Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

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

Romanian metal bands

Can this many Romanian metal bands really be of encyclopedic notability? - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This has now been whittled down to a reasonable number. There were over 100 when I made this remark. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not. I think there is a larger problem in Romania related articles with undisputed vanity pages. IMHO these are some fine examples of likely deletion candidates: Negură Bunget, Nicolas Masson and his films and probably Florentin Smarandache (see discussions on the article talk page). Probably there are lots of other cases. AdamSmithee 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the quantity of junk on the english wikipedia, I find your particular interest in Romanian junk quite bizarre. It was this morning that I stumbled onto this piece autoerotic asphyxiation (I was looking for INXS). One week ago I found loads of information about all sorts of piercings (was looking for something else). And the quantity of trivia related to badly known pop figures of the 80's is quite staggering, if you would only want to see it.
This is something I knew before editing wikipedia, and it seems to me that it's the force of wikipedia -- one can find weird details on everything, making wikipedia an excellent second source of information. And both of you probably know this, too.
So, while I agree that these articles should never exist in a paper encyclopedia, I can't see why you would delete them. They are not offensive (well, the page of Smarandache is quite funny)
So: what's your problem, and why is it specific to Romanian pages? If you have problems with specific pages containing false information, require their deletion on the appropriate pages, individually. Dpotop 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"encyclopedic notability" in Wikipedia is very different from encyclopedic notability in Britannica or Columbia; Wikipedia has an article on Angela Beesley for Christ's sake! I don't see anything out of proportion here, but you can always try AfD...Alexander 007 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, on the specific problems Jmabel and Adam raised. I believe that Nicolas Masson and Florentin Smarandache are probably junk. However, I could understand some heavy metal (or some other metal) grouppies adding lots of links. If they are correctly structured and do not clog the rest, why not let them do it? Dpotop 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, for sure. I was thinking of the metal bands. I don't give an F about those others really. Alexander 007 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as for pointing out junk on Romanian pages, I did it because I'm Romanian and so I tend to be more interested in this pages. Also, I'm somewhat better informed on Romanian things, so I recognize junk more easily :-) Don't get all defensive on me :-)

To get to the point, I'm ambivalent on this notability thing, so I did nothing although I've noticed these pages some time ago. However, while I think that if someone finds a subject notable enough to take the time to make a page then so be it, I think that vanity is something else. When some guy goes to wikipedia as an anon with the sole purpose of making an apologetic page abot himself (check the contribs for the pages creators), I think that the stuff should be deleted. Note that I'm not talking about non notability, but about vanity, which is kind of lame and should be deleted. AdamSmithee 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, vanity articles are so lame. Another one is probably Vasile Hutopila. Alexander 007 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to reiterate: I'm not saying there are no Romanian metal bands that belong with articles. IRIS certainly do, and Negură Bunget are at least borderline, probably on the correct side of the border. (We have a reasonably clear notability guideline for bands.) But the page I'm pointing to has over 100 red-linked Romanian metal bands (in contrast to less than a dozen other rock bands). It's pretty hard to believe that there are over 100 Romanian metal bands that currently lack articles but meet this level of notability and therefore should be red-linked. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, excuse my speed-reading. Don't know why I read some other things into your initial comment; probably my speed-reading mixed up your comments with AdamSithee's. I don't know about those red-linked bands, though I'm pretty sure many of them would not pass the notability test. Anyone have details? Alexander 007 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I've taken unilateral action and moved all the ones I haven't heard of/heard to the talk page. - FrancisTyers 02:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
My belief is that you should create a separate article "List of Romanian metal bands" and link it where the list previously was. This should satisfy the grouppies, too. Dpotop 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aromanian music

So, while listening to some old records, I found this excellent aromanian folk song "Vanghele Gogu - Sa-ni mi duc la ea". It's a "Cenaclul Flacara" record. Now, I know close to nothing about Aromanian music, but I'd like to learn. Can someone point me to records that are available for purchase/download? I know that this is not exactly the right forum for asking it, but again, it's a subject I'd like to see developed on wikipedia (currently, it's not). Dpotop 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope to see some of you soon

I will soon be in Bucharest (on business), arriving May 3, leaving hideously early May 20. I'll be working weekdays, but I'll have most evenings and probably my weekends free; I would love to meet up with some of you. As I remember it, there hasn't been a meetup in Bucharest, and at least half a dozen people have mentioned that is where they live, so it might be a good chance for some of you to meet each other, too. Would anyone be interested? Does someone want to suggest a date, time and place (preferably central), or should I? Outdoors might be nice this time of year. La Motor? The terasa of the Writer's Union? One of the outdoor cafes by the lake at Cismigiu? But you are the locals, and may have better ideas. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wish I could be there :) Have fun... - FrancisTyers 02:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the general lack of response so far mean no one is interested? Or did the conversation just veer off in another direction with Anittas' query about the photo? - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested about a meetup. :-) bogdan 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's two of us. Any other takers? - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. Too bad. I'm still game if others are. - Jmabel | Talk 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything back from Bogdan, who I emailed; I'm only here another week, and won't be checking Wikipedia or email on the weekend; so I guess this won't happen. I still encourage you to meet some time with one another, even if I won't be there to join you. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Diorama/Photo

Do you think you can take those photos for me, J? --Candide, or Optimism 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, the best I can give you is a maybe. I'm not sure I'm bringing a camera, but more than that: as I understand it, you want a photo of a diorama in the Military Museum. Presumably, the museum owns copyright on that diorama, and while there is certainly a way to pay some small fee to be allowed to take photos for personal use, I would imagine that taking photos that may be used commercially — Wikipedia's requirement or, more precisely, the Wikimedia Foundation's — would require explicit permission, and quite possibly a large fee.
Regardless of who might take the photos, this may not be something one can sort out just by walking in to take the pictures (especially as a foreigner with less than fluent Romanian). It seems to me that step one is for a native Romanian-speaker to contact the museum and clarify the rights matter, and that is the case regardless of whether I take the photo or one of the Wikipedians already living in Bucharest takes it. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, they can't own the copyrights of something that you can take a photo of. In fact, even if you take a photo in a place where you are not permitted to, you are still allowed to post it on Wiki. I learned this when someone posted a photo of a woman next to a Koran table; the photo was taken in a museum where taking photos without permission is forbidden. If you don't believe me, you can ask in ANI or somewhere else. No-one can reserve copyright for something like this. --Candide, or Optimism 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they can. If sculptures can be copyrighted, then dioramas can be copyrighted too. bogdan 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
They can copyright the work, but they can't apply the copyrighting to photos. It's like you building a house and copyright it, saying that no-one is allowed to take photos of it. The same with statues.--Candide, or Optimism 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, It is legal to publish photos of works found in public spaces, but not of works which are on private property. See the discussion at Image talk:Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal.jpg. bogdan 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe you and they are wrong and these people agree with me. Click here. Think about how much the press has published photos of people and things on private property. --Candide, or Optimism 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Read it more carefully: it's about making a photograph of a Public Domain 2-D work. bogdan 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Either way, I'm not asking you for anything. I did try to ask you for help, but you completely ignored me. I won't ask you for anything, again. --Candide, or Optimism 23:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of annoying Anittas, I have to add that taking the picture is not worth it (as I have stated before). The Ceausescu-made plastic men with horrible mutations dressed according to the standards of extreme kitschiness is equal to the one we agreed to eject from the Suceava page. Dahn 16:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The point is to show how the army looked like and how the battle evolved. --Candide, or Optimism 18:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
My point was that it would be of the overall value and accuracy of the Povestiri istorice one you posted back then. Dahn 23:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn's opinion aside, I believe Bogdan and I are correct about the copyright issue. I will be glad to try to take the photo if someone who is a native speaker (Anittas?) will contact the museum in advance to sort out what fees we'd actually have to pay to use it, and the answer turns out to be something reasonable. I know (because it came up when I was last there) that both the Museum of the Romanian Peasant has reasonable prices for taking pictures for one's personal use (something in the range of US$5-10, I don't remember exactly), but I believe it was something like US$35 for commercial photographers, and that may even have been per picture used commercially or per hour for all I remember. I'm not in the business of basically buying rights to photos (even my own) for Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to contact the museum, but their number is not listed on their website. It's the first time I see a museum not listing their contact info. Only Wallachians could be this [fill in]. I'll cover those expenses. I told you this already, J. I'll cover the cost for the travel to the museum, the fee, and I'll buy you a dinner. I can send the money via PayPal or Westernunion. And don't listen to Dahn. He's just another jealous Wallachian. --Candide, or Optimism 05:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This notion of taking pictures of copyrighted "works of art" is quite a grey area legally. Apparently, there is a controversy over this regarding the Eiffel Tower:
Images of the tower have long been in the public domain; however, in 2003 SNTE installed a new lighting display on the tower. The effect was to put any night-time image of the tower under copyright. As a result, it was no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission.
The imposition of copyright has been controversial. The Director of Documentation for SNTE, Stéphane Dieu, commented in January 2005, "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve." However, it also potentially has the effect of prohibiting tourist photographs of the tower at night from being published.
In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area. This seems to indicate that SNTE cannot claim copyright on photographs of Paris incorporating the lit tower.
So, it seems that copyright holders can indeed exert their copyright over a picture taken of a copyright object (unless it is in public). So, if the diorama is copyright, the owner can apparently restrict even you taking photos of the diorama (that, IMO, is scary and should not be allowed - the initial work of art can be copyright all it wants, but pictures of the work with other things in the background should always be legal and free, if only for the purposes of education). By the way - what would the free use provisions for this be? An alternative to buying the rights from them would be asking for the right to take the photo (and paying the fee, if there is any), and then letting them have the copyright and uploading it to Wikipedia as fair use. Then again, if they are told that this is for an educational project like Wikipedia, they may (read: should) allow you to take the photo for free. After all, is the museum not a public, government-funded museum?
Anittas - the phone number of the museum is 319-5904 [1]. Ronline ✉ 06:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind: it is policy that we do not use images that are licensed only for educational use. Even though Wikipedia itself would qualify, it's Jimbo's decision that we don't want to do anything that prevents commercial redistribution of Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The only chance I will have to do this would be Saturday 13 May. Let me know if someone lines up the relevant permissions before that date. - Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, J, I'll try to call them tomorrow. Thanks! --Candide, or Optimism 10:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A Romanian from Transylvania about Moldavia (Anittas trolling around)

Let me tell you something, your stupid Moldova is the country of lazyness and poors, and is by far the most undevelopped and retarded province of Romania. Is Transylvania that holds the Romanian Gross Product up, not the stupid Moldova with Russian accent. You all Moldovans are inferior to the others, 'cause you don't even ressemble to the Romanian people. Is also Transylvania the most highly and best viewed region in Romania, with German and Hungarian influencies, not Turkish and Russian. Oh yeah, I forgot, the guy's name was Vlad III and not Dracula, but if you still believe in vampires at your age...

This is our thanks for creating Romania and for eliberating those poor bastards from the Hungarians.

Link. --Candide, or Optimism 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, you started it by calling Transylvanians inverior. You should be banned for at least one day. Isn't there an admin around? Dpotop 07:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I meant to say historically, because we have more events and accomplishments in our history, etc. --Candide, or Optimism 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha! "not the stupid Moldova with Russian accent"! Well, Anittas, to be honest, you used to say something similar about Wallachia a while ago. And that comment was so badly provoked! The guy is, however, quite wrong in one area. There is a perception in Transylvania that it is significantly wealthier than the Romanian average, but that is in fact not true at all. GDP per capita in Transylvania is only about 5-10% higher than the Romanian average. Also, the Transylvanian region of Nord-Vest is actually poorer than the Romanian average. Overall, the difference in terms of income isn't that large (the difference is bigger between urban vs rural areas, and Bucharest vs the rest of the country, rather than Transylvania vs the rest). Moldova, particularly Nord-Est ::::::region, is, however, quite far behind the rest of the country in terms of GDP per capita and overall development. But, the difference is not as significant as 1) Transylvanians put it out to be and 2) the difference between, say, Western and Eastern Germany or Northern and Southern Italy. Finally, Anittas, history isn't really a measure of success. You can't say a certain area is superior to another because of history, no matter how noble it may be. Countries or areas should be judged on their present situation, not on the past. And Transylvania's contribution to Romanian national consciousness was pretty significant. For some reason, you continually fail to see this, and continually keep on provoking. Ronline ✉ 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Everything should be taken in consideration so that we can see the 'big picture'. History included. I don't understand this economical debate. Is that what's most important to you people? What about virtue and love? --Candide, or Optimism 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but "love" is not your strong point, Mr. Candide. :D Dpotop 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong. That's my strongest point. :) --Candide, or Optimism 09:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As concerns "virtue", just defining it would take forever on this wikipedia. To start, do you mean manly virtue, or christian virtue? Dpotop 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I mean humanistic virtue. --Candide, or Optimism 09:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree somewhat with your view, but in today's world, a measure of a country's success is often contemporary standard of living. This standard of living is obviously not only economic, but also cultural, physical, scientific-intellectual, etc. To get to the point, however, I don't really see why/how from Moldavia are any more virtuous or "loving" than people from other parts of Romania. But even if this is taken into account, I doubt that the quality of life in Moldavia is any better than the rest of Romania (in fact, I would say it is lower than the Romanian average, but not significantly lower). Ronline ✉ 10:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on what you're trying to show. I try to show moral superioty over you, and that is where virtue comes in. I won't even touch the history part. We are more virtuous than you because we are more caring. We don't have kids running around in the streets, sniffing on glue. We don't abuse animals as you do. There aren't many Moldavians that go outside Ro and start robbing and scamming people. Wallachians do that a lot and they've given Romanians a bad name outside the country. Hristos a inviat! --Candide, or Optimism 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, about Moldavians supposedly not scamming people, my Romanian (from Bucharest BTW) female cousin was not many months ago pestered by a Moldavian with marriage proposals. This was not due to love, but about him trying to cook up a scam to receive Norwegian citizenship, rather than returning to glorious Moldavia. Now, this is an isolated incident so of course I won't place too much importance on it when juding Moldavians in general (their honesty, moral fibre and so on), completely unlike the way you judge Wallachians (and now possibly Transylvanians). And I can hardly imagine that you, by insulting the majority of Romanians on international online communities, are reshaping Romania's image for the better. - Anclation 11:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, but that's scamming the goverment and not so much the people. I don't agree with the method, but compared to what other Ro-s do, this is nothing. --Candide, or Optimism 11:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
People were affected Anittas, or do you think my female cousin was thrilled with being bogged down by the increasingly annoying and ridiculous inquieries? Besides, this was just a semi-personal experience, how many times have you personally been bothered by Wallachians in real life (and keep in mind that Sweden's Romanian community is about ten times bigger than Norway's)? The crux of the matter however remains, that if I decided to judge peoples and regions based on the same criterias as you, your Moldavia would be a vunerable target. That should show you how unreasonable you are being. Anclation 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, people were affected, but those people didn't lose health or money due to that kind of annoyance. That's not a serious crime. Not if we compare to the human-traficking, violance, and the organized crime Wallachians commit. --Candide, or Optimism 11:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You consider human-traficking as something exclusively Wallachian? Then why do I constantly hear about such cases involving Moldovans? Rep Moldova really struggles with this problem, even though it mostly consist of the same people you seem to imply are basically inheritly superior to Wallachians. Strange...
Dude, R. Moldova is among worst countries when it comes to this, but how could I even try to explain their problem when they don't know who they are? Let's keep the discussion about Moldavians. Those Moldovans are at the wrong side of the Prut. --Candide, or Optimism 11:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Really a weird situation between the two Moldovas then. One part contains the best, most honest, hard-working, moral and true Romanians, while the other contains a bunch of traitors, who have remembered and believed the old propaganda, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Weird. Almost as weird as Romania supposedly being sharply divided into a good, a bad and an ugly region (you have previously said you consider places like Dobrogea Wallachia's backyard anyway, so three is the appropriate number, according to you). . Anclation 12:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, even though human trafficking is more of a problem in the Republic of Moldova than in Romania, the major source for human trafficking in Romania continued to be the Moldavia region, if only because standards of living lower. So human-trafficking is not something at all exclusively Wallachian. In fact, it's more predominant in Moldavia. In terms of violence and crime, I don't really think that if you compare the crime statistics of a large town in Wallachia with a large town in Moldavia you'll see much difference. As the largest city by far, Bucharest is an exception, though crime - organised crime in particular - is low in Bucharest by European standards. Ronline ✉ 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that. I want a source for this. You guys have all the bad things: homeless children on drugs, etc. And if we have bad things, it's your fault, because you centralized all the power in your capital -- including the economy -- so it's your responsibility to make the region prosperous. You wanted this responsibility when you stole the capital and when you centralized and concentrated everything in your region. --Candide, or Optimism 12:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Remember, I'm not from Bucharest. Ronline ✉ 13:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
About the other issues, you'll have a hard time proving that those to are something only involving Wallachians and Transylvanians. BTW, do you consider yourself to be improving Romania's image right now, by re-affirming all the prejudices people have about the country and people? - Anclation 11:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Va sugerez la toti (romanii) sa cititi discutia de la Talk:Romanians#I protest. A fost ceea ce m-a super-amuzat in dimineata asta de Paste. Sper ca participantii au luat-o in gluma (asa cum eu am facut). Dpotop 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's really stupid the way they spoke one another. As a matter of fact is true that Moldova had a great positive influence, just remember that almost all romanian patriarchs are coming from Moldovan Mitropoly. With this I would like to invite you all to end this "bâlci". Nobody has something to win from it. --Moldo 12:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, you're talking nonsense. Most of Wallachia is not prosperous. Oltenia has the same economical problems as Moldavia and so does the Southern Wallachia. Perhaphs the only two counties more prosperous are Prahova and Argeş.
Also, you should know that most counties in Moldavia receive more money than they pay in taxes, unlike Bucharest, which receives back only about half of the taxes it pays. :-) bogdan 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Criminality and Moldavia vs. Wallachia

I see Anittas is still claiming that Moldavia/Iaşi is the best place on earth and Wallachia/Bucharest the worst. In fact, Iaşi is the county with most homicides and Bucharest with the least. :-)

Omucideri/100.000 locuitori, Official statistics for 2003 (pdf, see page 6)

  • Alba -- 2
  • Arad -- 3,2
  • Arges -- 4
  • Bacau -- 7,8
  • Bihor -- 4,2
  • Bistrita -- 1,8
  • Botosani -- 3,2
  • Braila -- 2,9
  • Brasov -- 3
  • Buzau -- 1,6
  • Calarasi -- 2,1
  • Caras Severin -- 3,4
  • Constanta -- 2,7
  • Covasna -- 1,7
  • Dimbovita -- 2,5
  • Galati -- 6,5
  • Giurgiu -- 2
  • Gorj -- 2
  • Harghita -- 5,6
  • Hunedoara -- 4
  • Ialomita -- 4,3
  • Ilfov -- 1,1
  • Maramures -- 2,6
  • Mehedinti -- 6,9
  • Neamt -- 3,9
  • Olt -- 2,2
  • Prahova -- 3
  • Salaj -- 4,3
  • Satu Mare -- 2,1
  • Sibiu -- 4,1
  • Suceava -- 4,3
  • Teleorman -- 5,5
  • Tulcea -- 4,6
  • Vaslui -- 5,6
  • Vilcea -- 3,3
  • Vrancea -- 4,3
  • Iml Cluj -- 1,3
  • Iml Craiova -- 4,2
  • Iml Iasi -- 9,3
  • Iml Tg.Mures -- 3
  • Iml Timisoara -- 3,6
  • Inml Bucuresti -- 0,5
  • Medie Nationala -- 3,5 (average)

bogdan 13:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: the rate is 3 times bigger in Iasi than the national average, and 18,6 times bigger than Bucharest.

--Andrei George 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Those are medical statistics. I'm not sure if those are any different than official police crime statistics. I don't find them very accurate, but say that they are; what would it then prove? It would prove that most Bucharestneans have it better economically - and they do - and commit less crimes. I still say that most Ro that commit stupid crimes outside Ro are Wallachians. Somehow, I can see that on their face...lol. Iasi was sacked and burned down several times, yet it remained prosperous, until an unknown force ruined it. That force should be held responsible for all the bad things that have gone in Moldavia, Ro, and for our failure to reunite with R. of Moldova (see Iliescu, another idiot Wallachian who refused to reunite with R. of Mo). I'm from Botosani county and I can say that I haven't seen homeless children that sniff glue, yet, in Arad, a city slightly smaller than Botosani, you could see many of these kids gathering at the train station, begging and sniffing glue. How will your statistics explain that? Just remember: we sacked Bucharest in 1473 and 1476 and we can do it again (but we won't...lol). --Candide, or Optimism 15:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC) --- It's pretty logical you'll find more homeless children in wealthier places. In poor towns like Botosani they can't find enough food by searching in the garbages and people don't have enough food/money to give them alms. Anonimu 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been in Botosani, then. In the summer and spring, everybody goes out to eat at restaurants. Most eat mici and drink beer and wine and celebrate. Dorohoi is doing bad, as you said, but the people there are bad. --Candide, or Optimism 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time i was in Botosani (that is 4 years ago) they used german second-hand tram cars. It was late spring, and it was Saturday, but the pizzeria on the main boulevard was empty (i.e. no clients except me and my friends). Of course, things could have evolved in 4 years. Anonimu 10:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
In primul rand, ce-ai cautat acolo? In al doilea rand, conteaza unde te duci. Poate ai fost intro zona mai restransa. In centru si aproape de HQ politiei, este aglomerat peste tot, plus fete faine. Daca vii in Bot anul asta, poate nu putem intalni. Te invit la o bere, iar dupa aia o sticla in cap :) --Candide, or Optimism 10:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Da' ce ma, e orasu tau? Am avut si io afaceri ca omu. Pe unde am fost io parea strada principala (cel putin in comparatie cu celelalte strazi). Era destul de ingrijit... ca mai toate bulevardele din oraselele de provincie. Dupa mine era o zona centrala. Si ce sa cauti tu in Botosani la vara, te'a dat nevasta'ta afara ? Apropo, aici nu-i chat. Anonimu 11:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Eu incurajez aici si chat si cybersex, asa ca daca ai camera...Serios vorbind, da, Botosaniul este destul de ingrijit, asa ca si oamenii de acolo. Cand ma duc in Ro, fac naveta intre Botosani si Dorohoi ca sa ma intalnesc cu rude si cu cei dragi. In privinta ta, cu cei draci. :D Imi place sa ma duc la piata; acolo fac eu normal comanda de mici, dar si restaurantele si cofetariile sunt faine. Din pacate, Dorohoiul nu mai este bun. E o rable de oras cu oameni ciudati. --Candide, or Optimism 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Iaşi isn't at all poor, even if it is located in poor region. In fact, the Wallachia case is the same. Both Iaşi and Bucharest are wealthy cities surrounded by poor province. Transylvania is the only region where income equality is greater and where wealth isn't as centralised, though there is a significant difference between poorer counties such as Sălaj, Maramureş and Satu Mare, in contrast to, say, Cluj and Timiş counties. In my opinion, in Romania there is greater divide between large cities vs small cities vs rural areas, than Moldavia vs Transylvania vs Wallachia. At least apparently, most people in large cities do quite well and live similar lifestyles, be they Wallachian, Transylvanian or Moldavian. Ronline ✉ 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos again

I've recently taken some photos in Bucharest, mostly along Calea Victoriei; I'll probably upload them when I'm back in the U.S.

If anyone has any specific photo requests of public places in Bucharest, I'll do my best to fulfill some of them. And it might, just in general, be a good idea to start a list of image requests: who knows what might turn up if we ask? - Jmabel | Talk 09:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe. Hope you're enjoying your time in Bucharest. It would be great if you're around the city centre area and you could take a photos of the Bucharest City Hall, since we don't currently have any photos of administrative buildings in Bucharest. If not the City Hall, then the Victoria Palace, or some Sectorial Council. Anything official would do :) Also, there seems to be an absence of the following in our articles:
  • Bucharest Metro stuff - stations and trains, particularly stations on Line M4
  • Other public transport stuff - trolleybuses, buses, trams (we have one tram photo), nice ones preferably ;)
  • Shopping centres and supermarkets - anything would do from Carrefour or Cora to Plaza Romania, Bucureşti Mall or any other of the new shopping centres, if you drop by.
  • Henri Coandă Airport - there are no photos of the airport on WP (OK, this part is a bit of personal interest. I admit that I haven't used Otopeni for a very long time, since Budapest is way closer, and I'd like to see how that area is like nowadays!)
Thanks in advance and hope to hear your impressions of Bucharest, Ronline ✉ 12:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll certainly do city hall and some of these others. As a foreigner, I'm not going to have a camera out in a metro station, thank you. I can certainly get airport photos on my way home (at 0-dark:30 on May 20). I imagine I can get a shopping center or two. I'll see how I do on other transit stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know, we don't have an article - not even a stub - on Filaret Station, Bucharest's first train station, now a bus station but still the same structure? I'm not sure if I will be out that way to take a photo (I was there yesterday, but it was too late in the evening to take a decent picture), but we should certainly have both an article and some images. - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about the metro, it's not allowed to take photos there apparently (though the application of that law seems to be very inconsistent and, IMO, highly illogical). Are there any other metro systems that don't let you take photos? Ronline ✉ 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I bet there are still others in this part of the world. As I understand it, in the Communist era this was pretty common. - Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This kind of arbitrary restriction is pretty common these days. In Romania I've never seen it enforced, but I've had pretty shocking experiences in the USA (NY airport) and Canada (CN tower). In Canada, I had to sneak in order to take a photo of some "sniffing" machines that were pretty funny (and I wanted to show them to my family). In the US, the controls completely discouraged me from doing anything. In fact, the body controls in the airport are pretty disgusting. What I found interesting is that some people really feel safer this way (even though checks performed on one site are not performed on the other). If I recall well, they only performed controls on the return flight, which was quite funny, but not with the sniffer. Just the body control for about half the passengers, including women and a priest that was wearing a robe :). When getting to France, they were really laughing at the french policemen that obviously knew what they were looking for, so that they did not harrass all passegners. I recall a family of americans that were really proud of the brute-force american approach. At the same time, I'm sure they do not represent all americans, for the professor I was visiting was really annoyed by all this stuff.
Just to say that stupid security restrictions are not a communist invention. Dpotop 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems this is the new "anti-terrorism" world we live in, and it's taking place all over the Western world. I just find it shocking how civil liberties can be breached in such a way, with authorities acting so self-righteously, as if what they are doing is perfectly normal. However, the conservatives, which are gaining increasing ground, don't seem to have an understanding of the notion of human liberty and choice, and hence are, in fact, very proud of their respective country's "tough laws" or "long jail sentences" or things such as security checks. Worrying. At least in post-Communist societies, history has taught us to respect civil liberties, and for that reason progress tends to be going the right way instead of the wrong way (though at a far too slow pace, IMO). Ronline ✉ 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree. I also noticed this at the level of western media, which is far more consensual than the Romanian one (the latter becoming more and more "westernized" as newspapers lose their independence). The way the BBC stopped criticising the Blair administration on the war on Iraq (after its boss was sacked) was pretty funny (and sad) to see. Dpotop 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Concur :( That reminds me, I know of Private Eye in the UK and Le Canard enchaîné in France, do you guys have anything similar in Romania? - FrancisTyers 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Academia Caţavencu, Aspirina Săracului. :-) bogdan 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Romania Mare belongs here, too (even though everybody here hates it). :) Dpotop 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
România Mare is not a real investigation magazine: more like a slander magazine. CVT will publish everything his informants will send to him. Some things he publishes are real, however, most are not. bogdan 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What? Are you casting doubt on the fact that Dragoş Constantinescu was shooting Kurds in the Băneasa Forest while his dad was in power? Or are you trying to say that Ion Iliescu is not the grandson of a Bulgarian-Jewish-Russian socialist agitateur? Or are you denying that "in April 1966, 2 students from Norwalk, Connecticut, were followed by a UFO flying at ground level" (Tricolorul, 9/5/06)? Dahn 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
:):):):):):):) Cool! This is what I like in Romania Mare (the "news"paper). There is always matter to laugh until the next issue. Academia Catavencu used to be the same, but it't not the same since Dinescu left. :( And anyway, anybody here considers that AC is an "investigation magazine"? Dpotop 21:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think they investigate wherever The Wind takes them. Dahn 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
My, oh my, Dahn. Are you trying to make us believe that no UFO exist, nor the little green men? Are you part of the conspiracy? Dpotop 21:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No. It's just that... To Serve Man... it's a cookbook!. Dahn 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
UFO-logist Peter Davenport is a friend of mine. We used to be bridge partners. No joke. - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This being said, I would presume the laws in Romania will change as soon as some western contry will put enough pressure on us to do it. Dpotop 14:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As remarked above, though, the Western countries are moving the wrong direction on this. A photography student in Seattle (I forget his nationality, but not from the US) is now suing the government for unequal treatment after he was arrested for photographing a (rather picturesque and often photographed) bascule railway bridge near the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks in Ballard. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic

I've gotten pictures of the Bucharest City Hall & a good number of bus, trolley & tram photos (as well as a ton of other things I happen to find interesting). I'll probably upload them when I'm back in Seattle, because I've been really busy here (not that I won't be busy in Seattle). I'll try to get some airport photos on the way out. As I said, I'm not venturing a photo of the Metro.

I'm not sure which building is the Victoria Palace. Is that the monster out by Piaţa Victoriei? If so, I can certainly get a picture of that this weekend.

Any other requests? I won't be on line this weekend, and I leave early morning Saturday 20 May, so if I don't get the requests in the next few hours, I probably won't be able to follow up on them. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for the public transport photos and the City Hall. The Bucharest Commons gallery will surely be much more complete after them! I'm going to put Bucharest up for peer review after May 20, because I think we can get it to be featured this time. Ronline ✉ 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't really have literature sources, do you? You know, books, etc. --Candide, or Optimism 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Victoria Palace is the wide building on the right of the square comming from Calea Victoriei or from Lascar Catargiu Avenue. This one. A photo of the tower in front of it would be nice, the BRD tower, one of the biggest modern buildings in Bucharest. Mihai -talk 08:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, didnt see this in time. Went by today, took several photos around Piaţa Victoriei, didn't think to get the BRD Tower. But when I'm home in a week or so I should be able to upload a lot of miscellaneous pictures of Bucharest. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! It's in the background of a photo I took of the Natural History Museum, I'll upload it when I do the others. - Jmabel | Talk 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should you, as a tourist, have to waste your time taking photos of Bucharest for Wiki? If the Bucharestneans themselves can't be bothered, then why should you? --Candide, or Optimism 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, were you not the one asking Joe for a photograph of the Battle of Vaslui diorama? If the Bucharesters themselves can't take a photo of this diorama, why should you ask him!? I really don't see the point of your message other than to poke a stick at Bucharest(ers) again. Ronline ✉ 07:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You just answered your own question. Why should Joe do what Bucharestneans could and should do? Why? There are several scum...err, I mean, Bucharestneans in here. Let them take the photos, if they want to add them to the article and make their city look good. My photo was not about Bucharest. It just happened to be located there. --Candide, or Optimism 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Anittas, you are sure talking a lot of shit for someone who is asking favors.
FWIW, I didn't make it to the Military Museum, but here is the score for anyone who wants to help him with this one. The museum is open 09:00 - 17:00 daily, closed Monday. I'm not sure what the price of admission is (not particularly steep), but to take photos you must pay an addtional 1 RON per photo, minimum 2 photos. - Jmabel | Talk 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I asked for favours because it was not possible for me to go there in person. I don't live in Ro. What excuse do the Bucharestneans have? Oh, and I see that Bogdan wrote that he would like to meet with you. Did he, or did he break his promise, like most Bucharestneans do? And I talked shit about Bucharestneans, not about you. You're okay in my book. :) --Candide, or Optimism 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I did get photos at the history museum of the inscribed sword handed over by Osman Pasha at the time of surrender, a commemorative plate, and an inscribed rifle stock indicating that the rifle (a Winchester) was taken at the battle. I hope these are of some use. I plan to upload them when I'm back home in the U.S. - Jmabel | Talk 09:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I'll be waiting to see it. --Candide, or Optimism 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, as it happens, I got your diorama after all. I had a few hours off from work, and the museum is only about 2 km from my office, so I hustled over there. Didn't really get to see much of the museum (which seems worth a look) but I did get two photos of the diorama (plus one photo of a grouping of three flags from '89 with the cut-out center, which I think would make a good illustration for the article on the '89 revolution). I'll upload the photos next week. I have to say that the people who said it isn't very interesting were right: I had expected some kind of miniature overview of the setting of the battle, but it's just a lifesized representation of a few soldiers, not much good for anything but the uniforms and maybe some weapons.
Anyway, I didn't really get a chance to wander the museum (I got there just before closing time), but it does look worth a visit some other time. The museum staff were beyond helpful: that particular part of the museum was already closed for the day, but they actually unlocked it for me when I said that I was there to take a photo of that particular exhibit. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Jmabel, if you still have the time to take two or three outdoors photos, I would suggest some nice pictures of the "Piata Palatului" (I believe it's now called Revolution Place) and "Catedrala Sfantul Iosif" (the catholic one). Those bastards in the Bucharest City Hall plan to destroy these two historic settings by building huge glass-and-steel buildings. So, just in case, please take some nice shots of the Bucharest we love. Dpotop 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I personally think that more glass and steel is good for Bucharest. Of course, that shouldn't mean we should do away with cultural heritage, but the Cathedral Plaza development could actually be quite interesting, and would probably even make the cathedral more prominent (in that it's named after it). This whole new-and-old thing has been done in many cities, and is quite interesting and eclectic. City Hall's planning policies are mostly OK, I would say, the problem being the very slow implementation and multiple delays. Ronline ✉ 11:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
And how can you say that building 30-meter buildings in the middle of "Piata Palatului" is OK? Not one, two of them, one in front of the "Ateneu". As some journalist put it: How would you like a 30-meter square block in front of the Louvre, cutting all the view? And do not dare say that the Louvre pyramid has something to do with this (to start, it's transparent, and not that large). 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What I see wrong in the building "policies" of Bucharest is that new buildings are made in the few (relatively) preserved areas of the city. Instead of bulding in districts where place exists, everybody wants their building to be constructed the closest possible to the Royal Palace, maybe in its frontyard, if possible (the backyard was taken by the Communists). Or in some park (not **near** it, but **inside**), while cutting as many trees as possible. Before these shitty projects, there was the destruction of the Bordei park, which was marvelous place. More recently, some guy got a concession in the Herastrau park, over a disaffected public toilet. Some time ago, I saw Ceausescu-era unfinished buildings with cranes inside. I presume they are not finished now. BTW, did they finish "Cladirea radio" (on the boards of Dambovita, as you go to Grozavesti, after the Opera House)? Also, since I'm criticising construction policies, it seems that the first airport of Bucharest (Baneasa) will be closed and the land sold to make buildings. We are talking here about a functioning airport of a city that is expanding fast! The fact that some guys like Becali want to build villas is more important than the development of the city (which should normally develop to the east and west, too). Dpotop 12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The radio building is still just a hulk, and the latest plan to do something with it (Dâmboviţa Center, 1995) seems to have fallen through like the others. There is some growth to the northeast, but it is, indeed, mostly villas (including some on the site of a defunct industrial platform). - Jmabel | Talk 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've taken quite a few pictures in and around Piaţa Revoluţiei, including the controversial building of the Order of Architects. I don't think I'll have time to get any pictures of the Catholic Cathedral before I go, because I leave in about 36 hours, and most of the remaining time will either be spent at work or sleeping. If I get a chance, though, sure.
Surely there is a Wikipedian in Bucharest with a digital camera?
In any case, it is looking increasingly likely that I will be back here soon, though it is by no means a foregone conclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 12:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Have a good trip back. Dpotop 12:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, hope you enjoyed Bucharest, and thanks once again for all of the photos! Dpotop - I agree with you that disregard for the environment is a key problem in Romanian planning policy, and that green space is the one thing Bucharest needs most. And I also don't agree with the Piata Palatului towers. However, some of the other City Hall plans, such as Esplanada and Cathedral Plaza, are OK and overall Videanu's vision for the city is bound to make Bucharest better rather than worse. I don't think Băneasa will be closed down, will it? That would be absolutely terrible for the city, particularly since the airport was fast becoming a hub for low-cost airlines. Even Henri Coandă can't cope anymore, and they want to build a new airport in Popeşti-Leordeni apparently. But I thought Băneasa was closed for renovations. Ronline ✉ 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't count your chickens before they're hatched: I haven't yet uploaded the photos! - Jmabel | Talk 13:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The last news I saw (repeatedly) in online romanian media (EvZ, Jurnalul, Gandul, Adevarul, Ziua, RL,...) was that there is a huge chance Baneasa will be **soon** disaffected, the so-called renovation being just a means to start it. And I remind you that various hangars have already been sold, as well as non-constructible land in the area, at very large prices. I think you underestimate the corruption of Romanian leaders. I presume Videanu wants his part, too. Dpotop 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
These are only some articles from today's newspapers: [2] [3] Dpotop 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting to upload photos

I've started with the diorama photos Annitas wanted so much, though (as I've said) I found the diorama rather mediocre. They are flash photos, because there is almost no light in the exhibit space (except for "effects" lights). I think they are a bit dark; if someone cares to used PhotoShop or an equivalent to lighten them, feel free. The images are on Commons, click thumbnail images for full details.

Far more images to come, but I've now been up about 29 hours, mostly in airports and on planes, and I'm calling it a night. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The diorama looks okay to me, but it's for the Siege of Plevna, not Battle of Vaslui. :p --Candide, or Optimism 06:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This diorama looks awful, very kitsch. There are paintings of these battles, famous paintings. Doesn't someone have a Grigorescu album from before the 1970s? Because a scanned painting from such an album would be better, and these dioramas (as well as the "Independence war" movie) were inspired by these paintings. Dpotop 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll look into that. I might have one or two. About the kitsch: I have told you so, each and every one. Why must I be the Laocoön of wikipedia? :) Anyway, don't discard the photos: they belong on an article for the museum, or even on this article. Dahn 12:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Dahn, they are not kitsch enough. Whatever you may say, Bollywood cannot be surpassed. Dpotop 14:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, it's not the battle of Vaslui. Dpotop 11:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I got the wrong diorama! Somehow what had stuck in my mind was that you wanted Plevna, probably because of that book you were asking about. Oh well, you'll have to ask your uncle after all. Or someone else. I personally thought the diorama is kinda tacky, anyway; if there is a Vaslui one, it is probably comparable. The only ones I saw were Plevna and WWI, though the museum is massive, and I only had about 35 minutes to be there.
On other fronts:
commons:Image:Bucharest trams 1.jpg long line of trams
commons:Image:Bucharest central 40001.JPG Bus, bus shelter, bus ticket kiosk, people waiting for bus
File:Bucharest Novotel 10.jpg commons:Image:Bucharest_Novotel_10.jpg This image, which shows the Bucharest Novotel under construction, also illustrates typical Bucharest taxis.
commons:Image:Bucharest older bus.jpg One of the older buses in the RATB (Bucharest) fleet as of 2006.
Thanks. I've added some of them at Transport in Bucharest, where I will also introduce a taxi section. Ronline ✉ 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be exhaustive in mentioning here what I've uploaded, but I think it is worth mentioning that I've added three images to Calea Victoriei and brought its text a little more up to date; I have more good photos I could add, but I'm afraid to get to where pictures are disproportionate to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, two more that you asked for: images of Bucharest City Hall. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Bucharest City Hall 1.jpg commons:Image:Bucharest City Hall 1.jpg Seen from Cişmigiu Garden
File:Bucharest City Hall 3.jpg commons:Image:Bucharest City Hall 3.JPG Seen from B-dul Regina Elisabeta
I've placed the images in General Council of Bucharest and the Administration section of Bucharest, as well as the page at commons:Bucharest. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been steadily uploading more images to Commons, and categorizing them appropriately. I've added at least 100 more miscellaneous images in various categories under commons:Category:Bucharest, probably more like 200. Also, a bunch of good images of the reproductions of Trajan's Column (at commons:Category:Trajan's Column). One more I thought worth mentioning here, since Ronline was strongly interested in government buildings: names of mine start with "Traj col". - Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

commons:Image:Bucharest Police HQ 1.jpg Bucharest Police headquarters

Also, I've added quite a few images at commons:Category:Calea Victoriei, Bucharest and have more to come. - Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the proper historic name of this building?

Building containing Sticlerom

Does anyone know the proper historic name of this building? It is presumably an old inn of roughly the vintage of Hanul lui Manuc and Hanul cu Tei; it is on the north side of the Curtea Veche in Bucharest, houses Sticlerom, and in the basement is a bar (formerly Impaler, I don't know what it might now be called). I can upload additional images if anyone thinks they might know the building but doesn't recognize it from the photo. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it that the lack of response means no one has a clue? - Jmabel | Talk 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I for one have no clue. Dahn 18:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Another building that might have a name

On Calea Victoriei looking north from history museum

Does this building have a name? Is it "the Victoria building" or some such? - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Magazinul Victoria (Victoria Store?) - during the communist times it was one of the large, multi-level stores (something like Unirea), but I don't know if it is the same now. Either way, if that is the building, it is still called Victoria Store by people from Bucharest. AdamSmithee 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks - Jmabel | Talk 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously known under the more exotic name of Galeriile Lafayette (I think it was originally owned by a member of the Lafayettes). Dahn 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_3&oldid=283205697"