Talk:Sofia/Archive 1

Satellite image
The satellite image overlaps and conceals text. This occurs (albeit in different places) whether you're using Firefox or IE6. Could someone who knows how to make WP images look pretty fix this up? Rlw 21:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is there a need for a satellite image? The current one has a resolution too small and does not really present any kind of useful information.--Paffka (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Night life
May I suggest to delete this section. It contains nothing informative but a promotion of a dozen of places without any support of their notability. Mukadderat 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If I remember them correctly, they were about the ones I would've thought deserve mention myself, but I agree the way it was written was not suitable for wikipedia.

PLEASE GET THE LOGO RIGHT: EVER GROWING NEVER AGING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.98.138 (talk • contribs)
 * Tell me one thing: Why only in the center, the center, the center? There are some better places outside the center. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Second oldest city/capital in Europe
This is mentioned three times in the article already, sometimes the oldest city, sometimes the oldest capital. What's the source, how can we prove that? Besides, I think telling the same fact three times is just too much. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 10:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, Athens would be the oldest. Is there evidence to suggest that Sofia was established before Rome? Doug 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * [unspecified personal attack by unsigned User:85.130.98.138removed]


 * I'm sorry, your chances of getting an answer seriously decline if you don't write in English, discussions here are normally carried out in that language. Pschemp | Talk 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The anonymous user's not asking for anything, he's use language at and threatening RexNL because of the reverts (although he might not known what's happening at all and that RexNL made the reverts, which are, by the way, justifiable). He also says he's unhappy about the quality of English in the article (he claims he's studying English philology at Sofia University and is thus the only one here who knows anything about the language). I suggest we remove his comment, as per Remove personal attacks. [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I was just trying to be polite pending translation. Ya know, Assume Good Faith until I know what it says. I totally agree the reverts were correct as I did one myself. Pschemp | Talk 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rome was capital of the Roman Empire, not of Italy; Athens was a polis, not a capital of Greece or even of the Byzantine Empire. And Bulgaria exists since more 1300 years. Petersilie.19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * correction; first Bulgarian state dates back to 681, capital was Pliska. The second Bulgarian empire (1185) had Veliko Turnovo as its capital. It was not until much later - AFAIK after the end Russo-Turkish War which ended Ottoman occupation of the country - that Sofia became the capital. see the [Bulgaria] article for much these facts. It might be a very old city, but the claim that it was the oldest capital seems somewhat ungrounded.

Btw, the claim that Bulgaria exists 1300 years is also stretching it. During the 5 centuries of Ottoman rule, between 1396 and 1778, there was no independent Bulgaria. Neither was there between 1018 and 1185. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.187.26 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that it was taken by Rome 29 BC and mentions the campaigns of Crassus. Crassus died in 53 BC trying to take Syria, so he wouldn't have been around to march in come 29 BC. For the life of me I can't find out who did take it for Rome. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.46.134 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Municipality allows us to use their pictures and materials
Hello,

Just wanted to share with you that Sofia Municipality has given us permission (text states that we can use the materials on their web site, it's posted in the Bulgarian Wikipedia) to use their materials. There are a lot of nice pictures and useful information on there which I think we can put to good use here. Regards, --Vanka5 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify if the permission extends only to the Wikipedia? If so, it is unusable. Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we can use it on Wikipedia. I am really not familiar with the different licenses on Wikipedia but if there is a license that says that materials can be used on Wikipedia only and then maybe used elsewhere only by referencing the originator I would use that one. By the way the permission did not sound really strict, as if if anyone asked the author they would have given them permission. I left a message for the person who got the permission and either he or I will get back to you on that one. --Vanka5 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove history stub notices
The History subsections (Antiquity, Middle ages, etc.) are just long enough for this article, in my opinion. The whole history is longer than that in the India article, for example. All we need is a couple of sentences about what happened after socialism ended. Perhaps there needs to be a more detailed "History of Sofia" article, but remove the stubs notices from the history subsections in the main Sofia article. -Pgan002 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we could remove the stub tags, but we certainly need a separate History of Sofia article. [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 07:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed them for now. If anyone has objections, you can always express them here. [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 12:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption

 * Sofia has been a centre of Eastern Orthodoxy since the times of the Roman Empire

The caption of the photo should say what the image represent, i.e. what church is pictured and why it's signifiant to this article. Also, talking about Eastern Orthodoxy during the Roman Empire is an anachronism, as the schism occured much later. bogdan 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture order
I think it is missing.And what I done was to order them.But it is returned the older version.I want to ask why Sofia University is in Architecture,Mall of Sofia in Education, Church of St Sophia in Sport,why Ivan Vazov National Theatre isn`t in Places of special interest and what is the building of DZI noteworthy for in the capital.And also why not some of the pictures to be in the left side of the page.Thank you.--85.130.11.193 15:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not ordered in any relation to the sections in most cases. I wouldn't object to ordering them in such a way or putting some to the left, but your version had some photos overlapping and didn't look OK at least at 1024x768, so I reverted. Feel free to reorder them again, just make sure they are arranged so that they don't overlap. Also, I don't think the article can deal with any more pictures &mdash; it's currently full if not overflooded :) As for the DZI building, it's not in any way special, just like some others in the article, it just shows some architecture. Todor→Bozhinov 15:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

ok I see now.Thank you for the answer. (: --85.130.11.193 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

All the pictures have to be inserted into a photoalbum or something like it! There are too many pictures on the right side and they are not symmetric with the text on the left. I am not saying that they have to be deleted, but rather turned into smaller clickable images.
 * They're small and clickable... And what do you mean by "symmetric with the text on the left"? Certainly, the article would use a gallery, but at the moment I'm quite busy with other things, including on Wikipedia, so perhaps at a later stage I'd do it. Unless someone does it before me, which I would appreciate... Todor→Bozhinov 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am saying that currently there is a huge column of pictures on the right side and there is not enough text on the left, which creates big empty white spots. It doesn't look esthetic at all.'' Делян 13:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bravo Bravisimo to the first picture (National Assembly Square in central Sofia), PERFECT!!! It is extremely great idea to show the back side of the hors on top of the article for the CAPITAL city!!! Which idiot put this there??? Was it deliberately??? K.Velev :26/03/2007


 * I suppose the idea was to show both the cathedral and the National Assembly in one shot, and the focus was not on the monument. Can you donate a picture which shows the horse from a better perspective? --Cameltrader 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be that idiot, and to be honest I find nothing wrong with it. It's a monument, it has a back side, yes, so what? Does it say somewhere that the back sides of monuments shouldn't be photographed? The photo is of great quality, it shoes the National Assembly, the cathedral, the monument and even part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in one shot, so what's the problem? Also, mind your language. After all, not everyone is capable of using such sophisticated phrases like "bravo bravisimo" [sic], and that doesn't make one an idiot :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery
There are too many inline photos for the length of the article and they break the page's flow in almost any resolution.

I suggest each section of the article needs no more than 2 photographs, selected on merits such as quality and relativity, and then we could create a separate section at the end where the rest are posted in a gallery-like format.

Please discuss.

--Kroum 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, I dunno, it's OK at 1024x768 and I don't see any problems with the text's flow. I would support rearranging the pictures to be relevant to each section and including the rest in a gallery, but I still find the current format OK. Many people seem not to like it, though. Todor→Bozhinov 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

THERE'S NO PICTURE FROM BUSINESS PARK SOFIA!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.131.87 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

City center
Why the city center is discussed so widely? It is alfuw and crowded. The traffic is way too much. If you ever go to Sofia don't go there! The outskirfs are better. Superboy88 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, traffic and crowdedness are an issue of every large city. The city centre has most of the major sights attracting visitors to Sofia, practically all of the state institutions are located there, and it's the hub of economic, political, social, cultural, etc. life in Sofia and, in most cases, Bulgaria as a whole. So why really? Adding info about the outskirts is always fine, as long as you cite sources. Or you can write separate articles on the neighbourhoods of Sofia instead of complaining and giving inappropriate advice :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that it is appropriate to show FOUR images of traffic jam near Orlov Most? Isn't it better to show the readers of the wikipedia the beautuful face of the capital? Each city has traffic jams, some of them much more heavy than Sofia but this is the first place to see so many images devoted to the problem. Let as take an example from Belgrad and make this page more beautiful, because I do not think that belgrad is superior to Sofia in any way. --Gligan 11:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the removal of the first picture from the article since it shows Sofia as it looked only on the New Year eve (2006). Another possibility is just to modify the text below the picture, since it is misleading - one might think that the capital looks like that every single night. I do know that it might be good to show our capital in all its beauty, but lets not overrate the reality!Svetlyosvetlyo (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say replace it with one that recognisably shows Sofia ("Sofia at night" isn't even encyclopedic). I think the Alexander Nevsky cathedral is the one and only symbol of Sofia, and should be shown as the infobox picture. Preslav (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why photos ONLY from the Sofia downtown and outskirts like Mladost and Lulin? These two give a low profile of the town. South quarters will represent the town in a better way. In additin ALEXANDAR NEVSKI CHURCH is NO SYMBOL OF SOFIA. It's a plain church, nothing else! The Kopitoto tower is the first symbol, the second is the Sofia Zoo, and the third - Sofia Mell's buildings. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.121.186 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, do you think we should put only pictures of the nice places? nearly 1/3 of the people in Sofia live in Lulin and Mladost. The article is intended to be informative of the real thing, not a (misguided) PR attempt! --Lasombra bg (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that if you'd ask a foreigner what he knows about Sofia, he'll mention the Alexander Nevsky (if anything at all). I'm sure there is a picture of it in any travel guide of Sofia if not on the cover; check here or here  for instance. Kopitoto may be a good, but distant, second, Sofia Zoo is not very notable by international standards, and Sofia Mel's buildings not at all. I live in Sofia for 4 years now but don't even know where they are... Preslav (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, NOBODY who is smart enough will go in Sofia or in another Bulgarian city. The only reason for people visiting Bulgaria are the low prices.83.228.121.186 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is getting too long
I think this page is getting too long, with too many photos. I think we should discuss how to make it more manageable and readable by splitting off sections and deleting non-notable parts. My candidates for deletion: the section on hypermarkets and the photos of the traffic jam at Orlov Most. Preslav 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Substantially reworked images and layout

 * Numerous malls are constantly built everywhere, so "a new mall" image is often superfluous, unless the Sofia City Centre has its own dedicated article that can afford such an image. All in all, a very recent edition already contained two images of malls and one image already contains a mall and an IMAX theatre in a business district (which I placed in an architecture-related gallery). &mdash; Which is why I removed City Center of Sofia: a new Mall image with no intention to return it. -Mardus 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about locking the article
That will lead to the end of the everyday changings.It can be choosen one state at last.At moment it doesn`t look bad.Only there are two pictures of the national theatre and there is no need of that.People who edit the page with their own pics should know that that`s not fan-site photo gallery.The pics which presents best their category should be picked up.--91.92.221.174 12:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

very low marriage rate
Can it really be the case that only 5 persons per thousand are married? In http://books.google.com/books?id=AwsSPUrDfb0C&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=marriage+rate+bulgaria&source=web&ots=h-E5MYUIeI&sig=fKM2tPM31pu91w8Pm8QYIl4QmSc#PPA116,M1 it appears that Bulgarian rates of matrimony are on the high side, and this seems improbably low. How about a source for this? 67.101.164.135 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sofia - better places
I found an image in the Internet about the better places in Sofia. I think it is magazine-based. The contest of the magazine has been about "Which are the good zones in Sofia?". The most voted are shown in red here: Click here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.89.2 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak-minded peasants
Who`s that idiot who wrote such population figures for Sofia? I know that many village people who have come to THE GREAT capital want it to be a large and major european, even more - world city, but in Wikipedia only official sources are actual. Obviously some of these peasants has worked these numbers out and rearranged the table "Top 100 cities by population in the EU" and put Sofia on 7th place. That`s funny. I`m fed up with the ignorance of Bulgarians. You will never admit that your capital is a stinky and primitive village. What a disgrace for the EU to have such a country with such a capital! Don`t be silly Bulgarians! Come to your senses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.53.245 (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point here, although the better reaction would have been to leave a message on the talk page of the editor who changed the figures (as I just did). I can't agree with your opinion about Sofia and its inhabitants and your choice of words. Preslav (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the population figures are wrong and aren't based on an official document. However because you have allowed yourself to say :"You will never admit that your capital is a stinky and primitive village. What a disgrace for the EU to have such a country with such a capital!" I won't bother editting it. By the way why don't you sign in?--Avidius (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the country or the capital that are stuoid, you are.

To this happy man who "corrected" the population- Why didn`t you correct the population of the districts :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.212.35 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian "temple"
Is there a reason why the Church of Sv. Georgi is refered to as a "temple" in the photo caption? Temple is not generally used to refer to Christian houses of worship. Josh (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Houses of worship?? -- L a v e o l  T 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the definition for church is Christian temple, so they should be synonims. --Gligan (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was built as a Roman temple, and later used as a church (after Constantine made Christianity the state religion in the Roman Empire). Preslav (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A church is not a temple. The first word used for church is the Greek Ekkleisia, which means "assembly", i.e. the place where the christians assemble.  At any rate, in English, a place where Christians worship is always called a church, never a temple.  Whatever it was originally built as, it is now a church.  And for the record, Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion of the Roman empire, he merely allowed it to worship freely.Josh (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Climate Data
Hi, I believe that the climate data is wrong. I clicked on the link and examined that average maximum temperatures because they seemed really high and it seems that I was right. The climate data in the Wikipedia table from May to September does not match those from the reference table. I've never participated in wikipedia before so I'm not sure if I'm just allowed to go ahead and change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da.brickbat (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that, I think I've corrected those irregularities (wonder what caused them, may be a malicious user or a mistake). Is the yearly temperature data also incorrect? I didn't bother to calculate it myself so I haven't changed it. By the way, you're free to correct and improve anything anywhere on Wikipedia, so go ahead and be bold! :) Todor→Bozhinov 22:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the climate graph, temperatures are in F with C in brackets, but for more than 120 years the International Standards Organisation has defined Celcius as the way to go. We certainly should use Celcius, rather than go back to the 17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.158.97 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited the infobox so that metric comes first now; it wasn't very difficult! Preslav (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Images in this article.
I don't want to anger anybody but I feel the current article downright sucks. Not due to a lack or excess of information but due to the ugly presentation according to which a reader paints the picture that a third of the buildings are some kind of church, another third architectural masterpieces and the rest glitzy glassy 'cool' buildings where the wonderful creatures that built them live. This is not the truth and it's high time this article stops being polished like a tourist-oriented travel brochure. My idea is to include a pic or two of an average neighbourhood, panelkas, parked cars and all that magic under the Vitosha skyline. --Paffka (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's common practice to include photos of landmarks and visually-appealing architecture. Panelkas, parked cars and such one can see everywhere in Eastern Europe, the more creative architecture of the late 19th–early 20th century is what distinguishes Sofia. Of course, one or two photos of panelkas and "average" neighbourhoods would be fine, but the article has much different problems than bad photos… Look at featured articles like Belgrade for example, I see only one photo of an "average" panelka neighbourhoods, and needless to say that the city is dominated by panelkas no less than Sofia. So obviously, if Belgrade is an FA with cool shiny pictures of the city centre, then we shouldn't assume a different approach. Of course, the number of photos should be greatly reduced to the best ones.


 * Major issues are prose quality, referencing and comprehensiveness, not photos, in my opinion. Todor→Bozhinov 16:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem is, there are too many pictures. And I do mean TOO many - their number is, well, ridiculous. There are a lot of images to omit. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it really a 'Communist revolution'?
Under 'End of Ottoman Rule'? Surely it was Communist, but a revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop writing unconfirmed bullshit about the metro population
Here in Bulgaria we don't have such developed urban areas and urban zones like in developed countries and in the Western world. Our cities and towns, including Sofia dont have any satelite towns and large suburbs. Our large cities are the only large populated place in their areas in a radius of 30-40 km, there are no urban agglomerations. I suggest not to write "urban" or "metro" population for any Bulgarian town, simply because we here don't have such things. Sofia's official population is about 1,270,000. That's all. No metro areas, no LUZes, no shit. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.4.218 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Area
The "City" area is nowhere near that cited on the page! The urban area of Sofia, which is normally much larger than the city area, is 245.5 sq km (http://www.sofia.bg/sofia1.asp). Ivan Marinov (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Serdi were Celts

 * Just so you know as the ref states Serdi were Celts.They got there 4th century BC .Also there is no 7,000 year old history of the city as it was not established then.In addition no Odrysians there and at that time.And Thracians as proto-Thracians begin to be identified by Archaeology at 1000 BC and so on.Before that no Thracians.Megistias (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you'd need really solid sources for that. -- L a v e o l  T 19:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its sourced and referenced.Megistias (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On Thracian chronology
 * The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger,1982,page 53,"... Yet we cannot identify the Thracians at that remote period, because we do not know for certain whether the Thracian and Illyrian tribes had separated by then. It is safer to speak of Proto-Thracians from whom there developed in the Iron Age ..."


 * The cited sources are biased and unreliable, especially Boardman and Hammond! There is no such thing as "proto" in modern archaeology and archaeological theory. It is an anachronistic culture-historical notion. Ivan Marinov (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On the Serdi
 * The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond ,ISBN-10: 0521227178,1992,page 600: "In the place of the vanished Treres and Tilataei we find the Serdi for whom there is no evidence before the first century bc.It has for long being supposed on convincing linguistic and archeological grounds that this tribe was of Celtic origin"

Megistias (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course no Odrysians there and at that time(500 BC).Megistias (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To complete this,Odrysians were at Hebrus river and at about 300 BC moved their capital to Seuthopolis which is at Kazanlak today.Nothing to do with the location of Sofia.


 * The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology) by Z. H. Archibald,1998,ISBN-10-0198150474,Map
 * The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 by Christopher Webber,ISBN-10: 1841763292,2001,map
 * Encyclopedia of Prehistory - Volume 4: Europe by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember,2001,page 88: "... (Danov 1969; Hoddinott 1981; Mihailov 1986; Archi- bald 1998). The Odrysian capital, Seuthopolis, situated on the upper Tundja and named, in overtly ..."Megistias (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Names of churches
I think the names of the churches in the English version of Wikipedia should be in English. In any case they should be either in English or in Bulgarian. Therefore "Saint Sofia" doesn't make any sense. The name of the church should be "Holy Wisdom" (or as it is known from Greek Hagia Sophia - not to be confused with the namesake church in Istanbul) or Sveta Sofia. The former inscription below the photograph of the church of Sveti Sedmochislenici implied that the church dates back to the Roman period, which is not true. I preferred the accepted English version Saint Seven for the reasons cited above. It would be desirable as well the names to correspond to the related article in Wikipedia.--Petar ppk (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, the first church is already at Hagia Sophia Church (Sofia), it seems the links in Sofia have not been altered though. "Saint Seven" sucks and doesn't exist as a name. I'm not aware of an English-language equivalent to Sedmochislenitsi. Todor→Bozhinov 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The adequate rendering of these Bulgarian names in English would be "Saint Sofia" and "Sveti Sedmochislenitsi" (the Bulgarian 'Sveti Sedmochislenitsi' is a single notion hence transliterated), as is the established common English usage. Hagia Sophia (?!) is neither here nor there in this context, quite outlandish. Apcbg (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Petar ppk correctly explained that "Sophia" is not the name of a saint, but of the concept of the Holy Wisdom. Some of the articles on churches named after the concept follow the Hagia Sophia model, others rely on Saint Sophia, but "Saint Sofia" wouldn't work. Personally, I find "Hagia Sophia Church" fitting, as "Saint Sophia"-named churches are mostly in Russia and the US, while older Byzantine churches are all named "Hagia Sophia" in Wikipedia. Todor→Bozhinov
 * That explanation applies to the origins of the name when the Church was Byzantine. For some 1,100 years now, the name is Bulgarian not Byzantine Greek.  Furthermore, that Bulgarian name is identical to the name of the city itself (as you may well know the city took its name from the church in the first place), and the city's name is rendered 'Sofia' in English not 'Sophia'.  No reason for one and the same name to be presented in two different ways, more so that the common English practice uses 'Sofia' both for the church and the city. Apcbg (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article
Tourbillon has done good work by removing the unnecessary large among of pictures. What we should do is expanding the text and adding more citations. We should also make a subsection about the history of Sofia after the Liberation. I write this because I can't make it all by myself because my English is not the the very best, I am not sure about the structure of the text and I don't have too much time... --Gligan (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work a bit on that in the next few days. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox collage discussion
There is an ongoing discussion about the collage in the infobox. Please voice your opinion here whether you prefer File:Sofia Collage.png or File:Sofia Collage TB.png, or you have a different idea as to what should be in the infobox. Thanks!  — Toдor Boжinov — 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the earlier collage (the right one). Some of the images in the new collage are frankly ugly and are not very recognizable, to boot. Kostja (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think that the right one is more appropriate. --Gligan (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen anywhere voicing images discussions. There is already a to-do list, just over here and it is clearly written "pick other good photos", I think that was the reason this article not to be picked as good. And I think a lot of time editors couldn't find their way through this requirement. As far as I changed most of images and I think anyone would agree most of them are better, better sorted and in a better way shown I think also my collage is better for these reasons:


 * It represents the Motto of the town "gows but does not age", the previous image shows only aged examples of architecure, focusing only on hisotry and not in present.
 * Sofia is also a town of business and economic growth, we should represent that too.
 * Sofia is a green town, and many people from abroad will do say the same, for many towns have lost their nature while Sofia still preserves this, although trees are often cut we have because of climate one very green town, and this should be seen on images too.
 * I will not discuss in detail the collage of Bozhinov as far as he gets this personal.

I hope you will agree with this in accordance with the desire of improving the article. --Aleksd (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, I made that to-do list five years ago, it has nothing to do with any GA nominations or anything, and I certainly did not mean the infobox because I only made my collage a year ago. I acknowledge your points above, but I believe that the photos you have used fail to properly live up to these expectations. A lawn in Business Park Sofia does not do a good job of representing nature and there's already modern architecture in the old version (National Palace of Culture and Mall of Sofia).
 * Two editors above have agreed that the old version of the collage is better, so you're acting against consensus, Aleksd. With me, there are three editors who support the previous image, and you're the only person who approves of your version.
 * Also, I'm kindly asking you to take this discussion seriously and stop accusing me of "getting personal". I have been civil and assuming good faith throughout, whereas your first comment on my talk involved inappropriate sarcasm and an assessment of a significant part of my Wikipedia work as "terrifying", "tragical and "depressing". This is hardly civil and can easily be interpreted as a personal attack.
 * Thanks for writing down your arguments above, but unless you can get consensus in favour of your version of the collage, we cannot use it.  — Toдor Boжinov — 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The right (old) collage is definitely better. The one on the left lacks any sort of aesthetics whatsoever - images with unclear and unspecified subjects (probably supposed to be "landmarks" with a spirit of "modernity") of low importance, some of them with bad lighting, and the overall appearance is hopelessly unharmonised and lacking in emotional impact. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I forgot to mention that the new choice of images on the page is indeed a poor one. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox collage discussion RfC
Disagreement on which collage to use in the article infobox. Three editors (including me) agree that File:Sofia Collage TB.png is better. User:Aleksd insists on using her version (File:Sofia Collage.png) despite the opinion of the others.  — Toдor Boжinov — 16:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Sofia Collage TB.png. File:Sofia Collage TB.png just has a better layout. The top of File:Sofia Collage.png -- the left image is kind of bland and generic, it's not framed too well and it's a bit unclear right away what you're looking at; the right image is also kind of generic, just some greenery behind some buildings. The panorama at the top of File:Sofia Collage TB.png kind of draws you in more, and then there are some nice shots of historic buildings. File:Sofia Collage.png has the panorama, but later, and the framing and subject on the subsequent shots is not quite as good. I'm not putting down [[:File:Sofia Collage.png, it's a perfectly workmanlike piece, its just that File:Sofia Collage TB.png is even better, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I came from the RFC. While I agree with your criticisms of the no-TB, I'm not a fan of TB either. Frankly, TB is just too cluttered. It has good images, but too many of them (9!). I know little about Sofia, but it seems to me that the bizarre half-skyline panorama showing the back of a horse and the top half-of some buildings could easily go. As could the building with the Imax theatre and the lacklustre brick building at the bottom. Alternatively, a less-disorienting panorama involving the horse could be placed at the bottom, sandwiching the other pictures. The TB image is better, but it still leaves much to be desired.  Oreo Priest  talk 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that File:Sofia Collage TB.png is better, it might be further improved. The 'back of the horse' sort of picture is a must for Sofia indeed, as is the 'lacklustre brick building' (St. Sofia Cathedral, possibly in another version showing more of it). Unfortunately, the panoramic pictura derived from File:Downtown Sofia Boby Dimitrov 1.jpg does not show Vitosha, which in my opinion would be desirable. Apcbg (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a shot which has Vitosha would be a good idea. I also agree that my crop of the horse and "some buildings" (the parliament, the largest cathedral and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences HQ) may be too tight and weird, but I wanted to make it as short as possible and there were some irrelevant people in the bottom part. Feel free to improve on the collage I made! It's just that Aleksd was adamant about us using her version and wouldn't hear any of my arguments as to why it was not good enough...  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Parliament square image is disorienting partly because you tried to crop out the cars from an image taken at foot-level. Is there not an image taken from a second floor or roof that would work? Could you make one. Honestly, when you crop it that tight, it's a really poor image, and including the cars wouldn't make it any better. As for the IMAX building, in this case the picture of a modern building from the non-TB version is better.  Oreo Priest  talk 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos
The new photos are utterly disgusting from any point of view. I'll revert the page to a decent version that existed some time ago. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And what about the old photos, mostly there are only disgusting pre-concrete bussiness buildings. Besides the photos you removed improving of the page, I back the old version. For the imagery to not arguing we both, let's ask the editors which imagery they prefer, from this version:, or from this:. Give your opinion, please. Thanks Pensionero (UTC)


 * This is no place to vote, basic judgment of quality does not need a vote. Could you tell me how exactly would a night picture of the Alexander Nevsky cathedral could be descriptive of the demographics section ? How can the TV screens of Mall of Sofia be placed in the gallery of landmarks ? Placing a picture of the Gallery for Foreign Art in which the building is half-obscured by another building ? Even worse, removing the contrasting images of Stalinist and 19th century gothic architecture and replacing them with an inadequate image of a statue in the architecture section ? Please explain, how any of the changes you make is appropriate to the respective sections. The reason I will revert the page back is not because I have preferences; the reason is because basic image aesthetics is better than inadequacy. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I wanted only to replace the pictures of the awful bussiness buildings in Demographics and Architecture, they really make bad repotation! The picture of Alexander Nevsky and Boulevard Cherni Vrah I take in Demographics and Places of special interest not in the write of the both paragraphs unawares, but they are however most famous and better from the Bussiness building of Borovo. For the Mall of Sofia's picture, I take it instead TZUM altough it was inside of the mall, I see it should be exterior picture, however it may be used other picture beacause TZUM and Mall of Sofia both are not so big landmarks. And what about this picture File:Sofia-gallery-for-foreign-art-imagesfrombulgaria.JPG is not necessarily to be seen every corner of the building, sometimes details are using, altough this is 2/3 view not detail. I removed the Stalinist architecture beacause the Largo was already shown in Landmarks, but I see statue is not appropriate. I understand why you revert my version, I placed some pictures in not write paragraphs inadequately, but these bussiness and apartament buildings should be replaced. I'll try to find more adecuate pictures for their replacing, but I'll keep the symbol Alexander Nevsky changed in Places of special interest and the boulevard in Demographics. Pensionero (UTC)


 * It's not about how it looks. The apartment blocks are representative of the construction boom. The purpose of each picture is not to display a "cool" image, but to illustrate the content of the respective section. Cherni Vrah is a good one, I don't mind about it, but the different malls of Sofia are no landmarks and don't really have much significance. TZUM, despite everything, is a respected establishment much like Galeries Lafayette and has a place in the article. The Largo could be replaced with this image of the Gallery for Foreign Art, but it would be good if the Stalinist gothic remains in the Architecture section. The contrast or (even variety) of the buildings in Sofia is remarkable and it should be properly displayed, in my opinion. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Images of old Sofia and 21st century Sofia
I found these pictures to be interesting for someone like me who have never visited Sofia. I think many other people will be happy to see them as part of the article for the city of Sofia. Please keep picture gallery within this article.

ThismajorUSA (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a good deal of images on Commons. This page is not a photo album. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But why so many city articles have the same type of picture gallery but not for Sofia ? Is that a some kind of double standard or self imposed standard ?

ThismajorUSA (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One article cannot be a standard for another. Galleries are discouraged per MoS as they increase the loading time of the page. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate data
Can someone work on getting better sources for the climate data? Current sources don't clearly provide support for what's in the climate data table. Pinetalk 11:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Change of the collage
I believe the current collage in the infobox isn't good enough and should be changed with this one. File:Sofia Collage TB.png, in my opinion, has too many photos for a collage and doesn't create a good enough notion of the city. On the other hand, my version of the collage combines the city's tourist attractions, baroque and Stalinist architecture in the city centre, as well as the newer modern office buildings, more and more of which are being built. Nicksss93 (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't see how generic office buildings illustrate Sofia in any way. I don't recognize any of these and they could be in any other city in the world just as well. The photo of the Largo requires colour correction and other touch-up work, the photo of the National Theatre is not a good one, and the collage you're proposing is missing important sights overall. There's nothing to show that Sofia is an ancient city, for instance. Think about it this way: on a case by case basis, why is each of the photos you have selected a good choice? What does it contribute individually and how does it contrast with the other images?  — Toдor Boжinov — 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to create a Sofia-in-a-nutshell collage, combining the different architectural styles and recognizable buildings. I included the photo first photo because it gives a very good view of the Tsar Liberator monument, the National Assembly and the cathedral in the background and, in my opinion, this is arguably one of the best photos of the city. The image from the National Theatre gives a very good skyline idea to the reader and that's why I chose it, but I agree that it's not of the best quality so it could be replaced with something else from Serdica such as this one, for example. The Largo photo is a perfect example of the Stalinist architecture in the city and also includes the Presidency in the background. And now about the last photos of the Business Park. In recent years, the city has been rapidly developing eastwards and many new buildings are and were built around the eastern parts of Tsarigradsko shose and the Sofia ring road. I see this as a business district in the foreseeable future and that's why I included the BPS photos as they resemble the city's future very well. On the other hand, the current collage, in my opinion, gives too many photos, some of which - like the NDK and Orlov most details, which contribute with practically nothing to the overall idea and outlook of the collage. Nicksss93 (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed. I guess this one has been resolved. Nicksss93 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! The Wikipedia dispute process does not work this way, and I still disagree with your personal assessment. Please achieve consensus before applying your desired change to the article. You are welcome to seek a third opinion via WP:3O. Alternatively, you may contact other active contributors to the article (e.g. User:Tourbillon). Thanks!  — Toдor Boжinov — 14:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The present collection seems better to me. By the way, Vitosha is inseparable from Sofia, a real must I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now this is a good idea: I agree that an image of Vitosha would approve the present collage.  — Toдor Boжinov — 07:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was rather thinking of a panoramic picture of the city with a good view of Vitosha in the background; maybe not exactly this but something similar. Apcbg (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The current collage accents a bit too much on buildings, and a few of the photos likely aren't of the best angle. This would be a nice addition since there are no green spaces in the collage; this view of the Saint Sofia church underlines its age much better IMO; and this view of Sofia U is likely also better since the facade is not obscured by shadows. Finally, a view of Rakovski would be a nice addition. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be best to create a new collage with the photos we reach consensus about here. Nicksss93 (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Metro
Could someone please explain the made up population of the so called Metro area? It's complete fiction and it should be removed.--Avidius (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's completely unsourced, but somebody keeps adding certain figures for the past year. Asked for a protection from IPs, but without success. It's misinformation at the very least.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted and I reinserted it once again as the website below clearly states the metropolitan population, so could someone explain what is wrong with it?

--Ceco31 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, this is a visual presentation - therefore, nowhere near a reliable source. Second, it states that the 1.4 mln. figure is on the Sofia Metropolitan Region, which means that the figure includes Sofia Province, as it has a population of about 250,000. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless a credible source is presented that the population of Sofia is 1.4 million, I will revert once again. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Population of Sofia proper
Please stop writing the number 1,166,000 for the proper population, because it is incorrect. Thats the number of the ethnic Bulgarians living in Sofia according to the last census held in 2011. Beside Bulgarians, there are, of course, representatives of other nationalities and ethnic minorities residing in the city. Adding them to the number makes a total of 1,204,685 people living in the city according to the same above mentioned census! Stop being so ignorant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.56.57 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Geography
"The Iskar River in its upper course flows near eastern Sofia.", is wrong, the Iskar actually runs through the outskirts of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.179.1 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Settled by Celts
This is ridiculous! Sofia was settled by Thracians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.133.33 (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Celts do not appear in Eastern Europe until the 1st century BC. How it is possible to settle a city 4 centuries before they appear? It is not possible of cource!

Moreover, there is no proves that serds really are celtic tribe.To declare them as such is a wishful thinking! There is NO evidence of celtic presance in Sofia region. There was in northwestern Bulgaria but not around Sofia.

Sofia City Province & Sofia Capital Municipality?
Are the Sofia City Province & the Sofia Capital Municipality coterminous? I ask, because on this page the land area of the city (municipality, I assume) is listed as 492 km2. Yet, it's listed at 1,344 km2 on the Sofia City Province page. And, even still on the Bulgarian version of the Sofia Capital Municipality page it's listed at 1348.9 km2. I assume the number is closer to the last two than the first. When we're talking about "Sofia" on this page, we should be talking about its local/regional government. In that case, the numbers need to all match on the Sofia, Sofia Capital Municipality, and Sofia City Province pages since they are all share the same borders. If Bulgaria has a statistical measurement for the population and land area of just the contiguous settlement of Sofia within the city province/municipality apart from any other settlements within the boundaries, that can be made mention of somewhere within the article. But, the infobox information should always be reserved for measurements as defined by the administrative area of the city/province. Does this make sense? Would someone fluent in Bulgaria be willing to go and correct the area and whatever else needs correcting to bring it in line with other city/municipal pages here on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Sofia
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

GA status
I nominated the article for GA status, but it failed. Maybe just a little more should be done. May somebody help with the sources about culture and transport because I am not into this? If somebody wants to see which sections are considered "OK" and which are not, this is the full critical report from Talk:Sofia/GA1:
 * Names
 * The second half of this section is unsourced


 * Geography
 * A claim to be known for 49 springs should have a citation
 * The last paragraph, on the distances, is clunky. There are some possibilities: you could cut it down to only the nearest important cities, or you could convert it into a chart on the side. And Google Maps may not be considered the most reliable source.


 * History
 * Mostly well-sourced. However, all dates in the article should either be Christian (BC/AD) or secular (BCE/CE). Also, only AD can precede a date ("Around BC 29" is incorrect use)
 * In "Modern and contemporary history", the second paragraph has World War I and II, then the third goes back to 1925
 * Who were these ultra-leftists and which King did they target?
 * The last one-and-a-half paragraphs are unsourced


 * Cityscape
 * Again, begins well-sourced but not at the end
 * Gallery is appropriate for this section, but not formatted correctly
 * "Green areas" slowly turns into an advertisement for the skiing facilities


 * Government and law
 * Overall well sourced
 * The death of a notable person like Professor Tachkov is relevant, but maybe too much is written on his background and lifetime


 * Culture
 * Problems with unsourced paragraphs
 * Paragraph on Vitosha Blvd. ends up as an advertisement


 * Sports
 * Suitably sourced, maybe could do with a picture or even a relevant gallery


 * Demographics
 * No problems


 * Economy
 * No problems


 * Transport
 * Last paragraph unsourced


 * Education
 * No problems. Last paragraph unsourced but makes no controversial claims which would need it.


 * Honour
 * Maybe too short to ever be a section for its own. Could merge into Etymology somehow


 * Gallery
 * Stand-alone galleries like this aren't advised, as they are random.
 * Images could be worked in as galleries for sections, like showing Sofia in different times of the year for climate, government buildings in Government and law, religious edifices in Demographics--Serdik (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sister cities
(moved from my talk page: -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)) Please explain at the talk page why did you remove this sourced content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 2:10 am, Today (UTC+2)


 * User:Serdik: First of all, would you mind to provide a bit more patience!?! Secondly, discuss this issue here at the article's talk page. Thirdly, restrain from unjustifiably adding warning tags to my talk page! Forth, I gave all the necessary information in the change summary.
 * But to your convenience, I repeat them here:
 * Bursa: it is not according the official link given by Bursa itself. Secondly, the given link is very unreliable and not an official site (Aevum, the publisher, of sistercity.info is a German IT company).
 * Milan: Given link points to some general page. And according official link by city of Milan, Sofia is not a sister city.
 * Lisbon: Is not a sister/twin city. There are agreements between Sofia and Lisbon, but not as a sister/twin city! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I detected it as vandalism of well sourced content. Explain please your removals of these official sources, they are as follows:
 * 🇮🇹 Milan, Italy
 * 🇫🇷 Paris, France
 * Lisbon, Portugal
 * 🇩🇪 Berlin, Germany{{cite web|url=http://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/staedteverbindungen/index.en.html|title=Berlin's international city relations |publisher=Berlin Mayor's Office|accessdate=1 July 2009} --Serdik (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Serdik: Would you mind to learn how to write on talk pages? WP:TALK, thanks.
 * Milan: I already reverted it. Well, as long as you have not undone it again – PATIENCE!!!
 * Paris: It's "only" a friendship relation as easily explained on the given link.
 * Lisbon, already explained. READ! – again: PATIENCE.
 * Berlin: Did you check the links at all!??? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for my allegations to you, there is ongoing blanking and damaging of other sections so I put all at the same basket. These official sources are dead I see what is your motivation, but they were verified years ago when they were introduced at List of twin towns and sister cities in Bulgaria, so I trust this information. WWhy removing sistercities.info since official data is lacking?--Serdik (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Apalogy accepted. Nevertheless, some patience on your side could help – even for you.
 * "but they were verified years ago when they were introduced at": I doubt so. Besides, internal WP reference are and cannot be valid.
 * sistercity.info: see above! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is actually an improvement, I appreciate your contribution! Certain cities such as Paris and Lisboa have other type of partnership with Sofia so I think that they may be re-included under the other definition.--Serdik (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism
Somebody has been blanking sections, again and again. Please somebody else intervent against vandalism.--Serdik (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, LjL !--Serdik (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime
The section about crime is being repeatedly removed wholesale. The section is sourced. The claim is that it is not encyclopedic and that the sources are not reliable. Both claims are very bold and need to be substantiated before any wholesale section blanking, which may otherwise be interpreted as unconstructive. Government sources should generally be attributed as such, but they aren't forbidden; as far as I can see, attribution is present. As to encyclopedicity, I can't even fathom why information about crime and crime rates in a city might be unencyclopedic for the city's article, so I cannot possibly have a rebuttal: that's why the extraordinary claim needs to be elaborated on. One edit summary states this encyclopedia is "not a newspaper", but that doesn't in any way show that crime-related information need to be suppressed. --LjL (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the above was just brushed off with a ridiculous undue weight claim (and, of course, again removed entirely, which is not quite the idea of "undue weight"...), I'm starting an RfC. LjL (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There has been an exchange on my talk page but I'm disappointed to see that the editor involved has still not replied here and they blanked the section yet again. LjL (talk) 13:31, 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.
 * Exactly. According to the official statistics by Eurostat Sofia is one the cities with lowest crime and the claim that "Crime in Sofia is considered high" is wrong. Even Bulgaria is one of the countries with lowest crime, as is shown in the official statistic of Eurostat here - located in 28th place from 36 countries with highest crime!--Stolichanin (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, the controversial info was removed--Stolichanin (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not how we deal with controversial sourced info. See WP:Conflicting sources. Please reinstate it, attribute it to the source, and if you want, provide other sources that contradict it. You are not helping yourself. Your Eurostat source is, by the way, currently meaningless, since it's an unexplained table with no legend or anything explaining what it's telling us. Provide context. LjL (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eurostat is the official statistical office of the members of European Union. All sort of American, Russian or etc. departaments are not a neutral sources and more exactly - not a reliable sources. The table shows the number of crimes in 36 European countries on 1000 people base. --Stolichanin (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what Eurostat is, thank you. What I was saying is that the table alone doesn't explain anything since it's just number with no description of them. Give the description or it can't be considered a source since we don't know what it's saying. Additionally, if somehow government sources are to be considered unreliable, then Eurostat is just as unreliable/non-neutral, and even more so since it's coming from a government body that Bulgaria is part of. LjL (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shortly: US departament is not an independent professional agency. It's reliable source about US crime, but not about European, because EU is not a part of USA and this institution is not autorized about that officially--Stolichanin (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia is not about official sources. A source can be official and unreliable, or even unreliable because of being official. See also Third-party sources, but I'm tired of linking guidelines and policies at you. It's time to read them. LjL (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Stolichanin, doing this without any discussion was pointy, disruptive, and violated Wikipedia's copyright policy to boot. Please don't do that again. --Neil N  talk to me 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

New article about the crime
I think we need to remove the information about the crime in a new article, because the content of this section raised and seems too longer for this article. The other reason is this section is very disputed and this step may stop the edit wars here and the editors can concentrated over the working about the other part of content of the article.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So far, its existence seems to only be "very disputed" by you, which I don't find a good enough reason to remove an entire section for. It isn't very long, either. Its current length is just about the length a summary of it would have if it were to link to a main Crime in Sofia article. We also shouldn't suppress material from its "natural" location just because there's an edit war involved, if the edit war isn't justified: provide convincing reasons why it doesn't belong there (I objected, and explained my objections, to all the guidelines you semi-randomly threw before). LjL (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Only if you add all ponints of view I will agree with User: stolishanin--85.118.68.169 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, your source is pepresented now, I think.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether all points of view are represented has nothing to do with whether the information should be in the Sofia article or elsewhere. LjL (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the content of the section is not very encyclopedical and too specific as whole and the best variant is to make like in London and Crime in London.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that but you haven't given a reason (ideally a policy-based one) why it cannot be considered encyclopedic (← please read). Why is it any less encyclopedic than the dailed description of Sofia's current politics? Why do we need a long, detailed sections about sports in Sofia, but not crime? etc... LjL (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the information about the crime is very, very controversial and a large part of the content is often not sure media interpretation of some facts--Stolichanin (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

Remove it, but add all sources. Thats my opinion--85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * We don't remove information about something just because it's controversial (and that is unrelated to it being unencyclopedic, anyway; are you still jumping from guideline to guideline haphazardly?), we remove it if it's not reliably sourced, and in some cases we present conflicting sources as such. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the reliability of individual sources in the Sofia section, but that's different from discussion the removal of the section wholesale. Do I really need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? LjL (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that... even mean? How can you keep sources for something that's removed? LjL (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean in to add sources in the new article, dear censor Musolini--85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I suggest you strike that out. It wasn't funny. And I'm not the one wanting to suppress information from Wikipedia, so calling me the "censor" is quite funny. LjL (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @85.118.68.169Please, comment over the content. May be it will be good to read Civility --Stolichanin (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ljl has some nationalistic views and want to present sofia in negative view with lies, strange sources. He hasn't respect to different points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Maybe the both must read Civility. 2 editors agreed vs one against for now.--Stolichanin (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stolichanin, removing one paragraph from this article and turning it into a one paragraph separate article smacks of tendentious editing, given your past history. Please create an expanded article first, which then may be summarized in this article if editors see fit to do so. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 18:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What can I do, NeilN? Give me any advice, please! I make a compromise to include this content in a separated article, where theme to be expanded, because is very complicated. Another part of dispute is that this content is based on often wrong media interpretations of some facts and that we have a very different statistics by very different sources and probably discuss to death.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand what I said above: 1) Create a new article in draft or sandbox space. 2) Expand it in draft/sandbox space so it's large enough to stand on its on and not be incorporated into here. 3) Once done, move it to article space. 4) Propose a summary paragraph or sentences with a link to the new article replace the current content here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussing sources "to death" is nothing new to Wikipedia, so sure, let's do that, but it's hard to do when the entire section keeps getting removed regardless of source validity (and during an RfC). The bulk of the original Sofia contained statistics that I don't think are easy to debunk, anyway; now it has been expanded with general statements from, I reckon, mostly acceptable sources. Still want to challenge them? By all means, do so. LjL (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This "acceptable sources", what you say are just a wrong interpretated tabloid info. That's all. What exactly mean "the capital of corruption"? This is very...excited sentence. Without the book of Mihova, all other sources contains citations of tabloids and tendentional information. Including of this is shame for Wikipedia, by me.--Stolichanin (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stolichanin, you should really leave the article in its previous state while the RfC is going on. What you're doing now is edit warring and will get you blocked. clpo13(talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like it did last time, but he doesn't seem to be fussed... Maybe he really doesn't want people to know about crime in Sofia. LjL (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I don't want it why I try to create an article about the crime? I think you just vandalize the article with tabloid info. You even don't know what are the sources of your sources. Maybe you must learn more about Sofia, before to lead this discusion. --Stolichanin (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn what WP:Vandalism is on Wikipedia before you accuse me of it. Learn also just about every policy and guideline you mentioned in these past few days, because despite my insistence, you haven't read any of them. LjL (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you notice, the "corruption capital" thing was challenged by me, so try at least to make points that aren't bogus. LjL (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Distances to other cities
Sigh. So, there were two tables, one with cities/towns/villages/mountains to the various directions from Sofia, and one with the distances from some European capital cities.

My problem with the former is that it listed random tiny places, some with less than 2000 residents, and some that were just districts of Sofia itself (one wasn't even actually in Bulgaria, even though it had a Bulgarian flag on it). My problem with the latter is that 1000km is an arbitrary distance, and why should we specifically list capitals that are 1000km from Sofia?

I had consolidated the two tables into one, but removed any capital that wasn't of a country bordering Bulgaria, which is (contrary to the 1000km thing) an objective criterion. I had also removed a textual list of distances from cities, because I had put all those in the table. There was no need to state it all twice (this thing was pretty gratuitously long).

All this was initially fully reverted by User:Serdik, but after I reverted pointing out that he had undone well-due clean-up, they actually removed the template-based table, and left the other improvised table alone. This also resulted in undoing the work on distance/location to other Bulgarian cities and putting that all back into the article's text.

Have I satisfactorily explained why my work should not have been undone? Or is there a valid reason to claim that 1000 km is a magic number? Or perhaps we should list the bearing and distance to every capital city in the world?

LjL (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither 1000 is an arbitrary distance, nor neighbouting countries is a magic definition. Ankara is a capital of a neighbouring country but is as distant as Vienna. What are the guidelines for such tables if any exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Neighboring countries" isn't somehow magic, but 1000 is definitely arbitrary. You realize that a kilometer is an arbitrary unit of length, right (which is why it's a random 620 number when converted to miles)?
 * I don't know yet if there are specific guidelines, but this would be the right place to discuss their creation; meanwhile, just look at other European capitals (London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, etc) and tell me if they have any monstrosity like this. An argument could be made for having no table at all. The whole looking up distances on Google Maps (which is claimed to be the source) is pretty much original research, in fact. LjL (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought 'arbitrary' means 'correct' in English. Well, this dispute is an interesting impasse, none of us is right or wrong. I wanted to say that 'Neighbouring' and '1000' are equally (in)correct. I don't know if the entire table should be removed in such a case, I would prefer this instead of using similiarily in/correct definitions such as neighbouring. I defined 1000 because it is the first round number that works, i.e. not a single capital is 100 km away. If no consensus is reached for this table I don't mind its removal. But I'd prefer an intermeddiate solution.

I saw the list at Geography of Budapest, sourced by Google Maps, so I created the same here, which city is in fact closer than two neighbouring capitals.--Serdik (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what I did was an intermediate solution: I didn't remove all capitals, but only the capitals of countries that didn't border Bulgaria. Borders are a pretty well-defined concept, as I'm sure you realize; as such, "neighboring" can't be incorrect, at worst it's a useless concept to include. Who said we need to list "near" capitals, anyway? LjL (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Who can say whether near or neighbouring is more correct? I, myself can't. I don't know. A neighbouring capital can't be given a privilege if it's more distanced than another one. This dispute can have no end. We got to agree for a way to order the table or simply to delete it. In my favour, the four closest capitals in each of the four directions looks more convincing than leaving only the neighbouring capitals. Ankara and Athens are not closer than Tirana, Budapest and Zagreb. If the neighbouring capitals were all the closest, I would agree with you. Even the border with Kosovo and Albania may be closer than the border with Turkey. Besides borders, kilometres are also a well-defined concept. And all the countries in the EU have a common border, non EU state is fully sovereign and all the EU states are in a reletionship similiar to the USA, should we give the EU border a privilege in this case? The NPOV is unachievable on such a table, because we can't simply list all the world's capitals.--Serdik (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kilometers are a well-defined concept, but picking 1000 of them is arbitrary. I thought we already went over this. Picking 4 cities at the 4 cardinal points is also quite arbitrary, are you going to exclude cities just because they are to (say) the North-West instead of the North or the West? About the EU thing, I don't see what that has to do with anything. If you insist that the compromise of listing capitals of bordering countries is not admissible, then I'd opt for deleting the table. It's much easier to use a map to find out locations and distances of cities, anyway; an encyclopedia is something else. --LjL (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your revision of the table is a bit arbitrary. Why exactly do you choose the 4 largest Bulgarian cities (4 is arbitrary) and additionally Vratsa and Pleven? Vratsa and Pleven is even more arbitrary. Why don't you ask for a third opinion at Talk:Budapest, the same list is present on this article. Should we make another less arbitrary table, or this is probably impossible, or leave the current one, or delete the table at all? Maybe we need a WP:3O, if nobody else, Stolichanin can share his thoughts for the topic after his block expires. I think he will want the table to be deleted because I created it. --Serdik (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't have a list of Bulgarian major cities, I simply removed the tiny villages and outskirts of Sofia, and the names with no articles, and I added some cities that Google Maps showed as major before zooming in. I thought that was at least an improvement compared to the pretty random previous table. If we're going to have a third opinion, I'd personally rather have it from users who aren't so litigious. LjL (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove the villages with articles, that Sofia borders? For whatever reason you did, would you remove the same table with villages at Athens ? --Serdik (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are those all nearby villages? One thing is listing nearby places, another is listing the relative location of big cities. The current table seemed to mix both, which makes no sense. LjL (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Suburbs, too large to be villages, certainly towns.--Serdik (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but what I'm saying is, it lists immediately adjactient towns/villages/whatever, basically part of Greater Athens? LjL (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it lists the municipalities, which the Municipality of Athens borders. In accordance with Google maps, these are the names of the settlements the city borders indeed. (link) According to Google Maps, Sofia borders Novi Iskar, Negovan, Chepintsi, Kubratovo, Chelopechene, Dolni Bogrov, Krivina, Busmantsi, Dzhurdzha, Abdovitsa, Kazichene, Lozen, German, Pancherevo, Bistritsa, Chuipetlovo, Kladnitsa, Marchaevo, Vladaya, Golemo Buchino, Malo Buchino, Ivanyane, Grumazovo, Bozhurishte, Voluyak, Mramor and Mirovyane. (link)--Serdik (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that several of those don't even have Wikipedia articles, having them seems objectionable at best. But anyway, how come neighoboring towns would make sense, but somehow capitals of neighboring countries wouldn't, and instead, capitals of any countries within 1000km of Sofia (?!) would? LjL (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And what do you expect I can say? How about 500 km or 10000? Why exactly capitals, not largest cities, e.g. Istanbul, not Ankara? Why not linking to the closest settlements or villages, not to these that border Sofia? What exactly makes sense? I think, that these questions can not have answers --Serdik (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then delete the whole thing. This article is about Sofia, after all, not about European geography at large. LjL (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the only solvation of our discussion. I posted the topic at Talk:Budapest to read a third party opinion first. --Serdik (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I came by this discussion by way of a post on the City Project page. This is definitely something which active editors of this page should decide on whether or not to keep. In my opinion, it is trivia, and should be removed. Sofia is a wonderful, beautiful city with a long and rich historical record, and to clutter its page with trivia tends to belittle it. It would be one thing if there was a fact buried in this data somewhere which made these distances important. (e.g. if Sofia was the only European capital within X kilometers of ten other European capitals - but that would have to come from a cited source not to be WP:OR - and I use that only as an example, I am not remotely saying it's true). But to simply have an arbitrary distance list is unwarranted.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 17:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Distances to other cities from a place article is non-WP:TOPIC. The reason for being for a place (article) is not to get to some other place! Similarly with photos: you can't have a photo "New York skyline" in the Hoboken article. Such a photo might be in the NYC article. Or a "skyline" of Hoboken in their own article. The place itself is always emphasized; other places are de-emphasized or not even mentioned at all! That is what an encyclopedia is for. Find out about that place, not some other place! Also decreases maintenance BTW. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, given the pace at which cities move relative to each other, this is going to be a maintenance nightmare. LjL (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)