Wikipedia

Talk:Sofia/Archive 2

< Talk:Sofia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 185.65.134.164 in topic "A concentration of 17.5% of the country population within the 200th percentile of the country territory"
Archive 1Archive 2

Collage

Latest comment: 9 years ago29 comments10 people in discussion

Which collage to use? I personally favour the left one, because the right one has low diversity with three churches and the saint from name section. And generally the modification of the images at the right collage and the way they are cut make some views worse in my opinion. --Serdik (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Sofia Collage TB.png
File:Sofia mosaic 5.jpg
Thank you for your opinion. I think the right one, because there are too many images in the left one and reader can lose in this mosaic. Look at the collage of Paris - only 5 images, from which 1 is a panoramic view. Or London - 3 images, Madrid - 4. Even these 7 images in right mosaic are too many, so diversity is the last one, which you can criticize. We don't need to show all buildings in Sofia. These churches, seen in the right collage are very important. Boyana Curch was included in UNESCO list, Alexander Nevsky cathedral is one of the biggest cathedrals in the Orthodox world. St. George Rotonda representing the late Roman archietecture, Boyana Church - the medieval Bulgarian and Al. Nevsky - neo-Byzantine architecture, after the Liberation. If churces are many, by you, I can to replace some of hem with another one, which representing the same architectual style. For example - St. George Rotonda to Roman Walls of Serdika or someting other.--Stolichanin (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The right one is more beautiful, by me. What landmark is the mall. Paris is full with malls, but no one in their collage. Селяния по нашенски. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.193 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The right one should be removed from the article.--87.227.208.89 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Изображението Sofia 333.jpg е най- добрият вариант, според мен.--Green skokljo (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sofia 333.jpg

 

 File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 06.jpg
  
  

Two images more. I don't insist for neither of the two images, but the left one at the bottom is editable, so anybody can change its pictures, I insist for the inclusion of Vitosha, Alexander Nevsky, the Parliament, the Largo and NDK, which are symbolic and are still being replaced without any explanation, I don't mind if the other images are replaced. Stolichanin, please be more civil and join the construction of a collage, based on the views of all editors instead of creating new accounts and trolls to support your own image . I explained which images individually I insist to be included in the image- Vitosha, the Parliament, Alexander Nevsky, the Largo and NDK. Please, you do.-Serdik (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The right one is very beautiful and much representative by me.--85.118.69.145 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

НДК е достатъчно като представител на соцархитектурата. В лявото изображение напълно отсъстват исторически сгради като Св. София. А снимката на Витоша е направо ужасна. Десният вариант е по- добър, понеже представя много по голямо разнообразие на обекти и исторически епохи и стилове--Green skokljo (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Green skokljo - Hi. Could you please post your comments in English, so that other editors on the English wiki can understand what you're saying? Thanks. And personally, I like the bottom right collage the best, a bit long, but shows the beauty of the city. Onel5969 TT me 13:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing about the last collage. I would remove the bottom photo. Then, on the second line of photos from the top, I would remove the 3 photos to the right of the statue, and replace then with two photos (one above the other), of the available photos I would use the one which is currently at the bottom of this collage, coupled with the futuristic shot on the bottom left of collage #3. Onel5969 TT me 13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, friends! What you think about that? I followed the advice of Onel5969 about the overview. Saint Sofia Church is keeping as Green skokljo want and finally I add the futuristic shot from the left image, given by Serdik. I hope you like it! Regards!--Stolichanin (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 

Stolichanin, Vitosha, the Parliament and the Largo are missing, a serious lack I think. The building of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Alexander Nevsky and the National Assemmbly are included in this photo (File:1-Sofia-parliament-square-ifb.JPG). The buildings at Tsarigradsko shose I uploaded are not that significant, so I suggest you may replace them with some of these. --Serdik (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the Parliament and Largo are of architectual styles, representing in the collage. We don't need by 2 or more than 2 buildings from one architectual style. Also, there are many significant and beautiful buildings in Sofia, but there is no place for all in only one mosaic. Too many images are problem, because the viewer can be lost in such multiplicity.--Stolichanin (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Stolichanin hits the nail on the head regarding # of photos in the montage. I like this last one, although I would make one definite change, and then perhaps one other. The buidling in the lower left, it may be very significant, but it's a pretty drab picture. I would swap it out. In one of the earlier montages, there's a night shot of what looks like a plaza, with the moon just slightly right of center. That's a pretty good photo, but if there is another shot of one of Sofia's lovely buildings, that could work. The other change I might suggest is that you add another shot that spans either the entire bottom, or the entire top. In that same earlier montage there's another shot, a panoroma with a statue of a guy on a horse, that would work. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Onel5969 TT me 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Onel!--Stolichanin (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the exact architectural styles of the Parliament and The Largo? They are hardly the same, the Parliament was built in the 19th century, while the Largo was built during communism. Largo, Sofia is regarded as one of the prime examples of Socialist Classicism architecture in Southeastern Europe. how significant do you guys think is Vitosha Mount? The section architectural styles may need revision, indeed. I consider the objects at the first three rows of the editable image of essential importance, not the photos themselves - just the objects. The fourth and the fifth row represent buildings of lesser importance, so if I'd replace some images - they would be from these rows; but the Statue of Saint Sofia on the fourth row really looks like the Statue of Liberty in NYC, which I like.--Serdik (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha! You said "What are the exact architectural styles of the Parliament and The Largo? They are hardly the same, the Parliament was built in the 19th century, while the Largo was built during communism" and then you give the answer alone "Largo is prime example of Socialist Classicism". Well, I never heard about Soc. Realism in 19th century. This style was beginning in Eastern Europe after 1917. The Parliament is a building, bearing traditions of Neoclassical architecture and Neo-Renaissance, but we have the National Theatre, which belongs to the same style. This type of architecture was influenced by the tradition of the Austrian architecture, particularly remarkable at this time and even many of the creators are Austrians or Bulgarians, studying in Austria as Konstantin Jovanović, Ferdinand Felner, Hermann Gottlieb Helmer, etc. You mentoined New York City: I think the Statue of St. Sofia should show up more than what you suggest, like the Statue of Liberty in their collage. This idea is representing in my last collage. --Stolichanin (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
And please, look at some old opinions about the Sofia's collage from other editors - [1], [2][3]

[4]--Stolichanin (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ithink you can make it exactly like in NYC. Statue of Sofia on the place of Statue of Liberty, Bg academy of sciences on United Nations place, some panoramic on top, Tsarigradsko on Times square, NDK on Unisphere, the Saint Sofia Church on Brooklyn Bridge, Ivan Vazov National Theatre on One world Trade Center, Borisova gradina on Central park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.69.49 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

How about not to upload mine or your image, but to edit together a common image? Like that much more people can participate. I agree with the inclusion of all images from your collage, but I object to the removal of the Largo and the Parliament as they are the most symbolic structures and I also object to the removal of the panorama with Vitosha, because it is the most summarizing view of the city.--Serdik (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for giving the idea to include the statue. As you see, some images I borrowed from your collage. This means you have good suggestions and vision for building the collage. Without you, the collage would have been worse. So keep the good work, Stolichanin. If you want to join the editable image, it would seem better if you replace the bottom part at first - the fourth or the fifth row. I think that Eagle's Bridge looks like the owl of the statue - so it definitely needs to be replaced with something, probably the Saint Sophia Church? The picture of the Largo looks better at File:Sofia_Collage.png, but is unfortunately outdated as the flags of all the NATO members have been removed yet. Maybe NDK can have a better photo during daylight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

From wherever you know that Sofia is one of the greenest capitals, there is a section Green Areas that may accomplish such information. Actually, this section prevented the article to get a GA status, so the whole section must be removed. All that Sofia is a green capital is just a rumor. And, please, Stolichanin, don't place the image of Borisova gradina, what so much beautiful do you notice in such an image if a garden-like small botanical garden with flowers? --Serdik (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are leading images in the article and similar details can be represented. There are no one neo-renaissance or neo-classical bulding in your template, but this is the dominating style, especially in the central part of the city. National Theatre is a one of the best examples about that. Many articles in WP about cities are dominated by such collages, like my suggestion. The template has a very bad painting perspective. The photos are losing each other, because of lacking border lines between the images. You said about New York City: in their collage is representing all, even the green Central park, not only stones. The both (you and IP) are right that they have a wonderfull mosaic, but I don't know what you do not want it in Sofia's collage.--Stolichanin (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As, above, Onel agreed for the panorama with the statue of the guy on the horse, the Largo and the moon, along with the futuristic image, there is already a consensus for these images, Stolichanin. We have both agreed for the Saint Sofia Church and the Statue of Saint Sofia, have we? I strongly insist the comments of GreenSkokljo and the IP to be unconsidered because they are your obvious socks and are deceiving, I will call a spade a spade. They are the WP:DUCK, because were created/joined exactly after you had been blocked, they use the same grammar and manners as you(you and the IP both have personally attacked me with the same style) and after you had introduced your new collage, GreenSkokljo and the IP didn't make any new contributions as expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please, read very carefully Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop with your attacks, because you have been blocked! Comment the content, not the editors, PLEASE!--Stolichanin (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Correction: Serdik has never been blocked. You, on the other hand, have been blocked twice for edit warring related to this article (and you have, quite franky, a very bellicose attitude about it, see for instance the recent bogus allegations of vandalism). Give us a break, please... LjL (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can report your personal attacks in Bulgarian by you and your IP on my talkapage, but I'll assume good faith for now and not waste the little amount of time I have. Take care.--Serdik (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sofia 555.jpg

New mosaic with more objects, include the mountain and Largo.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Last mosaic, named Sofia 555.jpg is the best of all. The current collage is very poor and ugly.--85.118.68.1 (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RfC: Inclusion of "Crime" data

Latest comment: 8 years ago51 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include sourced data of crime in the article. The consensus is that this is a normal part of articles about cities and should be included. Wiipedia is not censored and conflicting poits of view should both be presented when they are found in reliable sources. AlbinoFerret 20:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the Government and Law section of the Sofia article include sourced statistical and census data concerning the topic of <crime? Should it be in a dedicated subsection? Is it appropriate for it to resemble the last version before removal of such data (including sources used)?

This issue is being brought up due to repeated removal of crime-related content with various justifications in edit summaries, which continued after a request to discuss.

LjL (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable and of controversial origin. Reports from government of one coutry about the situation in another country often has a controversial status. Moreover one internet site is not a reliable source. The content is too unencyclopeic as well. Read WP:No origianl research, WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have. Have you? Because they don't say what you think they say, as I have again explained on my talk page (not sure why you elected to write there instead of here). LjL (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean the part sourced by the US embassy? Maybe we can remove it instead of removing the entire section.--Serdik (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Certainly improvement of sources is always preferable to blanket removal of sections, as I've by now pointed out numerous times. I do not think there has been a convincing explanation as to why that source wouldn't be reliable enough for this, though: if there is a well-grounded reason to believe US sources are biased against Sofia then it has yet to be stated. Note also how we deal with WP:Conflicting sources (hint: not by deleting everything). LjL (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Because they represented a wrong information about Sofia. I don't know why - ask some political analyst! But this info is too different by official statitics, cited above. And US departament is not an independent agency.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If you "don't know why", then maybe you should refrain from removing information. And "Official statistics" are also, obviously (do you know the meaning of "official"?) not independent. Again, read WP:Conflicting sources. LjL (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I just use the information, given by the reliable sources. Again, simply: If Europe was state of USA, this will be reliable source. But they are not and we use another sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No. If Europe were a state of the USA, it would be a less reliable source. You misunderstand what a reliable source is completely. My suggestion: stop talking; stop editing; read WP:RS and all the other Wikipedia policy/guidelines/essays I've linked to you today (which are a number). LjL (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime by the official statistics and I don't see any reason to include such data. --85.118.69.17 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IP, give a source, so we can add this statement in the section?--Serdik (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Even if true by official statistics, we don't only include "official" statistics, in fact, non-official may be better, and if anything, we include both. I also find it peculiar that an IP editor with no prior edits anywhere would suddenly make a comment about this RfC, but whatever. LjL (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course! Demographic politics in Bulgaria, Author: Genoveva Mihova, 2013, ph: prof. Marin Drinov, link to the book -http://m.helikon.bg/index.php?action=product&cid=1&pid=9348717&itemId=500000. Page 98 - 99:Quote:"In 2013 Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime. Bulgarian in original: Статистиките показват, че към 2013 г. София е сред европейските столици с най- ниски нива на престъпност", стр. 98 - 99.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That looks like a useful semi-governmental source (she works for the Center for Population Studies), and it's probably wroth including - although it doesn't trump other WP:Conflicting sources, and should be presented alongside them. LjL (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, add it, please!--85.118.69.17 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The text of at least those pages isn't available online, is it? (it's not required, just asking) --LjL (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If is saved with copyright - not. But you always find the book in City's library.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Copyright doesn't necessarily prevent snippets of a book from being legally on the web (see Google Books), and clearly I am unable to access Sofia's libraries to verify this citation. LjL (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice reading: http://www.book.store.bg/p108389/demografskata-politika-v-bylgaria-genoveva-mihova.html--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Offtopic discussion about crime rates in Sofia and acceptability of offline sources

Excuse me, are you serious about this, that Sofia has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Do you know anything about crime rates? Please be more concrete, give a link with the statement, the numeber of the page, we all doubt that otherwise. All the sources you provide are Bulgarian so they are probably not NPOV, can you give a foreign source to meet the verification?

What does lowest crime mean and which city today has low crime?? The crime rate was low only during communism, because criminals were scared then. What is illegal on paper is common in practice, i.e. crime, since the organized crime-octupus and his tentacles such as drug and human traffic are the everyday routine in each capital worldwide, excluding probably the city-states like Vatican and Pyongyang, despite this living there is far more dangerous. Almost none city has "low crime". Sofia is the leading capital in Europe by Gypsy population, which is the most criminal population there with highest incarceration , probably leading in human traffic of prostituties in Europe, along with Moldova, at least at some period, go to a brothel in West Europe and you will be suprised that Bulgarian workers are the majority there. Sofia is the route through which all the opiate enters West Europe through Asia and all the smuggling. However some cities are far less dangerous than others, but please distinguish, this is safety index, not crime index, but a crime index, rates of some crimes may be lower than others, this does not mean that Sofia has lower crime index than Teheran, but Iran is still one of the most dangerous places to live in. One man there was executed because he published a photo, in which he touches the nose of his daughter, which was considered an insult and crime for a capital punishment.(link) In some cities, definitions for crime are different and in Saudi Arabia for example you have the right to slaughter somebody by yourself in certain cases and this is not a crime. Numbeo summarizes better all the needed data than the Bulgarian sources cited above, including safety index and all parts of the crime rate. I know many people from Sofia, who were robbed or attacked with a knife by the recent refugees from Africa or the Middle East, or by their opponents the skinheads, who also attack white men for wearing long hair, also cars are usually stolen and apartments are robbed, I say this form personal experience.. So the refugee wave to Bulgaria from Syria, the Middle East and Africa started in 2013 and there have been many criminal cases since then, you should know at least the most popular ones. I think that the crime rate have risen since then and the book from 2013, which I can't find in your would be outdated, numbeo and other sources are up to date and far more reliable. So I don't think that crime rate is low in Sofia or in any city in general, there are types of crime rates that are low though, nevertheless safety index is high is Sofia and you are generally safer there compared to other cities. Nevertheless, in Bulgaria it is anarchy, if you are the victim nobody helps you, if you are criminal you get away with it easily, especially if you have money or if you know organized crime's bosses. I think that Sofia has high organized crime-related crime rate, as Italy and Russia it is a typicial mafia rendezvous, but just smaller in size. Unlike the two, in Sofia authorities are more corrupted and criminals easier can get away, just see how low is the incarceration rate - less than 0.1%. Sofia has lower rate for other crimes such as delibarete homicies that are unrelated to business and probably low rape rate, though domestic abuse and rape is unfortunately a tradition. No city has low crime rate, in Europe they are almost even, you should be very childish to think that there is a single capital with a low crime rate. Law is commonly violated everywhere, types of crime rates have different frequencies around the world but there is a high crime rate everywhere, safety index is something different and Sofia, I reckon, has high safety index because I've heard what it is in other places, Africa and Asia.

See Pornography by region, Bulgaria is one of the few countries where this is illegal, there hasn't been a single case when TV broadcasters are bothered for broadcasting it every day, this means that most citizens of Sofia are criminals, excluding some minors and porn-haters. Bulgaria has the highest rate of watchers in a country where it is illegal.

Bulgaria is not so developed country as you say, in fact the least developed, not only in the EU, but low developed compared to other Balkan states, where wages are higher, (link) the probability of death is also the highest among EU states. Many English people come to live there and get themselves eaten by stray dogs(link), a US professor was eaten in Sofia. Also, if you are, let's say sick of a curable disease, medicians sometimes diagnose you with "incurable disease" and let you die, there was one such case, the man had gone to another European country and got the right diagnosis and got cured easily by regular Spanish medicians. --Serdik (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Compared to other european capitals Sofia is more peacefully. Maybe yo' be never lived in Paris, London or Amsterdam and you do not understand. But it doesn't matters. According to statistics of Eurostat and cited above source Sofia has a low levels of crime. This long novel is only your opinion, but it is not what the sources says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You made me laugh, thank you! I have never learnt that English dialect. BTW, how do you get the conclusion that I am a racist? You can't be that bad in English, nothing personal but you are clearly acting with that speech don't you?? Please don't stop acting, it is unique. You do not link to any sources and their statements, you just allege the sources of saying something doubtful and unverified! Please link to the statement if you have links, if not bye bye. You know what? I have a source where it is said that Sofia is the most criminal capital of Euorpe, but I won't give you the link, so you won't read it. --Serdik (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serdik: please let's keep this on-topic and civil, shall we? And note that the fact I defended the inclusion of a Crime section doesn't mean I endorse such inanity as counting use of pornography as "crime" in the city. That's bogus. Let's keep to non-bogus facts. LjL (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want delete the Crime section, I don't care much. Things are more complicated, that pornography is crime on paper in Bulgaria, in Africa and the Middle East is a fact, in the latter murder is commonly not a crime. Definitions for crime vary by established laws, there is not right and wrong.--Serdik (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And who's talking about right and wrong? This is about making an encyclopedia, which can include statistics about crime. Crime is well-defined enough. By the way, the IP user did provide a source, pages, and an exact quote from it. LjL (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the encyclopedia should include reliable conflicting sources. I think the IP haven't cited the quote with statement's url yet.--Serdik (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, please read this source (link) which places Sofia at the "FIRST" position among dangerous cities in Europe and says quite much interesting information for what we are discussing here. I personally thought that Glasgow is the most dangerous but I may have been wrong living in the recorder. Your view is still your own view as long as you don't cite your statements, you only allege some sources of saying something. --Serdik (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Offline sources are just as valid as online ones. There is no need to cite a URL (although of course it would be handy). LjL (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but would he sent these books to us to read it? How we can know that he is not lying? That's like saying, "I found one book saying that I am the smartest person in the world" then we should add statement that such a person lives in Sofia without checking the source for verification? I think, he should sent the offline books by the post mail if he can't find an online one, because this is very likely a lie.

Other sources consider Sofia the "corruption capital of Europe" ([5]). These statements should be added instead in the section. More such statements can be found, but I don't have all night for this. All this means that the city is anything, but not the city with the "lowest crime" in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous... send the books via mail?! That's not how Wikipedia works. He gave a title, author, page and citation, it's up to you if you want to source the book and read it. Really, let's stick to the topic instead of wasting further time. LjL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offline sources is not a guideline but suggestions from some editors, build into an essay. I can't guess if the source says the alleged claims or not. It's better to stick to WP:VER. Wikipedia articles must not publish or contain original research, which further wastes our time. It would be better to ignore suggestions involving original research instead of wasting time. --Serdik (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:V here is at complete odds with just about every Wikipedia editor's. WP:SOURCEACCESS is a policy (actually part of WP:V), anyway, so feel free to check it out, it even links to WP:Offline. Your expectation that this editor must send us paper copies of the cited book is very close to simple trolling and I'm not not discussing this any further. I'll add the source as I see nothing against it, certainly not WP:NOR since it's a published secondary source. LjL (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If it involves payment, shouldn't any user else check it first ? If nobody check it is like dead source, verification should be confirmed by a user who will buy and check the book first? Is this what what SOURCEACCESS says?--Serdik (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No. What it says is that if you can't/won't buy a book, it's your problem, although someone may be nice enough to provide access to it for you (but is in no way required to). --LjL (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, but just of curiosity I'll check the book tomorrow and upload a photo of 99th and 98th page since nobody else can.--Serdik (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem, dear angry user: serdik? Maybe you need by more civility and to read more books and to learn to respect the different opinion.--85.118.68.169 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: a notification about this debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities LjL (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've come to this discussion from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Yes, 'Crime' is a common section in Wikipedia articles describing cities. The Economist and Business Insider are both considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. I feel this article section is supported by the sources, however, some of the reference to statistics pages like Numbeo cross over into original research, which is generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think the article fairly balances the conflicting sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Like Dkriegls, I come due to the posting on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities talk page. To me there are 3 issues. First is a crime section appropriate. Usually the answer is yes, and that would be the answer in this case as well, especially if it interfered with their admittance to the EU. The second issue is reliable sources. I do not know about the Numbeo source, but the others appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. The third issue is that of POV. In my mind, there is a slight POV issue, with use of terms like "exploded" and "impotent". Other than that, again like Dkriegls, I think the paragraph maintains a fairly balanced and neutral tone. Onel5969 TT me 12:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I added Numbeo, and I'm not wholly surprised it's considered a dubious source; I think I'll let others sort that one out (my main concern is of not suppressing the section as a whole, which would smack of censorship, then details can be settled), but while Numbeo can probably be called a primary source (they do the research directly by asking users), how would reporting their results be original research? On Wikipedia, editors aren't supposed to do original research, but sources can most certainly do it. As to the used terms, "exploded" and "impotent", they were used simply because they are the same terms that the sources employ. LjL (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi LjL - I understand the justification for the use of the two terms, but unless employed as part of a direct quote, there is no reason to use the same terminology. That being said, since they are used in the underlying source, there is less of a rationale to remove them. In other words, there is some justification in their use. Personally, I would re-word them to make it sound less inflamatory. The section, in its current summary form should remain. If a separate article is warrented, which goes more in-depth into this subject, that would be fine, but a summary section, as per city guidelines, should remain. Onel5969 TT me 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the wording. I left Numbeo there, though, as I think it's properly cited per primary source guidelines (with clear in-body indication that it's data directly from it, and it's consumer-provided). LjL (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, in my opinion. Onel5969 TT me 17:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Now looks good as well. Thank you, Onel5969!--Stolichanin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, crime stats are a standard part of WP city articles. I'm not going to wade through all of the above bickering. The section should remain. Yes, it should be purged of questionable claims with unreliable sources or based on original research (as a matter of WP:V and WP:NOR policy; that's not even up for discussion). No, mainstream newspapers are not unreliable sources (categorically; a particular article can be shown to be unreliable if there is evidence for that, of course). Moving on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The right way to move on, if there is deemed to be policy-based consensus, is for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC, I think. LjL (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup. That's correct. Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey, do you people above realize that, if you agree with the idea that it's time to "move on", you have the ability to close the RfC, at least while you're still uninvolved? It's not up to me to decide whether it's time to do so of course (since I am involved), but under the assumption you think the opinions put together form a consensus to move on... LjL (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox pictures

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

What image of Vitosha must be using in infobox. I think it is better photo

 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.69.105 (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more easy - Number 1 and Number 2. Number 1 is the best variant. That photo is giving us the view from the city center with remarkable things like Sveta Nedelya Church. Moreover the cupola of the church is located in very elegant symbiosis with the mountain's peak in the background in that photo.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In N2 Vitosha seems more impressive i think. Sofia is thinking as green city arround the world and this image shows it.--85.118.69.105 (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can see trees in Number 1 too. On your picture the city is lost in the nature - between the giant mountain and the garden. While in the Number 1 we can see an very important buildings, the city center and the mountain in the same time.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What about that image? Vitosha boulevard and Vitosha. Very good imahe by me.

 

--85.118.69.105 (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's relly pretty good, but maybe is not very appropriate for leading photo, what we talking about. Number 1 is suitable of that idea.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Now I added this photo in the article--151.237.102.118 (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can to use some of the collages above. This collage is just a great.

File:Sofia 555.jpg

--85.118.69.105 (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's very beatiful collage. Initially I thought to replace the template with exactly the same photo montage, but maybe the current template is better, because is open for new ideas and everybody can change whatever picture want.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I keep on the collage, because is very beautiful and there is the National theatre, one of the symbols of Sofia--85.118.69.105 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm! I'm against. That photo montage is really very beautiful, but is too overwrought. If we can reduce the number of images it will be better. 4 - 5 photos are one sufficient number, I think. Maybe at least 2 overview images - Number 1 and your proffer with the street and the mountain + the overview of the Parliament and Al. Nevski + 2 objects (Saint Sofia Church and the former Royal Palace (now Nat. Gallery of Arts)). But generally I think the current template is better variant, because is giving us more freedom in editing.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Only for information, I'm 151.237.102.118 after registration.--Vargala (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, i'm not against the pic with sveta nedelya, but i think N2 seems more beautiful. And the city is well shown, not lost in nature, what you say. Many cities have a such cpllages like this, not templates--85.118.69.105 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but that template is giving chance for everybody to change the photos or to add better images, if been uploaded on Common.--Vargala (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dubious source lacking an eBook

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Oh, and another thing, concerning the Crime section. It seems that this user is an experienced source faker and have done source falsifications before at Talk:Nina_Dobrev/Archive_1#Something about Bulgaria.2C Canada and one Bulgarian girl in Canada, quoting an not existing book authored by the harpist Anna Maria Yordanova to back something that desires to mention in the article but can't source it. The user claimed at Talk:Nina Dobrev that the discussion deserves Guinness Record for the length, not to mention that the same mania, duplication and frustration were applied to the deletion of the information for the Crime in Sofia among the recent sections above.

The claim is as follows "local sources reported Sofia had some of the lowest crime rates among European cities" sourced to an existing book without an eBook version: Геновева Михова (2013). Демографската политика в България: Традиции, обществени потребности, съвременни измерения. AI "Prof. Marin Drinov". p. 98,99. ISBN 9543226288.

We have no link. May an established user access the 98 or 99 page? I will remove the quoted statement above as the risen possibility of faking the source is undeniable, unless an established user object to. --Serdik (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (see the section above)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is an explanation for the image changes I am going to revert. After tracing the IPs from the section above by a regular Google search one of the IPs from the section above, the IP 151.237.102.118 is linked as a sockpuppet of User:Sumatro, furthermore these contributions are related to and insist for the maps uploaded by a user who was unblocked because he promised to stop editing the article Sofia. At least several new single purpose accounts (such as Vargala) were created at the time only aiming to empower the IP to win the image-disruption-war (a desire of the same user with the promise) which then immediately stopped contributing. Vargala clearly declared "MY IP IS 151.237.102.118" [6] which is lucky for this account for not being blocked yet.

I am going to revert the old soldier because this IP appears to be a confirmed sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro/Archive#26_May_2014. --Serdik (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've done some mistakes in the past but they were in the past. Actually I support your position for the collage (see my opinions from IP and the new username above). I have no wishes for edit wars. But I think Wikipedia is free place for helpful editing, right?--Vargala (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Vargala: not for people who admit to have been evading scrutiny by using multiple accounts and addresses, and to have a "past" that's not immediately linkable to their current single-purpose account. LjL (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Sofia. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sofia. 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:

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) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sofia. 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:

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) 00:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Crime section (bias)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The section "Crime" is very biased and misleading. I understand that a section on crime and safety is necessary, and that we shouldn't whitewash. But, at the same time, the information must be objective and balanced, in order to give the reader an overall clear and realistic idea about the subject. The way the section reads now gives the reader the impression that Sofia is an unusually dangerous place, where one's personal safety is very poor. This is simply not true; in fact Sofia's murder rate is 1.8/per 100,000 which is very low by international standards.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4440 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


I completely agree! Most of the statements refer to an era before 2010. This section should be rewritten to reflect the current situation. Sofia is a very safe city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntzolov (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The section is OK. Jingiby (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Greek σοφία

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I took the initiative to remove irrelevant (from my point of view) information on the heavily disputed etymology of ancient Greek σοφία, inasmuch as it is derived from ancient Egyptian (!). Such conjectures are not in place in a discussion of the place name Sofiya. Dr Moshe —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

comments from AID nomination

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
  • This is an important Bulgaria-related article, which at the moment is full of unnecessary bad-quality images, poorly written content and... lacking information. A lot of work has to be done on this one, just have a look.   Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov ? Talk 14:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Although in my opinion every capital city should eventually become a featured article, I think that Sofia may require different skills to the others on this page. The Bulgarian edition is already a featured article, and I think that with some translation work the English one could be brought up to a similar level. However, the other candidates would seem to have to be improved from scratch.-Estrellador* 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to mention that the Sofia article in bg: is featured in the first several months of the Bulgarian version. Currently all these old featured articles are revoted and Sofia is somewhere at the limit (see [8]). --Nk 12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that every capital city should be closing in on FA territory. This one is nowhere near and is a worthy AID candidate. Soo 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there needs to be a map that shows where Sofia is inside of Bulgaria

"A concentration of 17.5% of the country population within the 200th percentile of the country territory"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence confuses me. What does "200th percentile" even mean? 185.65.134.164 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sofia/Archive_2&oldid=1241192904"