numerous times to be replaced by the one of better quality mentioned above. Please leave it out. Alandeus (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you to have learn that a caption of a photo is not sufficient, as long as the parts of a photo are not instantly identifiable. This is the case of your obscure image, where nothing reminds the reader. Your photo could be in Kasachstan and nobody would complain. It doesn´t serve the purpose. Kantianer (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is the other way around! If an image is not instantly identifiable, it certainly needs a caption. Besides, no image in Wikipedia or elsewhere must be identifiable immediately. Captions would be unnecessary then otherwise, right? (What is meant by "reminds the reader"?) Here it is necessary of course, explaining the details not identifiable at a first glance, thus the purpose is served. Moreover, it is not obscure - it is only Berlin. An interested reader will have no problem examining it as such; there is much of Berlin to be found in it. Finally, there is no need to repeat an older skyline image here that is already shown in an updated version at the top of the page. That would be redundant. Alandeus (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I´m not sure that you understand the purpose of an image in general. An image with the purpose (and the caption) to show the 21 century Berlin must be instantly recognized. That is not the case with your suggested version. Your version can not be identified to be Berlin. It could be Paris it be Moscow, it could be Sao Paulo. Thats why your version doesnt fulfil the purpose in the first place. With your argumentation the caption is there to complete the information on the photo, but if the caption can not exactly pinpoint the landmarks within the photo the whole caption gets useless. And that is the case either, no landmark can be identified properly with your version. Kantianer (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kantianer, will you please stop reverting the Berlin image to the old Cityscapeberlin2006 and stop insisting that an image must be immediately identifiable. Nowhere is it mandated that an image must be immediately identifiable; that is just your personal opinion. True, SkylineBerlin has few outstanding features as silhouettes against a sky, being more of a bird's eye view, but the caption does pinpoint several important landmarks within the photo; listing and identifying them properly of from top left to bottom right. You can zoom in on the details if you want - that's one of the beauties if Wikipedia! How much more precision do you need? The image in combination with the caption provides a valuable source of information on the layout of landmarks in Berlin. Providing information is one of the major purposes of an image. Besides, your favorite old Cityscapeberlin2006 provides no such pinpoints of landmarks, so by your arguments it should not be used. This - i.e. a skyline image - is already well taken care of though at the top of the article, so therefore Cityscapeberlin2006 is definitely not only redundant, but also outdated. Finally, no one (but you maybe) will think SkylineBerlin would be showing Paris, Moscow, or Sao Paulo for the simple reason that it is in an article about Berlin. Alandeus (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate

I have changed the climate for Berlin from oceanic to humid continental since this is how it appears on the Köppen climate classification map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.141.54 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Berlin's winters are not cold enough for it to be classified as humid continental. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Yards

i think it is need a self article. פארוק (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC) ^ Agree Oliveru1980 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

GDP

Someone should remove from the GDP in the infobox--a citation is very much included. Anyone failing to do so will likely smoke turds in hell. Nachteilig (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your smoke. --Boson (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay life section

Somehow this section gets deleted by mostly anonymous IPs (which all map to Berlin, so I assume we're looking at only one or two individuals), who choose to give rather oblique reasons for their actions. I'm not sure what to make of this. The section could clearly be improved (as could most sections of this entry, which is rather unwieldy), which is however difficult to do without more articulated criticisms. Any thoughts here? Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK to leave it in now after the latest editing. There was some objection to it smaking of tourist guide, but then alot more of the article (or any city's, for that matter) is tourist-oriented anyway. Broadening the history (i.e. not just the last twenty years) and providing pertinent references helped. Alandeus (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gay life is already included in the Nightlife section, no double needed. The whole culture part is overloaded and can´t take in every specific community. Where does it end ? Adding "Kids life", "Teenager life" ? No, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.79.247 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I take your point that the culture part is a little long, though that in itself does not preclude inclusion of the most salient features of the cultural activities in the city. After all, Berlin has a lot of culture. As to your point about specific communities, as far as I'm aware, gay life in Berlin is much more prominent than that of kids and teenagers, so it's just as well that the former is deserving of its own section. That's at least my opinion. I did not add the section in question however. So perhaps its original contributors could weigh in as well (if they happen to read this). Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be included - I'm sick of 'gay' stuff being shoehorned where it doesn't belong. Why not a section for group-sex aficionados or prostitutes-seekers, or even paedophiles? 'Much more prominent that of kids and teenagers' - no, I don't buy that - smacks of political correctness. Please delete for my money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.251.49 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gypsy presence in Berlin

In the Demographics section, in the second to last paragraph, the article states that "Following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union, there has been an influx of Romani people.". However, the article cited as reference does not mention such thing. The welt.de article states that there are fears that gypsies deported from France would settle in Berlin and that there are regular minibus transports from Tempelhof to Romania and Bulgaria. In the welt.de article, there is no mention of any gypsy wave of immigration. I think that the statement is biased and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gheorghe.petrovay (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed as requested. The 200,000 Romani figure was wrong as per source, but the reference to the wave of immigration and “accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union” can be found indirectly in the paragraph beginning with the 200,00 figure, after the part with the busses: “Nun wandern vermehrt bildungsferne Familien aus Rumänien und Bulgarien zu, als EU-Bürger genießen sie Freizügigkeit.” Alandeus (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates linking to Geohack

The link under the GeoCoordinates to Geohack leads to a map where the coordinates are desripted as "Nazi Germany". I think this is not appropriate. It should be considered to contact Geohack about this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtienneWiki (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Crossing station"

The Berlin Hauptbahnhof is the largest crossing station in Europe.

— What's meant by the term "crossing station"? I don't believe it's readily understood by most English speakers.

German Wiki calls the Berlin Hauptbahnhof "der größte Turmbahnhof Europas," and elsewhere says Turmbahnhof — literally, "tower rail station" — denotes a multi-level station serving the junction or crossing point of two or more major rail lines. Is there a common English railroad term for this? Sca (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Grade-separated junction" seems to be the technical term that Wikipedians use most often. Doesn't help the readability issue much though... In fact a "Kreuzungsbahnhof" is exactly what the Berlin Hauptbahnhof is not, according to de.wiki --Methegreat (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In U.S. English, I think it might be called a rail junction, but that doesn't include the concept of a station. Sca (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think many German speakers would understand "Turmbahnhof" either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerociousFranky (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Buddy Bears

Artystarty: You state Buddy Bears are "neither a museum nor a gallery", true, but as a quite special and unique feature of Berlin, it deserves a mention on our Berlin page. Since it is primatily artistic, it fits in the section of museums and galleries. If not there, where else? Alandeus (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Berlin is more famous for street art, graffiti and any type of counter culture art. That said all the art in the museums is more famous than these bears. Before you started posting the bears I didn´t even knew about them. These bears seem rather not important when it comes to what Berlin is identified with. Hope this explains my removals. Another argument would be that I just can´t see a part where the bears truly fit in. Happy New Year. Artystarty (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

”I think Berlin is more famous for street art, graffiti and any type of counter culture art.” – This counter-culture art is neither unique to Berlin nor makes it particularly famous.
“That said all the art in the museums is more famous than these bears.” – So what? The bears aren’t taking anyone’s place; they are an addition.
“Before you started posting the bears I didn´t even knew about them.” – I wasn’t the one who started posting them; I’m just trying to keep them alive. If you don’t walk around downtown Berlin, which you obviously don’t, or haven’t read about them in some other guidebook, you may well not know about them. Just because you don’t know about something doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t need to know.
“These bears seem rather not important when it comes to what Berlin is identified with.” – The iconic Berlin Bear is something Berlin is identified with. These bears pick up on that and therefore do have some importance, thus giving them a special and unique place in Berlin worth mentioning.
Hope this explains why they deserve to be mentioned. Unless you can prove that their inclusion is in any way damaging to the article, please refrain from removing them again.
Where to place them, is another problem. Maybe there ought to be an additional section on Art where the Bears might fit in. For now though, I say they fit best under the more general heading of Culture. Alandeus (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not seriously advocting these bears placed on par with the UNESCO heritage at the beginning of the cultural part of Berlin, do you ? Artystarty (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is advocating the Bears are "on par" with the UNESCO heritage. Just because they are on the same level? If you feel it may help, put one below the other. Otherwise, the cultural aspect of these Bears fits nowhere better that with what is mentioned in the first to Culture paragraphs, for example: "city has a very diverse art scene ... a center of youth and popular culture in Europe." And if there are any commercial concerns about the Bears, such topics are covered as well as in: " cultural role of Berlin is underscored by the 2003 announcement that the Popkomm...". I would say there is no better place for the Buddy Bears than in the Culture introduction. Do you have any better suggestion? Alandeus (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One example reflecting the importance of the Buddy Bears for Berlin and for Germany as a whole is the Chinese travel guide 德国 (Germany) (ISBN-Nr. 978-986-6500-24-4). The front page and the opening text feature a map of Germany, the Brandenburg Gate, Neuschwanstein Castle, a half-timbered house, a Buddy Bear and two symbols that seem to represent Germany in China (a football and a beer glass). TwainBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwainBot (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

These bears are not even well known in Germany and have no importance in the context of this summary here in Berlin. Check out the German Wiki page, as far I can undertstand it, these bears are not mentioned there either. Please stop inserting the rather irrelevant statues. Thank you. Artystarty (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Artystary! Go out in the world! See the world! See for example: www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GKs/NEWY/2011/11/09__Buddy__Bear.html?archive=1998824 Read what the German Missions in the United States is saying: The Buddy Bear has become an unofficial ambassador for Germany and is a symbol of Berlin. Best regards, TwainBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwainBot (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be well-known in Germany just to be posted here. Some of the bears even toured Germany and the world, so they do have a reputaion. Unique and outstanding elements (the Bears are really out standing in front of many Berlin buildings (pun intended)) may well find their place in this summary of Berlin. Check out the German Wiki page, the bears are now mentioned there too. If tourists from around the world are taking pictures of them, they cannot be irrelevant statues. Alandeus (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tourist also photograph "Berlin traffic figures", "Trabbi" cars and Darth Vader in front of the Brandenburg Gate. I would be happy to discuss Nefertiti or other art forms but the bears are random. Please don´t insert them again. Thank you. Artystarty (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Once more I must rebuke Artystarty’s reasons for suppressing the Buddy Bears. (This is getting tedious.) First of all, adding “the arts” to the “Culture” heading makes perfect sense as several subsections follow that pertain to the arts. This also provides a location that Artystarty had complained that was lacking otherwise for the Buddy Bears. The list of thing photographed by tourists certainly includes things of interest for tourists that even find mention elsewhere in Wikipedia, but they are not as special to and unique for Berlin as the Buddy Bears are. No need to get side-tracked by discussing Nefertiti and no one is claiming they are on par with each other, but what is meant with “random”? This is perplexing. Random as in distributed by chance? As often repeated: The bears are set up only in Berlin (with the exception of international versions going on tour). Or random as in “unexpected and surprising” or “unexpectedly great” according to the Online slang dictionary (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/random)? All the more reason to include the Bears! And, according to the Urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Random) random has so many other positive and negative slang meanings, it’s hard to say which would applicable. In any case, “random” is not a term that ought to be used in a rational debate in an encyclopaedic environment. If Artystarty considers the bears irrelevant or otherwise “random”, that is his personal opinion and he can simply ignore them. The fact is though, in summary, is that the Buddy Bears are unique for Berlin (other cities have or have had cows or dinosaurs) as artistic eye-catchers on the street in front of numerous commercial and public buildings and institutions. They don’t pretend to be a premiere tourist attraction, but they are worthy of mention nevertheless. Please don´t remove them again. Thank you. Alandeus (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of things other than these bears which come to my mind when thinking about Berlin. It is already embarassing to know that somebody wants to include these bears next to where the UNESCO heritage is placed. Please stop this. Artystarty (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you may think of hundreds of other things about Berlin, but are they in any way particularly unique and/or significant for Berlin as the Buddy Bears? If you have a suggestion of a better placement for the bears instead of near the Bode museum, please propose it, otherwise keep your embarrassment to yourself, please. Alandeus (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The bears are neither mentioned in written form either in the German article nor in this article. It can be assumed that a rather minor importance is attributed to the bears when it comes to represent the culture of Berlin. It appears therefore highly irrational that someone is argueing for an inclusion of these bears at the top spot next to a world heritage site. Thank you, for not postings this irrelevant figure in the culture section. Artystarty (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think the bears are taking space that could be used by a more representative image, make your case. But you can't remove something just because you don't like it. That's a subtractive logic that doesn't really hold on wikipedia. As Alandeus said way above in this thread, they're an addition to the article. I may personally think there are other photos that aren't the greatest, but the productive response is to suggest changes and substitutions rather than deleting the offending material. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the bears, but your edit-warring is not helping this article. If you have an image you think would better represent Berlin's culture than the bears, suggest it here and make your case. You might find other editors receptive to it. But kneejerk deletions go against consensus, policy, and the interests of this article. And please learn to indent your comments. Sindinero (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Last I looked, the Buddy Bears where still quietly mentioned on the German site. Alandeus (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all there is already a very long cultural part here. One could argue too long. But that is not my case. There are already many images who represent the culture of Berlin, so it is the one who wants to add more material who is responsible for a good argumentation. Not me !

It is obviously Alandeus who is in an edit warring position here, fact. Alandeus is also the one who tries secretly to install an image of the bears (and some text) in the German article in order to make a case here.

The German, the French, the Spanish and this article have not even mentioned or shown the bears in the past. It seems pretty logic, that all of sudden a picture of the bears is not appropriate to dominate the first paragraph of the culture section. It is not representative nor important enough.

Furthermore, the bear picture violates the manual of style as the text between the leading images becomes squashed. The first paragraph looks simply overcrowded.

Sindenero, your revert and your comments does make no sense either. You say you are not a fan of the bears but acknowledge to install them right next to the Unesco heritage ? Give me break. Artystarty (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but there's no reason to be so brusque. I think you're missing my point. I don't care about the bears one way or another, but you can't edit-war on contentious material and provide disingenuous edit summaries like "clean up". That makes for bad vibes, and is not the way to go about getting consensus. And now you've found a passage from the MOS to justify removing it, which doesn't seem to be entirely in good faith, as your earlier comments on this thread suggest that you simply don't like the bears. This constant back-and-forth hurts the stability of the article. I'd suggest in the interests of the article that we submit an request for comment. Does that sound fair to all concerned? Sindinero (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To add to the above—while it does indeed seem that Alandeus added the bears to other wikis (probably not the best way to make a case), Alandeus was not the user to first add the bears. From what I've been able to tell, the bears seem to have been added in this edit. This means that it's not only one editor who thinks they should be on this page. Consensus dictates that we work this out on the talk page instead of edit-warring the article itself. Any objections to an RFC? Sindinero (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, since there is an issue that the Bears were supposedly "on par" with the Unesco heritage it at the same level, I've gone along and staggered them a bit. I would hope this should not be an issue anymore. Furthermore, the bears weren't "secretly inserted" into the German site. Just because they weren't mentioned there before, doesn't mean they can't be there now. Other people can take care of other languages if they want then; besides they aren't necessarily as comprehensive as the German and English pages. Silly argument anyway: "secretly inserted". If it were secret, no one would've noticed. Someone did complain about too many images, so I complied: entered text instead of an image. Otherwise I'll be glad to go along with an request for comment. Alandeus (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I transferred some content to the new article Culture in Berlin. I hope everybody can live with that. FinnishDriver (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted the deletions - do you think there's a good reason for not including "Gay life" in this article? Sindinero (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I also reverted your revert. Gay life is hardly restricted on arts and culture. See the city mayor for instance. The gay life hasn´t been deleted, but transferred to the new "Culture in Berlin " article.FinnishDriver (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The mayor's sexuality is probably irrelevant here. As it's written, the "Gay life" section concerns a prominent, well-known feature of Berlin's cultural life. Moving it to another article and deleting it from this one is still a deletion. Can we see what other editors think before continuing the edit war? You don't have consensus for such a major change. Sindinero (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am gay, but I can´t see why gay life is well kown feature for the purpose arts and culture. This is not a travel advisor here. Again, the part has been transferred because the culture section is too long. FinnishDriver (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above, and there isn't consensus for it. I also disagree that the section is too long. By what standards? Berlin is a major world metropolis with a rich cultural history and tradition, and the section barely tips the iceberg...Sindinero (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above, RfC on the bears has been submitted. Sindinero (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As long the Wiki MOS rules are applied, the image can´t be included. The bear image Alandeus wants to implemnent always leaks into the media section below. And please Sindero, respect the rules for an RFC. Until there is no conclusion or consensus the controversial content must stay out. Artystarty (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Buddy Bears or no Buddy Bears?

Should there be an image of the "Buddy Bears" in this article? This has been a contentious issue that has evaded consensus so far. Sindinero (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong question ! The question is wether there is space enough (obviously not when concerning MOS) or whether an image of the bears is justified at the top of the culture section. Read: Is an image of the bears important enough to have iconic relevance to stand in as a posterchild for the culture of this city ? Artystarty (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think for the RfC it's better to have a non-leading question. First we decide whether or not to include the bear, and then we can sort out the details of where best to locate it. We need to have some procedural clarity here - if we ask your question(s) first, that still doesn't get to the more fundamental issue of whether the bears should be included at all. I think, judging from past (and current) discussion, that the objection concerning the bears' iconic relevance (and physical placement in the article) compared to other Berlin sites (Bodemuseum z.B.) is a bit of a straw man argument. Sindinero (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I second Sindinero's comment. Whether or not the offending bears should be at the top of the culture section is a secondary question, to be discussed after a decision on the inclusion or exclusion of the image is reached. Malljaja (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Supported: I thought the Buddy Bears were around a bit longer than just since last November. In any case, it took several weeks for Artystarty to discover that he simply “never heard of them” and started the edit war. Since then, I’ve been trying to maintain them by debunking Artystarty’s often petty and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Where possible, I’ve also tried to be accommodating by placing a more appropriate picture with better explanation in a more appropriate location. The main point for presenting the bears is that they are special to and unique for Berlin as artistic eye-catchers on the street in front of numerous commercial and public buildings and institutions. I’ve stated this argument a couple times, but it doesn’t seem to be taken into consideration. Since the Bears were around for a while before this editing war started, I think their remaining should be the status quo until the discussion is resolved. Alandeus (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear Image Not Supported: 1. An image of these bears is not presented in the German, the English, Spanish, French nor any other Berlin Wikipedia article. 2. The bears do not appear in Google when searching "culture" or "art" and "Berlin" 3. Therefore, it must be assumend that the bears have minor relevance when it comes down to show the culture of Berlin. Unlike the Museumsinsel, Berlin Philharmonic, the artist and musicians or the Berlin festivals - the bears have no iconic power. 4. There is not even text mentioning the bears. 5. The image of the bears looks squeezed in the first section of the culture part, it violates the Wikipedia MOS. 6. Too many arguments against having an image of the bears introduced in the article, let alone at a top spot next the UNESCO heritage. Artystarty (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral on the issue: Although in the interests of consensus, I've informed all named editors who have contributed to this article recently about the RfC. Can we agree to leave the image in place for now and wait two weeks to see what discussion yields? Sindinero (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: Having been asked on my talk page for my thoughts and comments, I definitely have to say that they belong on the page. More than just a picture, a short summary would be nice too. For me, the argument(s) against are frivolous. What google and other Wikipedias do or do not do is not of interest or relevance here, it would be inappropriate to suggest so otherwise. I don't believe anybody is putting them on a par with UNESCO heritage; but they are iconic of this world city and are worthy of a place within the article. Jared Preston (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear Image Not Supported: there's no mention of the bears in the article, therefore there's no reason for it to be in the article. This is such a clearcut case, I've gone ahead and (as an impartial editor) removed it. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: The Buddy Bears are notable enough to have their own entry on WP and their designers reside in Berlin, which seems to justify a (brief) mention and possibly image in this article. And for what it's worth, without having any vested interest in this issue, I consider MikeWazowski's recent removal of the image under current dispute very poor form. Malljaja (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The majority decides: having been asked on my talk page, in my opinion adding a link to the United Buddy Bears in the -See also- section might be a way to find what others think about this. After all, We have to get to know each other better, it makes us understand one another better, trust each other more, and live together more peacefully.. Lotje (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear Image Not Supported: When I think about Berlins Culture, the buddy bears don´t come to my mind. The statues are not representative enough to grant an inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.134.62 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear Image Not Supported Agreed. Although I won´t elevate myself as a measurestick, I think of Dietrich, Bowie, opera, museums, nightlife, Berlinale and movies like "Himmel über Berlin". I tried to include the Buddy Bears in a new article Culture in Berlin in order to avoid a presentation in the main article, but it was reverted. Anyway, I truly wonder why anyone wants to give the Buddy Bears such a prominent role. FinnishDriver (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Supported: The Buddy Bears have become a symbol of Berlin. Berlin is a multicultural city. The Buddy Bears welcome people from all over the world, and the popularity of the Bears is used - according to the idea of the initiators - to encourage people from all over the world to develop a better understanding of each other. Understanding for the different living conditions in other countries and exposure to different cultures form the basis for peaceful coexistence. The concept of the United Buddy Bears was developed from this fundamental idea, using the motto, "We have to get to know each other better, it makes us understand one another better, trust each other more, and live together more peacefully". The project was first presented in Berlin in 2002 and has been travelling the entire world since then. More than 25 million visitors have already marvelled at the exhibition on five continents. From time to time (2006 and 2011), the group of United Buddy Bears returned to Berlin. The former German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeyer has described the Buddy Bears as being "ambassadors of Berlin and for a Germany that seeks contact with the rest of the world" (2007). Source: www.buddy-bear.com In a message of greeting, Ban Ki-Moon wrote that the "United Buddy Bears-exhibitions will reflect the creative spirit of artists from numerous different countries, who are aspiring to convey a message of harmony and peace, that is coexistence, tolerance and mutual understanding among mankind". Source: www.buddy-bear.com The United Buddy Bears even managed to be exhibited in Pyongyang. It was the first art exhibition in North Korea that originated in a foreign country and, at the same time, it was the first exhibition in North Korea that anyone could visit. The Frankfurt Allgemeine newspaper was fascinated by the fact that the United Buddy Bears managed to be the "first official art exhibition from abroad which anyone could visit" in isolated Pyongyang. The Buddy Bears have now become a symbol of Berlin. A symbol of freedom, peace and tolerance among cultures and religions. They are often rightly described as being the "art of tolerance". Tom Gurke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

The Arts and Culture. This is a pretty straight-forward policy question: if the independent reliable sources support the claim about these bears being a widely recognized symbol of Berlin, the bears should go to lead; otherwise they should go to the most relevant part of the article (in this case "The Arts and Culture"). As in this situation the claim is that bears are the symbol, burden of proof principle dictates that unless sources are provided, the bears go to "The Arts and Culture". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify: does that mean that you support inclusion of a bear image in this article, even if they are not notable enough for the lead? Sindinero (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I (personally) am neutral towards inclusion of these bears in the article, but given that some editors believe these bears should be in the article, and there is no good reason not to have them, I think thy should be there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

landmark and symbols: Berlin has some very well-known landmarks: Brandenburg Gate, Fernsehturm, Victory Column. Berlin has one important symbol: the Brandenburg Gate is the historic symbol, the symbol for freedom! The Buddy Bears are a new symbol of Berlin. They are the emotional symbol of the modern Berlin. Berlin is proud to have such an emotional symbol! The Buddy Bears are also a symbol of peace and freedom! Since more than 10 years they are known worldwide. The tourist want to see them in Berlin - they love these bears! With love, Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.220.82.140 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Include image. As I understand it, there was an exhibition of many of these bears in Berlin several years ago; the exhibition has ended, and most of the bears are gone, but there are still several of them at various places in Berlin. If that's accurate, then the bears are a feature of contemporary culture in Berlin, and we can include an image plus a brief mention in text, even though I don't think the case has been made that they are iconic or a symbol of the city. JamesMLane t c 21:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. Funny enough, some years ago I would have opted for an inclusion, but nowadays they are not as present as they used to be, neither in the media nor in the cityscape. They are more a symbol by themselves now, not necessarily iconic for Berlin. This is User:Lectonar, editing from a smartphone.109.45.0.120 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No image please I kind of second Lectonar. It was a promotion act several years ago. Actually it was a copycat action, the coloured cows in Zürich were the model. The Buddy Bears are not Arts or Culture in a true sense of meaning and do not qualify for being iconic either. INTERRAILS (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Buddy bear or better icon/art: Buddy bear seems ok, if someone has something more iconic and artsy, it could be replaced. Appropriate photos are an asset to Wikipedia.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support including a picture. It's used effectively now in the Arts and Culture section. Contemporary pop culture should not be over-emphasized, but does deserve some depiction, and there are probably worse choices. I'd leave the bear where it is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral to slightly opposed to Buddy Bear inclusion. Sorry to be joining the fray late, but I think it's worth considering the Wikipedia articles for other cities with symbolic statues. I looked at the pages for Paris (cows), Chicago (steers), Cincinnati (pigs), and a couple of others, and none included their respective statues (my review was not exhaustive, so if anyone can find examples, feel free to point them out). There is no doubt that the Buddy Bear is one of the cultural symbols of Berlin, and the fact that it is modern does not lessen its status as such. But should we also consider precedent within Wikipedia? DoctorEric (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] The bears are identified by sources, and so they are a legitimate topic to be textually mentioned in the article. But the article has lots of images already, and including an image carries a lot of weight (suggesting to readers that the bears are more important that other items not pictured). The German WP article on Berlin [4] mentions the bears, but does not have an image of them. Since this is a close call, I'd follow the precedent set by the German editors, and omit the picture. --Noleander (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tally, next steps

So it's been nearly two weeks and this discussion seems to have slowed down. By my count, there are 8 named editors for inclusion and 4 against; 1 IP address for each side; and one editor who says that s/he is for the majority decision. So there is a preference for the bears, but no clear consensus. What do people think we should do from here? One editor (largely a single-purpose account dedicated to opposing inclusion of the bear image) has indicated a willingness to continue the edit-warring deletion of the image in the absence of total consensus. Do people have any thoughts on how we should handle this? If we can't come up with a solution, then it looks as though the image will continue to be deleted and restored, as before, significantly damaging the stability of the article. Your thoughts? Sindinero (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sindinero, for the moderation. Of course, I’ll be glad if the image of the Buddy bear remains where it is. It actually makes a nice, balanced ensemble with its three neighboring images, don’t you think? The only compromise I would agree to is a relocation (as not to “offend” any culture heritage issues) to an appropriate other location if it can be found. Alandeus (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the behavioural history of the one individual most opposed to the bears' inclusion I doubt that a consensus will emerge. Perhaps this will have to go into arbitration, in which case I'd suggest to attach an SPI to it, seeing that it's a single-purpose account of a user who very likely has one or more other accounts. I've got no objection to moving the image to a different place in the entry, but no strong feelings either way. Malljaja (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The repeated accusations of Sindinero are rejected. I signed in Wikipedia long before this bear image issue, of course I´m more a reader type, but in this case actions have been inevitable. The accusations of edit warring are rejected, again. The bear image violates MOS 3 times. It is overlapping with the section below, has no article text referring to and lacks references to make the case for its relevance. As already mentioned, the bears do not appear in any other Wikipedia language about Berlin. There is a reason for it. The reason is that obviously these bears have no importance or iconic value when it comes to represent the culture of Berlin. Although I´m not familiar with all regulations, I find it likely that at least 2 votes in the RfC are from Alandeus, especially the Tom Wolfe one sounds exactly like the core argument of Alandeus. As far I can see it, there is no clear consensus evolving to put the bear image in such an elaborate spot ( the top spot). Much more important in my eyes is the lack of relevance and the MOS violations. Artystarty (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again (again) you're either not understanding the issue, or moving the goalposts - the question, for now, is not the bear's "elaborate spot" but whether to include the image at all. Your charge of sockpuppetry against Alandeus is a serious one, and you should be prepared to back it up if you wish to make such allegations. But look at the RfC: even if one voice in support of inclusion were fraudulent, it would still be a clear majority in favor. I'll ask you again: are you committed to obstructing consensus at all costs? Sindinero (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth to be told, I'd say that 2 votes for inclusion are somewhat weird. The one by User:Tom Gurke and by 93.220.....which read as if the marketing section of Berlin's tourism board were involved. To Artystarty: please step back a bit and breathe deeply; continuing your behavior might get you blocked in the end. Anyways, I do not really see a clear consensus here, and would prefer to continue discussion. This is User:Lectonar, editing from smartphone.109.45.0.51 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on Tom Gurke - that's a single purpose account (two edits), and a possible sock. To correct the above tally, then, it would be 7 named editors for inclusion, 4 against; 7 to 5 if we count IPs. Sindinero (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Make that 8 named editors for inclusion [...], since i also believe those darn bears should be included in the article. Personally, i don't consider them to be art, or contemporary art, than rather more or less clever advertising, at least those standing in and around Berlin. But lets see the facts about the Buddy Bears, especially the numerous United versions; there have been exhibitions all around the world, from India, to Israel, to North Korea (where they were the first foreign art exhibition open to the public); there are more than 900 bears displayed throughout Germany, and around 350 in Berlin and Brandenburg alone; and lets not forget that the bear is the symbol and animal of the coat of arms of Berlin. For me, that sums up to keep, but please, include some short text about the bears in the proper section, so nobody mistakenly believes that this particular depicted buddy bear is a landmark of Berlin. Mottengott (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Creative industries - What is Universal Music doing there?

"The German headquarter of Universal Music is based in Berlin."

This seems to be out of context. No other company is mentioned in this section. Why is Universal Music more important than any other company that is based in Berlin? Seems like a marketing attempt? I'd like to remove it but the last time I removed a sentence I got sent a "warning" message, so starting this instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.9.125 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cutting down the article

The article needs to be cut down to between 70kB to 90kB. Does anyone know where they think could be cut down? I think the history section in paticular could be cut down. Kingjeff (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a good effort to create several sub articles. Though this is the main aricle, people want to read the essential things here first. Artystarty (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is way too long. How do you suggest it be cut down? The article violates WP:SIZE and the article should conform to WP:SUMMARY. Literally all the text in the Architecture section needs to go and be replaced by with a summary about the architecture in Berlin. The photos could be used for a gallery about the topic. Kingjeff (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for tightening the entry, but I do not quite agree that the article is "way too long". It's fine to remove parts of a section to found a new entry, but in doing so, care should be taken not to strip down the article to an assembly of links to forks. I agree with AS that the main entry should still contain a summary covering the essentials of each topic, and a link to articles that discuss these topics in greater detail (if applicable). Malljaja (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Malljaja. Sindinero (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY would cover the essentials of each topic. I spoke specifically about Architecture section because it goes into too much detail. I think the text from the Architecture section could be eliminated, the photos be used as a gallery and the Cityscape section. Kingjeff (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Galleries are usually not encouraged in a well written article it looks superficial. I acually thought about expansion of the Berlin entry. It is way smaller than Paris, London, New York. INTERRAILS (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Berlin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated B Good selection of photographs and many references cited. Infobox statistics do not clearly state from which time period the figures are based. It is important when making figure comparisons to make certain all figures are from the same time period. Clear and concise population figures are a staple for any city article. Reference [4] does not open and looks very dubious. Paris and London are far bigger than Berlin on any definition. History section too extensive, should be summarized and possibly forked to a new article if references are available for content. Article contains too many sections/sub sections. Photographs should be referenced by the text, not introduce text. Multiple citations are not neccessary for one statement, please select the most Reliable source. At once refactoring of page has taken place, apply WP:LEAD. Alan.ca 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)