Talk:Berlin/Archive 3

message: Why has the author missed Treptower Park? 
If he or she thinks that soviet soldiers do not deserve any respect, at list he or she should have recognised their existance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 April 2006  (UTC)
:By all means, be bold and add it in if you can, preferably with a source so we don't have to do it later :). Homestarmy 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Homestarmy. Remember that this is a wiki, which means (1) there is not one single author of this article, and (2) you can add to this article to cover whatever you think is lacking. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I've now added a sentence about Treptower Park to the section "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks". Feel free to expand, although large-scale expansion should go to the article Treptower Park, not here. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treptower park is missing 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Soviet War memorial at Treptower Park is not listed anywhere in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2006   (UTC)
:In my opinion, that one omission isn't enough to kick the article off the "Good articles" list. The lack of references throughout the article, on the other hand, is. I also wouldn't like to see it restored as a Good article until the education section is expanded, as mentioned below. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria is to be broad, not perfectly broad, and calls for references, not perfect ones :/. One little missing bit of whatever it is out of a whopping 72K or whatever article tends not to register to reviewers heh. But once there are more references, in my opinion, this article has an instant shot at FA. Homestarmy 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, once there are more references, the article has an instant shot at being restored to GA (where it never should have been without them in the first place). I don't think it's anywhere near FA status. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good articles are very unbureaucratic; this is the discussion. Anyone can remove an article from the GA list. And anyone can add an article to the GA list. But frankly, I was just about to remove it from the GA list myself because of the lack of references and the extremely stubby "Schools" section, when I noticed that someone else had beaten me to it and removed it from the list for an entirely different reason. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the book references at the bottom look general enough to cite a pretty good chunk of this article, but then, I don't have much idea what's in them. A couple more wide-reaching references might be available on some of the sections, maybe the climate one or the sports one, but they might all be in german and I can't understand german :(. Homestarmy 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: The section on schools needs expansion. Education in Germany lists all sorts of things that vary from state to state in Germany; what is the state of affairs in Berlin? Also, the article currently says that secondary schooling lasts 6 years, but that can't be true across the board: again according to Education in Germany, Hauptschulen go to 9th grade, Realschulen to 10th grade, and Gymnasien to 12th or 13th grade. If they each start in 7th grade, then Hauptschule lasts 3 years, Realschule 4, and Gymnasium 6 or 7. Again, what is the situation in Berlin? Angr (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the length of this article already, i'd say expanding on it too much might be a bit of overkill, though since it is about a city, i'd say something more specific than education in all of Germany might be called for. Perhaps find a list of some schools, and put "Education in Germany" as a see also or something? Since we're on a specific topic, it doesn't seem to me like going into an explanation of all of Germany's education system should be necessary. Homestarmy 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section already says "See also Education in Germany". The thing is, school curricula and requirements are determined at the state level in Germany, and Berlin isn't only a city, it's also a state. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well, is there an article on Education in the state of Berlin? Homestarmy 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were, I think the best title would be Education in Berlin. But I'm not talking about adding an article's worth of info to the section, just two or three more sentences. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools section 

message: I would be in favor of renaming "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks" simply "Green spaces" and discussing Berlin's forests as well. Not many cities have as high a percentage of their land dedicated to forest as Berlin. It's true in both parts of the city, but a friend of mine who grew up in West Berlin said having so much forestland where you felt like you were completely out of the city was "what kept us sane" during the years that West Berlin was walled in and it was impossible to take a day trip outside the city limits. I'll see what I can do myself, but I don't have a lot of free time, so I'll need help if other people agree this would be a valuable addition to the article. I certainly think it's something that makes Berlin different from most other large cities in industrialized countries. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forests are quite different from parks (they're managed differently and used differently), which is why I went for the more general term "Green spaces". I'm not sure to what extent zoos would belong in the section "Green spaces" though, or if it's appropriate to have botantical gardens, parks, and forests under "Culture" at all. Maybe we should leave zoos in "Culture" (to my mind zoos are like more like outdoor museums than they are like parks), and move botanical gardens, parks, and forests to "Setting" (which should perhaps be re-named "Geography"). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forests? 

message: Sashandre, I don't understand why you removed :Image:BerlinEastSpree.jpg but left :Image:Spreebad kl.jpg. Not only is the first a much better-quality photo (higher resolution, fewer distracting artifacts), it much better illustrates the Spree in relation to the city, showing as it does such Kennzeichen as the Oberbaumbrücke and the Molecule Men--only in the distant background, granted, but the second photo doesn't have anything distinctly Berlin in it. No one who knows Berlin could possibly mistake the first picture for Warsaw. (Neither could anyone who knows Warsaw, I'll warrant.) Angr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I have requested Fair use review concerning the use of the Berlinale logo in this article. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlinale logo 

message: Well, the body of my parents' relative among the bodies of other 20,000 soldiers rests under that 'insufficient monument'. And every bloody year, I visit the city to pay the tribute to those whom, as I belive, I owe a lot. And the author of this article, since he or she writes about Berlin, must know everything, or at leats a lot about the city. Yet, the huge park, which is not a steet light, was not mentioned in the artice, as if it had never existed. Finally, the fact that such huge monument had not been mentioned in the artice, is called 'insufficient argument'. I wonder if the Holocaust Memorial or Museum of Indian Art  was missing in the article, would the remark about its absence be 'insufficient argument' as well?
:Once again, there is not one author of this article, and if you feel something is missing, it's best to add it yourself. That's what it means to be a wiki. The argument that the article can't be a Good article because it's missing a mention of Treptower Park and the monument is "insufficient" simply because it's so easily fixed. It would have taken much less time and effort for you to write a sentence or two about the park and add it to the article than it took you to delist the article from the Good Articles list and write a complaint here on the talk page about the oversight. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient agrument and monument 

message: IsarSteve, what exactly is "degrading" about the photo of Klaus Wowereit you removed? He obviously didn't consider it degrading or he wouldn't have posed for it. I think a photograph of the openly gay mayor at a gay pride event standing beside a drag queen who has just been crowned Miss CSD illustrates Berlin's personality perfectly. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3. that´s exactly my point, just because somebody is Gay, he doesn´t have to be shown with a Drag Queen. Would Diepgen have be shown with ""Miss German "Tits & Bum" 1994""? No certainly not. Regarding nightlife, thats not my amendment. OK lets delete all specific mention of Clubs  and just mention Nightclubs..  IsarSteve 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Diepgen would have posed for such a photo it would be noteworthy. Apparently he hasn't though, otherwhise such a photo would exist. The fact that a famous personality chooses to take part in such an event and chooses to use it as an opportunity to advertise for (the city|his career|whatever) is interesting and worth mentioning. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Kastienallee image just goes to illustrate the East Berlin bias in this article. What is so famous about Kastanienallee??? Not much, I would have thought,  Kreuzberg better illustrates "The Berlin situation". I still think the image of Wowi is very clicheed.. exactly what non Gays want to see.. Also at a first glance it does look like it´s his "Gattin" and she is the "Red Queen"  LOL! IsarSteve 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Sashandre what do you actually mean when you say "famous"? do you mean "berühmt" or do you mean "sehr bekannt" or just even "bekannt". I would suggest again, that Kastienallee is neither "berühmt" or "sehr bekannt" just plain old "bekannt" which I think, doesn´t merit an image. Now I´m off to bed, so no more for today IsarSteve 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What counts as "trendy" with tourists and self-styled "artists" changes over time. It used to be Kreuzberg, after 1990 it became Prenzlauer Berg for a while, and now it's probably Friedrichshain. It's OK to mention this fact, but between you and me these are the parts of the city to avoid, so they shouldn't be overemphasized that much. The real Berlin takes place elsewhere. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the section on Subdivisions needs anything else than the map of the boroughs, which I've just moved to the right side and made larger. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrading? 

message: I´d like to change the use of "GDR " in the article to "East Germany ", which I think is the term most commonly used (and understood) in the English speaking world, to denote The "Deutsche Demokratische Republik ". Therefore, before I do so,  I´d like your comments. IsarSteve 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The only people I ever hear call East Germany the "GDR" are Germans speaking English. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd agree. What's more, I've seen people mistake the GDR for West Germany. I think it's the "Democratic" bit that does it. ProhibitOnions 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that link you provided is just weird. They don't seem to be mistaking the GDR for West Germany, though. The sentence says "In 1985...in what was formerly East Berlin, at that time still in the German Democratic Republic" which is perfectly true. The confusing part is what follows: "but later part of the communist-controlled Soviet bloc." Perhaps "at that time" refers to the time of the Haymarket Riot (1886), in which case they've confused the GDR with the German Empire. Angr (t • c) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK I will change the article this week, although it´s maybe better to wait a couple of days more to allow (more?) discussion. IsarSteve 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDR> East Germany 

message: Its not the entertaining issue, but I think we need a visual representation (Memorial) of the 
Third Reich. The site is by now one of the most visited in Berlin. It features a Documentation center (kind of museum). I´m going to put it back in Museum section, where it once was ...Sashandre
:It isn't a museum, it doesn't belong in the Museums section. Since we already have a picture of the Reichstag, I'm replacing the inside view of the Reichstagkuppel in the "Famous sights" section with the Holocaust memorial picture. Angr (t • c) 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't neglected, we already have a picture of the Reichstag higher up in the article, glass dome and all. Angr (t • c) 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust memorial 

message: For the time being the World Cup is the most dominant event on Earth.
A modern internet-encyclopedia can and should react on that, otherwise I
could take a look in my Britannica and read about Nazis still in power...
Afterwards it can be deleted again; thats contemporary Wikipedia.
London is presenting the olympic logo !6 years! in advance ....
Sashandre
:I'm not saying we shouldn't mention the World Cup at all, just that we don't need a huge picture of a shoe with people climbing all over it at the expense of a picture of one of the most important cultural sites in Berlin. How about a compromise: The Philharmonie large and on the right, the shoe small and on the left. Angr (t • c) 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, I moved the shoe down to fill up the white space to the right of the table. That way it doesn't interfere with a larger right-side image of the Philharmonie. Angr (t • c) 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Most dominant event on earth is a slight exaggeration. Anorak2 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the table displays differently for you and for me. For me, the table displays flush left and has a huge white space to the right of it. By moving the shoe down, the white space is filled. And I'm hoping the section where the Philharmonie is won't be short for very long, because I intend to expand that section when I get some time. Angr (t • c) 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup 

message: Sashandre, why did you remove the  tags from "Higher education, research" and "Economic trends"? Both sections need sources to back up their statistics. I also don't understand your removal of all West Berlin nightclubs. The only "nonexisting" nightclub in the section was the LaBelle; the others are still in operation. IsarSteve has already pointed out that this article exhibits a distinct East Berlin bias, and removing the West Berlin nightclubs just makes it even less NPOV. Calling it a "highly volatile section" is just laughable -- I only added that paragraph yesterday, and no one touched it until you deleted it. That's not "volatile". You also removed my request for expansion from the "Schools" section. That section is pitifully small now and contains nothing of interest at all; either it must be expanded or deleted altogether. The way it is now is simply a joke. Angr (t • c) 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the comment about Unter den Linden.. I really don´t mind if the Palace is mentioned or not..but as written .. 10, 20 or 30 years is in the future!!  I do object to Grand Boulevard >heads west..this doesn´t sound good.. Avenue is the correct term for tree lined road.. also Roaring twenties doesn´t just apply to North America.. It´s the term used in the UK for the 1920´s.. are we writing this for English speakers or German speakers?? Golden Twenties doesn´t in my opinion, have a meaning for English speaking people..it just sounds >foreign< IsarSteve 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The economic figures seem about right, see http://www.statistik-berlin.de/framesets/berl.htm Anorak2 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  where has the Collaboration gone to now?? There were some things that you deleted , that I thought should have stayed, but as I wrote you, I thought it was good to see fresh ideas, and let them go. Now you must accept, that your work can also be altered by others.. The order to remove something  I´ll ignore.. If you feel you must change something, then do it.. but so will I and others too! IsarSteve 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't find  tags in 30 major cities, then either they already cite their sources, or their editors aren't working towards getting the articles up to Good Article status. Your opinion that the West has a historically low significance is both untrue and insulting. While the historic center of the city is in the former East, the West gained significance during the years of division while the East stagnated. Since reunification, the East has come a long way towards regaining its significance, but it hasn't eclipsed the West. Both sides of the still all-too-real Mauer im Kopf are equally significant now, and it's simply a violation of WP:NPOV if we allow the article to give readers the impression that only (pre-1991) Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg, and Friedrichshain are "the real Berlin". The West Berlin nightclubs you deleted are -- excepting only the LaBelle -- just as significant as the East Berlin clubs you kept. Angr (t • c) 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr seconded.  the contents of this article should absolutely represent important features regardless of location within the borders and likely also the sourced conceptual or fictional reality of Berlin.  I further wonder at your reasoning for the removal of the Berlin City Palace -- I would assume it should remain.  The english article Roaring_Twenties links de:Goldene_Zwanziger and, as such should be linked and written as Roaring Twenties.  ∴ here…♠ 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I tried to update Berlin >Famous Sights today, but the edit was almost immediately reversed by some "unknown" person. At the moment Alexanderplatz reads as follows:- 
*Alexanderplatz is featuring the Weltzeituhr and is a former East Berlin's shopping area. It was home to the Centrum-Warenhaus, which once was the GDR's department store.     
It just makes you cringe to read it..  Whether as square can feature something, is open to debate, but the next sentence that the centrum store was the GDR´s (remember we also agreed to call it East Germany"), department store. So because this "Unknown person" keeps reversing edits..I ask somebody else to re-write Alexanderplatz.  I thought maybe on the lines :- Alexanderplatz named after a Russian Tsar, is about 200years old.. etc., Dominated by the station and two 1920s Buildings desingned by Peter Behrens etc.,
So please re-write this part of famous sights.. I´m going to blank it again right now..  IsarSteve 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Sights 

message: First of all it has to be said that the Brandenburg Gate picture is an excellent one
which truly meets the criteria of style, quality and significance.
But it focuses rather german history and fails to transport the message of an international,
multicentered,  global city. The half skyline picture including a station, the TV-Tower and 
a highrise building (center of commerce) can provide that. I can also report that this view is 
very much shared by an internet and my personal community (living abroad). Up to now I never used this argument in the last discussions , but I think it broadens the view this time.
Sashandre all the best
:The Brandenburg Gate is supremely iconic of Berlin. Friedrichstraße train station isn't. The Friedrichstraße picture can go lower down in the article, but frankly it's just weird to have the first image in the article on Berlin be anything other than the Brandenburg Gate. Look through the other languages' articles on Berlin: more of them have a picture of the Brandenburg gate as the first or only picture than anything else. Angr (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must say, I particularly like the Friedrichstr. image, although for non-German readers, I would imagine that The Brandenburg Gate IS THE SYMBOL of Berlin and of German division. Friedrichstr. station as a "Border Point" has its place in "Deutsch-Deutsche Geschichte", the division of the country and Berlin. So I think it is pertinent to show it as well. IsarSteve 16:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, except this image isn't of that Friedrichstr. station, but rather of the new one, which looks like any other train station. Angr (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr is right. Much of the "historic" center of Berlin is not a decade old. The Brandenburg Gate at least attributes importance to the historical significance of Berlin, which has undeniable shaped the city and its inhabitants forever. The problem remains though, that Berlin is just one of those towns which you are unable summarize using a single photograph, which is why we have to settle for the image with the most significance. If there were a picture of the Pariser Platz, along with the Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag and some of the newer governmental buildings, it would be better suited... But I guess in this case, I can't be picky. --Johnnyw 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's clear now that the consensus is to have the Brandenburg Gate as the lead picture. Everyone who's expressed an opinion on this has said so, except Sashandre. I'm switching the positions of the Brandenburg Gate and Friedrichstraße photos now. Sashandre, please don't switch back. Angr (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is a consensus. You are the only one who wants it your way. Everyone else who has expressed an opinion wants it the other way around. Please respect that. Angr (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already tried to look for a picture that not only shows the Brandenburger Tor, but other aspects of the city as well. So far to no avail. Nevertheless, as soon as I find one, I'll propose it here, maybe a better solution is possible.--Johnnyw 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see me, IsarSteve, Johnnyw, and 82.123.218.171 all agreeing that given the choice between the Brandenburg Gate photo and the Bhf. Friedrichstr. photo, we prefer the Brandenburg Gate photo to be the lead photo. You're the only one who wants Bhf. Friedrichstr. as the lead photo. That looks like broad consensus to me. Angr (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles all use skyline images as their lead picture. (In the case of New York City, that is its icon -- especially since it includes the Empire State Building, which is far more iconic for New York than the Statue of Liberty is.) But they don't use a picture of some train station. Do we have a good skyline image of Berlin? If so, let's use it. If not, let's use the iconic image we do have: the Brandenburg Gate. Angr (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: The only skyline I can find of Berlin is :Image:BerlinVogelschau1850.jpg, but it's a little out of date. There's also :Image:Berlin Siegessaeule Panorama.jpg, which could be cropped, but the majority of the most interesting buildings are very small and far-away. Angr (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a picture at the Yahoo Image sharing service flickr that is quite interesting:  . I thought about contacting the photographer about releasing the rights to that photograph... what do you think? It shows most of Mitte: the Charité, the Spreeinsel (which is a world cultural heritage site), of the course the river Spree, the Rote Rathaus, the Nikolaikirche and the Fernsehturm. --Johnnyw talk 22:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the skyline of Mitte photo a lot too; it's just too bad it's a night shot. The same view on a sunny day would be perfect! If he won't release the photo, maybe he'll at least tell us where he was when he took it; then someone can go there on a sunny day and take a photo of the same view. Angr (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, there does not seem to be any way to contact people via flickr (maybe only by registering to that service?)... I am still looking for alternatives. --Johnnyw talk 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 

message: I was surprised not to read of the huge amoung of debt that Berlin has accumulated since the reunification. Even more was I surprised when I had to look around the German WP for quite a bit to find any information regarding the subject. Actually, I thought about including a short mentioning in the intro paragraphs. Berlin's debt has accumulated to rougly 60 billion Euros, and — it is claimed — that Berlin is virtually unable to rise out of this debt by themselves.. Even if this is not actually the case, most of the politics in Berlin are predetermined by this factor, a lot of the cultural institutions are endangered, the universities/public hospitals/... are cutting down on basically everything that's expensible... Using the words of Berlin's finance minister: "if Berlin were a private company, the city would have gone bankrupt long ago"  --Johnnyw 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point, and one that's definitely worth mentioning. I wouldn't put it in the lead section, though, as that's supposed to be just a summary of the entire article. I'd make it a subsection of "Economy". Angr (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and open for reviewing/editing etc. =) --Johnnyw 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mentioning of debt in the article 

message: No mention of the gay/lesbian subculture than thrived during the 1920's and was destroyed by the Nazis. Berlin had more gay/lesbian/trans bars and clubs in the 1920s than Toronto, Ontario, Canada does today. The movie Bent is about this, but I don't have a book or internet source to quote.
:A very good point. We do have an article on Nollendorfplatz, which is still a gay neighborhood today as it was during the Weimar era. I expect if someone were willing to do the research, a very good article could be written on LGBT culture in Berlin. Angr (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay/lesbian subculture

message: So, I just got back from a short trip to Viktoriapark, where I took some pictures of the skyline of Berlin. They're not great art, and unfortunately there aren't too many icons of Berlin visible from up there, but here they are anyway in case anyone sees fit to include them.
Image:Berlin skyline.jpg
Image:Berlin skyline 2.jpg
Image:Berlin skyline 3.jpg
Image:Berlin skyline 4.jpg
I also took the photos that I just added to Viktoriapark. Angr (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pics 

message: Also, I see no reason why Image:Train station Berlin Friedrichstrasse 5.jpg should be on the top of the article. What is significant with that picture? I suggest the Brandenburg Gate should be kept (like this one). Just the way 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Please stop changing 1918 to 1871. Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia for its entire existence, from 1701 to 1918, and continued to be the capital of the Free State of Prussia thereafter. Just the way 22:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Prussia 

message: A more suitable image needs to be found. Just because a person is gay, his sexual orientation doesn't need to be primary thing he is associated with as a politician. Representing him with a drag queen is heavily POV. A politician should be represented with a neutral photo. Just the way 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We´ve been here before!! Although I agree with you in principle, other people seem to think it´s OKIsarSteve 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a better free-use picture of him, put it in. But there is nothing non-NPOV about the picture of him with a drag queen. The picture does not place undue emphasis on his sexual orientation, as anyone is allowed to stand next to a drag queen to have their picture taken. Angr (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Klaus Wowereit 

message: I try contacting these photographers  (my favourite),
,
and how about this one  ?
Sashandre all the best
:They're not bad, although I'd still prefer a daytime shot to a night shot. Also, be sure not to just ask for permission to use the photo in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia policy is that images can't be used "by permission". Rather, they have to be willing to release the image under a fair license, such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons License that permits commercial use and derivatives, for example CC-BY-SA-2.5. Angr (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like No. 5 the best, maybe Angr isn´t a night owl and doesn´t know what the city looks like in darkness?? IsarSteve 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do know what the city looks like in darkness, but an encyclopedic picture ought to be fully illuminated. Angr (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As usual, I have to reluctantly agree.. LOL IsarSteve 09:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sashandre, did the photographer of :Image:Berlin TV Tower and skyline.jpg contact you and say CC-BY-SA-2.5 is okay? Because the image at Flickr still says "All rights reserved", which is not the same thing! Angr (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great! Angr (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead picture 2 

message: I agree on topic (1.),(4.),(5.).
On (2.): A few more sentences in `setting´ may be in zoo,parks...are ok.Its not an important aspect. 
On (3.):LGBT is highly represented through picture and sentence,every other extention in new articles.
On (6.): Citation has to be kept short. book template is not acceptable.
On (7.): The lead is comparable to most of the city articles and covers the relevant parts. Details can be discussed.
On (8.): Total disagreement.Length is widely tolerated because of exceptional article-status (also length of country-articles). Major City-articles vary from 50-80kb, Berlin has 63kb.The history section is very short in comparison and has very high relevance, especially 20th century Berlin.
I´m going to delete this topic and (7.) from To-Do-List.
Sashandre all the best
:Perhaps we have different goals for the article. I would like the article to become a featured article someday, but it won't make it unless at least points 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are addressed. It could probably make it to FA without 2 and 3, and possibly without 4, although I personally couldn't support it unless all 8 points were addressed. But if featured-article status is not your goal (and given the crappy quality of a lot of recent featured articles I wouldn't blame you if it weren't), then you needn't worry about all the points. I would ask you not to delete anything from the to-do list, however, in case other people are interested in bringing the article up to FA standards. Angr (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without 7 and 8 there is no hope of ever achieving FA status. If you insist on reverting all attempts to implement points 7 and 8, the rest of us may as well give up trying to improve this article. Angr (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Watch the current FA candidates. People consistently object to articles that are too long (generally >50 kb) and whose leads don't comply with WP:LEAD. Angr (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do-List 

message: At the very bottom of the page is a template named #Boroughs of Berlin#.
How is it possible to modify it? Or, who is able to do it / or has access to it?
The part 'Boroughs prior to 2001' needs to be deleted because it is outdated.Sashandre
:No, it needs to be kept because Berliners still invariably think of the pre-2001 boroughs, and most articles are written about those, not about the post-2001 boroughs, which have no reality in the minds of locals. User:Angr 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr is right, the post-2001 boroughs are irrelevant to everyday life here, apart from administrative issues. --Johnnyw talk 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The template is just fine the way it is. It has the post-2001 boroughs on top, and the real boroughs at the bottom. Renaming it "neighborhoods" would mean greatly increasing its scope, as it would then have to include things like Moabit, which were not boroughs before 2001 either. User:Angr 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was facetiously referring to the pre-2001 boroughs as the "real" boroughs. I would however also be in favor of keeping the East/West division, because that too is still very prominent in Berliners' minds, as well of being of tremendous interest to non-Berliners. User:Angr 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to "be forced" to create a new template, don't. Just leave this one the way it is. It's not outdated because virtually everyone in Berlin still thinks of Berlin as being divided up this way. User:Angr 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Berlin consists of 23 different boroughs and even more different Stadtteile, as well as 12 figments of the government's imagination. That's factually correct. User:Angr 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you don't have to delete the whole one, and if you do you will be reverted because you have no consensus to do so. User:Angr 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boroughs of Berlin 

message: Sashandre in your latest purge, you deleted a Stendahl quotation, Now I´m not against pruning things per se, the quotation wasn´t that important, but you have now suceeded in deleting both mentions of "Märkische Sand" in the article. You seem to have an obsession of standardising everything. I feel your deletions make the article faceless, Berlin is Berlin but Chicago oder "sonst wo" is somewhere else, the articles shouldn´t all be the same. Being built on sand makes Berlin special, what other inland cities have beaches like Berlin?? No mention here!! A polite request from me, when you decide to delete something, think about what has been lost and try and add the (compressed) information somewhere else... --IsarSteve 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I´ll do that --IsarSteve 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardisation 

message: Well, at least one good thing came out of having the World Cup Final as well as other important games in Berlin: There are now lots more Berlin photos at Flickr! I have just uploaded the following to Commons:
Image:Anhalter Steg.jpg|Anhalter Steg over the Landwehrkanal in Kreuzberg
Image:Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing.jpg|Berlin Philharmonic rehearsing
Image:Berlin-Tegel from the air.jpg|Tegel Airport from the air
Image:Extranoise Berlin sunset.jpg|Sunset behind the Berlin skyline
Image:Gropiusstadt apartment houses.jpg|Apartment blocks in Gropiusstadt
Image:Jpvargas Berlin Zoo entrance.jpg|Elephant entrance to Berlin Zoo
Image:Jrossol Berlin panorama.jpg|Berlin panorama
Image:Konzerthaus.jpg|Konzerthaus on Gendarmenmarkt
Image:Turmstrasse after New Years.jpg|Turmstraße
Which if any of these would we like to add to this article? User:Angr 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More photos 

message: I've compiled a list of links to many design institutions in Berlin (mesuems, agencies, schools, magazines, etc.), it is here — http://bact.blogspot.com/2006/07/design-city-berlin.html .
-- 172.182.55.93 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design City Berlin 

message: Some of us English-speaking Wikipedians from Berlin are going to meet up in August. If you'd like to join us, sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Berlin. Lear 21 19:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Berlin Wiki Meetup