Talk:Berlin Brandenburg International Airport

In light of the coming opening of Berlin Brandenburg Airport
I created an article. Is this premature? No."Schönefeld Airport" has already been relabeled "BER Terminal 5". Unfortunately the lower sections of the article are pretty barren as of now, but I'm sure they can be filled in due time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be. It doesn't appears BER will be a major hub, as most of the destinations are from easyJet and Ryanair, who both operate point-to-point models rather than hub-and-spoke. Thus, as with TXL and SXF, most passengers will probably be origin/destination passengers rather than connecting. (It's hard to find statistics for this, but shows that TXL only had on the order of 15% connecting passengers in 2014.) That said, we do have plenty of airport articles for places with even lower rates of connecting passengers. However, I worry that we get carried away writing about the history of the airport (not terribly interesting to most travellers) and transportation options (important, but belongs to the city as much as the airport) and end up writing very little about the airport itself (primarily the Wait, Eat, and Buy sections). For a comparison, I'm still thinking about submitting a merge request on Orlando International Airport because most of the article is about getting to/from the airport, and the rest just isn't that interesting: the airport is easy to navigate, the food and shopping options are bland, and most passengers won't spend a lot of time there. Can you convince me BER will be any different? --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * speaking my mind as a traveller: Berlin is surely the European destination I visited the most, and cherish the most, and I'm following this BER trend with a lot of interest since at least 2011. The very tumultuous history leading up to the opening really merits to be digressed. I have already written elsewhere, the subject "Berlin airports" is very thick and rich and chocolatey, since Johannisthal. I'm saddened with the thought of never again arriving or departing at little cozy lovely Tegel, and I'd very gladly help building a "Berlin airports" article up. As for the moment, I'm curious almost to a frenzy about whether the new airport will really start operations on this following weekend. Let's see and then decide, IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an event worth celebrating. I hope they party like it's 2011. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as the "Terminal 5" situation persists (and it will for a while) the airport is quite complex. It is also busier than the not particularly "hub"-y DUS. Plus someone saw fit to create an article on TXL and we never got around to deleting it.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Presumably just being a single, larger airport will make the development of a hub more likely in the future.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Tegel article isn't all that old, IIRC, but my feeling was always that articles about airports like Tegel or LaGuardia in New York are inessential but fine. I have to make a comment about Dusseldorf Airport, though: It's huge, and I have changed planes from there to Tegel in the past. Anyway, I see no reason to bust people's chops for writing articles about airports that serve major cities and aren't like the 4th or 5th most important and really far flung (so not Islip Airport and so forth). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Berlin Brandenburg International Airport
I would appreciate other opinions on which version of some text reads better. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Hobbitschuster is refusing to explain his objection, and has reverted thid edit falsely claiming that I made the change "without discussion". Please see the discussion that has been open for a week. It seems that Hobbitschuster and I will not be able to resolve this between us, so another opinion would be appreciated. Ground Zero (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at it when you first posted this, and I couldn't really figure out which thing was the focus of the dispute. I should have asked for more information then.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the edit in question is here. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits
I would like some other views on these edits that user:Hobbitschuster reverted.

The airport itself does not use "Willy Brandt" in its marketing. I had to really dig into its website to find the "official name". So I don't think that the "official name" is the very first thing we should tell the readers about, along with what political roles he served in. I think that this information works better in the "Understand" section. Also, there was some weird currency formatting that I fixed, and some redundant words that make the text less lively. Other opinions would be appreciated. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to various reasons, airports have a habit of accumulating "official" names that nobody uses and few people are even aware of. In some cases (like Washington National Airport) they even elicit disgust among aviation professionals. A simple question: How often did we mention Otto Lilienthal in our discussion of Tegel Airport? Because "officially" the airport is named after him. There is not a single Berliner (or Schönefelder) who uses the full official name outside official business. Even "Berlin Brandenburg International Airport" is too much of a mouthful for most, so they use "BER". Heck, even Wikipedia which is - at least in theory - much more bound by "official" names does not have the lemma under a name including Willy Brandt. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I moved the discussion of Willy Brandt from the first sentence of the intro to the Understand section. Ground Zero (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why did you unilaterally restore your edits without waiting for a consensus to emerge? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't respond to my last comment from a week ago, and the edit that I restored is consistent with your previous comment about ""official" names that nobody uses and few people are even aware of". I assumed that you would agree that this information shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. My edit moved that information to the Understand section. Ground Zero (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please explain what it is that you object to in the edit you reverted. Saying that it is "better" is not an explanation. Saying that the lede "was deleted without discussion" is a blatant falsehood as the discussion above proves. Please retract that statement. Ground Zero (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this could be called a discussion. The fact that you do not dispute that it was reverted without consensus proves that there is none. It would appear that for whatever reason nobody has seen fit to opine on this during the time this thread on the talk page has been active. An impasse, it would appear, that needs a third or fourth voice to resolve, not jumping forward with reverts and then acting surprised if those are in turn reverted. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored my version because you had abandoned the discussion, and because as far as I can tell, my version reflects what you have said about official names not being important.
 * You don't get your way by refusing to participate in a discussion in a collaborative project, or in life.
 * You still have not explained why including "official names that nobody uses and few people are even aware of.... [that] even elicit disgust among aviation professionals" should be in the first sentence of the article.
 * Please retract your claim that I have not discussed this edit in view of the discussion above. Ground Zero (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it would be better to relegate Willy Brandt to the "Understand" section and leave him out of the lead, though I don't think it's very important. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Going back to the question that is at the beginning of this page: The text on the left side is unambiguously better than the reversion. It's better in grammar, format and writing style. I'd just add as a minor point that instead of "October 31, 2020", Wikivoyage uses "31 October 2020"; see Time and date formats. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a hugely important decision. I think that having the opening paragraph mention that the airport just opened ("opened in late 2020") would be more important.  I prefer having a single name in the opening paragraph.  Either it follows the example of MUC and lists the official name (which nobody uses), or it follows the example of FRA and lists only the name that everyone uses, but let's not give two names or focus so much on who they named it after.  A second name can go in ==Understand==.  Between the two single-name options, I'd prefer the one everyone uses, which at the moment probably looks like "The new Berlin Brandenburg International Airport, commonly referred to by its IATA code (BER IATA), is in Schönefeld, Brandenburg just south of Berlin, the capital of Germany." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can live with WhatamIdoing's proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

does this capture it?
 * Berlin Brandenburg International Airport is in Schönefeld, Brandenburg just south of Berlin, the capital of Germany. It opened in late 2020, and is the third busiest airport in the country after Frankfurt airport and Munich airport. It is commonly referred to by its IATA code, "BER".


 * Understand


 * It is named Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt after Willy Brandt, who was mayor of West Berlin from 1957 to 1966 and chancellor of West Germany from 1969 to 1974.

Ground Zero (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why can't you let a compromise proposal stand and have to insist on your exact wording? This does not, to me, look like good faith, sadly... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't my wording. I'm trying to get clarification on what WhatamIdoing is proposing. That's why I have set out the proposal as i understand it and asked for confirmation ("does this capture it?").
 * I think we should use WhatamIdoing's proposal for "opened in 2020" (which was not in my edits) instead of "new" because it doesn't go out of date and is clearer.
 * WhatamIdoing did not propose specific wording for "Understand", they just said "A second name can go in ==Understand==." Granger and Ikan Kekek also support including this information under "Understand ". Is there a better way of providing the second name information than I what I have proposed above? Ground Zero (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This, or anything approximately like this, works for me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you. Providing suggestions for improvements to wording that is in dispute helps resolve arguments here, and results in a better article for readers. reverting, refusing to explain what your objection to a change is, and not suggesting alternatives drags out disputes and wastes everyone's time. Please try to work with other editors instead of being obstructive. Ground Zero (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no restored the compromise version. Can you explain to anybody why you love chopped apart sentences so much? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling your version "the compromise version" doesn't make it the compromise version. Ikan Kekek wrote "The text on the left side is unambiguously better than the reversion." And te or who commented were fine with what I proposed, so let's be clear that what you have imposed on the article is ''your's' version.
 * You never identified in the discussion above that this was your problem with my text. You just reverted to the version that packed all of the stuff about Willy Brandt into the first sentence twice, and then refused to discuss the change. And you made false accusations against me.
 * I can live with this version because it seems so very important for you. For the record, shorter, clearer sentences are easier to read, easier to understand for our many readers who are not native English speakers, and livelier. This is standard in business writing. We are writing a travel guide, not an academic journal. English does not require that everything on a topic be packed into one long sentence. That may be the case in other languages, but not in this one.
 * And I will not put up with you obstructionism. It has taken a week and input from a bunch of people for you to finally explain what your problem is. That is not constructive behaviour. Ground Zero (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Youtube videos from the last days of TXL
Here's one but they say they will post a few more in the next few weeks (from a special flight from TXL to BER and from the very last flight departing from there). --Ypsilon (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RBB, the regional public broadcaster covered the last AF flight (well, it leaving) live and at least for the next few days it should be possible to re-watch it on their "Mediathek"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing large numbers
Its been awhile, but I want to come back to this edit, in which numbers were converted from a [currency symbol] [number] [word] format (€2 billion, €6 billion) to the an all-word format that, to me, looks archaic and fussy (two billion Euros, six billion Euros). This edit was made with the comment "[currency symbol] [number] [word] looks weird. Making it all words makes it clearer that we are talking about rounded figures".

To start with, currencies are not capitalized in English Wikivoyage. Doing so is a formatting error.

Secondly, [currency symbol] [number] [word] may look weird to Hobbitschuster, but it is the standard formatting used in modern English writing. Here are examples from the Government of Ireland, the UK government, the European Union, The Guardian newspaper, The Economist, Deutsche Welle's English service, and even Berlin Brandenburg International Airport itself.

Finally, I have never heard of the supposed convention that words are implies more rounded numbers than digits. There is no basis for that that I know of. Two billion = 2 billion.

I don't want to make a big deal of this, but I don't want to see the all-word format spreading through other articles. There is no benefit to the reader of using idiosyncratic formatting. Ground Zero (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop your disruptive abuse of rules lawyering. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion. I have provided examples of standard English formatting. You are being disruptive by refusing to participate in the discussion and using the rollback function to enforce your will. This is English Wikivoyage, so we use standard English-language style. Ground Zero (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious that nobody besides you cares about this relatively trivial issue. I have explained my reasoning in the past and will do it here one more time. Saying "two billion Euros" makes it very clear that this is a rough estimate without using scientific notation. Using your weird pseudo-consistent system (which, by the by, is unused in most of the Eurozone, where the amount usually comes before the currency unit) implies a certainty to the numbers they do not have. I refuse to further waste my time with your disruptions. Good day. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "two billions Euros" also violates the Wikivoyage style guide. You can appeal to the English-language media, the governments of the UK and Ireland, the EU, Deutsche Welle and the BER airport authority to convince them they are wrong. And propose and get consensus for a change to wv:$. Until you do so, we will stick with standard English-language formatting and Wikivoyage style. Ground Zero (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I told you to stop being disruptive. Why won't you listen? I suggest you step away from the computer until your temper cools and to especially step away from this article for a while if you cannot stop yourself from being disruptive. As you have a history of being with this article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly calm about this. If you disagree with the Wikivoyage style guide, you can propose a change at Wikivoyage talk:Currency, and if there is consensus there, the policy will be changed, and you can come back and restore your version here. Until then, we'll stick with the Wikivoyage style guide (and standard English formatting). Also, as "euro" is not a proper noun in this context, it is incorrect to capitalize it. Have a lovely day. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't find a guideline for this on Wikivoyage (the rules I found are about listings). And as I said in the last discussion at WV:Measurements: For the prose, rules are detrimental for the lively style we aim for. Only when rules are needed should they be introduced. Declaring one style "preferred" forces the author choosing otherwise to watch the article and defend that choice, instead of writing and moving on.
 * So let every user write in the style they prefer, and change only when another version is clearly better. I am not a native speaker, but in my understanding there is nothing wrong in writing "six billion euros". And when it comes to an article where the main author is one you have difficulties discussing with, let somebody else take care of the judgement on whether the other way of expressing an amount would be better. Even if the version you prefer would be better, Wikivoyage can live with the other version being used.
 * –LPfi (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * wv:$ says "This article describes the conventions we have adopted, which include symbols like $ and € placed before the amount with no space". This is not restricted to listings. And the idea to "let every user write in the style they prefer" is fine if we're putting the writer first. If we put the traveller first, we'll use the more concise format, which is also the one that is used most commonly in English, including by governments, media, and by the airport authority, as cited. If we put writers first, we end up with idiosyncratic formats, and throw the community's style guide out the window. Ground Zero (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I interpret that sentence as an introduction with no bearing in itself. In the section "Formatting", which is the place where the rules should be, the guideline says "Generally, when currency symbols are placed before the amount, they are so without space." The "when" clearly shows that the earlier sentence was not meant as a hard rule (and anyway, symbols are not always used). Moreover, nowhere in the guideline is the format "€2 billion" suggested. I very much dislike the idea that we should infer hard rules from the guidelines; what is meant to be a rule should be stated as a rule. And we do use "euro" spelled out in prose, see e.g. Africa#Euro, where I would definitely not like it being changed to "€" (and I'd like "one euro" being used consistently, now there was one "1 euro"). –LPfi (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody in Germany puts the euro sign before the amount —The preceding comment was added by 2001:a62:1439:4102:615b:d5e8:bfba:ca7d (talk • contribs)


 * Except, perhaps, when they write English, I suppose. You might try to argue on Wikivoyage talk:Currency. –LPfi (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your response. I disagree that the introduction to wv:$ has no bearing. It clearly identifies that symbols like € are placed before an amount as being a convention we have adopted. Showing an example where a policy is not followed does not invalidate any policy.

But more importantly, for large numbers in the billions, "€6 billion" is the standard English format in modern writing (see examples provided), and therefore easier for the readers. I stand by WV:the traveller comes first here. The writer should not come first.

In this case, we are dealing with a contributor who shows contempt for other contributors, and for Wikivoyage policy. He tried to get WV:$ changed to his preferred format, presumably because he wanted other contributors to follow his style. Since the community rejected his proposal, he has ignored Wikivoyage style and kept on following his own style. And, he often uses the rollback function to try to get his way instead of discussing things on the talk page. So you can understand why I don't think that putting the "main author" ahead of the traveller is appropriate here. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You gave examples to show that your version is standard English. But those are a few examples only, they don't show that other ways of writing are non-idiomatic. The examples are also all about economics, where I think the format feels natural. Here the current format feels more natural to me, and I would choose it to serve the readers. But as not being a native speaker, I am not going to argue about what is idiomatic.


 * What I do have a strong opinion about, is that if this issue is important, you are certainly not the only editor who can step in and make the language better, and more conformant if that is an issue (which I think it is not in this kind of prose). You don't have to, and should not, use your time and temper – and that of the rest of us – on details in writing style in articles you know are written by this other user. We are many who can take those fights, avoiding it getting personal. If the rest of us don't think it is a big deal that this article uses "two billion", then you just have to accept the fact.


 * –LPfi (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that this point in isolation isn't a huge deal, but the persistent edit warring is, and this native speaker says that the version agreed-upon at Currency, which Ground Zero is using, looks better. I'd appreciate it if people would stop edit warring about this and accept the standard notation as long as it represents a majority view in formatting discussions on this site. We used to have this problem with Frank, who insisted on edit warring because he lost his arguments (including some in which I supported his viewpoint at the time), and after a huge amount of needless and highly corrosive disruption that resulted in the departures of several long-term admins, we eventually banned him. "My way or the highway", when you represent a minority view in the discussion, is inimical to a co-authored site, and I don't think the solution is to give in to the edit warring of a dissenter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd add, though, that there's absolutely nothing with bringing this point up for discussion again by adding to the thread Ground Zero linked to. Arguing for change in the appropriate place is the right thing to do, not the wrong thing to do - except that at a certain point, if it's clear the consensus will not change, you should probably wait a while before bringing it up again. 2001:a62:1439:4102:615b:d5e8:bfba:ca7d, maybe you'd like to offer your argument there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I take issue with you describing yourself and HS as "the rest of us". You are two people. But this is absolutely about Hobbitschuster's behaviour, and not about "two billion euros". I can live with "two billion euros". I don't agree with letting him roll back edits he doesn't like and refuse to discuss them. And then he accuses me of being "disruptive". Letting him get away with this behaviour encourages him to do it more. (The last time this happened, he even accused me of implementing a change without discussing it, even though I had proposed changes on the talk page a week before. No, he didn't apologize for his false accusation. ) I don't think we should tolerate it. As the archive on his talk page shows, this has been going on for a long time. Ground Zero (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not a single problem with any other good faith editor of this site. None. When you find that your insisting on "your style or the highway" only interests other editors when you escalate it full tilt (as you are wont to do), maybe you should decide to step away from it. I had decided not to engage you on the talk page to avoid the conflict that inevitably breaks out when you think my editing is even a micrometer away from your preferred style that you enforce with an iron fist to make text flow worse and formatting boring and often wrong by implication. But after two weeks of nobody outside the two of us bothering to utter an opinion, you took that as consensus in your favor and decided to escalate and play hurt. The fact that I don't spend huge amounts of energy bemoaning your disruptive and aggressive strategies every chance I get may at times make me look bad, but frankly, I've got better things to do than fighting you... Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So stop. I don't always agree with Ground Zero on matters of writing style, but formatting for currency is an agreed-upon standard. True, I probably wouldn't have been motivated to enforce that standard as I don't care that much about it, nor about consistency in representing days of the week (I always forget what the standard is), but you aren't the only person who's lost an argument about how to do things on Wikivoyage. I've lost quite a few, and I may bring them up again every so often, hoping for a different outcome (for example, I don't like it when articles like Metro New York or Middle East encompass areas in 3 states and 2 continents [well, maybe 3] respectively but are breadcrumbed to one), but I don't try to unilaterally flout an existing consensus and would concede the point if I did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am not defending HS here. In "the rest of us" I did not include him, sorry for not expressing that clearer. What I mean is that you, GZ, should avoid these conflicts, as you know they will escalate when you are involved. Probably the rest of us should be more alert when HS writes "Euros", changes to American spelling in articles about Europe or does other things against our MoS, or writes awkwardly long sentences (which often can be broken up without disturbing the flow), so that you can relax on the issue. Still, there are situations where most of us think that the wording is good, or at least good enough, even if it does not strictly follow the MoS – which is a guideline after all, not a policy. I understand also HS's irritation, and I hope we can leave these frustrations behind, sooner rather than later. –LPfi (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * in this series of rollback you made with no discussion on the talk page, 1, 2, 3, 4, I have only sought to restore #1 and #3. Reversion #1 was problematic because it actually contradicted what you said on the talk page ("airports have a habit of accumulating "official" names that nobody uses and few people are even aware of"), but it took forever to get you to explain why you were making the reversion. #3 is the issue at hand, which violates wv:$ and capitalization rules. I am choosing to live with #2 and #4, even though #2 makes the section harder to read, and uses US spelling. So claiming that I insist on my "style or the highway" (or "when you think my editing is even a micrometer away from your preferred style that you enforce with an iron fist") isn't supported by this discussion (or by other discussions I have with editors here). I have demonstrated here and elsewhere that I would rather work with another editor to find a compromise edit than fight over one version or another. Just rolling back and refusing to discuss is not a healthy way of editing.
 * Also, in this case, I am supporting my argument with references to both Wikivoyage style and the style commonly used in English-language sources; I am not insisting on my own style, as you do in the case of currency formatting and spelling. Deciding not to engage with another editor on a talk page and punching the rollback button isn't an appropriate way of dealing with disagreements in Wikivoyage. That is what got you blocked from editing for 3 days last June. Ground Zero (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks to your childish vendetta I do not currently possess a rollback button. And if you ask 100 Germans, I doubt you'd find even ten that write "€ 8 billion" instead of "eight billion euros". Also, not to get into the inanity that is English capitalization, but aren't currencies proper names which are spelled with a capital letter? Or is that another exemption some stuffy British aristocrat came up with and now everyone and their mother slavishly follows it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. "I have five dollars" isn't capitalized. Much as we might wish that English capitalized all nouns as German does, unfortunately, it does not, and we wouldn't be able to change that by establishing an idiosyncratic practice on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hobbitschuster, administrative actions taken against you are the result of your behaviour. There is wonderful irony in calling someone else "childish" while refusing to take responsibility for your actions. As for the inanity of the English language, I am glad that we have something we can agree on. However, I do not think that Wikivoyage is the place to start fixing it. Currencies are considered to be common nouns, though. Ground Zero (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And it is not even an English idiosyncrasy. Lower case is used for currencies also in at least the Nordic languages, Finnish, Estonian, French and Spanish – I know no language but German where they are written with a capital. –LPfi (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)