Talk:Berlin/Archive 4

message: The article states that Berlin is the second biggest city in the European Union, but both Paris and London are bigger. Have I missed something?
:Yes; you've missed the article Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, which shows that when only city-proper populations are counted, Paris is smaller than Berlin, Madrid, and Rome. However, if you count whole urban areas (see Largest urban areas of the European Union) or metropolitan areas John Carroll then Paris is indeed larger than Berlin. Berlin is actually relatively far down those lists. User:Angr 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second biggest? 

message: The EU and its flag got to the point to be mentioned next to the "national" country flag.
Several indication lead to this level: Common market, common policies in many fields,
election every 5 years and a European parliament as well as a EU court of justice. The currency Euro is adopted by 300 mil inhabitants out of 450 mil. There is a EU-Day (holiday), EU-Licenseplate ,-Passport ,-Drivinglicense ,-Anthem and in the case of Berlin the EU is financing infrastructure,
education, social projects ect. In official pressconferences and gatherings the national flag stands next to the EU flag. Lear 21 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This still doesn't make the EU a country. I am against having the EU flag in the infobox. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the EU has a lot of structure, but it is not a country, see List of countries. Stefán Ingi 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since EU is not a country, its flag does not belong in the box labelled Country. Stefán Ingi 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Daniel and Stefán. The EU isn't a country and should not be in the infobox as if it were. User:Angr 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I´ve been sleeping for rather a long time, but I have to agree with all those that think the flag should be moved. The EU flag has more of a relevance on a national, rather than at city level. In any case, the use of Euros signifies that Berlin IS IN the EU.--IsarSteve 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. Lear 21 correctly assesses the influence of EU policy on the governance of Berlin, but it is rather misleading to list the EU next to "country". The EU is a supranational union and mentioned in the introduction already. To what extent does the reader benefit from the addition? I reverted. Johnnyw talk 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You have now made this reversion five times today. That goes against WP:3RR, please revert yourself back. There are four people who have commented here to say that the EU should not be in this box, you are the only one who wants it there. Stefán Ingi 22:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you revert yourself then without waiting for other user's comments? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the discussion. No one wants it there but you. If it's been there for 2 months already without complaint, that just means no one noticed it till now. Now that we've noticed it, we don't like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reported you for a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should Germany be removed? It is the country in which Berlin is located. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs). 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU has country status 

message: Shouldn't this article be "Berlin, Germany"? in most other aticles, such as Jacksonville, Florida and St. Augustine, Florida the names have the state/ country the city is in. Please state your opinions on this,   Daniel_123  ►  21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people search for Berlin, they are most likely to mean the German capital. Because editors realize that there are other cities called Berlin, there is a link at the top of this article that leads the Berlin disambiguation page . Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: The recent vandalism in the history section, probably conducted through socket puppets,
has to be stopped. Any support is welcome. Lear 21 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  support to encounter recent vandalism 

message: Who can fix the image [Image:Berlin Wall graffiti&death strip.jpg]  ???
It seems to be nothing wrong with it, while clicking it. But it does not
appear in the article. Lear 21 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's happening for you too, huh? I thought it was just me. I have no idea; I'll ask at WP:VP/T. —Angr 14:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.7 on Windows XP; I don't know about Lear 21. —Angr 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it worked for me briefly, but now it's back to how it was. Very vexing. —Angr 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the Berlin wall 

message: Are the borugh assemblies elected  separetly from the city assembly? That is, can they have a different political majority from the city as a whole? I think that should be clarified.
:I believe the answer to both your questions is yes. —Angr 11:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  boroughs 

message: The article seems to be very mature now.
Any suggestions or assessments about future developments? all the best Lear 21 т с
For comments :Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin/archive1 Lear 21 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review or FA-candidate ? 

message: As the capital of Germany and an extremely historically important city in its own right, I wonder if there's any interest in setting up a work group or WikiProject dealing with Berlin. It could either be a stand-alone project, like the WikiProject Sydney, or a work group of WikiProject Germany. Personally, I think that organizating it as some sort of substructure of Germany might be best, as that would allow for potentially greater interaction between the two and spare the Berlin people the effort of having to create all the templates, departments, and what have you. But that's just my opinion. I would be very happy to hear the responses of the rest of you, positive or negative, to either or both proposals. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a task force to avoid template clutter on the talk pages. I'm going to start a smaller subproject of the Germany project sometime soon. If anybody is interested in either starting a project or a task force, please discuss at WT:GER. Kusma (討論) 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin task force of [[WP:GER|WikiProject Germany]], or, maybe, separate project? 

message: The name Berlin is connected to the Berlin  Bär (English: Bear) (Old High German: Bero, thus the name Berolina, Angle Saxon: Bera , Indo-Germanic-Indo-European: bher-os) emblem, used as Berlin's Sigilum since the 13th century in conjunction with the Brandenburg Eagle. On a document of 1280 two upright bears are depicted. The varying Berlin sigilum over the centuries depict the Brandenburg Eagle together with the Berlin Bear, later usually one instead of the earlier two. This is probably due to the single city, which developed from the earlier twin cities.
In 1231 the Ascanian Brandenburg Margraves, brothers Johann I. and Otto III. received at Ravenna from Emperor Frederick II the Mark Brandenburg. At the same time the emperor verified the Brandenburg margraves Lien over Pomerania.  Since the death of the young margraves father, Margrave Albrecht II. in 1220, the emperor held Brandenburg untill the boys became of age (17 and 16). One of the Margraviate's seats was at the site of the future Berlin at the river Spree.  
The first written mention of towns in the area of present-day Berlin dates from the late 12th and early 13th century. Spandau is first mentioned in 1197, the inner towns of Berlin-Cölln (remembered in Neukölln), in the center Berlin and to the right the estate of the Brandenburg margraves started to be built about 1200. All three are at a different arm of the river and are connected by bridges. Köpenick is documented in 1209, though it and Spandau both did not join Greater Berlin until 1920. The central part of Berlin-Cölln is about at todays Fisher Island). It was first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in the area of what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244. From the beginning, the twin cities formed an economic and social unit. In 1307, the two cities were united into one. Over time, the twin cities came to be known simply as Berlin, the larger of the pair and the other parts as districts of Berlin. 
The name Berlin is connected to the Berlin Bär (bear) emblem, which for the first time was used on a document in 1280. Before that only the Brandenburg Read eagle was shown. Dr. Theodor Zell , Naturforscher scientist studied secret nature trails of wildlife. His book Geheimpfade der Natur placed such a crossing, the only wildlife crossing across arms of the Spree river banks at the very place were first Coelln, then Berlin was founded. 200 other cities or towns in Germany have names relating to bears, over a hundred are named after swine or bore and a number after the wolf. Lately it also has become fashionable to sport the idea , that Berlin may be related to the Old Polabian stem berl-/birl- "swamp".Berger,Dieter. Geographische Namen in Deutschland, Bibliographisches Institut, 1999.   + 
The fact is, that the Berlin Bär is continuously used as emblem on the sigilum seal of Berlin from 1280 . That showed two upright bears (for the twin cities), and later depictions show one bear.   
Berliner Stadtwappen 
For more information on the Bär (bear) as city arms of Berlin and Bern, both Imperial cities at that time see:
Heraldry of Berne
Labbas 15 December 2006
-------------
!! more likely !!   Lear 21 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berolina - Berlin Bär (Berlin Bear) 

message: I wondered why the travel article I suggested was removed? It wasn't at all "bloggy", though the site had chosen the format. The reason was removed by an unregistered user, with "blogs not needed in this section," as their justification. The article had good photos and was a well written and engaging (if partial) history of Berlin. It's at Old World Wandering
Not sure if this is the correct place to mention this, still new to wikipedia. Please excuse me if it is not.
:I don't know what you mean by "not at all 'bloggy'"; it's written in the 1st person, which is bloggy enough. It's also a travelogue; but this is an encyclopedia article, not a travel guide. The site doesn't seem to me to meet the guidelines at WP:EL for external links. —Angr 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Travel Article 

message: best wishes to all contributers. Lear 21 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! Happy new year ! 

message: Isar Steve and Lear, would you please have your discussion here instead of in the summaries of virtually empty edits. Thanks. —Angr 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yo! 

message: There is vandalism on some of the page.
86.41.72.219 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU only within city limits, but it is absolutely not the 2nd most populated urban area or metro area in the EU. This sentence in the introduction trying to portray Berlin as the 2nd most populated EU city is completely misleading readers. Paris and London are by very far the two largest and most populated cities in the EU, by very far, so trying to portray Berlin as #2 is simply fallacious. Berlin's administrative borders were considerably enlarged in 1920, encompassing almost the entire urban area of Berlin, whereas in other countries the city borders haven't been changed since medieval times and encompass only a small area at the center of much larger urban areas, so comparing population within administrative borders is simply flawed. Personnaly, I am in favor of removing any ranking from the introduction of the article, but if the ranking is left, then it should mention that Berlin is only the 7th most populated urban area in the EU, because population within city limits is a very biased measure. Keizuko 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Keizuko, I would be interested in the citation for this, -- Dmytri Kleiner, dk@telekommunisten.net --85.178.25.209 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Threats is not going to help. Perhaps you need to spend a few days away from Wikipedia to cool off a bit. Keizuko 16:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ranking mentioned in the introduction is a standard entry in city articles. Considering the population within city limits as well ( compare USA article 'largest cities'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lear 21 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite so.  In particular, I note that in the USA article the statistics you refer to appear 2/3 of the way down the article, and they are explained clearly.  Ranking information when it is true is indeed a salient aspect of city articles.  Sadly, the statement currently ending the first paragraph of this piece is something between deliberate misinformation and outright lie. - Corporal Tunnel 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't compare this article to United States, because this is an article on a city and that's an article on a country. You can, however, compare this article to Los Angeles, California, the U.S.'s second city, and read the very first sentence: "Los Angeles ... is the largest city in the state of California and the second-most populous in the United States." For Berlin to say in its third sentence, "With a population of 3.4 million in its city limits, Berlin is the country's largest city, and the second most populous city in the European Union" is completely accurate and honest; it's nowhere near "deliberate misinformation and outright lie". It's not Berlin's fault that with the exception of London, other European cities haven't chosen to incorporate their suburbs into their city limits. —Angr 12:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Los Angeles is both the second-most populated city within city limits in the US, and the second-most populated metro area in the US, so the LA article is not misleading. This article, however, is very misleading because Berlin is nowhere near the second-most populated urban or metro area in the EU. I'm re-adding the urban area ranking for now, to better inform readers, but personally I am in favor of removing all sorts of ranking from the introduction. Keizuko 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin ranking in the introduction 

message: Just thought I'd drop by to make you aware of a move by a user who has categorized himself as a 'Mergist Wikipedian' to delete 'Category:Streets in Berlin', so that it may be ultimately merged into a single Streets and Squares category. If you wish to express an opinion, the place to do it is here. --Keefer4 | Talk 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Merging/Deletion of [[:Category:Streets in Berlin]]

message: I added a section on hacker culture to the main article. If you live in Berlin (or even if you are involved in technology & culture outside of Berlin) it is well known that the city is a major centre for this community, the Transmediale festive alone is easily as important and noteworthy as the Carnival of Cultures or other festivals. Wikipedia Germany is a large participant in Wizards of OS. Yet this section was immediately deleted by an anonymous editor, without any discussion on the talk page. Deleting contributed content without discussion is vandalism, IMO. I have undone this revert and am interested in comments, etc.
I have also noticed (as mentioned above) the activities of Lear21. I have no suggestion on how to deal with such editors, but something must be done, these kinds of editors are a major problem for Wikipedia and free culture in general, they destroy the spirit of Wiki by acting as if they own the page.
--Dmytri Kleiner 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Transmediale festival is worth mentioning. Specific hacker activities are to detailed for the main article. Lear 21 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Says who? why is the HQ of MTV not "too detailed" them? Who cares? Also, why is Transmediale OK and Wizard of OS (which wikipedia had a major presence at) not OK? Both are major festivals. Why is it OK to mention several theatres and operas, and even several nightclubs, but not world-famous technology and culture centres like Tesla at Podewil, Bootlab and C-Base? Why is discussing the history of the electrical system relevant, but not the highly influential wireless community network? This sort of pompous, arbitrary deletionism is highly damaging to the wiki community. If you want to make an intelligent argument, please say something substantive, not simple "too detailed." Other Comments? --85.178.7.4 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree (as someone in the Berlin "hacker culture") that the current one-sentence version is roughly what's appropriate for the main article.  As a side-note, I feel like section on clubs is overly detailed and at points inaccurate (notably that several of the mentioned clubs have been closed for a good while) and I'll probably trim that down in the near future. Scott.wheeler 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacker Culture 

message: There seems to be a problem with the pic of that 2 people in the rain under "climate". It doesn't have much meaning but it gets pushed into that article with an edit-war. Sadly no argument is brought up for that pic but a lot against them. But I'm tired of rv it again now. --Unify 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People in the rain 

message: I was reading about how Kitchener Ontario used to be called "Berlin Town",
so I thought I'd come here and see a disambiguation page for that old
name, and the musical composer, and the big city in Germany.
Instead, the German city is all I see here, no disambigutation at all.
Please fix!
:There's a link right at the very top that says "For other uses, see Berlin (disambiguation)". —Angr 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous word "Berlin" 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1626 km, use 1626 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1626 km.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 331.5 km. **MJCdetroit (see below)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program  (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: **I took care of the some of the WP:MOSNUM edits from the list above and struck them out.  I used the American spelling of meter because the page started out that way.  If someone insists on using the British spelling instead—go for it. —MJCdetroit 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more than ok with me.  I didn't mention that the spellings tended to change from American to Imperial the further down in the article I got.  That's why I made that statement.  —MJCdetroit 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only British spelling I found was one instance of "programme". What others did you see? —Angr 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I noticed there are still many bits of pieces I wrote in the article. At that time I wrote them in the "Queens English" :-) and I think "Programme" was one of my misdemeanours.. --IsarSteve 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for improvement (minimal requirements for FA) 

message: "In the eastern part, many Plattenbauten can be found"
I guess there are more in Westberlin, just take Hansaviertel, Gropiusstadt, parts of Wedding and Märkisches Viertel.
--217.83.70.198 15:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plattenbau 

message: [[image: Note - RFC template below marked nowiki - should have been auto deleted after 30 days but appears to have been breaking the bot somehow, possibly due to length of reason, use of () in template, space around "=" in "section" parameter? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that by mentioning anything about its size relative to cities in other countries is just going to lead to unnecessary friction. Why not mention how large it is compared to cities in Northern Europe (or should that be Central Europe), Eurasia, the World etc.? Take a look at say Madrid and Copenhagen, these articles get along nicely without such comparisons. We should be able to write an introduction to the article about Berlin without having to argue about where exactly İstanbul lies. Stefán 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to removing all such mentions (except we should still say it's the largest city in Germany); I do object to mentioning its size within the EU but removing the mention of its size within Europe as having "minor relevance". —Angr 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both Madrid and Copenhagen mention that these are the largest cities in the respective countries. The Madrid article even (un?)helpfully purports to provide a source for this claim. Stefán 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the introduction is slightly too long, and removing a couple of not-too-relevant comparisons (all the "Nth biggest city" lists are comparing apples to oranges to some degree) is an easy way to shorten it a bit. "Capital and largest city of Germany" is undisputed, does not depend on asking whether "Europe" or the EU is the most relevant comparison data (I agree with Angr that it should be "Europe", though, and see little reason not to compare cities in the EU with Zürich, Moscow, or Istanbul. Think a few years back before EU enlargement: wouldn't you want to compare Berlin to Warsaw and Vienna?) Kusma (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Re Lear. Madrid and Copenhagen were the first two capitals of countries in the EU I looked at. But the following articles also only mention that these are capitals and largest cities: Helsinki, Tallinn (where its arabic name is discussed), Vilnius, Dublin, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam, Luxembourg (city). These mention something more: Paris (is one of the most populated areas of its kind in Europe) Stockholm (largest within Scandinavia) London (largest within EU within city limits) Riga (largest in the Baltic states). There are around 10 cities to go but I'll stop here because it is clear to me that it seems an overstatement to say that The ranking of city population data is a standard entry among the vast majority of city articles introduction. Stefán 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why? The article has no section titled "Berlin's important in the European Union". Nor should it, since Berlin as a city has no particular relevance within the EU. Any international relevance Berlin has, it has in Switzerland and Norway just as much as France and Sweden. Europe is relevant because Berlin is a European city. The EU is irrelevant, or at best less relevant, because it's an artificial subset of European countries that share nothing in common to the exclusion of non-member states. Berlin's size within the EU is no more relevant than its size within NATO or the UN. —Angr 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I just reccently made some contructive edits to the page like correcting poor grammar, adding higher quality pictures, and a number of other things which I thought would improve the article's quality, which I am pretty sure it did. But then I look back at the article and my work was reverted for absolutely no reason. I am almost certain this was User:Lear21 because I traced back the anonymous user who reverted my work back to Germany. As we all know User:Lear21 has a history of being extremely protective with this article and not letting anybody else contribute to it unless he likes it/agrees with it. Also User:Lear21 is not 100% fluent in the English language nither was this anonymous user because a person that speaks fluent English would not revert back to a version with spelling errors. Aside from correcting the bad grammar I replaced two pictures, one of the Brandenburg Gate with a higher quality image from a better angle, the other picture I replaced was the picture of mayor Klaus Wowereit standing next to drag queen (A picture added by Lear21) in favor of a picture of Klaus Wowereit by himself. I really do not see anything wrong with these edits I made, does anybody else? (Daniel Chiswick 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who undid your replacement of Wowereit's picture, and as I said in my edit summary, I did so because the picture you used doesn't have adequate source information. I tagged it for deletion at Commons. If the uploader provides the source info, and the picture is kept, we can use it. I didn't revert anything else you did, though. —Angr/talk 04:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is an IP revert which was not helpful. However, nevermind how convinced you are that Lear 21 is behind it there was no reason to be so harsh against him in your first post. I am certain that there are people who have Berlin on their watchlist who will reinstate any edit which improves the article, grammatically or otherwise. Finally, I hope we will be able to keep the first picture you put in of Wowereit, the other one seems out of focus (the cropped version seems even less clear, although that may be my eyes playing funnily). Stefán 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that this is the best picture and I believe it is safe for use but Angr is the image expert here and I would prefer to follow his advice. Stefán 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what it is that makes you feel that the cutout is more statesmanlike or why that should be an important property. I still think we should use the other one, :Image:Wowereit.jpg. Regarding your last comment, name-calling has no place on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. Stefán 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If the thumbnail size is unrecognizable for you, you can go to your preferences and set a new size for them. That's why it's discouraged to force thumbnail size, because different people have different monitors with different resolutions. It's better to just say "thumb" and allow the reader to decide what size that means in his preferences setting. —Angr 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change the fact that picture sizes that may look right on your screen may look totally ridiculous on someone else's. Your forced thumbnail size is actually smaller than the size unforced thumbnails appear for me -- even when I'm logged out so my prefs don't play a role -- so it's your version that's approaching unrecognizability, not the unforced-size version. —Angr 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Same for me: 190px (or even 140px) is to small if you use highres 1600x1200 on an 19' screen. Consider someone using a PDA with 640xsomething resolution or less with 190px, pics are way to big then. Besides its not the place to discuss that here. Try to play around with your screenres or with other monitors to see that effect. --217.83.61.19 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Lear 21]] violating [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]] 

message: Thumbnail size should not be forced, see Wikipedia:Image use policy - Rules of thumb 10. It seems that Lear21 (aka IP 85.xx) prefers some  strange sizes as 190px (while 180px is standard) or 140px for upright pics instead of the flexible upright command or just setting his personal Help:Preferences. Lear doesnt like that rule calling it 'nonsense', but still he doesnt own wikipedia. I don't want to start a new edit war as we had so many here already but still that problem has to be resolved for a Wikipedia:Good articles. --217.83.48.109 13:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the thumbnail size is unrecognizable for you, you can go to your preferences and set a new size for them. That's why it's discouraged to force thumbnail size, because different people have different monitors with different resolutions. It's better to just say "thumb" and allow the reader to decide what size that means in his preferences setting. —Angr 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change the fact that picture sizes that may look right on your screen may look totally ridiculous on someone else's. Your forced thumbnail size is actually smaller than the size unforced thumbnails appear for me -- even when I'm logged out so my prefs don't play a role -- so it's your version that's approaching unrecognizability, not the unforced-size version. —Angr 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Same for me: 190px (or even 140px) is to small if you use highres 1600x1200 on an 19' screen. Consider someone using a PDA with 640xsomething resolution or less with 190px, pics are way to big then. Besides its not the place to discuss that here. Try to play around with your screenres or with other monitors to see that effect. --217.83.61.19 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thumbnail size 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
*The article is heavily under-referenced. Every statement which is likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering a ratio of 80 kb / 81 references the article is not under-referenced. Comparable GA city articles like Chicago, L.A., Miami have a same amount or even less references. To claim that every statement needs an inline citation is hardly convincing for a GA article. It is rather a requirement for the FA status. Lear 21 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the 81 references are unevenly distributed across the 80 kb of article. The History, Geography, and Cityscape sections are pretty under-referenced; other sections may actually have more references than they really need. —Angr 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold