Talk:Palace of the Parliament

Depth 92 m
92 m under ground? This seems to be a joke. (anon)

I don't think so. I've been there. It would not be out of proportion. Here it is on a tourist site about Bucharest, which looks reliable on all counts I can verify, even if its English isn't so great. -- Jmabel 02:03, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's really deep, as the soil in the area isn't terribly good for building anything massive. Elevator buttons go to P-8 and that, given the 5 meters height of a floor as much as 40 meters (some floors are 10 meters high). The building has nuclear shelters, and air raid shelters. It's not so much if you ask me, given what's outside. --Xanthar 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Flag, POV
Among the material recently added to the article by a new user was a paragraph that seems to me partly useful, but too POV. I made some minor copy edits to it, but I think it has some bigger problems, so I thought I'd make my comments here to allow response before I make changes. Comments interspersed with the text:

A recent addition to the building property was a rooftop national flag. It is believed, in the absence of true government-released figures, that the flag cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, in a country fraught with social and economic difficulties, coupled with efforts to recover from the consequences of the devastating Communist regime. ''The flag, widely regarded as a costly useless purchase, was part of government spending.  In addition to the flag, a glass annex was built at the cost of millions of taxpayers for no publicised reason.  An exterior elevator was added which, by all accounts, improves access to most of the west wing, still in the works of completion.'' -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Recent as of when?
 * Believed by whom? It would be a lot better if we can cite a source on this, although no disaster if we can't.
 * Why "true" government-released figures? Has the government released false figures? If not, "true" should go.
 * The rest of this really gets into editorializing. I'd certainly accept "in a country fraught with economic difficulties," although I'd rather see a citation of a newspaper editorial or some such to this effect. "Social" difficulties seem irrelevant, this is just a matter of money. The random swipe at the former Communist regime seems out of place, they already take enough flak in this article.
 * "...widely regarded..." but again no citation. And the sentence seems redundant to what was just said, anyway. I'd drop this.
 * Well, everything done by a national government is a cost to "millions of taxpayers", but we don't normally say so. So I'd just say "In addition to the flag, a glass annex was built for no publicised reason."
 * No further issues.

The flag is now out of the question. The investment was not approved, and the flag will no longer be installed. The glass annex is part of two museums thate are housed by the building :the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Museum and Park of Totalitarianism and Socialist Realism. The huge tent near the building is there for unknown reason --Xanthar 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Myths and Misconceptions
Sorry to say this, but while I like this sort of information, that section is poorly written and just screams POV. To call something preposterous in an encyclopedia article is definitely not objective writing, and to call upon some 592 million US$ to prove a point is silly. First of all any airport terminal costs about 10 times as much as that number nowadays. I'd have like to read about the actual most expensive building instead. I think a myths and misconceptions section should do much better to prove its point. Furthermore the english version of the article is lacking a lot of info that other languages deliver without trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.78.50 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Contribution revised
Thanks for the feedback. Indeed, there were many oversights. That's what happens when writing at midnight after a hectic day. I have just done some research and can now complete my affirmations. I have overlooked the discussion page before going down to writing the segment, and I can now tell you, as a native Bucharestian and a "neighbor" of the building in question, the House has never been refered to as the Madman's House (Casa Nebunului). Many tourists have come my way and never have I heard such a reference. It is without a doubt a plausible nickname, but, in my books, not a real one.

Second, there is one amendment in connection to one of your passages.

Since 1994, the building has housed Romania's parliament.

That is partly accurate. The Romanian parliament is bicameral, with the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. It is true the building has come to perform this function since 1994, but it only housed the Chamber of Deputies until early 2004. During this time, the Senate had its own building, which the pre-1989 administration dubbed "The Center Comittee", the Headquarters of the Romanian Communist Party. After the overthrow, the building was renamed "The Senate Building". It was only after 2004 that the Senate was relocated.

P.S. You've done some pretty amazing work here at Wikipedia. --Chandler 17:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good work. I followed with a few further copy edits. Yes, we should probably drop Casa Nebunului, even though I have heard it independently from two Bucharasters, it is obviously not really widespread, and I lack good written citations. And, yes, we should mention that the former Central Committee building functioned as the Senate building for many years, and probably also mention the controversy about the cost of moving the Senate to the Palace of Parliament.


 * Question: where did the parliament sit 1990-1994? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll start with the last enquiry. The parliament was reinstated in 1991, not 1990, as the first democratic constitution following the Revolution was adopted on November 21, 1991. You should note the Parliament hasn't had a common home building for the two chambers until this year. Before settling in the present building, it sat in a small palace by the Romanian Patriarchate on the Patriarchate Hill a couple of miles away. I am not sure as to when the Chamber moved to the present Palace of Parliament: 1994 or 1996.
 * That would be a very good idea indeed to draw on the Senate controversy. Maybe make reference to the tennis courts inside the Palace perimeter. And also some interior photos. --Chandler 17:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * What was the palace by Dealul Patriarhiei? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no idea right now. Things are rather tricky here right now, with all the political oblivion. I'll see into it shortly. --Chandler 17:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

OK, for now I'll take what we've got. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC) In case you're wondering, I took the last photo from my own apartment. Isn't it lovely? --Chandler 17:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool! How's the plumbing (or shouldn't I ask?) -- Jmabel | Talk 01:17, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Great actually!! :)
 * Cool! -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why don't we change the article title? It is misleading (by reason of specificity) and one would find it difficult to work their way to this page by searching. Alternatively I suggest we name it "(the) Romanian Palace of (the) Parliament " OR "People's Palace of Romania" (as it is popularly referred to in many touristic and city guides). All for now. Merry Christmas (albeit overdue) and a Happy New Year. --Chandler 00:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I had earlier used a more specific title and someone moved it here. I personally would have no problem with a more specific title, although it would mean small edits to the articles that link here. I would point out, though, that you (or anyone) can create any number of redirects from names you think someone might reasonably type in. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that. And how do I do that? There's a number of people who have complained for not being able to get to the article. --Chandler 12:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I found out and started working on a few. --Chandler 17:55, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Anon remarks
heya people.

nice comments but I wonder how much of this is true, have you ever been there have you aver saw what was in his mind all that I hear is ruthless comments. Think one men has built it the others are going to keep it. About the size of this palace... it's huge that I can tell you think about it that is a city inside another one a state in a state - since that was the original purpose.

Personally I have a mix feeling about that building the size doesn't represent us but the craftsmanship is superb that is why were are famous about. Also let's face it the building was made in record time in only 5 years -60%. Nowadays if you want to build a house or a street that normally shouldn't take more that I don't know maximum 5 month take like for ever.

In some countries this palace is called the white elephant has no use is just to admire and wonder for what, but in the same time your eyes are attracted to the luxury, power, and riches that are in that palace. A warning although megalomania hmm you are not born with it you get sick of it. It's like a disease once it got you lose your mind- take a look through the history the great rulers they had power, luxury but with that cost ???.

Anyway about this Palace or the House Of People- for which have died so many and suffered a palace with an official surface of 365.000 sqm. a palace that is the beginning had it all, offices, receptions halls, assembly halls, restaurants, printing shop, swimming pool, drug store, concert halls, and so much more, but now seats like an sleeping giant ignored and hated by everyone. It is true that to build this Ceausescu ( our beloved ruler lol :) in his mind maybe) had to destroy 7 sqm from the old civic center of Bucharest and relocate 40.000 people from the area but what is done is done. Anyway I'm looking on the streets of Bucharest they aren't able to maintain what is left from the old city the houses are falling apart, so why all this comments. When Bucharest will become a nicer, clean city then they can talk and accuse until then let's face it the only thing that is going ok write now in Romania is just the corruption.

The was a saying don't hate the man for what he was but love his work in this I will let you state the comments. (25 June 2005)


 * Yes, I, for one, have been there, and judging by previous discussions, so have several others who have contributed to the article. I have toured the Palace; I've also been in a good number of other palaces of Europe, and the U.S. White House, so I think I have a fair basis for comparison. In the details, some of the craftsmanship is excellent, but in the aggregate, the building is an abomination. It is mediocrity writ large.


 * Imagine what even a fraction of this expenditure could have done to repair the existing buildings of what was once the Paris of the East, instead of building a monument to megalomania. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, the cost was huge. Imagine that they no longer measured construction supplies by the ton, but by the truck, and they used to count in dozens of trucks/day of work. I agree, the craftsmanship is overall at best mediocre, at worst an abomination. Pictures make it seem acceptable in size, but when it takes an hour to walk around it, you see how big it really is. And it's decorated with small kitschy flowers and flower like ornaments. In 1990 they considered tearing it down, but they found out that the quantity of explosives needed was way to much to even ponder such a fact.

Photos
I've got some photos of the inside of the building that I took last year, but the article already has a lot of pictures. Anyone think I should add them somewhere? CTOAGN 09:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You can put them to Wikimedia Commons, there is a category named Palaces in Romania. Or perhaps you should create a separate category for the Palace of the Parliament. — Monedula 11:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And you can add a Gallery at the bottom of this article. -- Jmabel | Talk


 * I was impressed with the Vatican rooms in Amen. and later found it was shot in this palace. Could you add something usable to illustrate the film article? --Error 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They did shoot the film inside that Palace of Parliament, they actually glued some wallpaper on the walls to make it look like genuine artwork that one would find inside the Vatican itself. They didn't take down the wallpapers, the tour guide said they look nice. So the photos are correctly placed in that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.95.117 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent anon edits: are these accurate?

 * "...was intended to serve as a palace for Nicolae Ceau&#x15F;escu" became "...was intended to serve as headquarters for all the major state institutions." Is the latter true? Is the former false? I can easily imagine it may have been intended to serve as both: the eastward-facing balcony onto what is now B-dul Unirii sure looks to me like it was precisely intended as a place for the dictator to look outward from an imposing position. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Officially renamed first as the House of the People (Casa Poporului) and then the Palace of the People (Palatul Poporului, a name which many Bucharesteans still use to refer to it)..." "Officially renamed as the House of the People (Casa Poporului)..." Was it never officially Palatul Poporului? I've certainly heard it called that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Effective cost of the building
I cut the following recent addition:

"Considering the extraordinary finish and quality of the buildings interiour (tons of marble, crystal, handicrafts etc.) the building is often considered to be the most expensive one in the world (that is, if someone would like to build a replica)."

That might be true, but it needs a citation. And I'm not at all sure it is true: even with the large scale of the Palace, it is hard to imagine that it really would be more expensive to replicate than, say, Versailles, which has an even higher standard of craftsmanship. Or, for that matter, certain cathedrals, which required large amounts of difficult and very technical stonecutting. Again: I'm not sure whether this is true or false, but we shouldn't just assert it, we should cite an authority as saying so. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I found an estimation of the materials used at http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/2861/display/3175968. Generaly when you make a toured visit they tell you some of these numbers, but I couldn't remember them exactly. --Orioane 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"deposit"
"Currently used as a deposit" makes no sense. Possibly "warehouse" (Romanian: depozit)? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I was tired. Mabye we could write something more about that Stadium. It was the main stadium of Buc, with a beautiful Art Deco architecture and I've read some yers ago that the initial plan was for it to be destroyed, but it was covered in a rush, without removing the benches from some sections. You can see it when you go up the Izvor Street towards the Mariott hotel. --Orioane 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So should it be "warehouse", "storage area", or "dump": I belive Romanian depozit is broad enough to cover any of these. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Warehouse because it was used by the Romanian National Library and other institutions to deposit different kinds of stuff. Also there was also a parking, but it was in bad shape. -Orioane 07:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

size of palace within city
I have cut a sentence saying that the palace plus surroundings were sais to have been of about one fifth of the city. Maybe the figure refers to the total demolition in bucharest (which is a different issue); otherwise it is absurd.


 * It was poorly worded. I have restored what was presumably meant: "Constructing the Palace and the Centru Civic required demolishing about one-fifth of the historic districts of Bucharest." - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim: "the second largest building in the world after The Pentagon in the United States," is wrong. Topkapi Palace in Istanbul is nearly twice the size of this building, at 7.5 million square feet. Lorzu (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dead link
User:Marudubshinki reported the link http://daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=10221 to be dead 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC). User:H005 then removed it (and removed Marudubshinki's notice from this talk page). Since this link was listed as a reference, it should not simply be removed without a trace (see Citing sources). The captino on it was "Source for the cafeteria news". That is poorly constructed citation (no author, title), so it may be very hard to find an equivalent link. Still, the page may eventually surface on the Internet Archive. The (English-language) Bucharest Daily News still exists, so if no one has another citation for this, it is possible that someone could either track down a paper copy or contact them for an electronic one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bucharest Daily News seems to have totally trashed their archive search function; no idea if this is longterm or temporary. - Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Architectural style
The structure combines elements and motifs from multiple recognized architectural styles, making its classification impossible for architectural critics. "Impossible"? I seriously doubt this. Could we please have some source for this? Also, it looks quite Stalinist (given the recent construction date Neo-Stalinist) to me, but I may be wrong. Here's a website describing it as Stalinist (it isn't really a reliable source, but at least it's something). Todor→Bozhinov 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't resist mentioning that in my own 2001 guide to Bucharest, slightly updated since, I called it "Bourbon Stalinist", but I'm probably not citable. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph struck me too - accordingly, I asked for sources for this quite opaque formulation.

"Bourbon Stalinist" is fine ! You probably meant a sort of stalinist rococo. A friend of mine, architect, forcasted in the mid '70s the onset of this "style", but couldn't dream of such an "achievement" as the House of the People. Ironically, the centru civic shapes the taste of many young Romanians, as one can see from some edits around here. --Vintila Barbu 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And from some buildings in northern Bucharest. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's actually Neoclassic-Revival. Neoclassic architecture was also the basis for Stalinism, Stalinism is a derogatory term applied to the design of buildings constructed during his rule.

-Anonymous Contributor, 2007

Cotidinianul
Today's issue of Cotidianul has some details on the Palace: http://cotidianul.ro/index.php?id=8633&art=22486&cHash=5917fa5eeo

bogdan 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Source of materials?
Under description section, the 4th paragraph states "The building is constructed entirely of materials of Romanian origin". However, the second paragraph states the bldg includes 900,000 cubic meters of wood (over 95% domestic). Clearly, there's a contradiction between 95% and entirely. Which is accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.147.18 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

The 5% reffers to the mahogany wood recived as a present by Ceausescu from his friend, Mobutu Sese Seko, president of Zair, from which some of the monumental doors are made. It is the only non-romanian item used in the construction.

Guinness Book
The first paragraph of the article says that the building "currently holds three records homologated by the Guinness Book of World Records". However, the link provided as reference is to the "World Records Academy". Can someone provide a valid link to the Guinness Book or a citation from the hard copy book? apancu | Talk 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Guinness Book of World Records certainly does not have the records mentioned in the article (as of January 2012). I'm removing that comment, and replacing it with the reference to "World Records Academy", though the latter site seems somewhat sketchy. Legendre17 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Two opinions
The appearance of this Palace loudly brings one word to mind: Stalinist.

The scale of the Palace, and the damage its erection did to a large part of Bucharest's city centre, remind me of the plans Albert Speer drew up for a post-victory Berlin, to be renamed Germania. The information in this entry confirms my long-standing suspicion that Ceacescu was a fascist megalomaniac in Marxist clothing. When I gaze on photographs of this Palace, my mind hears goose-stepping.132.181.160.42 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong info
The 2nd paragraph says: "According to the Guinness Book of World Records...", which is NOT true; the World Records Academy listed these records: Largest administrative building-world record set by The Palace of the Romanian Parliament (WorldRecordsAcademy (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Introductory superlatives
The intro paragraph says "second largest administrative building in the world", but the cited reference limits this context to "for civilian use," which is an arbitrary and essentially irrelevant point in this context. There are at least two "administrative buildings" that are dramatically larger, as mentioned by others here: Topkapi Palace and the Pentagon. Another sentence compares the volume of this structure with that of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, but that structure is a pyramid that is largely solid, like any other pyramid. It has some rooms inside, but not many, and given that fact, it's inevitable that the Temple of the Feathered Serpent must weigh dramatically more than the Palace of the Parliament. The List of largest buildings in the world article shows SEVEN builldings with more internal volume than the Palace. So basically I think all of these superlatives (and those under the Technical Details heading) need to be removed. The specific facts in the Materials section will stand to illustrate the magnitude of the achievement here. I'll wait for feedback here before making any changes, but if anyone wants to be bold, I think that's fine too. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It made second place in a ArchDaily list for "most expensive, unsuccessful and shameful architectural projects ever made"
A "revert conflict" that was started by the above "statement".--81.101.159.55 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, please don't revert the changes again until it is discussed here and consensus is gained. I think we need to confirm if ArchDaily is a reliable source as it appears to be a weblog covering architectural news. Just because it is popular site visited and on Facebook doesn't automatically mean it is reliable. NZFC  (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply sir, who and how will confirm, or not, that ArchDaily is reliable.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the (unduly promotional) Wikipedia article about ArchDaily describes it as a weblog. Maproom (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi sir, i don't think a average of 30 views/day is "promotion" for a site who has 8 million unique visitors/month, it is most visited "architecture website".

My interest is not about ArchDaily, but about the fact that that Casa Poporului a.k.a Palace of Parliament is expensive (to build&"operate"), unsuccessful (even for the purpose that it was "designed" by dictator Ceausescu) and a shameful architectural project (build at time when Romanians could buy food only with "state coupons" after queuing for long hours and number of calories that people could eat was calculated by communist party "scientists".) Have a nice day.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well unless you have a reliable source that states that, it can't be added to this article as ArchDaily isn't reliable. NZFC  (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that ArchDaily is actually a reliable source. Per its own website, it has its own editorial team and it has procedures to correct errors. In addition, it is used as a source by the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune . Thinker78 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I see you've taken it too reliable sources noticeboard so will see what others think.  NZFC  (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Although I think ArchDaily is a reliable source, I wonder if the writer of the original article intended to rank in order those constructions or if the numbering is just a random bullet list. Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. IMHO, why put numbers if the author didn't want to "rank" them buildings? I have seen many "lists" of x,y,z were there were no numbers, just alphabetical order.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Because bullet points can be numbers instead of points or squares without the number meaning a rank, the numbers can be used just to keep count of the items in the bullet list, without any ranking order. Thinker78 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Major Sections
Perhaps this article could benefit from more major section headings? Especially concerning the architecture of the building beyond just the materials used. Thanks for your time! Mdcarroll99 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Not the heaviest building in the world
OK so Guinness says this building is the heaviest in the world at about 4 million tonnes. The Great Pyramid of Giza aka the Pyramid of Cheops weighs about 6 million tonnes. Surely it is a building too, it has rooms and halls and everything. The Three Gorges Dam is about twice as heavy still, and would no doubt have even more rooms, hallways, toilet facilities, walkways, windows etc, everything you would see in a typical building. 1dragon (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Rooms and halls" are not what makes a building. Current definition of a building in Wikipedia is that it has walls and a roof; similar definitions can be found in most dictionaries. Neither the pyramid nor the dam meet this definition. Those are structures, but not buildings. -- H005 (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bucureşti June 1996 (3407051287).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Al . I. Cuza Hall, Palace of the Parliament of Romania (8007298148).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Al . I. Cuza Hall, Palace of the Parliament of Romania (8007298148).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Palatul Parlamentului I (42630333435).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Palacio del Parlamento Rumano 04.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Romania-1193 - Union Square (7557758988).jpg