Talk:Berlin/Archive 5

message: The article is now protected due to edit-warring for seven days. Please engage in constructive discussions and find common ground. When you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, please place a note at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I have removed the protection to afford a chance to involved editors to prove that they can edit without engaging in edit wars (and to stop one of you from continued harassment of my talk page). I will be keeping a close eye on the article, so please note that any further recurring edit warring may result in the temporarily loss of editor's editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I extend my warning again: discuss and reach an agreement instead of reverting. There is no reason why editors cannot reach a compromise on this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page unprotected 

message: The map Image:EU location Berlin.svg provides a comprehensive understanding of the city´s location
compared to the single Germany map without borders. It should be reinstalled to the Infobox. It has been suggested that
the map Image:Deutschland Lage Berlins.svg is in line with other Bundesländer infoboxes. BUT: Berlin is primarily recognized as a city AND the capital. The capital status is dominating in this case. The landlocked location of Germany within Europe and the degree of integration in the EU creates the necessity of a broader perspective. It has been suggested that the European map is not in line with
other city articles. This is true but neglects the fact that most of the maps in Wiki City articles are unsufficient in the first place. Worst examples are London and all American City articles, which can´t provide a proper location in their respective countries. Exception: Washington, the capital. The EU-Berlin map is of superior content quality, there is no need to cut down valuable extra information.
Lear 21 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, you should at least make sure that the EU is depicted correctly. Neither the Channel Islands nor the Isle of Man are part of the Union. athinaios 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, Lear, why not just give a map showing Berlin's location in the Milky Way Galaxy? It would provide even more information and context, and be just as useful as this one! —Angr 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone from the other side of the planet, I would rather see Berlin's location within  a smaller context—it's country—Germany and not the EU or Europe.  If I (or other people) want to know where Germany is located within the EU or Europe, we'll just click the link to Germany which is right under the map section.  This is the in the same manner in which if someone reading the Chicago article wants to know where Illinois is in the United States, they'll just click the link under the map of Illinois depicting Chicago's location.  From that they'll put two and two together and can figure out where the proper location of Chicago is within the United States (if they had no idea where is was to begin with).  People are smart enough to figure out these things.  The Berlin-Germany was superior and was more valuable to the outside reader. —MJCdetroit 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While my personal preference would be for the EU map, for the sake of consistancy I believe that this needs to be changed back to the Germany map.  I just went through the 20 largest cities in the EU and Berlin is the only one that is not shown only within its own country.  That's a pretty strong precedent. Scott.wheeler 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait a moment, I don't really understand that. A) Is there some wiki convention for European city articles that prescribes national maps? If not, we should discuss that Euro map on its own informative merits, notwithstanding what other articles do. If there was consensus that the Euro map improves this article, the user in question would ve perfectly entitled to insert it without changing maps in any other article. B) Why exactly is the nationality of the user who favours the Euro map relevant? Does everyone who enters this discussion need to declare their nationality and views on Europe now? C) Germany was clearly visible on the Berlin-in-Europe map, so the map simply offered a bit more information. What's wrong with that? athinaios 08:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Daniel is correct—Lear does have a huge bias toward the EU which does cause conflicts at times.  If Lear could take the Berlin in Germany map and have a small insert of Berlin in the EU/Europe (similar to Washington D.C.), I would support that.  I feel that the larger Berlin in Germany map is more valuable.  —MJCdetroit 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why is the Berlin-in-Germany map more valuable? Both maps clearly show the position and size of Berlin within Germany. The European map also shows where Berlin is in relation to a lot of other places. The only extra information contained in the Berlin-in-Germany map is how far Berlin is from, say, the Border between Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate. Are many users likely to be concerned with that (or even know what it means)? Nonetheless, I think a dual solution, like the DC one may be the best way to solve this, to make both sides happy. athinaios 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, the map is still incorrect (see my comment near the top of this thread). athinaios 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How so? The section of the Channel Islands article you link to contains the following sentence (quote): "The islands are not part of the European Union". The Isle of Man article (by the way, I think you should look at the map used there!) states  that "The Isle of Man holds neither membership nor associate membership of the European Union". A minor contradiction? athinaios 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are telling me that the islands are part of the Customs Union, the Customs Union is part of the EEC, the EEC is part of the EU, and thus, so are the islands? In spite of the fact that in both cases it is clearly stated that they are not in the EU? They are not even in the UK. Which part of not in the Union suggests a dispute to you? Check here and here. The fact that they may participate in aspects of the EU does not change that. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland participate in the Schengen agreement, but thankfully are not included in the Berlin-in-EU map. The map is not 99.9% correct: as a map of the EU, it is wrong. It may, however, depict Berlin's location within the Customs Union of the European Economic Community (depending on the Italian exceptions). Alternatively, why not make it simply a map of Europe? athinaios 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I had to blow the image up to 1000px wide to even see the Channel Islands, but what's visible even at thumbnail size is the fact that Moldova seems to have become a very large lake. —Angr 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear, it's not that I don't see your point. But in my personal experience, Manx people (considerably more visible than the Channel Islands) are touchy (for whatever reason) about the fact that they are not in, and that everyone keeps ignoring that. I think they'd argue that they are not even within the UK as a state, which is at least technically correct. My understanding is that both entities claim some form of statehood of their own. Frankly, it does not matter all that much in this particular context (Berlin), so I give up, although it always disappoints me to see that even those who take a positive interest in the EU tend to be very sloppy about its detail. In any case, I hope you succeed in the main argument here, namely whether to have to have the map included here, or preferably that you come up with a good dual solution, but I also hope that an eventual success will not lead to a proliferation of what remains a somewhat miselading map. athinaios 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: This morning, on the way to the shops, I was handed a leaflet advertising a language  school. It displayed a map of Europe and small part of the Near East. What caught may attention is that it was also showing two Germanies! Now, in my book, that map is wrong. Considering that another 52 (or so) states are depicted correctly, I presume for you, Lear, it would be 98% correct? athinaios 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you had some conversation, I fixed the map. --Unify 12:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spiffing. :) What program did you use? Nothing on my PC appears to be able to open svg files. athinaios 13:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used the freeware Inkscape, but you might take a look here: Comparison of vector graphics editors --Unify 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was so bold as to add an alternative image, suggesting a compromise between both options. Feel free to remove/replace or modify it. athinaios (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It think it looks convenient. I uploaded a higher resolution version of it. Anyway its still a raster bitmap .png file and not a vector file. But copy&paste don't seem to work in inkscape, so I don't get the job done. --Unify (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Do we need more than a screen's worth of resolution? I guess why not... I have the same problem you have regarding vectors, but frankly, I think the visual result is the same. I hope we can settle for this a reasonable compromise. Should we make sure that the order given in the title ("within Germany and EU") is reflected by the order in the actual image, or do we assume that no-one's going to be that picky? athinaios (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have problems watching svg files in your browser, you probably use firefox. The infamous Internet Explorer comes along with a free plugin from adobe to zoom in vector files in your browser (right click on the pic). Firefox is supposed to have full support of svg files in version 3.00 or later. For some reason there is not even a plugin for firefox to zoom vector files (a workaround is the "IE Tab"). I guess the highres png file should be enough for 99.9% of all average joes / otto normalverbraucher. --Unify (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me. The map shows up just fine (I use explorer). What I meant to say is that at full resolution, it's about 4 times the size of my screen. Better too detailed than vice versa, though. It is, as others have stated, an encyclopaedia, after all. athinaios (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduction of European map 

message: Dont know if its suitable for here, but its written in the Sofia page that it is Sister City with it, nothing is mentioned in Berlins page. 91.64.139.1 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister Cities

message: I don't want to start an edit war, but I do not agree with that "too long" tag. The articles for Paris, New York City, London, Toronto, Boston, Chicago and even Manchester, are all longer; Edinburgh, Beijing and Moscow are nearly as long. At the least, anyone who tags it as too long per se should make some suggestions as to what to crop or move elsewhere. athinaios 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is I have an Internet connection speed of 6000 kbits/second on DSL, and this page takes around 20 seconds to load. I shudder to think how long it takes people with slow connections or dial-up! As for suggestions: most of Berlin#History could be moved to History of Berlin, most of Berlin#Cityscape could be a new article Architecture of Berlin, most of Berlin#Culture could be a new article Culture of Berlin, and Berlin#Berlin quotations could be eliminated altogether. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really have an opinion on the too long bit, but the "on my DSL line" argument is silly.  You should be able to load 750 kb in one second on such a connection, and images included, I suspect the page is around that. Scott.wheeler 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is currently 83,881 bytes, which is 655 kb, excluding images. And I guess I should have said "up to 20 seconds"; sometimes it only takes 5 seconds. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize this is just pedantry at this point, but 83,881 bytes is 82 kb. Scott.wheeler 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I meant kilobits, not kilobytes. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: Anyone else think this translation for "Ich bin ein Berliner" is excessively awkward? I would've thought the most obvious would be just "I am a Berliner". But by any means, I really don't like the current one. Any thoughts? - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am a citizen of Berlin"? 

message: The correct designation for the two world conflicts is "First World War" and "Second World War", as the German terms used by their official histories are Erste Weltkrieg and Zweite Weltkrieg" - should they not be used here? "World War II" is a specifically American term. The Germans, French and Commonwealth nations all officially use "Second World War" as the 'correct' designation. The language that the article is written in would seem to be irrelevant to that...139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the German terms are irrelevant here. This article is written in English, specifically American English, so it uses the American English names for the wars. By the same token, cities like Munich, Cologne, and Nuremberg are referred to by their English names (in that case, there's no difference between American English and British English). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even a case of regional English differences either.  Search the BBC site for instances of "world war" and you find them using "world war II" about as often as "second world war".  It's obvious that in English either term is acceptable everywhere except to the occasional pedant discovering regionalistic contrasts where none exists.Zebulin (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second World War 

message: From an AP story filed Jan. 31, 2008:
:BERLIN - An archaeological dig in downtown Berlin has uncovered evidence that the German capital is at least 45 years older than had previously been established, authorities said Wednesday. 
:During excavation work last week in the Mitte district, archaeologists uncovered a wooden beam from an ancient earthen cellar, said Karin Wagner of the city-state's office for historical preservation.
:It was in exceptionally good condition, having lain under the water table for centuries, and scientists were able to determine from a sample taken that it had been cut down in 1192.
:That means it dates to 45 years before the official date of Berlin's birth, 1237 — the year in which documents first mention the settlement, referring to the priest of the Petrikirche church, which stood not far from the site of the new dig.
Sca (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etwas neues