From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Tours in "Do"[edit]

My understanding is that tours can't be listed in a place where they aren't required, except when they either involve an activity such as cycling or would be very difficult to perform on one's own (such as river tours, for which you would need to have or rent your own boat if you did it yourself). So aren't most of the tour listings in violation of Wikivoyage:Tour? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are most likely right and those listings have most likely been overlooked. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone disagree? Which if any of the tours should remain listed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any opinions before I plunge forward and probably delete most of these listings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the public bus lines should stay. It's a type of "common knowledge" most tourist guides treat as a "secret tip"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree and was not planning on deleting that. That's totally a "self-tour". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


These tour listings have been moved here in case any of them can be established to provide "value added" under the special definition at Wikivoyage:Tour:

  • 1 Alternative Berlin. English tour starting at 11:00-13:00 each day at Alexander Platz TV tower in front of Starbucks coffee. This tour uses Berlin's transit system to cover a massive amount of territory and focuses on the underground sites and sounds of Berlin, including art & graffiti culture, technological wonders, and landmarks of rock & electronic music. The tour takes three and half hours. Free (but tipping is more or less standard - the tour guides don't receive any other salary and must pay the tour company for every person who comes on the tour).
  • Berlin City Tours. Offers a wide range of sightseeing tours and excursions by foot, bike, bus and boat. They also offer a lot of interesting activities and private arrangements on request. They also offer tours and arrangements for cruise ship passengers arriving from Rostock/Warnemuende.
  • The Berlin Experts. Offers daily in-depth walking tours of Berlin's architecture, history, and culture. All tours include some history as well as other tidbits of trivia not commonly known. Especially popular is the Deconstruction/Construction Tour which provides an offbeat perspective of contemporary Berlin. They also offer special tours for cruise ship passengers.
  • Insider Tours. Offers daily tours in English, Hebrew, Italian and Spanish as well as private tours. Also offers day trips to Dresden, Potsdam and an excursion to the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp Memorial Site. €9.
  • Jewish Berlin. Offers a variety of specialised Jewish Heritage tours in Berlin and its vicinity. Site also includes information about Jewish life in Berlin.
  • Vive Berlin Tours. A cooperative of experienced tour guides offers several walking tours, most notably free tours to the former concentration camp Sachsenhausen and a "Third Reich Tour" that cooperates with the 1936 Olympic Stadium.
  • Admission Free Berlin. Website giving a daily overview about free sights, parties and cultural events in Berlin.
  • Berlin Greeter, . "Berlin Greeters" are volunteers who offer free walks through their Berlin districts. Individual face-to-face encounters between "real" Berliners and Berlin visitors are central for this project (six people maximum).

Some of these tours may be very interesting, but they don't seem to conform to this site's policy on tour listings. I've left the self-tour by public bus and other listings that mention waterways or helicopters, even though it's not entirely clear all of those conform, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede[edit] not exactly world class and among the things that seems to not have been edited in a major way since the migration. I have taken a stab at it, but probably a rewrite from scratch is called for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the limited services it offers are comparable in price to gas stations."[edit]

what does this mean in the section on the ZOB? Griffindd (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means that there is not much on offer there, especially when compared to a train station of similar size and the prices are more in line with gas stations (i.e. high) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh. that makes a bit more sense. I was thinking of services as in bus services/routes. Not sure a)"gas station" is the kind of English which is supposed to be here or that b) the comparision with gas stations will make sense to non-drivers, or people who do not drive in Germany. In any case I've rewritten the sentence, hopefully it's a bit more clear now. Griffindd (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a non-driver (I don't even have a drivers license) and German and to me the wording made sense (albeit one that sounds better could probably be found). You may however be right that gas station shop = price gouging may not be a universal concept. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tegel Airport[edit]

So there is currently an attempt by some (among them the Berlin FDP) to keep Tegel open even after BER opens (whenever that may be). They have collected quite a number of signatures to get a measure on the ballot and it will become official on April 4th whether or not the number of signatures is enough (there are likely invalid signatures and those have to be subtracted). If and when I become aware of new developments, I'll post them here, as the issue of Tegel closing "soon" or staying open indefinitely is definitely relevant for travel. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the referendum will happen but the exact date is not yet set. It's likely but not guaranteed that it will be concurrent to the federal elections. Unfortunately there is a certain incentive for opponents of the referendum's goals to have the referendum scheduled some other day as referenda are only binding if more than (I think it was 25%) of eligible voters vote yes which also have to be more than the number of people that vote no. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call a Bike[edit]

I think the cycle hire section may be out of date. I visited Berlin last week and the "Call a Bike" cycles are now sponsored by Lidl so they are green rather than red. Also the cycles appear to be left on the street for the next user rather than at fixed hire stations (see photo - Can anyone confirm this please? Crookesmoor (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I spent about 15 minutes today in Berlin (other than in U-Bahn trains or supermarkets and at the ZOB), but I can confirm that those bikes are sponsored by Lidl now and are indeed not red and while I could not see whether the point where they were was supposed to be a dedicated station, it didn't look like one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some places looked like "dedicated" stations as there were several bikes arranged neatly (as in the photo above), although no docking infrastructure as in other cities (eg Santander Cycles in London). Crookesmoor (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I've updated the article and linked to the Lidl-Bike website.
Apparently, you get a 50 cent discount if you leave your bike at a station instead of just anywhere. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing "Downfall" ("Der Untergang") in the media set in Berlin section[edit]

So a fairly new user (on WV at least) made this addition to the list of media set in Berlin and I am not sure about it. First of all, today's Berlin thankfully looks nothing like the Berlin in the film, with many of the sites shown explicitly razed by the Allies to eliminate the potential for "Nazi pilgrimage" second of all, I don't know how much (if any) of the movie was actually shot in Berlin and not Görlitz or some other place that "looks like before the war" (or that simply offers better tax breaks). Lastly, the movie is not particularly "about Berlin" whereas all the other works are to an appreciable degree rooted in Berlin. Do you disagree? Is the list short enough to allow one entry that arguably doesn't belong? Is there any obvious omission that could or should replace it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the location of shooting, en-WP says "The film is set mostly in and around the Führerbunker. Hirschbiegel made an effort to accurately reconstruct the look and atmosphere of the bunker through eyewitness accounts, survivors' memoirs, and other historical sources. According to his commentary on the DVD, Der Untergang was filmed in Berlin, Munich, and in a district of Saint Petersburg, Russia with many buildings designed by German architects, which was said to resemble many parts of 1940s Berlin." whereas de-WP mentions the Munich studio shots and location shots being done in St. Petersburg but is silent on any shooting at all in Berlin. As they say in "the biz" Vancouver doesn't look like anything and apparently, Berlin is not a good enough double of itself to shoot period pieces. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no reason why this movie should not be listed. While the movie is not "about Berlin" per se, the w:Battle of Berlin was one of the most important historical events that happened in the city. For that matter, I would similarly think that a good film centered on the Fire of Moscow (1812) or the fall of Constantinople (1204 or 1453), should there be any, may deserve a mention in the articles about their respective cities, even if those cities don't look much like they did in those years. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not convinced how relevant the movie is to visiting Berlin. I might suggest w:Sonnenallee and w:Good_Bye,_Lenin! as films with a better feel for Berlin. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was the Telstra vandal who suggested this movie, that's a reason not to mention it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it was Telstra. Removing. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The movies you mentioned might merit a blurb though...Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy for inclusion :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The articles World War II in Europe and Holocaust remembrance can be used to describe Nazi destinations in a context that makes clear how terrible they were. /Yvwv (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrewssi2: I included Good Bye Lenin. Unfortunately I haven't seen Sonnenallee and thus cannot really give it a good blurb. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many details in this article[edit]

Is it really necessary to list that many theatres, operas, concerts and cinemas in this overview article? A limitation to the very highlights of Berlin would be a lot better in my opinion. The rest can be moved to the district articles. What do you think?--Renek78 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, but the basic problem that I see is that there are specific listings at all. Instead, every section (in this case, the "Do" section) should be a general summary, with each specific example linked to the appropriate district article, the only place the full listings should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ikan Kekek. Gonna clean this up as soon as possible. —The preceding comment was added by Renek78 (talkcontribs)
Terrific, and thanks for your work on these articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree that listing details should be in the appropriate district articles, and that only a short summary should be in this main page. However, I want to emphasise that an (almost) complete listing of theatre, concert and opera venues on this main page is very helpful for the traveler, since it provides a quick overview of what venues are available - and therefore where to look for events. There is not an unlimited number of these venues, so the required space won't be too large. Xsobev (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe a complete list, but I would suggest that the complete templated listings be in the appropriate district guides, though brief, usable bullet points could be left here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved most of the details to the respective district listings (especially in the "Cultural events" section) and left a link to each district page. I'm not sure what to do about the wikidata, wikipedia and image details. Personally, I would remove them. On the other hand I'm tempted to leave the geo coordinates in, since it's also useful as an overview. However, getting rid of the listings template here completely, would probably be best, since then people are less likely to just fill in the details again. What do you think? Xsobev (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd definitely remove the templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to do this. For future reference for myself and other users, do you know of a page in the wiki that explains/justifies these changes? Also what about the geo coordinates? Should they be left in (via a marker template). The same question goes for the URLs. Thanks, Xsobev (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, the most appropriate and detailed explanation I found is here: Wikivoyage:Huge_city_article_template#See. It doesn't say anything about geo coordinates or URLs, but it's very clear about not using listings. Xsobev (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you on this, and thanks for doing this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing Berlin for clarity, flow, tone and lack of duplications[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So I have written quite a bit of what are currently the top sections of Berlin (i.e. understand and so on). However, it has some problems with mentioning similar things more than once and some others. If you feel like doing some copy-editing for flow and whatnot and trying to expunge some crypto-Germanisms, be my guest. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No takers? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Guide and DotM[edit]

Given that none of the District articles below this one is currently rated below usable, the first formal criterion for promotion to guide is met. What else would have to be done to get it there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For guide status not much more I'd say, but per comments on the nominations page there are a little bit too much bullet points, and See and Do have listings that should be moved to the district articles instead. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redrawing (some) districts?[edit]

Have a look at articles like Berlin/South or Berlin/East Central - they appear to be quite full of attractions and there appear to be somewhat plausible ways of subdividing them. Should we consider this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

appear to be a reasonable size for me at the moment. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well our "South" district is - as we sorta acknowledge - not exactly a "natural" or "homogeneous" division of any sort. It is perhaps a result of those areas being less touristed and us thus putting them all together into one. And East Central mostly consists of Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain where at least one dividing line seems beyond obvious. So it's not like there aren't potential lines along which to split them up. And I think their maps do look rather crowded. How many listings would you consider too many and how many would you consider too few? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have raised the issue at Talk:Berlin/South Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public transit maps[edit]

I have maps for all types of public transit in Berlin except bus, but they are topographic maps, which show the lines in the form they actually have rather than the stylized maps one is more likely to find in brochures. Both types absolutely have their uses and right to exist, but I think we should have one "as many lines as we can" map that is a stylized representation. Unfortunately, perusing commons there seem to only be maps which include U- and S-Bahn but not Tram or Bus and the Regional trains, which have some use for covering larger distances don't seem to appear on anything but the maps for how BER will be served some time in the year twenty-five-twenty-five. Does any of y'all have a good idea? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The brainless saga of Berlin Airports, part infinity[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So as you may or may not know, the long awaited political earthquake that was German elections took place on Sunday. On that same day, there also was a referendum on whether to keep open Tegel airport. Now for background: I bought a plane ticket in 2012 that already had an airport listed as the destination that does not yet exist (instead I flew to Tegel) and the mayor of Berlin was Eberhard Diepgen, the chancellor of Germany was Helmut Kohl and the guy in charge of Brandenburg was godknowswho, when all those people and a few others agreed on the following: Berlin gets a new airport. All remaining airports shut down at the latest half a year after the new airport opens. Until this new airport opens, there are to be no major investments in airports that will be shut down regardless. Now the FDP (if you're American, think Libertarians) has been struggling and together with Ryanair and car rental companies, they launched a collection of signatures to put a measure on the ballot "urging" the government of Berlin to "do whatever it takes" to keep Tegel open even way beyond its best before date. Of course Berlin cannot unilaterally go against what was agreed two decades ago by three different governments, the current mayor of Berlin thinks keeping Tegel open is a phenomenally stupid idea, and keeping Tegel open requires major state money to be spent - which should be anathema for the tax-cut party that is FDP. At any rate, roughly 55% of those voting in Berlin voted for the whatever it is that it actually says, and now the city government is officially bound to abide by the non binding text of the ballot measure that does not even propose a law of any kind. The travel related bottom line is likely to be, that Berlin will continue to have two airports for some time. Maybe even after BER (the new airport) opens. Or not. Who on earth knows? There'll likely be court cases. And in court and on the high seas, Zeus only knows what will happen. The outgoing (federal elections, remember) minister of transportation said days before the vote that "he could imagine" Tegel remaining open, but he has already taken on a job within his party caucus, which is next to never held concurrently with one in cabinet. Nobody knows what will happen next, but given the traffic figures and the somewhat unique design of Tegel, do we at long last need an airport article on it? Even in the face of it possibly shutting down anyway? Or even being forced to shut down before BER opens (which would be some glorious historic irony)? What would we do with the article were Tegel to shut down? At any rate, I tried to do the developing slow motion train wreck (or rather plane crash) justice on the Berlin page, but my obvious bias may have seeped through. If you have questions, I probably know more about the subject than I would like to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Tegel or BER of much importance for travellers? Everyone I know (all North Americans or people employed in Asia) who wanted to visit Germany flew to either Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Is it different from within Europe? Did I just miss a possibility? Pashley (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Berlin is unique in being an important international capital city without a significant international airport (owing mostly to the division of the country during the GDR years and the gravity of Frankfurt being the gateway to Germany).
Fixing the Berlin airport situation seems both important and very problematic, but ultimately the background isn't important for travelers to Berlin. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The situation with an important capital with a comparatively insignificant airport is not that unique (think Canberra and Ottawa). We need to keep the article up to date, there's not much else we can do. If TXL shuts down and you can't fly to Berlin, we need to put in a caution box that travelers have to fly to Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich or some of the small budget airline airports in northern Germany. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in all the other cases of an important country with second class airports in its capital (to which South Africa might be added, where Pretoria is not exactly home to the biggest airport), the capital is actually a fairly "minor" city by comparison. Berlin is the biggest city and if we were to judge by metro areas, Ruhr does not exactly contain a major airport, either. That said, Air Berlin (which is now bankrupt and in the process of godknowswhat) did have a fairly extensive network through Tegel, which they intended to move to BER (said move not having occurred being among the cited reasons for the bankruptcy). TXL as of 2016 figures has roughly above 20 million pax per annum. A third of FRA, but certainly in the range of some airports for which WV does have articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Düsseldorf has a massive airport and is close to the Ruhr, so there's probably little motivation to build any large airport in the Ruhr region proper. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankfurt Airport isn't too far away, either. Overall, Germany has too many airports (especially too many small town airports that think two flights a week to Antalya are worth millions in subsidies), but I digress. At any rate, should we create an article on [[Berlin Tegel Airport]]? And if so, what should be done if and when it shuts down? I think we should create and article on the BER if (when?) it opens, though... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure Tegel needs an article. It's really quite simple to go through security there, it's a smallish airport that's easy to walk around and understand, and I'm unsure transportation to Berlin can't just be dealt with in the Berlin article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I flew to Tegal once (from Munich), and have to say an interesting airport. Not sure it merits an Airport article though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Location of the zoo[edit]

Hi all, the two listings in "See" regarding the zoo (Berlin Zoo and Aquarium) should be moved to their appropriate district page. But which is the best one? According to the dynamic district map the listings belong to Berlin/Mitte, but for the traveler it would make more sense to have them in the same district page as the S+U+train station Zoologischer Garten, which would be in Berlin/City West. Xsobev (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For now, I merged them with the existing listings in Berlin/Mitte. Xsobev (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistent use and translation of "Ortsteil" and "Bezirk"[edit]

So Berlin is divided administratively into twelve "Bezirke" which are each further subdivided into numerous "Ortsteile". The articles on Berlin and its WV districts unfortunately use the terms at random in their untranslated German form or translating them variously as "borough", "district" or other terms. I think we should be consistent with the usage of terms and maybe even mention it somewhere. Which terms do you think best? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Districts from outline to usable[edit]

Shouldn't Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln, Berlin/Treptow-Köpenick and Berlin/Steglitz-Zehlendorf be at least "{{usabledistrict}}"? Xsobev (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think so. I didn't want unilaterally upgrade their status Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Ibaman went ahead and did the change, so it seems that in total 3 people agreed with it. Xsobev (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have tried to remove words that just take up space without conveying any meaning to the reader. This makes our writing more active and easier to understand. Here are some example:

  • "arguably" -- as the post-truth era we live in showing, anyone can argue anything. This site and this site prove my point. As WV:WTA says, "Seems to be, might, possibly, could and other indicators of speculation: We don't deal in speculation - either verify that the situation is indeed so, or don't say so. Speculation seems to be unhelpful for most travelers who might possibly be confused by it." "Arguably" fits into that category. If we're not willing to stand behind the statement, it shouldn't be there.
  • 1 "Technically speaking even first time fare-dodging is a criminal offense, but it rarely goes to court unless for repeat offenders." -- 2 "First-time fare-dodging is a criminal offence, but it rarely goes to court unless for repeat offenders." The second version says exactly the same thing, with fewer words, and without giving the impression that the criminality is just a technicality. It is criminal, it's just that you're likely to get away with it. The extra words do not make it clearer, but obscure the meaning.
  • "Due to complicated factors..." -- so, we're not going to tell the reader here what the reasons are, just that there are reasons. This is unnecessary -- just direct them to the infobox where they can find more info if they are interested.
  • "That said" - the classic filler line. The reader knows that this has been said and doesn't need to be told that. WV:OBVIOUS. If you want to use a word to show that you are making a counterpoint, "however" does the trick nicely and concisely.
  • "ultimately" - an overused filler word that isn't necessary when the sequence of events is clear from the sentence structure, which it should always be if you write the sentence clearly, which we should always do.

Clear writing puts the reader first. Adding in extra words and excessive emphasis is about making the writer feel that what he or she is writing is important. Let's put the reader first. Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hobbitschuster: The Collins Dictionary identifies as synonyms for "arguably": possibly, potentially, conceivably, plausibly, so it falls into the list of speculative words that are WV:words to avoid. Ground Zero (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As there has been no response to my comments, I have implemented them.

In so doing, I noticed that the Understand section was in need of a re-write to correct comma splices, and to break up long sentences into more digestible ones. A travel guide should aim to be easier to read than, say, James Joyce's Dubliners. Joining a whole bunch of ideas with "and" and neglecting to use commas and other appropriate punctuation does the readers no favours. I have taken a fairly thorough run through this section to improve readability. I ask that these edits not be reverted wholesale without a discussion beforehand. My edits also corrected punctuation and grammatical errors, so a wholesale revert would restore these errors, in addition to making the action more difficult to read.

I am happy, of course, to discuss any edits here on the talk page. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hobbitschuster: reverting another contributor's edits without comment and without explanation is, as I've pointed out to you before, unacceptable behaviour. If you disagree with my edits, discuss them. I have explained above, I am willing to discuss any of my edits. You should understand by now that you Connor own this article.
Most of the edits you reverted were breaking up unnecessarily long sentences that made the article more difficult to read. You have restored many capitalisation errors. If this article is going to be featured on the main page as Destination of the Month, it should not be written in a convoluted way, and it should not have grammatical, capitalisation and punctuation errors. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have posted a notice in the pub to invite other contributors to comment on these edits. Ground Zero (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it a bit strange that lack of response either way somehow constitutes an endorsement of your position in your mind... I also dislike your tendency to shorten for the sake of shortening. Quite often what results us simply a different sentence, often one that is quite frankly wrong. Given that I cannot recall you ever participating in the Berlin district discussions, not even the last one, I must assume your knowledge of Berlin is in the limited side so when you introduce changes that make things wrong your likely unaware. I apologize for using the rollback button as indeed there may have been useful stuff mixed in with the problematic... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I took your silence as a lack of willingness to engage in discussion. Now that you're here, I am happy to work together to make further improvements to the article. I do shorten things where I think that the same thing can be said in fewer words. If there are some edits where I misunderstood the meaning, let's clarify. Restoring the previous version that I misunderstood because it was unclear is not a good approach. Let's find a clearer way of saying it. If that version is shorter, do much the better, but clarity is what we should be aiming for. Repetition and overemphasis, however, are not necessary for clarity. If something can be said clearly once, then we should assume that the reader has got it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also,I will note your invitation above: "If you feel like doing some copy-editing for flow and whatnot and trying to expunge some crypto-Germanisms, be my guest." I've done so, and I apologise for the 15-month delay in accepting your invitation. Ground Zero (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An example[edit]

As the criticism of my copyediting has been only general so far, I'm providing a concrete example for illustrative purposes:

Old version - one sentence that describes the movements, its leader, and his death:

"This movement - often simply known as "die 68er" (the 68ers) - had several hotspots in Germany, but it was most prominent in Berlin and its leader Rudi Dutschke (and East German emigrant from Brandenburg) was shot in Berlin in 1968 surviving but ultimately dying of a seizure caused by the wounds in 1979."

New version: - three sentences:

"This movement - often simply known as "die 68er" (the 68ers) - had several hotspots in Germany, but it was most prominent in Berlin. Its leader Rudi Dutschke (an East German emigrant from Brandenburg) was shot in Berlin in 1968. He survived the shooting, but died of a seizure caused by the wounds in 1979."

Which is easier to follow? Ground Zero (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New version is already an improvement, but an even better version would remove the combination of — and ():
"This movement known as "the 68ers" had several hotspots in Germany, but was most prominent in Berlin. (...)" ArticCynda (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. I have many are some further adjustments. Ground Zero (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Acting on advise of Arctic Cynda? Not a good look... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: It appears that you are trying to pick a needless fight. There are lots of articles that could do with updates or expanding or cleaning up to improve them if you are looking for something to do.
ArcticCynda's repungnant views began to come to light when he created Brussels/International District on 23 July 2018. I had no involvement in the discussion on that article, and was unaware of the ArcticCynda problem on 25 July 2018 when I responded to him above. The first accusation levelled against him for anti-Semitism was 3 Aug 2018, as far as I can tell. On 14 Aug 2018 I restored an indefinite block of him that I had previously lifted because of ongoing discussion in the community.
The advice that I took from him relates to punctuation. Can you show me how the punctuation edits were in any way anti-Semitic or racist?
Why would you try to cast aspersions on my behaviour nine months later? Ground Zero (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eight "highlights" - all in a single district[edit]

So a recent edit added mapmarkers for eight "highlight" see listings. However, they are all in Berlin/Mitte, which might give the (wrong) impression that this is the only district with anything worth seeing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further copyedits[edit]

  1. Immigrants come from other countries. People who move within a country are migrants. Also we shouldn't use "scare quotes". They imply a meaning that may not be clear to the reader. We should be clear.
  2. "due to its insular geography surrounded by East Germany" is missing a word or two, but it's not clear what it/they are. This can be written more simply and clearly. "because it was surrounded by East Germany" is simple, and clear.
  3. "in the almost three decades since reunification" -- don't use relative descriptions of time as they become out of date. I've replaced this by "since reunification in 1990".
  4. As noted above, "ultimately" adds no meaning here. It was restored without discussion, just adding length and boring the readers. As much as we like the sound of our own writing, let's not be boring.

I am happy to discuss these edits with a view to improving these parts of the article further. Ground Zero (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Swept in from the pub

I would appreciate the views of others editors on these edits to Berlin. User: Hobbitschuster reverted my edits without comment, marking the massive rollback of my copyediting as a "minor edit". S/he provided no comment, and did not respond to my invitation to discuss previous edits that s/he reverted on the talk page. Hobbitschuster's appalling behaviour aside, I'd like to know what other contributors think of these edits. My aim was to make the article more readable by breaking up long, rambling sentences, and to fix punctuation and capitalisation errors. Do other contributors agree or disagree with these edits? Hobbitschuster has not explained why s/he objects to this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long sentences vs. multiple smaller ones is just a linguistic preference in my opinion, but your copy editing indeed fixed numerous errors that should not have been reverted. Regardless, undoing such a massive amount of work should not be without good argumentation. If User: Hobbitschuster continues to refuse justification of his/her rollback, the corrected article should be reinstated. ArticCynda (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
S/he has provided a comment on the talk page, so we can begin to work together to improve the article further. The sentences I edited did run on, often without even a comma to indicate where one thought ended and another began, and sometimes with additional thoughts in parentheses. While we assume readers have a certain reading ability, I expect that many of our readers are reading in their second or third language, so complex sentence structures do not put the travellers first. Ground Zero (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well nobody has said that the sentences were so horribly horrible on the DotM discussion or during the recent discussions on what to do with Berlin/East Central (hey, ArticCynda, do you want to include a huge fat warning box about Neukölln or Marzahn? In the case of Neukölln, w:Heinz Buschkowsky, former district mayor would likely agree with you that it is a horrible no-good place where zombies will rip you to pieces). Perhaps that was because neither of you to my recollection participated in said debates? At any rate, I'll go enjoy the nice weather now, maybe later I'll have something more to say. Have a nice day. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: nobody said the text was horrible, but that doesn't mean it can't be further improved. As for the strange reference to Neukölln, I don't know the area well enough to voice any opinion on it, so it might be worthwhile considering following the former mayor's point of view — who likely is well informed about the problems in certain neighborhoods. ArticCynda (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is our aim to write in a way that is not so horribly horrible? Or is it to write in a way that is conversational and informal? I'm sticking with the latter. Enjoy the nice weather, HS. This discussion will wait. Ground Zero (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the details of the edits so don't intend to wade in, but I would like to say two things. Firstly, try to remember we're all on the same team, trying to do our very best for Wikivoyage and our readers. Let's all respect each other and keep the tone civil.

Secondly, and in Hobbit's defence, all rollbacks are automatically marked as minor edits across all WMF wikis. This is not something which can be changed, and not something to take offence over.

Best wishes to all of you, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One could still exercise caution and not use the rollback function when an edit needs some explanation (just as a general remark, I haven't studied the article history). I also have understood Germans in general use longer sentences than the rest of us, so what looks reasonably sentence structure by German eyes may not be by (e.g.) US standards. Which just means assuming good faith is important also in this case. --LPfi (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When using the undo/rollback function, one can still add a comment in the "Summary" box, and in my opinion this should generally be done (definitely in the above mentioned edit). This helps both the affected user and everyone else to understand why the revert was done. Then the edit can either be discussed based on provided reasons, or one can learn from an editing error. Generally, I'm also for simplifying text for easier understanding. Such edits of course should preserve the general meaning. On a more technical note: The edit in question covers a large part of the page, and splitting it into several smaller edits (for example by smallest section or paragraph level) will avoid technical edit conflicts and will make reverting possible at a more fine-grained level. Finally, I strongly agree with User:ThunderingTyphoons!'s comment, that "... we're all on the same team ..." Xsobev (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 'undo' button prompts for an edit summary and allows the user to edit the page before saving; 'rollback' does not as it's intended as a means for administrators to undo an edit (or series of edits by the same user to the same page) with a single click. That just leaves the canned summary "Reverted edits by User:SoandSo to last revision by User:AnotherVoyager" or some such. K7L (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - I didn't know such a one-click admin rollback existed. Xsobev (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xsobev, I did in fact make four edits, all of which were rolled back, but I agree that it would have been better to edit section-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph. I will try to remember to do that going-forward. There is no question that we are on the same team here -- I would never question Hobbitschuster's commitment and contributions to Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I didn't have any doubts on your side in this case; I felt your edit was dismissed in an unconstructive manner. Xsobev (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Berlin in popular culture – "The Kangaroo Chronicles" – looks like SPAM to me[edit]

I think the section on "The Kangaroo Chronicles" within Berlin#Berlin_in_popular_culture should get shortened drastically. I don't think it adds a lot of value to this lemma, if "The Kangaroo Chronicles" gets extended more and more. --Johayek (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't tend to use the word "lemma" on wikivoyage. And I am not exactly sure what you are proposing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I proposed (you will find that easily, if you really try): "should get shortened drastically" – i.e. remove most of it, e.g. so that is has a size comparable to the other entries in the same list.--Johayek (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of the word count (which imho is often a lazy measure of importance, but whatever) is mentioning that the author lives and works in Berlin and you can check out his stuff life. I think this is of relevance to a travel guide. But please, propose a shortened text. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another proposal to tinker with Berlin districts. Please opine even if you do not know Berlin[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So having a look at Berlin/East Central which I changed a bit b "giving" it Wedding and Gesundbrunnen (i.e. the pre 2001 Bezirk of Wedding), do you agree that it looks quite a bit "donuty" and that the map is a bit too "busy"? Those are the criteria I want you to apply when answering the question: Should this district be split into Berlin/Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg and Berlin/Wedding and Prenzlauer Berg? If you know Berlin, you can also based on other criteria, but I think my argument can be supported or opposed based on the map alone. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map being "busy", but I'm firmly of the opinion that it's far more important for districts to make sense from a traveller's perspective (in a case like this one of a district comprising multiple adjacent neighborhoods, that said neighborhoods be related or similar to each other in some way that's interesting to a traveller or relevant to the reasons one would visit Berlin in the first place) than for a district to have a particular shape when viewed on a map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with both of you. I agree with Hobbitschuster that I don't like the way it looks on the map, but at the same time I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I think that if there's another good way to do these districts that makes sense to the traveller, then go ahead, but otherwise let's leave it as it is. Which is more important: too many listings on a map or a traveller getting lost in the middle of a big city? Selfie City (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg are obviously a coherent whole. They may have been on seperate sides of the wall before 1990 and they may only be physically linked by the Oberbaumbrücke, but they share gentrification, leftist-green politics and the Gründerzeit buildings. Whether "Prenzlberg" and Wedding have much in common in 2018 I don't quite know. Note that Wedding/Gesundbrunnen were moved to East Central in a prior district reshuffle more or less on my unilateral decision (not that there was anybody saying "no" at the time, just not much input either way). Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for "busy map", it's a map with (especially in the Southern part) too much going on in it. You don't really get a good overview, because there are just so many listings and you have to zoom in quite a bit to even see a lot of the things... I fear this is also one of the downsides of adding metro lines; maps getting busier... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could try changing the size, zoom, and shape of the map. Selfie City (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That won't work, and part of the issue is the near donut shape of the district, which forces us to include lots of stuff on the map that isn't part of the district at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would make a lot more sense for Prenzlauer Berg to become its own district. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what then about Wedding and Gesundbrunnen? Make them part of Prenzlberg? Or deal with them as part of another district? Its own district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know practically nothing about Berlin — I'm sure there are some Wikivoyagers who know the city well. Selfie City (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For this busy map - (1) reduce the stroke-width of rail lines (type=geoline) from 5 to 3 or set the stroke-width to 3 (This would help a little as size 5 is a bit much.) -- (2) Use of multiple mapframes using group and show parameters - which may not be acceptable in this instance -- (3) add option or a wrapper to change the point (marker-size) to small for the unique pages such as this might help as well. -- (4) I don't think that breaking up East Central Berlin further would be the way to go either. -- Just a few thoughts. -- Matroc (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, using multiple mapframe for different regions of the district would be a neat idea, maybe a little like the mapframes I made in Underground Railroad. Selfie City (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're having multiple mapframes that seems to me like an admission in so many words that the district might be better off split... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, multiple mapframes just make the travel guide look really professional, neat, and detailed. Selfie City (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, do you mind if this is moved to Talk:Berlin? I think you've now reached people with this question, so we should put it there unless you still think some others will comment in future. Selfie City (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And just to clarify — won't move until someone else agrees it should be moved. Selfie City (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The marker concentrations indeed suggest that the current district has at least 2 hotspots of interest to the traveler, with both sufficient attractions and listings to justify separate distrit articles. I support Hobbitschusters idea of splitting the district, probably in a northern and southern half roughly through the middle. ArticCynda (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree with User:Hobbitschuster that the current Berlin/East Central district covers too many (incoherent) parts of the city. In my opinion Wedding and Gesundbrunnen don't fit into the current East Central district (neither thematically nor geographically) - they fit much better with Moabit (which is currently in Berlin/City West). Alternatively, grouping Wedding and Gesundbrunnen with Prenzlauer Berg for sightseeing purposes is also conceivable, although I'm not certain about that. I am against having two dynamic maps in one district page, since this is not what I think wikivoyage readers would expect. Xsobev (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would you propose to add Wedding and Gesundbrunnen to City West (Prenzlberg certainly doesn't belong into any district with "West" in the name as it is east of the former border) or would you make a new district out of those two? And if so would Moabit and Prenzlauer Berg be added to that? I can see several of those working, but I think "City West" is already a rather expansive definition of the term as many West Berlin nostalgics would deny that Schöneberg is part of the City West... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My first suggestion was to create a new district with Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Moabit (removing it from City West). The alternative suggestion was to create a separate district for Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Prenzlauer Berg, resulting in a separate district for Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain. I have a slight preference for option 1, but this only partially solves the "busy map" problem. Xsobev (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your first proposal. Any idea on a name for such a district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be called something like "Mitte North" or "North Mitte", since all three areas (Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Moabit) are part of the Mitte borough ( That opens the question of where to put Hansaviertel ... And before splitting, I would propose to copy-paste the contents relating to these areas into a sandbox page, to see if there is (or most likely will be) enough material to justify a separate district. Thematically they would fit together pretty well I think. Xsobev (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I followed up on my proposal and here is the result: User:Xsobev/Berlin-Mitte-North. It does look quite empty. Adding Hansaviertel would fill the empty "do" section. There are places to eat in Wedding and Moabit, and to drink in Moabit, which are not mentioned in Wikivoyage. This sight could be added to the "see" section in Moabit. This lake could be added to the "do" section for swimming. Not sure if this is enough though. Xsobev (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also tend to separate Prenzlauer Berg and Wedding. They are historically and geographically too different. I would even argue for a separate district for each Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain for similar reasons. Even if they share gentrification and the nightlife area on both sides of the Spree, they have historical, architectural (post-war buildings) and cultural differences and offer numerous and partly distant sights such that I would recommend a traveller to explore them on separate trips and days. But intuitively, I would detach the small "enclave" north of Elsenstraße (respectively inside the S-Bahnring) from Treptow-Köpenick and add it to one of both districts. A traveller will usually approach this little area around the Arena from Schlesische Straße and explore the connected cultural sights on both sides of the current Flutgraben border, but not when being on a daytrip for Köpenick and Müggelsee or Adlershof and Grünau. --Rio65trio (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any progress? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I argued for also separating Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg: Both disctricts have a different post-war history, culture and architecture, have their own centers, together span about 20 square kilometers, and each offer a large number of sights (see alone sections Eat and Drink). Also for geographical reasons, in my opinion it would make more sense for a traveller to explore them on different trips. What do you think? --Rio65trio (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would keep Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg together. They have changed so radically since 1990 that it is no longer important on which side of the Wall they once were. However, the same is true for Prenzlauer Berg, so Friedrichshain and Prenzl.Berg make a pretty natural combination as well. Prenzl.Berg and Wedding, on the other hand, are an odd couple at first sight (Prenzl.Berg being so thoroughly gentrified that it is now considered archetypically bourgois and established; while Wedding is still reputed to be a deprived area). But they are not completely different: both were developed during the late-19th century Gründerzeit, having a similar urban structure of Kieze with square blocks, multi-family houses and little shops on the ground floor. And Wedding is increasingly considered interesting to the hip, artsy avant-garde. So, combining Prenzlauer Berg and Wedding may not be too intuitive, but it is not unreasonable either. On the other hand, Wedding's closest "relative", in my view, would be Moabit; so Moabit should be covered in the same article as Wedding, rather than with Schöneberg and Wilmersdorf. --RJFF (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. Stalled again... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I support your proposal to split Berlin/East Central into Berlin/Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg and Berlin/Wedding and Prenzlauer Berg. But I would include Moabit in the latter rather than in Berlin/City West, similar to User:Xsobev's Berlin Mitte-North proposal—i.e. "Mitte-North" plus Prenzl. Berg. This district could also include the northwestern "protrusion" of Berlin/Mitte, i.e. Oranienburger Vorstadt north of Invalidenstraße, with the Berlin Wall Memorial and Museum für Naturkunde. --RJFF (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── could someone offer a numerical tally of those who have expressed any opinion either way? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating and copyedits reverted without explanation[edit]

My edits were reverted without explanation. I will start the discussion here to discuss which version is more useful for travellers.

1. Current A new airport, Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER IATA), is being built on the extended grounds of Schönefeld, however it is not yet operational. TXL and SXF have not been updated for many years, since they were scheduled to be replaced by BER several years ago. They are both in dire need of updates and expansion given current traffic volume and advances in air travel. TXL in particular handles far more traffic than it was designed for.

1. Proposed A new airport, Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER IATA), is (as of Oct 2019) expected to open in autumn 2020 on the extended grounds of Schönefeld. TXL and SXF have not been updated for many years, and are in dire need of updates and expansion. TXL in particular handles far more traffic than it was designed for.

The current version doesn't tell the reader when the information has been added. How out of date is it? It doesn't tell the reader when the airport expected to open. I have added this info reported in the Wikipedia article, and taken out the background information about the airport which is interesting to airport fans, but useless for visitors to Berlin. It's about an airport they can't use now.

2. Current Carriers have frequently switched between TXL and SXF ever since reunification and, although one carrier tends to serve one airport only, there is a very mixed bunch of connections from each airport. The bankruptcy of Air Berlin has led to several airlines which previously only served Schönefeld offering flights from Tegel, causing even greater confusion. Make sure you know which airport you are arriving at, especially if you have a connection to make, and if you've been sold a ticket to BER before it becomes operational.

2. Proposed Some airlines have switched their service between TXL and SXF, and several airlines offer flights from both airports. Make sure you know which airport you are arriving at, especially if you have a connection to make, and if you've been sold a ticket to BER before it becomes operational.

The proposed version is shorter and clearer. Shorter warnings are more informative for readers than long-winded ones. Air Berlin closed two years ago. Airport and airline history doesn't belong in a city article.

3. Current The opening of Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER IATA), which is being built on the extended grounds of Schönefeld, was scheduled for 2011 but has been postponed many times due to construction and safety issues. As of October 2019, it is not yet operational. Every few months a new date is announced and, therefore, much of the tourist information has been published in the 2010s with the "impending" opening of BER and closure of TXL and SXF in mind. Bear in mind that until the BER airport is opened, those remain incorrect and there is no passenger traffic to and from BER and much of the infrastructure there not functional. The people in charge of the airport are steadfast in their autumn 2020 opening date which they say is not going to be further delayed as of October 2019. The history of delays has made many Berliners (scratch that, most Germans) skeptical.

3. Proposed The opening of Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER IATA), which is being built on the extended grounds of Schönefeld, was scheduled for 2011 but has been postponed many times due to construction and safety issues. As of Oct 2019, it is expected to become operational in autumn 2020. Every few months a new date is announced, and so you may see tourist information written with the impending opening of BER and closure of TXL and SXF in mind. Some reports predict a 2021 or 2022 opening instead. The history of delays has made most Germans skeptical.

Shorter, clearer, more useful for travellers.

4. Current A train station serving the new BER is already operational and served by empty trains every once in a while in part to ensure driver familiarity and to guarantee air movement to delay or prevent the onset of mold in the station building. There is a plan to reopen the old "Dresdner Bahn" which had been partially shut down during partition for faster connections to the airport and while questions about financing and protests by local residents have delayed construction in the past, it is now conceivable that this new rail line will be ready before the airport.

4. Proposed -- comment this out until the airport is open.

It's a train that readers can't take to an airport that isn't open. And only the strangest readers are going up be interested about mold prevention measures for the station.

5: Current When construction of BER was approved it was decided to close Tegel half a year after the new BER airport starts operations. A non binding referendum on whether to reverse the decision to close TXL after BER opens was held in September 2017 together with the federal elections resulting in the Berlin government being "urged" to "do everything in its power" to keep Tegel open - no small thing to ask, given that the state of Brandenburg and the federal government would also have to sign of on Tegel being kept open. The governing mayor of Berlin, who is personally opposed to keeping Tegel open announced he'd "look into it" upon the results being announced. Neither the state of Brandenburg nor the federal government have signaled any willingness to keep TXL open, much less spend any significant sum of money to do so.

5: Proposed Delete this paragraph.

This is fascinating political history about an airport that readers can't use, but it does not belong in the Berlin City article. It would be appropriate for Wikipedia, and acceptable for a Wikivoyage article about the airport, but it doesn't belong here.

I'll leave this open for discussion for a while, but if there is no discussion, I will restore my edits. In not wedded to the wording of my proposals, and would welcome other suggestions for improving these sections further. Ground Zero (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Hobbitschuster has continued to edit this article but is not willing to participate in this discussion (this is an established pattern of behaviour for him), and has resorted to name-calling in an edit summary, I have restored my edits. I added into one of the above proposals (in a concise way) information that Hobbitschuster added in a subsequent edit. A city article should not be burdened with so much text that is of interest primarily to airport fans. Let's keep it focussed on bring a useful article for visitors to Berlin.
I am willing to work with any editors who are interested in working collaboratively and constructively to improve this article. Ground Zero (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on which community consensus do you edit warr and remove large amounts of longstanding germane text? Why do you seem to have this need for a childish vendetta against me, ascribing motivations and ill intent to me? I will revert your unilateral actions as soon as I can. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no prohibition against improving long-standing text. It is a best practice to do so. You have repeatedly refused to discuss edits (1, 2, 3, 4), and appeared to be doing so again. And you are stepping up your name-calling, which is not constructive behaviour. "Zealot", and now " childish". Is name-calling and refusing to collaborate grown-up behaviour? I have explained my edits and demonstrated my willingness to work together. You insist on reverting without discussion. You do not own this article. Discuss your edits -- that is how we do things in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compromise proposal[edit]

What if we put the background information into an infobox? And please stop the personal attacks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Including the information in the article isn't a compromise -- it's you getting your way. You've provided no explanation for why information about an airport that travellers cannot use is important enough to including de in an already-long article about a major city. I proposed, on your talk page, that the information be included in an airport article. That way this ancilly information is in Wikivoyage, but not in a main article. You haven't acknowledged or responded to my proposal.
I accused you of name-calling because you've called me names.
I accused you of not collaborating because your reverted my edits without any explanation (and have done so before), and have not responded to any of the points I've made above.
You've accused me of ascribing ill-intent to you when I have done no such thing.
You will have to explain to me what personal attacks I've made against you (if any) before we can discuss that. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give my opinion on the 5 proposals above in the hope that it's helpful.

  1. I mostly support the proposal (clearer and more concise), but I think the phrase "since they were scheduled to be replaced by BER several years ago" is fine.
  2. Pretty neutral. It's true that the bankruptcy is not that important to mention, but I think either version is fine.
  3. I mostly support condensing, but the last two sentences of the proposal are a bit confusing together, so I think it still needs an edit. Maybe implement most of the proposal but keep the last two sentences of the current version, since they're clear and lively.
  4. Support commenting out—the information isn't useful until the airport opens.
  5. Support removal, I think. Perhaps we could replace it with a single sentence explaining that they plan to close TXL when BER opens (if that's correct).

I think the infobox proposal might be worth considering. That would allow readers curious about the reasons for the state of the airports to find out while keeping the main text concise for readers who aren't interested in the background. Maybe Hobbitschuster could show us a proposal of what the text in the infobox would look like. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the proposals are better overall. There's really nothing important to say about an unusable airport except that there is a plan to use it, when that may be, and possibly that the plan also includes closing the other airport(s). Keeping up on the progress and announcements is good, but until there are actual flights and passengers, the information is essentially just trivia. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instinctively, I am of the same opinion as Chubby above - this is trivia not relevant to the majority of readers. But I am happy to see a draft proposal as Granger suggests, if Hobbit would be kind enough to oblige.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. TTCF, and travellers need to know what they can use, not what they will be able to use assuming everything goes according to plan. (It wouldn't be the first project to be abandoned before ever opening.) The only reason to mention the new airport at all is as part of the explanation that current airports are above capacity. Anything else is trivia and doesn't belong in WV unless it adds substantial flavor to the article. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the current and Hobbit's more expansive proposal, and my main thought is that there should be something (more than what we have now) to warn travelers not to believe either the alleged opening dates or the stories that the old airport(s) will be closed soon. I think it is also good to include a sentence saying that when the airport opens, there will likely be some sort of train service to it. However, I do not think that travelers need much information about this airport. Maybe three or four sentences total, for the whole page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ground Zero's proposal to put the information in question into an airport article is laughable, because there is no such article and there won't be until BER opens. We shouldn't create an article for TXL which would inevitably provoke an awkward situation similar to the Atatürk Airport article once TXL is put out of its misery. And I think you should really refrain from wordings like "getting his way" when you claim to be only interested in the facts and the text, not personal vendettas or ego games. (In that case you should also not "track" the articles I most recently edited to "copy edit" all the liveliness out of them). Another thing as to why the BER debacle is relevant; it adds the much sought "local flavor" and is perhaps the best known thing about Berlin in the current decade. But hey, anything beyond a list of chain hotel branches with the € sign before the money amount is "not relevant in a travel guide" apparently... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I explained on your talk page, I contribute widely in Wikivoyage. It is inevitable that I will edit pages that you've contributed to. I am not tracking your contributions.
Breaking up sentences to make them more readable doesn't remove liveliness, it improves it. Details about the politics and history of airports is of interest to some readers, but not many. Those belong in airport articles. Why not have a Berlin airports article since there is more information about them than is appropriate for the Berlin article? That way the upcoming changes can be tracked and covered in depth without making this article overweighted with airport info. Ground Zero (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In looking it up, I think an infobox might work if the airport is introduced as the joke it seems to be. An airport that has been in a continual state of "opening soon" since 2012; a ghost airport complete with ghost trains is kind of funny. That would add some "flavor" to the article without giving a lot of unnecessary information about an unusable article. Ground Zero, I do think you can be too voracious in your attempts to make writing concise (and perhaps taking Wikivoyage:Words to avoid list too seriously). Sometimes it makes things clearer but other times I agree that it hampers lively language and writing. Maybe you could let up a bit on language policing? In this particular case though, I think the airport info should rightfully be limited. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support the creation of an article on Berlin airports, I Will gladly help with the writing. I always felt that Tempelhof alone merits an article of its own, just like Disneyland; every time I go to Berlin I have a good time at its grounds . The former RAF Gatow airbase, that has become the German national military aviation museum, is a nice and nearly unknown attraction that deserves a longer description. Ibaman (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
of course Johannisthal must be mentioned in this article, it's the natural thing to do. Ibaman (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • More about Tempelhof in a Berlin airports article would be a great addition. It's definitely on my list for my next visit to Berlin. Ground Zero (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote a draft for the infobox here feel free to opine. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a start. I would say it's too long and detailed though—let's take out the extraneous details and focus on what's interesting and amusing about the story. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such as? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, I think Johannisthal and Willy Brandt don't need to be mentioned. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, I know it's a 'saga', but the box doesn't have to be length of one. That long blue parchment of text without a break is currently an intimidating thing to get started reading.
The historical background can be trimmed: the introduction could literally just be: Berlin inherited a messy system of multiple airports from its Cold War days, Tegel in the former French sector, Tempelhof in the former American sector and Schönefeld in East Berlin. This was widely acknowledged as inadequate for a 21st century capital city. Boom, and now onto the information you came for.
There are several sentences which don't have to be as long as they are, because they:
  1. go into more detail than necessary: ignoring a plebiscite to the contrary as it had failed to reach enough turnout, which had initially been built hurriedly during the Berlin airlift - both details that distract from the main narrative;
  2. cover aspects that are irrelevant to most travellers: Meanwhile the government planes used for official trips of the government are stationed in Bonn (the former seat of government) and have to fly empty to Berlin because there still isn't a usable government terminal at BER. - How many of our English readers are in the German government? Plus it provokes further questions that lead deeper into the rabbit hole such as "Why do planes fly empty to an airport that nobody can use?" but which ultimately don't need an answer;
  3. introduce extra references that while apparently intended to explain, go over the heads of most: not unlike what Munich was doing in the early 1990s - huh? I've no idea what Munich was doing in the 1990s, I was in nappies.
It's not all bad, not by a long shot. I like the concept, and think the idea of an infobox relating some of the more absurd bumps in the road for Schrodinger's airport is a good one. Stuff like running trains through to keep the cobwebs at bay, stuff like taxiing passengers past the gleaming new terminal only to park up at the Stasi shed in Schönefeld, are completely irrelevant but are still entertaining. "What the hell is that about?" says I. "Give me more juicy tales of quangos fresh from the Kafka School of Civil Engineering wasting billions of other people's tax money. I love reading Wikivoyage!". I also like your funnies like apparently there was a "slight" problem with the smoke management system which would ensure breathable air in case of fire, BER will surely open tomorrow. And if not tomorrow, the day after that. This time for realsys.
tl;dr: With more jokes and fewer tangents, more paragraphs and yet overall fewer words, and this will be both entertaining and informative.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Munich Airport spells out what Munich was doing in the nineties - looking for a new airport site in the boondocks and ultimately building it. (Denver Airport has a similar story). And government planes fly CGN-TXL-wherever they need to go as no government terminal exists (apparently that was another part of BER not done on time and on budget, because what ever is?). As for the plebiscite this was an attempt by (West-)Berliners to keep the airport open, but it failed because a) the East was not having it and b) they failed to get 25% of eligible voters to vote "yes" and thus it was not binding. The Tegel Referendum reached enough turnout and yes votes to be binding, but its wording was non-binding, which is another absurd story in this absurd saga. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this were is a Berlin airports article, I would have no problem with the length, or with the depth. That's what branch articles are really good for. I still haven't seen an explanation why it is better to have this in the lengthy Berlin city article than in a Berlin airports article. I think this is a case of extremely undue weight being given to one topic of interest. Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CW convinced me it's worth a shot with: "In looking it up, I think an infobox might work if the airport is introduced as the joke it seems to be. An airport that has been in a continual state of "opening soon" since 2012; a ghost airport complete with ghost trains is kind of funny. That would add some "flavor" to the article without giving a lot of unnecessary information about an unusable article." If the humour angle is run with fully, and the overall length is not too long, that would I think serve the reader better than a whole article about an airport that isn't yet an airport. I know the proposal is for Berlin Airports, but there's only so long this saga can drag on before the whole article to be scrapped and replaced with Berlin Willi Brandt Airport. Unless you also think that our treatment in this article of Tegel and the other two operational airports is inadequate, I think creating such an article is unnecessary for now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: Much appreciated for you going to the trouble of explaining and providing links, but my point was not that those topics require further exploration in order to make sense, but that as subjects they don't need to be broached at all on Wikivoyage. Apologies if I was not clear about this before. But I quote from Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals: "If you find yourself needing references and footnotes on Wikivoyage, whatever you're writing should probably go to Wikipedia instead." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content that uses clear dates and times is better than information that doesn't. It's more specific and more helpful. "2021," for example, is better than "soon." I think the use of clearer language and information, such as when an airport is going to open, is good and should be implemented. As I do not know much about this particular airport, this comment shouldn't be a key reference in the discussion, but I want to make clear that I support Ground Zero's goal to use clearer and more current, understandable language on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the trouble with this particular airport is the opening date has been and gone several times already, so future dates are at this point fairly meaningless. Though what we can do is use the current official opening date, while making it clear that this is far from set in stone.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current text does what you are asking for:
"The opening of Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER IATA), which is being built on the extended grounds of Schönefeld, was scheduled for 2011 but has been postponed many times due to construction and safety issues. As of Oct 2019, it is expected to become operational in autumn 2020. Every few months a new date is announced, and so you may see tourist information written with the impending opening of BER and closure of TXL and SXF in mind. Some reports predict a 2021 or 2022 opening instead. The history of delays has made most Germans skeptical."
Is there anything missing? Ground Zero (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Population figures[edit]

@Hobbitschuster: The comparison between Berlin + suburbs, and the Ruhr is easy because the definition big what we mean is made in the paragraph in question: we say that Berlin + suburbs has 4.5 million people. Since the Ruhr has 5.1 million according to the Wikipedia article, we can say that the Ruhr is bigger. If we say it is "arguable", then we're saying we don't know what the population of the Ruhr is, but we do. This article doesn't mention other definitions of "Metro Berlin", so how will the reader know what you're referring to? It doesn't help the reader if we allure to things that were thinking and not telling them.

To avoid this confusion, let's keep it done and clear and say:

"With a population of 3.5 million (4.5 million if adjacent suburbs across the state line in Brandenburg are counted), Berlin is Germany's biggest city, but the Ruhr area has a bigger population than Berlin and its suburbs."


"With a population of 3.5 million, Berlin is Germany's biggest city. With adjacent suburbs across the state line in Brandenburg, its population is 4.5 million, and the entire Berlin-Brandenburg capital region has a population of more than 6 million which is the largest metropolitan region in the country."

I'm okay with either one. I think both are clearer than what we have now. Ground Zero (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't quite understand. "Metro Area" may be a useful and commonly used term in places like the U.S. which have "border gore" (sometimes but not always due to racial gerrymandering, white flight and urban sprawl) where the population of a city within its administrative boundaries is nigh meaningless. In Germany the situation is different. The relevant figure of population is that within official city boundaries. If you ask Berliners to redraw the boundaries, they're more likely to exclude Spandau than to include Potsdam. And while "Ruhr" exists as a region, most people there would deny it exists as a "metro area". People in Oberhausen, Duisburg, Gelsenkirchen and so on will say they are from one of the aforementioned cities and only if someone doesn't know them will they say "from the Ruhr area" or even "from NRW". A person from Schönefeld is as likely to say they're "from Brandenburg" as saying they are "from a suburb of Berlin". Nobody in Potsdam would say they're from a suburb of Berlin. So why someone somewhere may have drawn some "metro area" boundaries at some point in time, those are very much meaningless lines. This while having "Metropolregion" in the name is of course not in any sense an urban agglomeration. Nobody in Cottbus would consider their place of residence in a closer relationship with Berlin than people in Munich would. It is that very fact that made Brandenburg reject the fusion of the Länder Berlin and Brandenburg. If anything, I would actually argue for removing the "metro areas" altogether from the lede as it is misleading and an "American" concept pretty alien to Germany... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, in that case, the sentence could end at "Berlin is Germany's biggest city", which is true and leaves out the stuff about the Ruhr, which (a) isn't a city, and (b) is nothing to do with a visitor guide to Berlin. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then instead of keeping the current unclear language about a concept that is not useful, and is not important information for understanding Berlin, let's remove it. Ground Zero (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting clean up, and a few copyedits[edit]

This edit made several spelling and capitalisation corrections, date formatting corrections, wv:units formatting corrections, removed wv:words to avoid, and simplified some confusing syntax. It was reverted without any explanation, so there is no indication what User:Hobbitschuster's problem is. Reverting another established editor's changes without explanation is rude and disruptive behaviour.

I am willing to discuss any of these changes, and work together to improve the article further. Ground Zero (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U-Bahn map[edit]

I find the map added by user:Arbalete far superior the old one; while not perfect, it is schematic, shows the names of the stations, and appears to be up-to-date (I'm by no means an expert on the Berliner U-Bahn). The old one is next-to-useless as a way of navigating the city, as you'd need to use another map in order to make any sense of it. Is there any reason I'm unaware of that the new map shouldn't be reinstated? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

existing map
new map
If we have to have a schematic map, I think it should be one that at least includes both U- and S-Bahn. While the S-Bahn is indeed run by DB and the U-Bahn by BVG in praxis, the two systems are incredibly intertwined. I think we should use a map such as this one:
Berlin U-bahn und S-bahn.svg
Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, this page formatting is hideous.
I'm good with the U-Bahn/S-Bahn proposal, as that would better reflect official maps. Both maps unfortunately suffer from small-font syndrome, and third proposal has some unlabelled stations.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]