Talk:Berlin

Template:WP1.0

Plattenbau

"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)

Request for comment

[[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)

{{RFCgeo | section = Request for comment !! reason=Is it worth mentioning in the lead that Berlin is the second largest city (by city-proper size, not metropolitan area) in the EU? If so, is it also worth mentioning that Berlin is the fifth largest city in Europe as a whole (counting Russia and Turkey, which aren't in the EU)? And does Istanbul really count as being in Europe? !! time=18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)}}

I've made a request for comment about the population rank issue. It seems to me that Berlin's rank within the continent of Europe is at least as relevant--if not more relevant--than its rank within the EU. Thus if we are going to mention that it's the second largest city in the EU, we should also mention that it's the fifth largest city in Europe (counting Istanbul, which brings me to the next point--does Istanbul count as the second largest city in Europe when some of its territory is in Asia?) —Angr 18:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The ranking of city population data is a standard entry among the vast majority of city articles introduction. It is useful to estimate the relative size within a certain framework. The first priority is traditionally the country. Because of Germany´s advanced degree of integration within the EU, this is the second point of reference here. Note that the whole Berlin article profoundly draws data from its EU ties ( Map in infobox, data in Economy section, metropolitan area in intro !) In this respect the EU ranks maintain a certain consistency within the article itself. Because of space and relevance restrictions the introduction can´t include endless listings of one city data aspect. The following sentence about the metro area size and rank is the sufficient data to describe the size of the city population. Lear 21 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Everything beyond 3rd place is not worth mentioning in the entry. Especially not in bulky constructions like the 10. most impotant after city xx, yy, aa, bb, cc, dd, ee, ff, gg and so on. --Unify 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Istanbul is in Europe. It extends both on the European (Thrace) and on the Asian (Anatolia) side of the Bosphorus, and is thereby the only metropolis in the world which is situated on two continents. I also agree with Unify that anything beyond three is not worth mentioning; and with Kusma that less is better. One population comparison is fine, two are pedantic. --Bejnar 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"It seems to me that Berlin's rank within the continent of Europe is at least as relevant--if not more relevant--than its rank within the EU." If that is important, than the article should have a section titled "Berlin's importance in the continent of Europe." But why would that really be relevant in an article about Berlin, rather than an article about the largest European cities? The existing language in the introduction is fine: it provides context for understanding Berlin within its own nation, and then within the political group which the nation is in. How would a third level of orientation, of Berlin within its continent, help people better understand the article about Berlin? VisitorTalk 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

User:Lear 21 violating Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

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)).

Here is the IP adress 85.179.26.60 (Daniel Chiswick 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

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)

I know what you are talking about, but I am talking about something different. After you replaced the picture I put one up with a scource and after that the person I believe to be Lear21 changed it the the picture of the mayor standing next to the drag queen. I have nothing against LGBT people but the picture just looks out of place, so I replaced it with a picture of just the mayor to give the page a more professional look. Also the user reverted good contributions like the higher qualty picture of the Brandenburg gate and my corrections of spelling errors, so naturally I reverted them back but after I did I brought the issue up here so as not to start an edit war. (Daniel Chiswick 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

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)

The new picture shows his face more clearly, the other one did not. If this picture is too blurry I believe their is another close up which is scourced and is higher quality. I said I am 'almost certain' it is him because it fall into his pattern, if he did not then I apologize for accussing him of something he did not do. I am just simply trying to prevent and edit war because it results in nothing but trouble and people getting banned. (Daniel Chiswick 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion this would be the best picture because it is not blurry, shows the mayor up close enough to not have to enlarge it, and it is him by himself. I do not really know much about it's copyright status because I did not upload it but I believe it lists the scource of the picture and who took it. (Daniel Chiswick 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Klaus Wowereit

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)

Even with a higher focus the proposed new image presents him a bit chubby. The 'cut out' is not perfect but more statesmenlike. @ user:Daniel Chiswick: provocation ignored, Arschgeige. Lear 21 10:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

thumbnail size

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)

The image size is a parameter like any other part of the article like text and tables and can be changed. If there is a policy on a fixed size than its useless and nonsense. Most of the images getting unrecognizable in this article with reduced size. Lear 21 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

93 % of Wikipedia readership never edit [1]. I assume that even a vast minority of the left 7 % ever considers altering their preferences. Lear 21 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've removed the forced pixel widths from all images, as recommended by the manual of style. Plenty of articles, including FA standard articles such as Australia and Indonesia, look fine without explicit images sizes. There is no logical reason I can see for Berlin being an exception. (Caniago 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

GA on hold

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)

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)

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)

Note that the listed references are highly credible. Some section could be more referenced but remain accurate and well written in its core. Note that this article has already gained A-class in several projects ! Lear 21 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As little progress has been made in the past nine days, I'm afraid I've had to delist the article. I advise nominating for GA again once citations have been found for the following statements:

• "The first written mention of towns in the area of present-day Berlin dates from the late 12th and early 13th century. The suburb of Spandau is first mentioned in 1197, and Köpenick in 1209, though these areas did not join Berlin until 1920. The central part of Berlin can be traced back to two towns: Cölln (on the Fisher Island) is first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244."
• "In 1307, the two cities were united politically."
• "In 1448 citizens rebelled in the “Berlin Indignation”"
• "In 1451 Berlin became the royal residence of the Brandenburg electors, and Berlin had to give up its status as a free Hanseatic city"
• "In 1539 the electors and the city officially became Lutheran."
• "A third of the houses were damaged and the city lost half of its population."
• "More than 15,000 Huguenots went to Brandenburg, of whom 6,000 settled in Berlin."
• "By 1700, approximately twenty percent of Berlin's residents were French, and their cultural influence on the city was immense."
• "After this expansion, Berlin had a population of around four million."
• "1920s Berlin was an exciting city known for its liberal subcultures, including homosexuals and prostitution and well known for its fierce political street fights."
• "Berlin's Jewish community, which numbered 170,000 before the Nazis came to power."
• "Airline service to West Berlin was granted only to American, British and French airlines. Lufthansa and other German airlines were prohibited from flying to West Berlin."
• "Both hills have an elevation of about 115 meters (377 ft)."
• "Berlin's built-up area creates a microclimate, with heat stored by the city's buildings. Temperatures can be 4 °C (7.2 °F) higher in the city than in the surrounding areas."
• "reminders of Eastern Bloc ambitions to create complete residential areas with fixed ratios of shops, kindergartens and schools."
• "The Fernsehturm (TV tower) at Alexanderplatz in Mitte is the second highest building in the European Union at 368 meters (1,207 ft)."
• "The city can be viewed from its 204 meter (669 ft) high observation floor."
• "Funkturm Berlin is a 150 meter (492 ft) tall lattice radio tower "
• "It is the only observation tower, which stands on insulators, and has a restaurant 55 meters (180 ft) and an observation deck 126 meters (413 ft) above ground"
• "The act increased the area of Berlin from 66 square kilometers (25.5 sq mi) to 883 square kilometers (341 sq mi) and the population from 1.9 million to 4 million."
• "The Berlin State Opera on Unter den Linden is the oldest; it opened in 1742."
• "He is currently the subject of international popularity and controversy."
• "With an area of 43 hectares (106 acres) and around 22,000 different plant species it is one of the largest and most diverse gardens in the world."
• "The Volkspark in Friedrichshain, which opened in 1848, is the oldest park in the city."
• "Among them are the German Heart Center, one of the most renowned and successful transplantation centers"

Protected

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

In response to editors questions on my talk page: Yes, we always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the other question regarding the "ugliness" of the tag, well, that is the tag all articles get when they get protected due to content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction / City size

To estimate the city size in terms of population, 2 measures are sufficient. First priority and standard measure is the city population within city limits. It is the territory, where political power is exercised (the mayor or governor).This measure is used in almost all Wiki city articles, several other media and encyclopedia. A ranking system deriving from this number is accurate, standard in Wikipedia and results in the conclusion: Berlin is the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU. The phrase is unquestionable accurate and needs no rephrasing like "...2.most ... city proper". Every other measure (urban / metro area) or even ranking system is not credibly sourced by one authority or (in this case: 9.largest...) includes non-city-agglomerations leading to heterogen lists. To estimate the "true" size of the city in broader sense, the number of the metro area (LUZ) is given and therefore sufficient. Endless adding of population subcategories will also lead to overcrowded introduction paragraphs and looses focus, which is not helpful. The demanded extra information by user:Keizuko is useless without the related number of 3.7 mil and is on the other hand already included in 'Demographics' and the infobox. Lear 21 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for a little cultural-context (not in response to Lear 21) -- Germans tend to be semi-offended by metro-area rankings since they list the very-obviously-not-a-city, decentralized, Ruhrgebeit as the largest metro-area in Germany. Scott.wheeler 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is not a trivial problem of too much information in the introduction as Lear21 is cunningly implying; it's actually a POV problem. For months now, Lear21 has been preserving this "Berlin is the second most populous city in the European Union" sentence in the introduction by systematically reverting any editor who dared to change the sentence. Note that this mirrors the German Wikipedia where Berlin is also trumpeted as the second largest city in the EU. Interestingly enough, this claim doesn't appear in any other Wikipedia I know of (French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, etc.), it only appears in the German Wikipedia.

This claim is based purely on administrative borders, by comparing municipalities within their administrative borders across the EU. The problem is that different countries across the EU have different ways to draw the administrative borders of their municipalities. In some countries like France and Greece, the municipalities are very tiny and encompass only the most central part of cities, whereas in other countries like Germany and the UK the borders of the municipalities are set so that the municipalities include a lot of the suburbs, and so the municipalities are very large. Comparing the population living within municipalities across EU countries is therefore like comparing apples and oranges.

Not only that, but if at least the entire urban area of Berlin (disrespective of administrative borders) was the 2nd most populated in the EU, the claim that Berlin is the 2nd most populous city in the EU would have some credential, but in reality Berlin is only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. The municipality of Berlin is very large, having been enlarged in 1920, and encompasses most of Berlin's suburbs. The municipality covers 892 km² of land within which there live 3.4 million people. In Paris, for comparison, the central municipality is very small and encompasses only the most central part of the agglomeration, but if you take 892 km² of land around Notre Dame Cathedral, there live about 7.5 million people within these 892 km². In London, if you take the 892 km² around Trafalgar Square there live about 6 million people within these 892 km². I'm not going to make the calculation for Madrid, Barcelona and Milan, but these figures show that claiming that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city in the EU is a bit POV and can only lead to endless controversies.

Personally I agree with Angr that the sentence should be completely removed from the article. If people absolutely want to keep a ranking in the introduction, then the ranking should mention that Berlin is the 2nd most populated city within adminstrative city limits in the EU but only the 9th most populated urban area in the EU. Keizuko 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To sum it up (I've also made the calculation for Madrid):

City	Area	Population (2006)
Paris	892 km² around Notre Dame Cathedral	7.5 million
London	892 km² around Trafalgar Square	6.0 million
Madrid	892 km² around Puerta del Sol	4.2 million
Berlin	City-State of Berlin (892 km²)	3.4 million

Keizuko 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with stating both rankings? Anorak2 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is the ranking of Berlin in the EU relevant at all? It's like giving the ranking of Berlin within NATO or the G8. There's only one administrative region where Berlin's relative size is relevant, and that's the Federal Republic of Germany. By the same token, it's absurd that the map in the infobox is a map of Berlin's location in the EU; again, it's like showing Berlin's location within NATO or the G8. The map should show Berlin's location within Germany, like every other article on a German city does. —Angr 08:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason is probably that wikipedia has lists of "largest cities in the EU" and "largest urban areas in the EU". I think it's interesting to compare a city to other cities in the same continent, not just the same country. Unfortunately we don't have (reliable) such lists for Europe as a continent. Comparison within the EU is the next best thing, so why not. The wikipedia article for London refers to the same lists. Anorak2 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UT

Germany is part of the EU, like California is part of the US. It is relevant therefore to present EU cities in comparison like any other political entity (China, Russia). @Angr: Read the EU article to understand what is the difference between NATO and EU. The real issue: Administrative city territories remain first priority and point of references. This is standard and NO POV ! Again: NO POV! No other criteria is more factual. The city of Berlin IS the 2. most populous city within city limits in the EU, there is nothing to debate about. It is not the business of an introduction to put every statement in perspective. It is rather the business of city articles with special city territories (like the mentioned Paris) to explain the nature of their city size. The subsections have room for more details. The 'ninth largest' is not significant enough to be a mentionable feature in the introduction and is not even sourced by an international authority. Lear 21 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany's being part of the EU is nothing at all like California's being part of the US. The US is a sovereign nation; the EU is a transnational organization like the UN, the G8, or NATO. There's no reason for the EU to be mentioned in the article about Berlin at all. —Angr 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the EU article and related sources. Come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Lear 21 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Angr is right in the sense that the EU is not a unified nation. Each country have their own administrative rules, so it makes no sense to compare huge German and British municipalities of hundreds of square kilometers with tiny French and Greek municipalities of only a few square kilometers. If you want to compare city sizes, you have to use urban areas, disrespective of administrative borders, otherwise it's like comparing apples and oranges. Keizuko 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reality is the EU has no constitution, no military, no head of state, no head of government, no capital, nothing that a sovereign country has. It isn't a country, and it has no relevance for Berlin. —Angr 15:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If consequently applied, I could also argue: Austria is German speaking, why not include it´s population to Germany´s 82. mil. A city is defined by it´s city limits, every other criteria can be dealt with in subsections. The Metro Area of 4.9 mil is mentioned and that is sufficient. Sorry, but an unsourced 'ninth-largest' of whatever is not relevant for the introduction. Lear 21 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A city is defined by its city limits, really? Then what do you do with these cities around the world who do not exist administratively speaking (i.e. there is no municipality), and therefore have no city limits? For example: Lagos, Mexico City, Tokyo. The municipalities in these cities were abolished (in the 1920s in Mexico City, in the 1940s in Tokyo, in the 1970s in Lagos), so if we follow your definition these cities don't exist, they are just a blob of urbanized land in the middle of their countries. You see, that's the problem Lear21, you want to apply a GERMAN DEFINITION to the rest of the world. Just accept that other countries have different definitions of what a city is. A city is not necessarily equal to a municipality as is the case in Germany. In some countries cities are fragmented into lots of municipalities (e.g. Paris which is fragmented into literally hundreds of tiny municipalities), in other countries the municipality level simply doesn't exist and the cities are directly governed by provincial or higher level (e.g. Tokyo and Lagos). Keizuko 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not relevant how other parts in the world define the City. This article includes an EU measure and an EU list. In the EU the vast majority have city limits and an administrative territory. If there are existing exceptions (Paris, Athens) it must be dealt within the respective articles. Lear 21 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out here that I find it extremely contentious here that after something of a debate, where it is clear that there is not a concensus, immediately after protection is removed, Lear 21 reverts, for all practical purposes resuming the edit war. My personal preference would be to list its ranking as an urban area and "within city limits". As long as they're wiki-linked to the appropriate lists, readers can explore more context as they choose. As for relevance or not ... well, I find it interesting. People keep turning to logical extremes here as if they had any bearing on casual statements. "This is the only real measure of a city..." Well, a city is a concept, they've existed since before people drew imaginary lines and counted the people inside of them. "The EU is just like NATO..." Well, no, it's not. The EU is a special case somewhere between a state and a supernational union and it certainly has a lot more relevance in day to day life than NATO. The real questions aren't "Is this The One True Way of Measuring or Is This Just A Treaty Organization?" but "Can we say something meaningful that people are interested in reading?" In the latter case I think the answer is "yes" and that the "frozen" wording was a pretty good attempt at such. Scott.wheeler 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution may lay in attribution. Rather than assert this or that as a fact, we can simply attribute an assertion to those that make it, as in "According to the EU, this and that, and according to other sources this and the other" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but as just exemplified as our war gets going again, on anything well known and even slightly contentious, finding sources to support opposing viewpoints is trivial. Concensus, common sense, and basic editing skill can't be replaced by an arbitrarily long list of sources.  :-) Scott.wheeler 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lear21 used the lack of source as an excuse to revert the article to his disputed version, so now at least he can't use this as an excuse anymore. Otherwise, I agree that the only way to solve this is finding some sort of consensus here. Lear21 stil believes he can solve it by reverting people and wearing us out as he's done for many months now (it seems we're facing a typical case of article ownership here, some people have already complained about it from what I can read in this talk page). The only way out, however, is not reverting and wearing people out, it's finding some sort of consensus. Personally, I still think, like Angr, that we should remove these rankings altogether from the article. They are unnecessary and controverial. We can write that Berlin is "ONE OF the largest European cities", without being more specific, it's perfectly fine, and at any rate much better than the über-claim that Berlin is the second-largest city in the EU. Keizuko 17:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The urban area criteria is not a standard measure and superfluous. It is neither found in American city articles and a more than rare criteria among European city articles. This is also expressed by the fact that the respective INSEE list is only available in 3 languages. City rankings referring to city limits and metro areas are accepted and most spread among the vast majority of city articles (plus: translated in several major languages, resulting to higher relevance). AGAIN: In the 21. century cities have borders and are statistically measured and ranked. AGAIN 2: The 'ninth largest' of whatever is not significant enough to be mentioned in the introduction. Lear 21 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lear 21, you've got to be willing to compromise a little here. It's been mentioned several times here that other editors do not agree that a city and its size are purely defined by its administrative borders. You obviously disagree here, but please note that your opinion, relative to those expressed here, is in the minority. The "ninth in..." is at least relevant to contextualize the first statement and I don't see any reason that it's fundamentally uninteresting. Looking through World's largest cities it seems that most in the top 10-15 list their relative ranking (amusingly, often inaccurately) in the article pages. Also of note on that page is that you have to get to #20 before you hit the first "city" that is a "city proper". (Update: Uff, too many tabs open, fixed the link to the one I'd been looking at.) Scott.wheeler 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that city size can be measured by several indicators. Among the Wiki City articles the least used term/ indicator is the urban area. The vast majority concentrates on the City limits and Metropolitan area. It is also most represented in the infoboxes. This is already the case here. Note that an introduction can´t provide multiple details on the same topic. If there is a need to further elaborate it can be done in subsections. By the way, this too, is already the case in the Berlin article. It clearly identifies several indicators including its numbers. Lear 21 09:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all the countries measure metropolitan areas, so we don't have data for all the metropolitan areas of the European Union, therefore it is not possible to give the rank of the Berlin metro area in the EU. That's the reason why the rank of the Berlin urban area is used, because here we have a homogenous set. Keizuko 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This articles integrates the highest standards (FA) and most spread layouts and contents among Wiki City articles. Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, which is rarely used by European City articles and even more seldom by any other city article? Why should there an indicator (urban area) added, while already 2 exist, which are Standard and are adopted by the most important Wiki languages? The current version even inlcudes the reference itself (INSEE), this is improper citation and is No standard by any quality article. I repeat: NO standard at all! Furthermore: User:Keizuko has no record of integrating this superfluous indicator in any other City article apart from this one. Neither London , nor Rome, nor Madrid. Answer: The user is unable to accept the factual reality presented in this articles introduction. THAT is POV! The well established trimmed version will be reintroduced tommorrow. all the best Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both London and Madrid mention both city-proper population and metropolitan area population, as does Paris. Neither Rome nor Madrid nor Paris, however, mentions the city's ranking within the European Union. And none of these city articles has a map in the infobox showing the city's location within the EU. London's map shows its location within England (not even within the UK!), and Paris's, Rome's, and Madrid's show their locations within France, Italy, and Spain respectively. There is very little precedent for putting so much emphasis on the EU. There is still no reason at all to say anything more than that Berlin is the largest city in Germany and to use the map showing Berlin's location within Germany. The EU is irrelevant to this article. —Angr 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

@Angr: Read the EU article, learn why the EU is the 'second' country to EU citizens, AND, come back when your knowledge has approached reality. Plus, and even more important, your raised topic is not the issue of this discussion. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lear, I have read the EU article, and it reveals that your understanding of it is what is light years away from reality. The EU is not a "second" country to anyone, it isn't a country at all. And there is no such thing as an "EU citizen" (except as a shorthand phrase for "citizen of an EU member state") since each member state has its own citizenship laws and issues its own passports. And my point is essential to this discussion, because the best way to resolve the disagreement between you and all the other editors regarding how much irrelevant information to include is to remove all the irrelevant information. —Angr 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling on this is that it's an interesting, relevant, and sourcable piece of information. Though, to contrast that, I'd prefer the map to be a German-only map. As Lear 21 is obviously very pro-EU and you're obviously fairly anti-EU (for lack of a better prefix than anti- -- I don't mean this in an insulting way to either of you; you just seem to be on relative polls of the EU-spectrum) I'd like to hear some other editors takes on this. Scott.wheeler 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, I'm not actually anti-EU in a political sense; I'm not a Euroskeptic. I just don't think it's appropriate to treat the EU as the political equivalent of the U.S. The sequence "Berlin < Germany < EU" is not parallel to the sequence "Los Angeles < California < U.S.". Rather, it's equivalent to the sequence "Los Angeles < U.S. < NAFTA", and (without actually look at the article to check) I'm fairly certain the article Los Angeles does not mention the city's relative size within NAFTA nor have a map showing the city's location within NAFTA. —Angr 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is wether to include a 3. indicator concerning the city size or not. Your topic has been discussed wiht your attendance some months ago. Lear 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.141 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed at /Archive 5#EU has country status. And there the consensus was that the EU is not a country and its flag does not belong in the infobox (the map hadn't been uploaded to Commons yet at that point). And there, as here, you were the only person arguing against the consensus. And again at /Archive 7#Standardization of Infobox and changes being reverted so quickly by one editor you were the only person arguing to have the map of Berlin in the EU; everyone else preferred the map of Berlin in Germany or didn't have a preference. (I wasn't involved in that discussion; at that point I had taken Berlin off my watchlist because I was sick of you WP:OWNing the article and not allowing anything to happen without your imprimatur.) And both times you still got your way because you just kept reverting and reverting and reverting back to your preferred version until everyone else was tired of arguing with you about it. And you're doing that again. —Angr 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

.....Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded.....CIA World Factbook [2]

Page unprotected

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)

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)