Archive 1

Archive 2

• Archive 1: Old comments, Portrayal in film and fiction, Economy, Transportation, Mayor, Bucharest Plaza, The weak status of the Romanian leu... + This has surfaced again, GDP/budget statement, Population 2.3 mil?, City of Joy ?!?, Recently added city guide, Photos, Romany name, To reach featured status, Media/Architecture, To do, Religion, About the Roadnetwork, largest city between Berlin and Istanbul, Historical culture section?, Architecture, Climate, Districts Characteristics, Peer review, Justice, crime and police, Dâmboviţă vs. Argeş and the Danube, Summer, For the record, Architecture, Climate (again), Bucharest and orphans, NYTimes article about Bucharest, Obor

- I recently changed the infobox, I've studied some other city articles and this is the best shape :)) I had as example the Warsaw infobox that looks preety good... Please do not modify it.. All main cities has the same format including skyline image, motto, nickname, flag, coat of arms etc... Looks better this way...

- I also modified the Climate statistics table, looks much better now.

- I added the Etymology chapter (as first), this was needed for such a long time...

- Replaced some photos to make it look fresher and nicer: The bucharest sectors (found a better one on wiki commons), and some others... Made by me: Bucharest flag, Bucharest coat of arms (made the lines darker and the background transparent), made the infobox skyline (resized from a wiki common photo)... & many other... Mastermindsro

Why are people adding Hannover, Germany and Budapest, Hungary as sister cities? Any reference for this?

Bucharest hosted (with Brasov) the first International Math Olympiad. Overall, up to now, it hosted 4 olympiads out of 46, the latest one in 1999. Maybe this info could get in one of the sections (though I don't know where) AdamSmithee 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The allegation "The city has quite a large number of beggars and homeless people" deserves careful examination.

If no evidence for the specification "quite a large number" can be produced within a reasonable frame of time, than it should be removed. --Vintila Barbu 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All large cities have "many" homeless people. Médecins sans Frontières estimates that Bucharest has 5,000 homeless people. [1] But let's put this into perspective: Los Angeles has about 90,000 homeless people [2], Moscow 60,000, Budapest 10,000. [3] bogdan 13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent arguments ! I tried to find out qualified statistics on homelessness on FEANTSA site [4] - unfortunalely real statistics are for members only.

Nevertheless, estimations which you delivered are plausible. Here are two in addition: Prague - 4-5000 Sweden - 17800

And here are simple proportions of homeless persons to hundred inhabitants (cities population according to [5])

Los Angeles 2,35%

Moscow 0,59%

Budapest 0,58%

Prague 0,3%

Bucharest 0,26%

Sweden 0,19%

However you consider it, asserting that beggars and homeless are in "quite a large number" is semantically vague and confusing and statistically not sustainable.

A more appropriate phrase could eventually be: compared to other capitals, B. has a relatively moderate proportion of homeless people. Beggars are either moderately visible . ....or somewhat alike

Regards, --Vintila Barbu 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the 5,000 identified by MsF would be homeless in the narrowest sense: lacking anywhere indoors to sleep from night to night. It would not include squatters, "couch-surfers" (to use an American term), etc. Do I understand correctly?

BTW, my own impression in 2001-2002: more beggars than a comparably Western European city, about the same number as a comparable American city, but far more child beggars than I had seen in either the U.S. or Western Europe. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since begging is quite a volatile (urban) phenomen, there are no reliable estimations on this. Referring to the visibility of a phenomen or behaviour - as I previously suggested - is not a very good idea either.

What certainly can be said about homelessness in B. is:

it is by no means higher than in other European capitals

hits especialy minors

B. also has a relatively large social category of poor and very poor, who are not homeless

--Vintila Barbu 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As the most important city in Romania, Bucharest has a broad range of educational facilities.

This to me sounds like POV language. If it said that the city is, by economic standards, the most important city, then perhaps it would've been okay; but otherwise, I don't agree with the wording. --Candide, or Optimism 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bucuresti is Romania's capital, it is by far the biggest city in country and as you yourself admitted, certainly the most important by economic standards. Thus I don't see the statement as reflecting a POV, merely a (to me pretty obvious) fact. - Anclation 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say by economical standards. --Candide, or Optimism 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, it says that it is the most important city of Romania, period. Indeed, I just explained to you why I considered this to be accurate. If you don't agree, please provide arguements, and remember that by "most important" one doesn't automatically say it is the best, most beautiful or the worthy capital of Romania. - Anclation 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree because when it says that it's the most important city of Ro, it make it to sound as if it's the most important city when it comes to everything: economy, culture, education, tourism, research, and industry. I don't know if it is, but take Galati for instance: it's the most important city that produces steel. See, Bucharest is not the most important city in everything. --Candide, or Optimism 19:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But Bucharest actually is the most important city in economy, culture, education, tourism, research and industry. Maybe in the 19th century, Iaşi had more influence on Romanian culture, but those days are long gone.

Anyway, you're interpreting both NPOV and the meaning of the word "important". Let me remind you the meaning of the word:

im·por·tant - adj. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things. (dictionary.com) bogdan 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll think you'll have a hard time arguing that Bucharest is not Romania's most important city overall. Of course, certain cities are more important in certain domains - one can argue that Constanţa is the most important port, Galaţi is the most important steelmaking town, etc, but Bucharest is the most important city overall. This is not only by economic standards, but also culturally, educationally, demographically, etc. Nearly 10% of the Romanian population lives in Bucharest, and the next largest city has a population nearly seven times smaller. Ronline ✉ 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unofficially, sociologists say that in its 228 square kilometres (88 sq mi), Bucharest has more than 3.5 million people, coming from every corner of the country.--Preacher, or Princelet 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest has less than 2 million people. The city that is. Who the hell taught you how to count, Bonaparte? --Candide, or Optimism 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting observation. I also recall that a few years ago there was a story in the media about how Bucharest was the most crowded city in Europe and that indeed it had more than 3 million people. However, I haven't found any sources for this in any other place, and it is very unbelievable that only a bit more than half of the population were counted in the census. From the trends, Bucharest's population is actually declining than growing, though this may have changed a bit after 2002. But I think the population of the Municipality is no more than 2.1-2.2 million at most. Ronline ✉ 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

i just removed A poor city, where street dogs, beggars, and uncollected rubbish can make life difficult, it does have its charms. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, this is its weekness. Anti-Romanian Propagandists trying to build a false image about anything Romanian to the english reader, using Wikipedia as Propaganda channel, will have to understand that Romanians access to internet increases, and there will be more Romanian editors on Wikipedia in the future. Criztu 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. Statements like that actually make me very angry, particularly this idea of "poor". What is "poor" meant to mean anyway? You hear a lot of people arbitrarily saying "that's a poor country" or a "poor city". But "poor" without any further explanation basically refers to low-income countries and perhaps to some lower-middle income countries. Romania is an upper-middle income, and thus cannot be objectively classified as poor on an international scale. In fact, "rich" would probably be a more accurate description if we're really into seeing the world in a rich-poor binary system. With a GDP per capita more than double that of Romania, Bucharest is hardly "poor". We can say that the city is "relatively poor by European Union standards", but that's about it. Conversely, we could say that the city is "relatively wealthy by regional standards". I fail to see the point of such a comparison. Finally, though, I don't think that statement was intentional propaganda or an "Anti-Romanian" attempt. It's just that people have some stereotypes about the city dating from the 1990s which they can't get rid of. But it's proven statistically that the number of beggars is less in Bucharest than in other cities, and uncollected rubbish is more of a problem than in other European capitals, but far less of a problem than in the rest of the world. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

if u consider all articles about Romania, u will notice that, in the article about Dacia, these propaganda(or victims of propaganda) editors wrote "Trajan resolved to crush dacians once and for all", in the Roma people article they put an image with people wearing what i identified as romanian national costumes, and entitled "Roma in Transylvania", the Vlad Tepes article bears the title "Vlad Dracula" and anecdotes about him were presented as facts and he is referd to throughout the article as Dracula, in WW 1 Romania attacked the Central Powers from the back, and as soon as Romania was cornered cowardly signed a Peace Treaty that soon as situation changed and Central Powers weakened again, broke it, Transylvania is evidenced allover romanian articles as "Region Transylvania" and localities are situated "in Transylvania Region" instead of "Counties of Romania", when Transylvania has no actual administrative regional status, and there is more i cant remembere everything, but the overall image is a distortion of information about anything romanian as a result of Propaganda (may be it from other media channels) or with the intent of Propaganda Criztu 08:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that POV articles should all be corrected to conform to NPOV, but that this should also be done not in a pro-Romanian nationalistic way, as is too often the norm here. The Trasylvania issue is a bit different, and is actually used by a lot of Romanians, even though I don't particularly favour it. If you look over at the Romanian Wikipedia, you'll see that the articles on all localities start with "XYZ este o localitate în judeţul X, Transilvania, România". So it's not really any "external anti-Romanian propaganda". Plus, I really don't see how using Transylvania as a regional division is anti-Romanian. Sure, it has no administrative status, but it still is a cultural-historical (and geographic) region, and it's very much used by Romanians. In fact, regions are often used much more than counties in a cultural sense, since counties are quite arbitrary divisions. Most people I know describe a certain city as being in "Moldavia" or "Oltenia", and a person as being "oltean" or "moldovean" or "dobrogean" rather than "from Tulcea County" or "from Prahova County". So, these historical, informal regions are still somewhat important. I haven't seen any articles which say "Transylvania Region", with Region in capital letters, most of them just say stuff like "Oradea is a city in Bihor County, Transylvania, Romania", and I think that's OK, because it gives the reader much more information than just saying "Bihor County, Romania". Finally, I don't think there is a particular anti-Romanian bias in Wikipedia, since some articles are actually POV towards Romania, and articles about other countries are also affected by POV against them. We should seek to correct this, but also take into consideration the fact that the Romanian POV is usually not NPOV either. Ronline ✉ 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

well that form "locality X lies in county X, Transylvania, Romania" i regard as an achievement of Propaganda, and well, u see a form "Oradea is a city in Bihor County, Transylvania, Romania, cuz i edit all the articles that had the form "Oradea is a city in Transylvania region, Romania" Criztu 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's all over the Romanian Wikipedia, written by Romanians, and I don't see how it's in any way propaganda or anti-Romanian. Would you have anything against saying that "locality X lies in county X, Moldavia, Romania" or "--, Dobrogea, Romania". Do you deny the existence of these regions in Romania? Counties are administrative and official, but regions remain an important informal division. Or why not? Ronline ✉ 08:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if Academia Romana (or whoever edits an encyclopedia about geography of Romania) has "localitatea X, in judetul X, Transilvania, Romania" Criztu 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But what's the relevance of that? Perhaps an administrative almanac would not list localities with their historical regions, but how is including these regions negative or anti-Romanian? Ronline ✉ 09:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

well, i aint expert in propaganda, i dont know if my supposition that "by constantly associating places, persons, events, etc. with a Transylvania region, a consequent advancing of the ideea of a legal entity Transylvania separated from Romania would be regarded as a natural implementation of a status-quo by the public opinnion" would hold. Public opinnion i believe has to be informed about the true nature of Transylvania, that of a "former principality and autonomous province", and not "a province of Romania with special status" Criztu 10:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

here an effect of Propaganda in case of Transylvania - while no one bothers to mention name of Wallachia when it comes to locations in Romania, they all keep mentioning the name Transylvania when it comes to locations of Romania Criztu 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you do raise a valid point, but Transylvania is also probably the most different of the Romanian regions, having the strongest regional identity. But most city articles do not include any historical region, while most county articles, Transylvanian or not, do. (See the articles on the Wallachian, Dobrogean and Moldavian counties... they nearly all mention what region they're part of, as well). Ronline ✉ 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i think the persons who listed Wallachia or Moldavia as a location for a place in Romania tried to balance the excessive use of Transylvania as a location for places in Romania. i think that an adviced editor of an encyclopedia (say an editor of Britannica) would not have any hesitation in ordering the information according to an encyclopedic behaviour. one that does not mix ancestral Dacia or Roman Empire provinces with a modern location. since wikipedia lacks expert (or at least advanced) contributors, such erroneus/anarchic behaviour (that i considered to be a responce to propaganda vis-a-vis to Transylvania) keep lingering on wikipedia Criztu 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the case in depth, but I've been here for quite a long time, and I remember that when the county and city articles were first created, the regions were there first. I don't think they were added later to counterbalance the Transylvanian issue. And the regions of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia aren't only historical regions, they're also in contemporary use for cultural reasons. I'm not a particularly big fan of them myself, but you have to acknowledge that they're still there, and still used by Romanians as regional divisions, and hence can't just be removed and forgotten about totally. Ronline ✉ 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

as far as I know there is no regional division of Romania named Wallachia or Transylvania. An encyclopedia does not forget that there was a Principality of Wallachia or Transylvania; mentioning of Transylvania or Wallachia will be made in the History/Other informations paragraph about that location anyhow. there is no official document mentioning Wallahia (Tara Romaneasca) or Transylvania (Ardeal) as locations for any place in Romania. That the Romanian Weather TV Programs present the weather on a map with historical regions of Romania that doesnt make Britannica or Romanian Official documents state that "Bucharest is a city in Wallachia region, in Romania" (that would be laughable) Criztu 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

in line with the discussion above, everybody just take a look at the formulation in this ROmanian related article in Harghita article - "84.6% (276,106) of its population is Hungarian, making it the county with the highest proportion of Hungarians in Transylvania". for the editor who formulated this proposition, Harghita is a county of Transylvania inhabited by Hungarians who are majoritary, they are not hungarian ethnic minority and they dont live in Romania. if this isnt an irredentist POV/weasel words formulation, then i am not a dacian :)) Criztu 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think you're seeing things that aren't there. The sentence you cited is perfectly factual and is not written in any particular POV. I suppose it would be better to add "ethnic Hungarian" instead of "Hungarian", and I suppose that it would be more relevant to add that Harghita has the highest proportion of Hungarians in Romania, not just Transylvania, but these are really very minor edits that to most readers wouldn't affect the meaning in the slightest. I don't see how it implies that Transylvania is majority-Hungarian (is this what you mean?). Ronline ✉ 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

as i see Propaganda, "using true information, but selected information, incomplete information, can manipulate the image that one builts based on those informations." saying "Harghita has highest proportion of Hungarians in Transylvania" leaving "ethnic minority" and "Romania" unmentioned, the image that is built is "there is a country Transylvania that has a Hungarian population" Criztu 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article: "Its eclectic architecture - which is a mix of historical, Communist-era and modern - is not the least of them." I cannot see what "them" refers back to. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An infobox is for a quick summary of the most important facts. Accordingly, I've cut this long list of external links from the infobox. By the standards of WP:EL, I don't think some of them belong in the article at all—most of this would be more appropriate to WikiTravel; the link about the airport certainly belongs, if anywhere, in the article on the airport—so I have brought them here rather than add them to the External links section. If someone thinks a few belong in the External links section, fine, but do remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory.

• [6] RomaniaTourism.com
• [7] Bucharest-Online.com
• [8] Yahoo.com
• [9] Msn.com
• [10] HotelsRomania.com
• [11] Booking.com
• [12] Otp-Airport.ro
• [13] Bucharest-Guide.com
• [14] InYourPocket.com
• [15] VirtualTourist.com

- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need two very similar photos of Space Club rather than two contrasting venues? They are lovely photos, but putting two such similar pictures side by side is not usually Wikipedia's visual style. It's more for artistic effect than information. - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make it look nice by changing it to {{Infobox city in Romania}}, which is smaller. The other version looks sloppy. FYI, you might also want to see this... —Khoikhoi 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mastermindsro made numerous reversions without edit summaries. They all seemed wrong to me. I have re-reverted them one by one, with comments. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"prefect…acting as a liaison and facilitating the implementation of National Development Plans and governing programmes at local level." So, does the prefect govern programmes at a local level? Or does the prefect facilitate governing pogrammes at a local level? - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous references to a proposed unification of the metro and surface transit services in "early 2006", which has obviously since passed. Can anyone provide updated information? 208.190.179.2 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In [16] the allegation "Since the fall of Communism in 1989, several Communist-era buildings have been refurbished, modernised and used for other purposes." which is true, is served by a false example: "Perhaps the best example of this is the conversion of several agro-alimentary complexes into shopping malls and commercial centres."

Bucharest has currently some 4 to 5 shopping centers, of which none is housing in a former agro-alimentary complex (hunger circus).

--Vintila Barbu 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Unirea Shopping Center --Vintila Barbu 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross checking revealed that three present shopping malls have been indeed built on pre-existent structures of former hunger circuses: Bucharest Mall (Vitan), Plaza Romania (Drumul Taberei-Militari) and City Mall (Rahovei). Sorry ! --Vintila Barbu 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Museum of Art Collections contains the collections of a number of well-known Romanian art aficionados, including Krikor Zambaccian and Theodor Pallady." Is any significant portion of the Zambaccian collection still in the Museum of Art Collections? I thought his family had essentially settled with the Romanian government about it being separately displayed in the Zambaccian Museum. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this source chapter 2.5 [17] Lear 21 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To Peer-LAN user: Really, i have worked many days to improve this article cause I really love this city (I'm living here), and you came up telling me to stop spamming... Firstly what spam I've produced? The only thing I did is to ad my future cultural project (masterminds.ro) in the file name of the photos uploaded to wikipedia commons... Just report and see I'm right... If you manage to take some time an look at my contributions to this article you'll be surpised how much work I've been doing, images uploaded (self-made), chapters upgraded, chapters added etc. What did you contributed with? Mastermindsro

Stop spamming your webpage, Masterminds.ro , by adding your link in the name of images that were already on Wikipedia. Stop removing what I fixed in the article, the localization image I made for Bucharest is more logical; it's not your wikipedia article. I didn't removed what you wrote that wasn't spam. Grow up! Peer-LAN 11:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to show all countries in EU, the place of Romanian in EU, the place of Romania in Europe, The Place of Bucharest in Romania. Just let the image that shows where is located Bucharest within Romania. Please take a city tour articles from EU and see that all of them has ONLY internal localization! I WILL REPORT VANDALISM!

It's important to put Bucharest in an European Union context for tourists that came from abroad. What are saying, that you are going to report spamming all those fellows that wrote the Berlin article? Anyway, it's not up to you or me, let a peer review decide. And stop editing, just because you don't agree with it. It's easy for you to make out where it is because you live in Bucharest... Peer-LAN 12:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

YUP TRY DO THE SAME! I think i know better what Bucharest needs... Some lack of users like YOU!

Sorry, I didn't noticed I talk with a 3 year old. I will step out of this chat, at least I removed your spam. I'll let someone else choose what map image they want. If they want this version which you keep removing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bucharest&oldid=137232527 or something else. Peer-LAN 13:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever just begone! Phaseitem 13:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take as an example the majority - constituted from other city capitals articles not just one (as you said with Berlin). We have to consult not just one source... The infobox is now similar to Paris, London, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague etc. Just leave it in this format... Phaseitem 13:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the "Treaties signed in Bucharest" chapter to "History" as it was only a table... Plus I have re-styled the tables to look nicer. Phaseitem 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The founder of Bucharest it isn't known... so i removed from infobox "Founded: 1459 by Vlad III" and replaced with just "Founded: 1459 (first mentioned)", so as you can see we can't say that Bucharest was "Founded" in that year or to say that Vlad III (Tepes) was the founder when he only mentioned the city in a paper... For further details look at http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/bucuresti/istorie.html Mastermindsro 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are currently about 3-4 pictures depicting absolutely nothing but some sort of building under construction. No offence to the person that took those pictures, but the not so good quality pictures should be replaced or taken out completely. Dapiks 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the new film "Ils" to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSnake (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, this article lacks sources. I am typing up more at the moment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, the article lacks a lot of sources. The history section doesn't needs sources, since it is in the daughter article, but large parts of the rest of the article need to be sourced.
• Wikitravel should not be in EL section. Wikis are not RS.
• The sources need to be filled out thoroughyl with date, author, publisher where possible. One of the sources is a ro-wiki page. Wiki is not RS. PLease take a look at {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} to get the sources formatted correctly.
• Generally, do not put comments next to the "see also" entries
• The mentions in the films need to be removed. IT is not encyclopeidc and is getting undue weight here. It would also have needed to be prosified
• The football table should be in prose. Also, why does it say that there are 5 clubs in 1st div when the table says three of them are now in 2nd or 3rd div. Was there a sport academy in Buicharest during the communist era? If so, then that needs to be discussed
• Media. Last sentence needs to be integrated into a para
• The massive gallery needs to be taken out, since it interferes with the text prose. I think there is enough about architecture to make a daughter article and cut down the main article. The main article is quite long (42k main prose) and in the daughter article, there is more space for discussing articles, there are simply too much at the moment.
• Architecture. Please be more selective with pictures. There are too much at the moment and prose is snadiwched on both sides
• Same in landmarks. Prose is sandwiched. Also having the panorama cut across the whole page is inappropriate.
• You'll need a cite for the corruption. WP:LIBEL
• Also need a cite for associating high crime with Roma communities
• The list of treaties held in Bucharest is not importnant enough. It is much less important than staging large sporting events or military attacks
• Most of the recent history is neither sourced in the main article or in the daughter article
• history is a bit too heavy on CEaucescu era. The post 1965 era is 33% of the history section
• Short paras in the etymology need to be combined.
• Article has some contractions, which need to be removed.
• Article also has POV in places "Ceauşescu's megalomaniac constructions."
• You also need to source the info about the crime gang per WP:BLP

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Bucharest's extensive public transport system is the largest in Romania and the third largest in Europe" That means that Bucharest have a more developped transport system than Moscow, Paris, London, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, Milano, Berlin, Istanbul. St. Peterburg or Kiev ? I have big doubts about that and i would like to have any serious references or the statement should be removed. The Bucharests's system is surely well extented but i do not think that is 3rd in Europe. Any reference is also welcome about the "one million vehicles in the city" which is doubtfull. That would mean that in the inner Paris there is an equal number of vehicles as in Bucharest.

Of course the statement about "the transport system is the third largest in Europe" is an exageration. But unfortunately the reference about "one million vehicles in the city" is not. This million vehicles (20% of the vehicles of Romania) are poisoning the air, invading the parks with parking lots and strangling the municipal transport lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article misses a few important things, such as the subject on straydogs; orphans and streetchildren; gangs, organized crime and corruption; poor infrastructure; arrogance of the city's inhabitans; and lastly, the Asian influence of the city: in both culture and genetics. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add things that are missing and are documented and encyclopedic, for the last time though I ask you to stop the racist comments (the Asian influence of the city: in both culture and genetics) This is not the first time you do it. Thank you. -- AdrianTM 15:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Asian comment is sourced. I read it in a book called "Bucurestii Mahalalelor sau periferia ca mod de existenta", Majuru, Adrian.compania. ISBN 973-8119-78-2. I also read it in another place where it said that some 40-percent of all Bucharestneans are of Rroma origin. Why would that be a bad thing? I also have another book, written by the same guy, called "Bucurestiul Subteran: cersetorie, delincventa, vagabondaj." I just wait to start reading these two for real, so that I can contribute to the Wikipedia article. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all why would we be interested of genetics of people living in a city, second I see this in a worrying pattern, you already said on another page that "Muntenians are a different race of mammals" please keep your racist theories for yourself. While I'm open to discuss and "Asian influence" in culture -- please explain what kind of culture (music? theatre? painting? architecture?) and what kind of Asian (East Asian? Indian (through gypsy immigration)? Turkish (maybe some Turkish toilets or baths? -- but that's not quite "culture") so please be more specific.

While is nothing bad about being Asian or gypsy the way you throw things is, you can't fool anybody, it's like I would say that for example "New Orleans is a filthy and crime ridden city, and it's full of blacks" -- the fact that it's filthy might be sourced in whatever book, the fact that many blacks live there is factual and it's nothing wrong with it, putting all together like this would be racist -- I am not interested in Bucharest genetic composition and I think there were no studies regarding that, you claim that you read "in another place" about it, please provide the information to see if it's a reliable source. And lastly and more importantly even if you find such source, please don't mix race and culture issue with straydogs, gangs, organized crime and corruption, arrogance of inhabitants, because you sound racist. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right... --Thus Spake Anittas 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas claims that 40% of Bucharesters are Gypsies. According to the 2002 census, there are exactly 535250 people of Roma ethnicity in Romania, and, according to the 2006 Statistics Yearbook, there are exactly 1924959 inhabitants in Bucharest. 40%*1924959=769983. That is over 200000 more Roma than Romania has. Even if EVERY Romanian Roma would live in Bucharest (which is clearly not true), only 27.9% of the population of Bucharest would be of Roma ethnicity. And I tend to believe the census data, that freely asked EVERYBODY in the country what they defined themselves as, rather than some-organization or the other, categorizing people according to God knows what methodology. So, even if some author says a factoid, if the actual data contradicts it, it stays in the realms of fiction rather than fact. More, Majuru never speaks of an "Asian influence", rather of "Turkish, Phanariote and Jewish elements" shaping the image of the "mahala" in the early 19th century. Most of his books are chronicles of the "underground city", interesting references about the hidden city of outcasts within the larger city. Majuru does NOT deal with genetics in any of his books... And what about "orphans and streetchildren"? They may have been an issue in the early 1990s (hugely expanded by much of the media of that time), but nowadays, it's a total non-issue, there are probably less than 20 "aurolaci" left in the city, if not even less (a far larger issue is minor vandalism and graffiti). --Xanthar (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anittas was already banned from Wikipedia for racism/stupidity, let's not revisit this issue. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "bucharest pop estimates" :
  • {{ro icon}} {{cite web|url=http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea-europeana/articles%7CdisplayArticle/articleID_7397/Populatia-Romaniei-scade-de-la-an-la-an.html|title="Populatia Romaniei scade de la an la an"|first=[[Government of Romania]]|last=[[National Institute of Statistics (Romania)|INS]]|accessdate=2007-03-07}}
  • {{ro icon}} {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union_by_population_within_city_limits#100_Most_populous_cities|title="Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits"|accessdate=2007-03-07}}
  • {{ro icon}} {{cite web|url=http://www.bucuresti.insse.ro/main.php?lang=fr&pageid=410|title="Populaţia, pe sexe şi medii, la 1 iulie"|first=[[Government of Romania]]|last=[[National Institute of Statistics (Romania)|INS]]|accessdate=2007-03-07}}
• "hf" :
  • {{PDFlink|[http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/press/16-pdf3.pdf Worldwide Street Children statistics]|20.5 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 21032 bytes -->}}, [[Hilton Foundation]]/[[Council of Europe]]
  • [see above]

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article says that "University Square" is km 0. I thought the official km 0 was in front of Biserica Sf. Gheorge. - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed this accordingly; User:Mastermindsro reverted. What's going on? Same user also reverted many other recent changes, none of which look to me to have been in error; even restored some non-English words. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The new KM 0 is in Piata Universitatii. It has been like that for about 5 years or more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the name of Bucharest explained in this article? I think it should be. If we are to translate the name into English, wouldn't it be Gayshire? Would it be okay to add that translation to the article? All for the good of information, of course. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just added Etymology chapter, thanks for the ideea :) Phaseitem 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gayshire? Probably if you're talking about yourself. Bucuresti comes from the name of , probably legend figure, Bucur, a peasant who came with his sheep in this area and made a fair, or market, here. The termination "-esti" is just the substantivization of Bucur's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The city of Bucharest was just a chain of villages. These villages got some significance under Vlad III Dracula, as he upgrated the fortress that was to protect these villages. He prefered to stay in Bucharest, at times, as it was closer to the Ottoman Empire. He also fortified the Snagov island and the monastary, where he committed horrible acts of evil. In his third reign, he moved his headquorters from Targoviste to Bucharest. He died in late December 1476 and 513 years later, another evil Wallachian would die by the hands of his own people. What I'm getting at is that your city was born of evil, fed by evil, and is now evil. I think the city and its people are cursed. You are, however, master thieves. I'm not talking about the thieves that rob tourists and other hardworking citizens, nor am I talking about your politicians that have robbed the country and denied a reunification with Republic of Moldova. I'm talking about you stealing by legal ways. When the Two Principalities united, both regions were meant to develop at an equal pace. You, however, stole the de-facto capital of Iasi to Bucharest. Afterwards, you sent Cuza into exile and everything since then has gone wrong. You shameful beasts! You developed your own backyard while letting an entire historical region fall in decay. That historical region would've developed more on its own than under your corrupted leadership. But this is not what bothers me most. What bothers me most is that you, Tatars or whatever you are, think too highly of your selves. And why? Look in the mirror from time to time. You brag about your kids winning mathematic olympiads, as if you're saving the world from starvation. You're a people with no virtue. Your accent is ridiculous and you think that you are more Romanian than others. Your snobbery disgusts me! Anyway, I hope Steaua will win over Middlesbrough. Some Bucharestneans are okay, but most of you are idiots. Thanks for your precious time! --Candide, or Optimism 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously thinking that someone will believe this? "your city was born of evil, fed by evil, and is now evil. I think the city and its people are cursed. You are, however, master thieves"

Haha, that was hilarious. You are obviously not too smart, but don't be sad, there are a lot of people with your level of intelligence in this world. Maybe the inferiority complex hit you hard when you wrote your message or maybe you were traumatize at some point in your life, I feel sad for you. Anyway, try get over it and go on with your life, stop hurting you mind with pointless questions. Good luck ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peer-LAN (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Wow. Just wow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.120.210.195 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Chinese people say that same thing about Shanghai. Many provincial French say the same thing about Paris. Antagonism for people of the capital city is a trend in most countries of the world, particularly those where the capital is by far the largest and most important city. I'm not from Bucharest, so I don't have a personal interest here, but I think, as I said before, that what's good for Bucharest is good for Romania, and that hence any internal conflict just makes the entire country weaker and doesn't reflect well on any of us. Ronline ✉ 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, Candide, or Optimism could do with some counseling! --24.18.177.212 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that this is added back, do you have any reference about it, does anybody call Bucharest like that anymore? From what I know that might have been some historical nickname, it seems like all the cities were called the "Little Paris of..." at some point in history, do you have a reference that Bucharest is called like this in a consistent way anytime after 1945? man with one red shoe (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See it in use in articles in Evenimentul Zilei, Adevarul, Cotidianul, Ziua etc. bogdan (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, those links don't prove anything, it's about foreigners who call Bucharest "Little Paris" you provided a bunch of Romanian newspapers that use the wording "micul paris" in different contexts, for example one of the article has this title "Nu vrem să redevenim Micul Paris" (we don't want to become again the Little Paris) which actually supports my point of view since you can't "become again" something that you are. Another is the name of a circus show: "Daca sambata biletele la „Micul Paris”- prezentat in sala Circului transformata", please provide proof that this name is used by foreigners (especially English speakers since this is an English encyclopedia) and not by Romanians in a historical context. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were two articles out of 50 articles. Anyway, the Bucharesters still call it and that's what it matters. The nickname can also be found in plenty of English sources, like city guides. bogdan (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't go through all the articles, the point it that it was called "Little Paris" at a point in history when many Bucharesters were speaking French, were interested in French culture and the architecture of the city was inspired by Paris architecture, nowadays the architecture is strongly influenced by the communist period, fewer people speak French and virtually nobody calls Bucharest like that anymore, only some Romanian newspapers mostly in historical context or in a nostalgically or mocking manner. Buttom line: it's no longer current and your link from Romanians newspapers don't prove that it's still used by foreigners or even by Romanians in a current way rather than as a historical nickname or even in a mocking way (as most of the newspapers use it) man with one red shoe (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, here's google books:

• Jeri Laber, The Courage of Strangers: Coming of Age With the Human Rights Movement, 2005, p.186: "Bucharest had once been called the 'little Paris of the East' because of its wide, tree-lined boulevards and elegant buildings."
• Stanley D. Brunn, Jack Francis Williams, Donald J. Zeigler, Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development, p.213: "The city enjoyed continued growth up to World War II and even came to be known as the 'Paris of the East'."
• Stephen Sennott, Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture. Vol.I: A-F, 2004, p.182: "French [architectural] influence [...] became so considerable that the city was nicknamed 'Little Paris'"
• Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe, 2001, p.267: "the Dîmboviţa became a source o embarrassment for the people of Bucharest. Hardly a little Seine for Little Paris!"
• Denise Roman, Fragmented Identities: Popular Culture, Sex, and Everyday Life in Postcommunist Romania, 2007, p.6: "during the 30s, when Countess Waldeck's Bucharest was known as 'little Paris'."
• Israel Goldstein, My World as a Jew, 1984, p.126: "Bucharest, the Rumanian capital, had once been renowned as the 'little Paris' of Eastern Europe."

This could go and on, but I got tired of copy-pasting snippets. Let me just add that the nickname was also used in what is arguably one of the best-known quotes in Romanian literature (the start of the original Mitică sketch). [Btw, having contributed that article, I'm probably not the best person to judge, but maybe a reference to Mitică deserves to be made in this one?]

To the objection that "foreigners did not call it that". No, it's not true - they did. But, even if it were true, I have to say: so what? What matters is that some (locals or foreigners) called it that, and the nickname stopped. Also, it's in no way clear that it was known as such because of people knowing and speaking French (a transient quality) - at least one usage makes it clear that it was in reference to it having copied Paris in architectural design (which, no matter how contested by communist architecture, has made a lasting impression on the city). It also doesn't matter if the nickname was used before more than it is now: I challenge anyone to tell me when a nickname goes out of use (besides, the article mainly states that this is something in the past).

There is however a point on which I can agree with Alex's argument, though I don't know if this is what's being debated here. From my perspective, the whole nickname-in-the-infobox is completely wrong. For starters, it is ambitious in that annoying way that we see so often around here: editors who think that everything can be fitted into two or three words; it claims that a city can have just one (or two, or three) nickname(s), and when debates surrounding this arise, they go on to claim that "it's only the important ones we want" (which is so against WP:POV that it's not even funny). Second of all, it strikes me as Americanocentric, or even Americana (i.e, I don't know if such a thing would be feasible or relevant even in America, where they do it as the supposed rule). I admit I am a reductionist: facing a problem with deciding what's significant and what isn't? then kill the criterion and move on - a text can always handle what an infobox manifestly can't.

But that, gentlemen, is a completely irrelevant issue here: if you want to do something about the infobox and what goes in it, then persuade them to stop doing it elsewhere.

Before I stop boring you, let me add: part of this article is messy, vague, unreferenced, non-uniform, unfocused and includes lists where prose should be. When you're done debating these comparatively insignificant details, could you please start doing something about that? Dahn (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not going to watch this page for now (I don't want to get tangled in this for now). If there's anything that you want to say to me directly in reference to my post that you feel needs my attention/response, please let me know on my talk page that you have posted such a message here. Dahn (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, first of all I give up this discussion, my two reverts in this matter were rewarded with a complain to ANI, which is seem to me a bit excessive, and it also looks like whatever I would say here will be used against me that "I don't accept the consensus". I just want to point two things: Dahn's quotes mostly use the past tense, I never claimed that it wasn't called this way by some people, the issue is that's not called this way anymore, if it's called this way is only in historical context (as in "once called Little Paris") or in a mocking/nostalgically context. I also agree that a nickname shouldn't have a place in infobox... but again this issue is up to other editors, not me. man with one red shoe (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The nickname in the infobox seem unwarranted. Also, I could be wrong about this, but my impression is that current usage in the Romanian press of the nickname is in somewhat different context than the historical one. It seems that recent press articles use the nickname in a sarcastic manner, whereas the historical usage (and travel guide reports thereof) was "for real". VG ☎ 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I meant, it's mostly used in a mocking or sarcastic manner. That alone should warrant removing it from the infobox. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"It was originally known as Dâmboviţa citadel" -- I don't want to be picky, but when it was called this way, by whom (any reference)? man with one red shoe (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found this in History of Bucharest: "The theory identifying Bucharest with a "Dâmboviţa citadel" and pârcălab mentioned in connection with Vladislav I of Wallachia (in the 1370s)[15] is contradicted by archaeology, which has shown that the area was virtually uninhabited during the 14th century." -- so I think we should remove this bit till we have a clear reference. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is loaded with too many images, we don't need to add pictures with stray dogs (people know how dogs look like and this has low relevance to the article). man with one red shoe 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review it ! You put 39C as July average maximum (it is the highest ever recorded as in that link; the official highest is 42.4, 5th July 2000)!

This link is from World Meteorological Organization : http://www.worldweather.org/183/c00200.htm

Daniel77o 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The head photo collage is embaracing at most. The football stadium is not the first revelant glimpse, the Russian church is after all uniquelly Russian and has nothing to do with the city, the ex securitate building turned office bulding is quite cynical and the repetition of the sight of the palace of the parliament gives the impression that there is not much else to see. Poor city marketing when significant landmarks suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.66.173 (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the climate data taken from? It seems to indicate a higher yearly average than in actuality. The cold months Dec-Feb are definitely colder in reality. Nov and Mar could be just a bit colder. May be that the table reflects the temperatures of a particular year, but my maim impression is that they are plain wrong. The warm months seem good. Here's a link for reference, though not sure about accuracy: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=2451&refer=&units=metric —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

On the map it is not Bucharest shown - it is a total different city Bucuresci !

It's the same city. See the first line of the article, or two different maps (English and Romanian). BrainMarble (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Budapest is included twice in the list, with two different dates and no sources. Can anyone point to the truth? --Microcell (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What is more, that date in the Romanian article coincides with neither of these... --Microcell (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bucharest definitely gets more sunshine hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Used the data from "climate of Romania" article to correct the data.IoanC (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Lia-manoliu-cm.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Stadionul National L.M.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Oprescusorin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Mercer Quality of Life survey became since at leasat 10 years a reference for comparing this quite incommensurable thing. I think it is a good idea to keep it here in the article, as it gives, quite similar as other "measuables" (climate, justice, etc.) a good orientation when it comes to positioning the city in an international context. Also, as the stray dogs problem is still a problem of the city, it is importnat to keep it as an important information for tourists - as unpleasant as it might be for local or overseas bucharest patriots: "The possibility that another person gets killed is extremely high because there are so many dogs on the streets, said Mihai Atanasoaie the prefect of Bucharest" (May 2011) http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/110429/bucharest-romania-stray-dogs

For some unexplained reason, the user CaptainFugu deleted these two sections, without leaving any note about this, on 2011, july 4. (Independence day of dogs? :) --Horia mar (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, what bugs me most is that neither section has anything to do with law or government, so they have no place in that section. Yes, we should mention the Mercer survey, perhaps in the intro, but as for the stray dogs, I don't see any justification to include a whole section about them on the main page. We could write a separate article perhaps, as is the case with Moscow, but mentioning the problem here seems a lot like singling out Bucharest for a problem which exists in cities across Asia and the former Eastern bloc (and I honestly doubt the possibility of getting killed is "extremely high", deaths from stray dogs are very rare). CaptainFugu (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It would be, anyway, nice if such themes would come into debate before deleting them in a taciturn way.

If a person risks to be killed by a dog, just one single person, this is already a serious matter. A japanese diplomat was killed in Bucharest. This lead to a diplomatic crisis between Japan and Romania. It is usual that people die of flu, but it is not an accepted or habitual fact that people die by being hunted by a pack of dogs on the streets of an european city. This is not normal, so even just one case is a serious matter, and here, the mayor that I cited is right. As this matter of stray dogs is not usual anywhere else in the world (if we consider cities with the pretences of Bucharest) it is a serious matter. Let's treat things how they are, and not how one would like to have them (wishful thinking about Bucharest and Romania - I met it here a lot!). Wikipedia is a place where nobody should subjectively defend his love for one city or another. These stray dogs are facts. If one likes them or not.

In detail, of course that one could write a separate article about the matter of stray dogs, that should be, anyway and compulsory, mentioned in the main article about Bucharest. But, if continuing the logic of you: why a WHOLE article, if this matter is not so important? Why not just mentioning it somewhere in the article here? If it is a whole section, or just a paragraph, or where it is best positioned, in these regards I have nothing to comment. I leave it to people that are experienced in organising content in wiki, and which I hope are... impartial :) --Horia mar (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to fight the problems of stray dogs or for advocating what is an important problem or not, it's about presenting relevant information from reliable sources and to present things in a balanced manner. There's a matter of "undue weight", for example dogs account for 31 deaths per year in the US, even if you take the population size into consideration is still more than one random death caused by stray dogs in Bucharest, yet, we should not mention that dogs are big danger in US, not because it's not true or tragic that people are killed by dogs every year in US, it's because that would be "undue weight", same with Bucharest. And by the way you probably haven't traveled too much, I've seen stray dogs in many cities around the world. As for "cities with the pretences of Bucharest" I can't tell, since I don't know what "pretences" different cities have... -- man with one red shoe 23:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Intercontinental Hotel 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Basarab Overpass.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Provisional census data are considered more accurate than old data estimates. It is nothing wrong to have these data replaced, as per last official releases from the National Institute of Statistics.

On Wikipedia, it is a common practice to update statistics data, for example, see: 2011 census of India#Census report + India#Demographics.

Thank you,

(Rgvis (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

An image used in this article, File:Bucharest Citaro bus 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bucharest Citaro bus 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Seagul statue herastrau park.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Seagul statue herastrau park.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ranked 76th on global city competitiveness. rated as a "Beta Global City".

per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

in addition, based on the definition of "Primate City" per wikipedia, it appears Bucharest qualifies for such designation as well since it ranks number 1 in various criteria and is approx 5x larger in population than the next city.

Gizziiusa (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)gizziiusa if this info is already on the article. please disregard and delete this message. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Could someone with local knowledge have a look at this section. The last paragraph isn't very clear at the moment. RashersTierney (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone add etymological information for the form of the name in English (i.e. how it came to be Bucharest, with a 'ch', an 'a' and an 's', and not, for example, Bucuresht or Bucureshti or anything along the lines of the Romanian name)? 2A02:8109:9340:136C:A919:613D:DF18:44C (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The article cites an inaccessible former page at the site of Evenimentul Zilei for an "unofficial" estimate of the population of the city that is almost 50% higher than the numbers that come from what would normally be considered reliable sources for populations. Why is that worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? - Jmabel | Talk 03:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have changed this line from infobox: "Founded: 1459 by Vlad III Dracula" to "Founded: 1459 by Vlad III". I am sure that Vlad's real name isn't "Dracula" but "Vlad Dracul" or just "Vlad III". Dracula it's just a nickname so we don't have to mention it...

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bucharest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716235242/http://b.politiaromana.ro/pdf/Security_Marketing_Projects/PI.12.2007%20en.xls to http://b.politiaromana.ro/pdf/Security_Marketing_Projects/PI.12.2007%20en.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006194411/http://www.actmedia.eu:80/top+story/bucharest+keeps+108+in+the+mercer+top+dedicated+to+life+quality+/20379 to http://www.actmedia.eu/top+story/bucharest+keeps+108+in+the+mercer+top+dedicated+to+life+quality+/20379

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's working. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the Albanian word "bukur" (beautiful) be added in the etymology section? It is listed as a cognate of Romanian name "Bukur" and it is of possible Dacian origin as the Romanian word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.173 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

QS rank: 651-700, source http://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-bucharest . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Bucharest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221002454/http://museum.ici.ro:80/mbucur/english/micparis.htm to http://museum.ici.ro/mbucur/english/micparis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221002454/http://museum.ici.ro:80/mbucur/english/micparis.htm to http://museum.ici.ro/mbucur/english/micparis.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metropolregion.nuernberg.de/download/Bukarest_ME.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128070248/https://www.articles.totallyexpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/QoL-2010-Rankings.pdf to http://www.articles.totallyexpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/QoL-2010-Rankings.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.osf.ro/rourbana/07_religiozitate.doc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.erionet.org/JIM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.videanu.ro/program/index.php?pag=program&cap=13-6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825200813/http://pasajulbasarab.ro:80/bucurestenii-beneficiaza-de-cel-mai-mare-punct-intermodal-din-romania.html to http://pasajulbasarab.ro/bucurestenii-beneficiaza-de-cel-mai-mare-punct-intermodal-din-romania.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www3.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/cadlem/secretarias/negocios_juridicos/cadlem/integra.asp?alt=11072007L
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ase.edu.ro/engleza/life_bucharest/history.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chisinau.md/tabview.php?l=ro&idc=526

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002205221/https://www.nights.ro:80/clubs/bucharest/kristal to http://www.nights.ro/clubs/bucharest/kristal/

Reason: timeout. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Bucharest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313160507/http://www.pwcglobal.com/ro/eng/ins-sol/spec-int/Regional%20Attractiveness%20Index.pdf to http://www.pwcglobal.com/ro/eng/ins-sol/spec-int/Regional%20Attractiveness%20Index.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929164505/http://onlinegallery.ro/gradina_bot_bucurestie.html to http://www.onlinegallery.ro/gradina_bot_bucurestie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.actmedia.eu/top%2Bstory/bucharest%2Bkeeps%2B108%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bmercer%2Btop%2Bdedicated%2Bto%2Blife%2Bquality%2B/20379
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sector3primarie.ro/portal/portal3.nsf/AllById/1.1.2.0/%24FILE/Populatia%2Bsi%2Bfenomene%2Bdemografice%2Bpe%2Bsectoare%2Badministrative%2Bale%2BMunicipiului%2BBucuresti.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.erionet.org/JIM%2BRomania.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140620191159/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/main_tables to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/main_tables
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216081436/http://www.sfin.ro/articol_8335/atacul_clonelor_in_taximetria_bucuresteana.html to http://www.sfin.ro/articol_8335/atacul_clonelor_in_taximetria_bucuresteana.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pasajulbasarab.ro/bucurestenii-beneficiaza-de-cel-mai-mare-punct-intermodal-din-romania.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217024722/http://www.sfin.ro/articol_1992/_memorialul_renasterii___ce_oribilitate_.html to http://www.sfin.ro/articol_1992/_memorialul_renasterii___ce_oribilitate_.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nights.ro/clubs/bucharest/kristal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219163629/http://www.daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=5737 to http://www.daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=5737
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503090658/http://www.cotidianul.ro/numarul_studentilor_straini_din_romania_s_a_dublat-44485.html to http://www.cotidianul.ro/numarul_studentilor_straini_din_romania_s_a_dublat-44485.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920152156/http://www.realitatea.net/cele-mai-bune-universitati-si-specializari-din-romania_722951.html to http://www.realitatea.net/cele-mai-bune-universitati-si-specializari-din-romania_722951.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://museum.ici.ro/mbucur/english/micparis.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028180259/http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/kokkalis/GSW5/bucica.pdf to http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/kokkalis/GSW5/bucica.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bucharest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629000912/http://ziarero.antena3.ro/1219615094-Unul_din_trei_angajati_in_Bucuresti_e_navetist_Tot_mai_multi_si_de_tot_mai_departe to http://ziarero.antena3.ro/1219615094-Unul_din_trei_angajati_in_Bucuresti_e_navetist_Tot_mai_multi_si_de_tot_mai_departe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719063019/http://www.bucuresti.insse.ro/cmsbuc/rw/resource/comunicat%20date%20provizorii%20rpl%202011%20bucuresti.pdf to http://www.bucuresti.insse.ro/cmsbuc/rw/resource/comunicat%20date%20provizorii%20rpl%202011%20bucuresti.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520215804/http://b-iff.ro/poveste/ to http://b-iff.ro/poveste/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030808062837/http://www1.pmb.ro/pmb/index_en.htm to http://www1.pmb.ro/pmb/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030808062837/http://www1.pmb.ro/pmb/index_en.htm to http://www1.pmb.ro/pmb/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bucharest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170402074543/http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7962764/1-30032017-AP-EN.pdf/4e9c09e5-c743-41a5-afc8-eb4aa89913f6 to http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7962764/1-30032017-AP-EN.pdf/4e9c09e5-c743-41a5-afc8-eb4aa89913f6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208075915/http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/press/16-pdf3.pdf to http://www.hiltonfoundation.org/press/16-pdf3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220111559/http://www.codatu.org/wp-content/uploads/PRESENTATION-Evaluation-of-the-performance-of-urban-public-transport-connectivity-EN.pdf to http://www.codatu.org/wp-content/uploads/PRESENTATION-Evaluation-of-the-performance-of-urban-public-transport-connectivity-EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521031403/http://www.muzeul-satului.ro/viziteaza-muzeul to http://www.muzeul-satului.ro/viziteaza-muzeul

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Any sources that the flag actually exists? I haven't seen it flying anywhere and the city hall website only mentions the Coat of Arms... Haltik (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Monumentul Aviatorilor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arcul de triumf 2012 - panoramio.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 1. Bucuresti, Romania. Primaria Capitaliei , 28.02.2018.jpg (discussion)
• Palatul Kretzulescu.jpg (discussion)
• Protest against corruption - Bucharest 2017 - Arcul de Triumf - 2.jpg (discussion)
• Triumphbogen Bukarest.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to congratulate all of you for the beautiful contribution on Bucharest! I guess that over the years. Christina (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arcul de Triumf (24396923048).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Biblioteca Nationala 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Palace Of Parliament Bucharest (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Casa Presei Libere, Bucuresti, 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose removing it. There’s a separate article with the same content, it’s unsourced, far too long and not standard for city articles. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Catedrala Mântuirii Neamului - București (Iulie 2020).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• City Gate Towers.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If we mention the population has decreased, it's only according to probably less sources. So I have removed the part mentioning a decrease since 2002. Because. https://www.economica.net/ilfovul-regiunea-cu-cea-mai-mare-crestere-a-populatiei-din-ue-trendul-se-va-pastra-pana-in-2050_125150.html and https://www.wall-street.ro/special/wall-street-360/189586/wienerberger-populatia-bucurestiului-va-depasi-3-5-mil-locuitori-in-urmatorii-ani-piata-creste-si-asistam-la-o-urbanizare-masiva.html#gref

Ilfov County is getting the most populated in the entire Romania. We don't know also how accurate was the 2002 census. It's unclear in the Romanian capital because of the suburbs. Overall, the population around Bucharest has increased. Contrary to what is happening in the country of Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0f:310c:2200:5568:a44a:a99d:70c0 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 47, Bulevardul Regina Elisabeta, Bucharest (Romania).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ROU Bucharest Flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Biblioteca Națională a României.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ceausescu Palace (43095103491).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arcul de Triumf-Bucuresti.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Globalworth Tower Bucharest.jpg (discussion)
• Sky Tower Bucharest - panoramio.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Asmita Gardens.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Financial Plaza Bucuresti 1.jpg (discussion)
• Romania-1193 - Union Square (7557758988).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• City Gate Bucharest.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 360 F 276432404 hCmKPdFFa6sgCI3qPNfLLMBjMbrWFVHm.jpg
• Palace of Parliament.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arc de triumf.png
• Hotel-Pullman-Bucuresti.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rebirth Monument.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)