Jump to content

Talk:Cologne/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Old talk

Most of the article was duplicated. Marcello 23:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed the gamma/contrast of the picture (a bit drastically) in order to make the cathedral more visible. Unfortunately the cloud effects are now less visible and some quality is reduced. The original is still at cologne_cathedral.png if somebody decides to try and do a better job (probably quite easy :-) ). sodium

Does anyone know the original source and copyright status of the text? Much is duplicated at -- http://www.koeln.de/portrait/e/

If this is a copyright violation on our side it was done many months ago (sometime before Feb). Therefore this could just as well be a copyright violation committed by the website you cite against us. So I vote for simply keeping the text in this article and let it evolve into someting different than the other website. This is why it is very important to check new contribs for violations. --mav

www.koeln.de is run by the City Council of Cologne. They have their own PR writers and don't need to copy anything. I think it's more likely that we copied from them. Cologne is the first word I ever typed into the Wiki search engine - it's my home town. When I read it I thought: "copied from a tourist brochure!". I'll be working on the page to make it "ours". User:Renata Sept. 20th, 2002

Boy that will be a lot of work. If you really think it is a violation it might be easier to delete the offending material and start from scratch (using the info in the offending text but not the prose or unique organization). Information cannot be copyrighted, only the artistic choice of words and unique organization.--mav

For the meantime, I deleted the duplicate text. It's there at the external link if you want it. But History of Cologne still needs to fixed.

Agglomeration

Which agglomeration is referred to in the opening paragraph (with the population of 1.8 million)? Cologne and Leverkusen? It should be made clear, or removed. Anyone know the answer? --Lancevortex 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add what you want. Add whole NRW if you want, then you have 18 million.

That's not a very helpful answer. I don't know if you are aiming "add what you want" at me in particular, or at Wikipedians in general, but it's not a question of what anyone wants, it's about the facts. --Lancevortex 13:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The fact is, that there is no official definition of a Cologne agglomeration. So if you want to, you can define a "Lancevortex Cologne agglomeration" and say, that town a, b, c shall belong to this agglomeration. The next user may deny that town c has anything to do with Cologne and defines another agglomeration without town c, but adds town d and e. If you want to call the Rhine-Ruhr area an agglomeration and if you want to follow the definition of this area at English Wikipedia, then you can write of a population "close to 13 million". All of these definitions are kind of personal taste and many of them are for PR purposes to impress the readers. They shall show something like "my city is the biggest, the most important". If the facts show that it isn't the biggest, then you add some cities around. A nice example is Düsseldorf: 11 Mio inhabitants, 300,000 companies, 45 universities. Wow! That's impressing! But it's not one city, it's more than 100 cities mixed together (including Cologne).
Yes, I know all that -- I don't want to define any kind of agglomeration! I just want to know which specific agglomeration is referred to in this article. Perhaps the person who originally added the info to the article can explain, but in the meantime I'm going to delete the reference, as it seems meaningless. --Lancevortex 08:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, now I feel a bit stupid -- someone's already deleted it -- which is probably why you appeared to think that I wanted to add it. --Lancevortex 09:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No need to feel stupid. It was me who deleted the sentence. A possible source of the data may be http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html . But it is said there: "The figures of such a statistic are all of varying, and some of suspect accuracy." On the other hand the creator of the list writes: "Nevertheless, the population figures presented on this page are more relevant and more comparable than most of the data presented elsewhere." I don't know why he comes to this conclusion. It isn't said anything about the source of the data and especially it isn't said which cities are added to get the agglomeration.
OK, I see what's happened. I think we had a different understanding of agglomeration. You (and the original editor who added the text to Wikipedia) were using the definition at citypopulation.de which includes commuters. The agglomeration is then clearly "the Cologne agglomeration", which is why I must have seemed a bit mad asking which cities it was comprised of. I was using the definition given at Agglomeration, which implies a joined set of cities, such as Cologne and Leverkusen, for example, and reserves the term "metropolitan area" for what you meant. I don't know which is correct, but thanks for helping me sort that out, and apologies if I appeared a bit blunt earlier! --Lancevortex 17:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your first idea was correct: Agglomeration is meant as a city with several suburbs added. But one question is: What is a suburb? The author of citypopulation.de says in his text something like: If many people of a town commute to a city, then there is a link between the town and the city and the town belongs to the agglomeration of the city. That's one aspect when defining an agglomeration. But how many commuters to the city does a town have to have to be added to the agglomeration? How "urban" does a town has to be, to be added to an agglomeration? Should the whole town in it's official borders be counted or only the urban parts of it? Especially in very populated areas as Rhine-Ruhr is, there is another question: Where does one agglomeration end and the next begin? Are each of the cities of Cologne, Leverkusen and Düsseldorf defining an own agglomeration? Does Leverkusen "belong" to Cologne or to Düsseldorf? Or do they all belong together?
So it's really the question: Does Leverkusen belong to the agglomeration mentioned in the text? I think so, because otherwise one wouldn't reach 1.8 Mio. On the other hand mentions Largest European metropolitan areas a Cologne metropolitan area with 1.85 Mio. and Largest urban areas of the European Union has a "Cologne-Bonn urban area" with 2.48 Mio. The last list is really complete nonsense. There are cities put together, that do not belong together even if one follows the definition above the list.

Yes, it's all so vaguely defined isn't it? I think the article is much better for not mentioning it at all. --Lancevortex 08:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Leverkusen is part of the agglomeration, that's for sure.
I've read a report on a scientific research paper that applied the head count system per city, vincinity, agglomeration of several countries and states world wide mutually to each of them, and compared the results. Quoted from memory, they found some average 1.1 Million (city) to 1.8 Million (agglomeration) for Cologne, and 9 or 11 Million to the Ruhr agglomeration and some 14 to 18 Million to the total Rhein/Ruhr agglomeration. Don't hit my head if my memory wasn't good. Ruhr figures have had a decrease since, but I doubt Cologne had.

Germanies statistics of inhabitants has some gross oddities indeed.

  • Students are almost always counted in the place of residence of their parents, not at the place where they live and study. So some 2,500,000 to 3.000.000 net are statistically moved out the big cities into the countryside (where no universites are) although they populate the cities 10 months of the year at least.
  • Illegal aliens are completely ignored, some legal aliens as well. That is e.g. 200,000 to 300,000 in Berlin alone.
  • Statistics are made so as to find out how many need public services and allocate money for them. So it happens that statistical figures are reduced "by government act" to cut expenses. Don't ask for details, I don't have them.
  • Several more, almost all of which reduce figures rather than increase them. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:49, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

"The city was the capital of a Roman province until occupied by the Ripuarian Franks in 462"----source?

Images

I'm not sure anyone is actually reading this talk page but just in case... The two panoramic images are beautiful but they're really too large to put as is: they split the article in half and on most computers, readers will have to scroll to view them entirely. I propose to put them as thumbnails. On the other hand, the pictures of the landmarks could be arranged in a horizontal gallery. I also think the new Bundesarchiv pictures include unique images of floods, including some from the 1930 flood. Floods are almost a part of the culture of Cologne and I think an image or even a gallery of images would make sense.

River

What river runs through the Cologne River

It'd help if you read the article - that river is called Rhine. andy 11:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
There are some more, usually very small ones, Duffesbach, Dünn, Eggerbach, Strunder Bach, Flehbach, Mutzbach, Selbach, Giesbach, Frechener Bach, Gleueler Bach, Horbeller Bach, Pletschbach, e.g. but none of them reaches the Rhine on the surface. They're all either dumped into the sewage system of the city, or have completely been built over. Partially that happened in the middle ages already, when they were used to drive mills, or in dying, tanning, etc.
We have a run of streets, collectively called "Die Bäche" (engl. the brooks, or the creeks, resp.) named after these uses of the water running next to them or under them as (translated) "brook of the mills", "brook of the red tanners", "brook of the blue tanners", "brook of the blue dyers", etc. The term "Die Bäche", has been the in use in the middle ages already, which we know from the most ancient, and most likely also first, autobiography in history there is. I was written by a citizen of cologne, and is available in print today titled "The Book Weinsberg" after the house where he lived, if I recall that right. Btw. one of the longest known buiding times in history has been observed with Colognes cathedral. Building had begun around 1130 and was finally finished around 1875. Most if it has been completed following medieval construction plans, most of which exist until today. The master builder who started the work had provided the city council with an estimated total building time of 717 years. So he was pretty precise, only some 30 years (less than 4%) off. Can you imagine a politician today starting a 700-years project?
There's a pretty long list of more Guinness-Book style informations about cologne, but lets go back to the rivers. Even the biggest of them would be blocked by dumping two vans into it on top of each other.
--Purodha Blissenbach 10:36, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Attila the Hun/St Ursula

"The eleven flames are a reminder of the Britannic princess St. Ursula and her legendary 11,000 virgin companions who were supposedly martyred by Attila the Hun at Cologne for their Christian faith in 383 A.D." Yet according to the Attila the Hun article, Attila's dates were c. 406–453. Surely some mistake? --Lancevortex 10:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a pretty broad variety of such stories. Some are attributed to Vikings, not Huns. Some just call on local non christianized tribes. This is the first one I hear with Attila :-) but in fact to my knowledge, he's never been to Cologne, his troups did not come far West if Vienna, and he's been finally kept from conquering West Europe by a battle in todays Kosovo - both pretyy far away from Colognes North (the 11, or 11 thousand, virgins have been murdered _before_ they reached Cologne coming up the Rhine) --Purodha Blissenbach 20:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Translating

Okay. We're trying to make this article mirror "current English usage" if I'm not entirely mistaken? I really don't know where dict.leo.org came up with PhilharmonicS (emphasis added) as a translation for Philharmonie, but that's NOT "current English usage." My 1997 Oxford-Duden dictionary translates Philharmonie as "Philharmonic" (no S). In general usage, the word "Orchestra" tends to get dropped from a lot of names, thus the Boston Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Boston Symphony" (or sometimes BSO). The Chicago Symphony Orchestra is referred to as the "Chicago Symphony" or the CSO. The New York Philharmonic Orchestra and the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra (two big US Orchestras that actually use "Philharmonic" in their full names) are referred to as the New York Philharmonic and the Los Angeles Philharmonic respectively. Further, lets skip Google for a moment, as I find Google tests to be unreliable. Instead, let us check English product releases. I typed "Cologne Philharmonic" (no S) into www.amazon.com, and not only got a result for Cologne Philharmonic, but also for Berlin Philharmonic. Again, no "S." "Cologne Philharmonics" ("s" added) gives a result of "We didn't find any matches for "Cologne Philharmonics". Did you mean cologne philharmonic?" And just for giggles, let's check another online biography of James Conlon. The Kennedy Center, at http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=showIndividual&entity_id=5027&source_type=A reports that "He was simultaneously Principal Conductor of the Gürzenich Orchestra-Cologne Philharmonic ...." Again, NO "S." Finally, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary has NO entry for "philharmonics", but they DO have one for "philharmonic." I am changing this article to reflect the singular, which is the current, CORRECT English usage. --JohnDBuell 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine. If we're going to 'dance around' the whole issue by using "Philharmonic Orchestra" instead, which is also acceptable, valid, current English usage, that's just fine. --JohnDBuell 03:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I should add here, I find it interesting that the official website at http://www.koelner-philharmonie.de/de/00_home/00_home.php uses "Kölner Philharmonie" throughout the German AND English pages, which is another way of 'dancing around' the issue of correct translations. --JohnDBuell 03:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture section needed

Most city articles I have reviewed include a culture section. Could someone with a knowledge of this please add this? See Berlin#Culture for an example. This would provide a place for things like, "Cologne has a well-respected gay community and has long been known for its easy-going and tolerant attitudes" which shouldn't really be in the Economy section IMHO. Otherwise the article looks very nice. Thanks, Walkerma 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

straight out of a tourist guide

"Cologne lies at the River Rhine and the city's world famous Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom) is seat to a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, just as important to the city as its specially brewed Kölsch beer. Cologne University is one of Europe's oldest universities and internationally renowned for its economics department."

This isn't encyclopaedic at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.161.30 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

External links --> References

This article contains a lot of external links within the body text. They should be changed to references/footnotes. - 52 Pickup 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Could we rename the article to Köln? I think it's kinda pointless to use a French name for a German city on the English Wikipedia, to be honest. Salaskan 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be bold and do it myself, feel free to revert it and discuss it here if you feel the article should be named the French way. Salaskan 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Cologne is also the English name for the city, so I think it's reasonable to have the article there. Not to mention that "Köln" is hard to type for those who don't have German keyboards.--KagamiNoMiko 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody uses Köln in English, while Cologne is pretty widespread, so I'd say no. --Anonytroll 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As others have stated, Cologne is also the English-language name for the city. Changing it to Köln would be as absurd as changing Vienna to Wien. WorldWide Update 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be the "English-language name", but it's clearly a loanword from French. Why use this for a German city? Is French superior to German, even in cases where the German name would clearly be more appropriate? Salaskan 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, to get back to my example, Vienna is also a loanword. What difference does that make? The city is known as Cologne in English; the word's etymology is irrelevant. WorldWide Update 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
""It may be the "English-language name", but it's clearly a loanword from French. Why use this for a German city? Is French superior to German, even in cases where the German name would clearly be more appropriate? Salaskan 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)"" -> So, 10 english words which come from the french language. That's why there are a lot of english words and nouns which sound french. Tchuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.141.127 (talk)
Oppose rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). "Cologne" is the English name.--Boson 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For completeness and for your edification, read the content of the above section #Name, esp. the comments of a native of Cologne. --Mareklug talk 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Commerce and Industry section needed

Cologne has a long history and current importance in trade, commerce, and industry. Someone with knowledge of these aspects could write several paragraphs that would vastly improve the article. CoppBob 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets make German history a little more pleasant!

i stumbled upon the fait of the jews of cologne reading the history part of the city. it is clearly an attempt, as seen so often, to put the fait of the victims on the same level as that of the perpetrators or to put it into the realm of the uncertain. how else can one have the nerve to write: 20,000 jews of cologne were "displaced" of which 11,000 "are believed" to have been murdered. i suppose we can say that about the whole holocaust: so-and-so many millions of jews from europe were "displaced" of which 6 million "are believed" to have been murdered. absolutely disgusting! Sundar1 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of 11,000 has been estimated, this is what the word "believe" signifies. I don't see any attempt to put "their fate into the realm of the uncertain", but I'll go and change the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.230.118 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cycling in Cologne, and in Germany generally

I contributed a picture of a cyclist and a subsection of context, after a visit to Cologne. I was impressed by how different things are for cyclists, compared with the USA and Britain. I think this is an interesting aspect of the city and of Germany generally, but I'm not sure how to go further on this issue. Most of what I wrote was deleted by a user who obviously knows a lot more about the subject than I do and clearly feels there is nothing specific about Cologne in what I wrote - e.g. a link to the segregated cycle facilities page.

Some Transport by Country pages have a cycling section, others don't (including Germany). Presumably not everyone thinks that cycling is transportation. I'm going by the example of Transport for London (http://www.tfl.gov.uk)who very definitely include cycling and have detailed policies and implementation programmes.

I could add a category to Transport in Germany but I'm really not qualified to write much about the country as a whole - whereas I did spend some time cycling around Cologne and figuring out how the system works. Any views / ideas? ProfDEH (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what to answer. I read your text and liked it, on the other hand going into less detail may be good because some of the facts were not Cologne-specific. Let's wait for some more thoughts from others. And if it helps the process, you might consider re-inserting the text after a while. Have you asked the user who reverted you for a statement personally on his discussion page? Keep up the good work, Krankman (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been the user who deleted parts of the cycling subsection. Actually, I think that something about cyclists was maybe missing in the Transport-section. But let me explain the reasons for deleting: First, it's true that there are in fact many cyclists in Cologne and you happen to see many clusters of parked bikes, esp. near the university. But Cologne is, in that aspect, not in any way outstanding in Germany. Some cities, like Münster, have a particular reputation as bike-friendly-cities. The same applies to a number of cities in the Netherlands, where you can find Parking Garages for Bikes, Long-distance routes for bikes and a whole infrastructure for cyclists. Gamgee (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I re-wrote that bit to reflect your comments but keep a bit more of what I wanted to describe. Hope that is a reasonable solution.
I like it better that way, but I'm still a bit unsure about the cycle priority crossings. Care to describe, what's that exactly? If you mean something with an absolute right-of-way for cyclists, that's nowhere to be found. There are traffic lights with Actuated control for pedestrians as well as cyclists. Also, many traffic lights today feature preponed green light for cyclists (relative to same-direction car traffic). Gamgee (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean where the cycle lane crosses a side road, the signs and road markings indicate you can cross and cars are supposed to wait? I'm trying to describe how you can more or less cycle continuously. It is a big contrast to the UK where there are cycle lanes, but discontinuous - typically they just stop when the road is too busy or too narrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfDEH (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How many people?

Text says close to 10 million people live in Koln, summary sidebar says almost a million. One is likely wrong. Hpicot (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says Rhein-Ruhr area has a populace of ten million, which is correct. But I agree the wording is confusing. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay Capitol?

" Cologne is also renown as the 'Gay Capitol of the world.' " was a sentance at the end of the demographics section, separate from the rest of the article, and without citation.

i removed it, it appears to be vandalism.

98.250.1.143 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (also occassionally known as AeturnalNarcosis)

I've removed almost all external links, with the exception of the sister projects and the official city site. Links about the various tourist attractions should be on the relevant articles. This is consistent with pages on other majors cities. Pichpich (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Population

"In June 2005, Cologne's population was 975,907, using the standard method of only counting persons whose primary residence (German: Hauptwohnsitz) was in the city. The City of Cologne includes those with non-primary residences (German: Nebenwohnsitz) in its figure, raising it to 1,022,627 (December 31, 2004)."

This is the sentence deleted by an anonymous who replaced it with "Cologne's population is 1,022,627 (December 31, 2004).". There are many Cologne fanatics who want their city to be a "millionaire". So watch out for their changes.

Oh well, we're watching so many things, aren't we? But do I sense some hidden fanaticism here? In order to clarify this issue I humbly suggest to state the official source in the article as is good wikipedia style. But then, if we just wait a little while... mr-t 12:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Official source: http://www.lds.nrw.de/statistik/datenangebot/amtlichebevoelkerungszahlen/rp3_juni05.html. I don't know how to add it to the article in this case.
This here is a link that works: Official Koeln.de and they give the 1.022.627 as the only (!) figure! It even says "Cologne is one the four million-inhabitants-cities in Germany"! Is it that some just want to restrict things for the sake of restricting? Feb 26th 2006
Apparently the NRW statistics office moved its data, it's here now. I'll fix it in the infobox. Markussep 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats quite a surprise: for differing German statistics! Still I d rather trust the closely involved city data than the federal state's statistics. The local state's statistics offices are in Duesseldorf (right?); considering the envy of Duesseldorfers to Cologne, those people might have manipulate the data?

Hmmm, the Düsseldorfer would need a lot of manipulation to make their city bigger than Cologne. But I guess what is stated in the first post here is correct, the definitions are different. Markussep 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No question Dusseldorf is smaller; but that doesnt stop them from wanting Cologne to appear smaller too.

Hmmm. Sure, as a native from Cologne I'd like the number of inhabitants as big as possible. But I also understand that there has to be a common standard of counting. What do you think, if we put in a seperate column in the article like this: "Cologne's population according to Cologne counting method"? (Warning! Irony)
Gamgee 13:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
NO! Damn it, it's always the same discussion for years. THE ONLY OFFICIAL SOURCE FOR POLPULATION DATA IS www.lds.nrw.de !!! To say the government manipulates data is abolutely bullshit. It's the city of Cologne, their public relations department and some fanatics that want to have the million and so using a trick to get it. But it is not the official figure as it is used in all other cities in the EU. You could add all commuters to the city and maybe would get 2 Million, you could add all visitors within one year and could get 5 Million. Maybe you want to add all people ever lived in or visited Cologne in the last 2000 years. Maybe you get a billion. Then you could write: "Population of Cologne: 1 Billion". But it would be nonsense.
Additionally www.koeln.de is NOT the official site of the city of Cologne, it's www.stadt-koeln.de (but they have the same data anyway). And by the way: I'm NOT from Düsseldorf. --80.131.31.109 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I love you, 80.131.31.109. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.161.30 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

The explanation is simple: Federal statistics count population by first residence, while city statistics include people with second residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.56.53 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

  • Original Image
    Original Image
  • Recent Replacement
    Recent Replacement

The photographer of the recent replacement replaced the original image just before nominating his picture for a featured picture. When checking where the FP nomination was used I noticed he put it in the infobox so when I looked at what was there before I found in my opinion a superior image he replaced with his picture. So I'm bringing it here to the talk page to see which image consensus would like in the infobox. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

History section

the history section here is comparably long, while the main article history of Cologne has a lot of sections requiring expansion. I think, moving some of the text would make sense (?). CGN2010 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis

Who on earth put a bot on this page correcting the Latin name of Cologne? I have close ties to the city and know for sure that its Latin name is Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis.

I agree! anyone with one year of latin knows this! idiots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.92.28 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Culture section incomplete

It could use a subsection "theater/theatre" listing the town's subsidised venues and companies, like the opera house and the Schauspiel Köln. Beyond that, Cologne has a vivid fringe scene with dozens of independent companies and venues. -- 217.243.215.150 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, the German wikipedia article has a nice list of venues. We have articles about the Cologne Opera and the Volkstheater Millowitsch. There's a list of (smaller) theatres here: http://www.theaterszene-koeln.de/mitglied_uebersicht.php?typ=spielort, and there's http://www.buehnenkoeln.de/ for the city theatres (including the opera). Markussep Talk 16:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio sample (German Pronunciation)

I find the Audio sample of the German Pronunciation of Köln quite unnatural. It's too stretched and therefore sounds as if the speaker was drunk. The correct pronunciation is shorter. --217.235.187.122 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, sounds like taken from a language course. There is another version which is quicker but has a strange echo. --Elekhh (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cologne → Köln — A German city should be at its German, not French, name. 75.28.52.27 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sancta Colonia Dei Gratia Romanae Ecclesiae Fidelis Filia

In order to prevent an edit war: English and German source with translation. However, the name including translation may suit the history section better. -- Traveletti (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Cologne - Panoramic Image of the old town at dusk.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cologne - Panoramic Image of the old town at dusk.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 26, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cologne panorama
Panoramic view of the old town of Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, taken from Deutz, on the other side of the river Rhine at dusk. Visible from left to right are the former Lufthansa corporate headquarters, the Deutz Bridge, Great St. Martin Church, Cologne Cathedral, Museum Ludwig, the Cologne telecommunications tower Colonius, the Hohenzollern Bridge and the blue lights and reflections of the Cologne Musical Dome.Photo: Ahgee
Archive – More featured pictures...

Censorship of historical facts not allowed by revisionist historians favoring their own accounts

On 29 October 2011 my referenced history to a published account of the Battle of Cologne, based on official U.S. Army documents and books, was removed by a contributor who insisted on total censorship because of favoritism to a German news source of 2005 that agreed with his own private vision of history. This censor-master contributor then unilaterally decided by his sole judgment who should be able to read what version, by deleting contrary accounts altogether. I did not know that Wikipedia allowed referenced military history to be wiped out in favor of revisionist versions considered “more reliable” by individual judgment. Upon discovering on 8 January 2012, this hatchet-job aimed at destroying facts unpopular to a particular person's viewpoint of the war, I reinserted my referenced and published account. I suggest the culprit who censored my contribution and deprived the world of anything but his own version be more careful in the future and learn to abide by the rules of Wikipedia and historical decency. -- Militaryartist (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed both accounts until this discrepancy is cleared up. The current version reads like "The truth is X. Dishonest German media claims Y". This is not unacceptable and it shouldn't be that hard to gather further references on the subject and figure out what the consensus is among historians. Below is the paragraph I cut. Pichpich (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
According to US military accounts, Cologne was heavily defended by the Germans against the Allied ground advance into Germany, leading to an intense urban battle for the city that began 3 March 1945. The US 3rd Armored Division and US 104th Infantry Division fought day and night for several days to clear the city, and assaults often involved house-to-house combat. Organized German resistance in Cologne collapsed on the afternoon of 7 March 1945.[1] According to German media accounts, the outskirts of Cologne were reached by US-troops on 4 March 1945. The inner city at the left bank of the Rhine was captured on 6 March 1945 in half a day, meeting minor resistance only. Because the Hohenzollernbrücke was destroyed on retreat by German pioneers, the boroughs at the right bank of the river remained under German control until mid of April 1945.[2]

The official United States Army in World War II series volume Special Studies: Chronology compiled by Mary H. Williams and published by the Office of the Chief of Military History (Washington D.C., 1960), states on p. 424, "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March] and continues into night 4-5. Brauweiler, Loevenich, Freimersdorf and Widersdorf fall to 415th Inf and Koenigsdorf, Buschbell and Weiden to 414th." This fighting was just for the outskirts, and then the main battle began. On p. 425, "5 March: 3d Armd Div and 104th Div begin assault on Cologne early in day and enter the city during morning. 3d Armd Div with CC Boudinot on left and CC Hickey on right, each employing 2 TF's [task forces of armor and mechanized infantry], drives SE into the city, overrunning a number of suburban communities. Continuing E toward Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, 104th Inf Div clears Junkersdorf and penetrates 4,000 yards into the city.” On p. 427: “6 March: 104th Div, continuing assault on Cologne with 415th and 414th Inf, clears most of S part of city and gets patrols to the Rhine. Efferden falls early in the morning to 414th Inf." (I did not copy the long sentences about the 3d Armd Div continuing combat on this same day, because this excerpt from the page about the 104th Div is enough to show that the assault into Cologne continued). Finally, on p. 429, “7 Mar: Cologne, third largest city in Germany, falls to 3d Armd and 104th Divs, which overcome organized resistance during morning and declare city secure by 1600. 3d Bn of 413th Inf is committed on 104th Div right for final drive and advances through S outskirts of Cologne to the Rhine”. -- Militaryartist (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The official history of the US Army's account of the capture of Cologne is available online here, so there's no need to rely on Shelby Stanton's summary of it (as a note, while Stanton's orders of battle are excellent, his campaign summaries are inaccurate at times). The book states that the attack on Cologne proper began on 5 March and was completed by the middle of 7 March. There was some stiff fighting on 5 March, but the US Army defeated the most effective German forces in the city on that day and spent the next day and half mopping up. The Google translate version of that German website seems basically in line with the US Army's official history's account of the battle. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick's advice about the official account regarding the U.S. Army capture of Cologne is excellent, but should be supplemented by another equally-official US army source that specifically states (as quoted in my response above) "104th Div pierces outer defenses of Cologne in fighting that starts at midnight 3-4 [March]". Thus, the battle of Cologne still commences with the attack on its outer defenses conforming to the timeline in my original description. Use of official accounts is accepted and the German source is valid where agrees with the official US account. -- Militaryartist (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) However, the editorial suggestion of deleting a reference is unjustified censorship. Such censorship, whether of art or literature, makes the Wiki editors in fact censors, and Wiki an instrument of censorship. -- Militaryartist (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC) 

-- Militaryartist (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Militaryartist, you're making it difficult to have any sort of dialog. Nick and I are just as interested as you in including the most accurate information and turning us into crypto-agents of a nazi revival would be quite offensive if it wasn't so comically absurd. Pichpich (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Pichpich. I'm not going to respond to the above comments further. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw remarks made in overreaction to the preference of the editors for a pro-SS account of the battle incompatible with the official US army account, even though my remarks are true and based on the facts of this case, with the hope that discussion of the ground battle of Cologne in 1945 can proceed despite the previous unfortunate problems created by certain editors:

1. editorial bullying of contributors (stating my contribution was unacceptable because of false accusations that I effectively stated my account was right but the German media was dishonest (reference Pichpich reason for removal of contribution)

I remind everyone that my original contribution was removed completely on 29 October 2011 by another contributor who claimed his German media account was more reliable. When I discovered this censorship on 8 January 2012, I reinserted my contribution but in fair-mindedness allowed the German version to remain. I prefaced both accounts as to their source and never engaged in what Pichpich claims is unacceptable value judgments. By resorting to falsity and censorship, Pichpich engages in slanderous and unacceptable behavior.

2. unwarranted editorial censorship of references because of personal prejudice without supporting evidence of problems on topic (reference Nick explanation for censorship of reference).

Why is this libel against a published reference being allowed to remain as part of the public record, without any proof as to inaccuracy on the topic at hand? I might add that the official army books also contain inaccuracies, yet they are not trashed.

3. editorial adhesion to inaccurate appraisal of the comparative validity of sources (clearly Nick’s insistence on the German media account being in basic agreement with the official US army account is wrong)

I am amendable to continuation of a factual and objective discussion related to the 1945 battle of Cologne, and will forgive these multiple editorial transgressions in the interest of global information-sharing. However, editorial apologies should be forthcoming to assure an unprejudiced discussion can proceed. Until that time, the fairness of the Wikipedia editorial process is open to question. Finally, I continue to protest my contribution being removed and censored without justification, which constitutes a continuing violation of historical recordation done solely in the interest of wielding personal power and projecting personal opinions by the particular editors in this case. -- Militaryartist (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


No personal attacks are intended as my remarks only pertain to possible infractions of censorship and non-objectivity because I do not wish to be lured into edit-warring, whereby editorial forces (determined to unfairly obstruct my writing and unjustly condemn my reference) can conspire to impose banning by joint authoritarian power against a single contributor being baited by two powerful editors. Upon expunging of inappropriate public editorial remarks, I will erase all statements expressing dissatisfaction toward said remarks, and the discussion of the 1945 ground battle of Cologne can proceed unhindered by discord. - Militaryartist (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Political traditions and developments

This section really makes little sense. Does it reflect an unidiomatic translation from the original German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.240.17 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by rJay

Hello. This is rJay. I removed many invalid links. Please remember to check all links you make to make sure the page exists before saving the page. Thank you. RJay (official) (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop and Imperial Free city

"Due to the free status of Cologne, the archbishops were usually not allowed to enter the city." Really, odd that the archbishop would never be allowed to set foot in the cathedral, don't you think. This should at least be cited. Tibetologist (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Carnival

"In Cologne, the carnival season officially starts on 11 November at 11 minutes past 11 a.m. with the proclamation of the new Carnival Season..."

Where did this date and time come from? It cannot be coincidence that (with the exception of the 11 minutes) this is exactly the date and time of the World War I Armistice on 11 November 1918:

  • The Armistice was agreed ... to come into effect at 11 am Paris time, for which reason the occasion is sometimes referred to as "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month".

But the Armistice was widely repudiated as a "stab-in-the-back", and seemingly was hardly a cause for celebration in Cologne or anywhere else in Germany. Does the timing of the start of Carnival predate WWI and the Armistice? Or does it postdate the end of WWII, after Hitler was gone?

And why November at all, when Ash Wednesday is still months away? What does it mean to have a multi-month "Carnival Season"? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the exact origin, but the number "11" is strongly connected to Karneval; some explanation is at Elferrat. One thing is certain: its use predates the WWI armistice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cologne University renowned for its computer science department?

I was rather surprised to read this... As far as I know, the computer science department is rather small (two professors?), as only Wirtschaftsinformatik is offered and computer science as such is only offered as a minor. Known for their computer science are Karlsruhe, Aachen, and, when it comes to research, Bonn. --KagamiNoMiko 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Two professors? I thought the Informatics department was at least a tiny bit larger. There's also the departments of Computer Linguistics and Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliche Informationsverarbeitung, though, which do a bit of research and development on the side.
I'd agree that computer science isn't what comes to my mind when thinking about what the Cologne University is renowned for. Aachen is close enough and big enough to steer people away from that idea.
I've heard that Cologne is scientifically renowned for its Africanistics department, but I don't know anything about that.
If you go by the current propaganda the Cologne U has the biggest and brightest economics dept in Europe, but that's just the rectorate and the WiSo giving each other handjobs. 91.0.126.229 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are more than two professors, I looked it up later, but while I studied there I was only aware of two. ^^; Anyway, I think it's reasonable to take this part out - if anyone wants to add it again, it'd be nice if they provided proof. --KagamiNoMiko 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Cologne Computer science teachers are scattered over various organizational units. There is the central regional computing center (RRZK), the faculty of economics and social sciences, the faculty of mathematics and natural sciences, and the philosophical faculty. The latter has at least tree independent units / institutes for teaching and research of computer science - computational linguistics, historic and cultural information processing, and a faculty department. Also, they run an outsorced company doing cultural scientific computer and network related work. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anon editing and persistent misunderstanding of WP:RETAIN

Despite an attempt to talk over at User_talk:2.244.201.100, this anon editor has edit warred in a misguided attempt to impose his/her preferred spelling on this page. The first non-stub version was primarily in American English: [1] The edit warring started with this edit by an editor who hasn't edited for a couple days after getting chewed out by another editor on his talk page for similar edits (User talk:Surtalnar), but no worries, the anonymous editor has been glad to keep fighting in his place. Anyway, the anonymous editor has only communicated with me via edit summaries (he doesn't understand what a talk page is?), so here we go. Red Slash 20:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your problems with this user, a mixed spelling is utilised in this revision. I removed the marker until there is no broad consensus about the spelling. When there is a consensus, the AmE marker might be readded. Maybe a survey is the best solution. 89.204.153.222 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Free Imperial City of Cologne

Seems to have been created independently of Cologne rather than started there as a section, no obvious relationship between the two articles within the articles and a casual reader might think these are separate cities. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging of Free Imperial City of Cologne into History of Cologne is possibly a better idea, as the state "Free Imperial City" ended with the Holy Roman Empire. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that probably makes better sense. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. It was actually a copy of the EB 1911 article with little about the Free Imperial city. I wish we could get rid of all the EB material. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Heinzelmännchen

May we add some information about the Heinzelmännchen? --77.180.38.66 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Name

I, an Englishman, always refer to this city as Köln. I believe Cologne is the French name for the city; why do we use it as the article name in the English edition of Wikipedia?. -- Chris j wood 12:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

see wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names) Köln is the name of the city, that's it. "Cologne" is from latin "Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium" - the name of the city when it was founded by romans. "Cologne" and "Colonia" is still the used name in several romance languages like french, spanish and also in other languages like english. hope i could make it clearly. Threedots 13:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes the name of the city is Köln, the name of the article should be changed. --Dahlis 10:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Look in any English language atlas or encyclopedia. Cologne is the common name of Köln in English, let's keep it here. Markussep 17:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
As someone who was born in Cologne, I absolutely agree to leave the name of the article as it is. Why? The name Cologne, or Colonia, with its special Roman origin is deeply rooted in Cologne culture and dialect. It is NOT a French translation. Cologne is used in English literature, encyclopaedias asf. Koeln is 'only' a Germanic variation of Colonia/Colon/Cologne/Kolon. As such the different variations of the name are used by Cologne inhabitants for more than 2000 years. mr-t 22:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the status of the spelling Cöln? Is it archaic, and if so, when did it become so? Bastie 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My guess would be that it's archaic. At least, it's certainly not modern German since the last spelling reform, since all C's in such a position are now K's. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
See de:Köln: the spelling "Cöln" was abolished in 1919, probably together with Coblenz, Cassel etc. Markussep 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
However, I have a postcard in my possession, very clearly postmarked "5 9 23" [5 September, 1923], with the spelling "Cöln" in the postmark. (The year is indisputable; it was sent by a family member who was in Germany during 1923 only.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Colonia" may be Latin, but "Cologne" is clearly French, as are all words ending with -gne. Salaskan 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, just take it on faith, that this word is now English as well (and, in fact, a crusty old mainstream American-English word, at that, to judge by its presence in the 1913 edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). English borrows a lot from lots of places, but it remains English while doing so. For example, we pronounce the local suburb "Dezz Plains" (Des Plaines, Illinois). Most saliently, the web page of Cologne itself uses "Cologne" in English-language contexts - see [2]. Finally, is the following in French? It has a word ending in "-gne":

I rith na ndúshlán uile a bhfuil aghaidh tugtha ag Vhi um Chúram Sláinte orthu le blianta beaga anuas, ní raibh aghdú ar bith i dtiomantas agus i ndaingne ár bhfostaithe.

:) --Mareklug talk 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Whaha, what language is that? =P
Anyway, I guess we should name it "Cologne" if this is the only regular name in English, but I stand by my opinion that it is ridiculous how the English language is influenced by French (especially in geographical names like Cologne, Vienna, Strasbourg, Luxembourg etc.), and how Germanic words get replaced by Romanic (French) alternatives (deor/animal, folk/people). Salaskan 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's Irish, but I don't know what it says... --Mareklug talk 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Cologne is the international name for Köln, but not only a french translation. I don't reckon that the translation for colony should appear. the origin of the name in the history part will play their role. --Mawzi 09:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


maybe you people don't realize that the west bank of the rhein has an enormous french influence! about a third of the words used in cologne differ from those in the rest of germany in being of french origin, example "plumeau" instead of "federbett" (featherbed). the true stupidity of expecting shakespeare to issue from a million monkeys on typewriters is expressed in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.92.28 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Cologne

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cologne/Köln

i wouldnt say, using the French name in English is irrelevant to Colognians. but i agree that in English, Cologne is more often used than Köln. 88.77.143.83 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many cities in that part of Europe that have been historically known by names in more than one language. Cologne is one of them. It so happens that the French version of the name has stuck in English in its case. That doesn't always happen, though. For example, the German name Aachen is preferred these days in English over the French Aix-la-Chapelle. 71.52.144.136 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
the city is known as 'Cologne' in English because that is the closest approximation using English language spelling rules to the correct German pronunciation of 'Köln' - in English the latter 'Köln' spelling is unpronounceable and makes no sense when subject to English language rules of pronunciation.
Places such as Berlin, Leipzig, Paris, Brest, etc., have the same spelling in English as in the native languages because using the relevant spelling rules the place names are pronounced the same, or more or less the same, in both languages. Places such as 'Köln' however are different. That's why these names are Anglicised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not even remotely true. When is "Logne" ever pronounced "loan" in English? Never.Sylvain1972 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The word 'Logne' (sic) does not exist in English and in the word 'Cologne' the 'g' is silent, so it is pronounced as 'col-loan' - see.
...and if people want to know why some English words are spelt and pronounced the way they are they should get a good proper English dictionary - such as an Oxford one - Concise Oxford English Dictionary - not one of the 'Mickey Mouse' dumbed-down foreign ones some seem to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Stanton, Shelby, World War II Order of Battle: An Encyclopedic Reference to U.S. Army Ground Forces from Battalion through Division, 1939-1946 (Revised Edition, 2006), Stackpole Books, p. 50, 182.
  2. ^ "Trotz Durchhalteparolen wenig Widerstand - Die US-Armee nimmt Köln ein". Sixty years ago [Vor 60 Jahren] on www.wdr.de (in German). Westdeutscher Rundfunk. 7 March 2005. Retrieved 29 Oktober 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cologne/Archive_1&oldid=1090553982"