Talk:Sofia

Removed Advertising Links from text

I have removed the link which was in wrong place. Website providing daily news about Sofia, Varna and other cities, SofiaNewsRoom.

Collage

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

File:Sofia Collage TB.png

File:Sofia mosaic 5.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Sofia 333.jpg

File:NDK Sofia 2012 PD 06.jpg

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

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

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

Green skokljo - Hi. Could you please post your comments in English, so that other editors on the English wiki can understand what you're saying? Thanks. And personally, I like the bottom right collage the best, a bit long, but shows the beauty of the city. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing about the last collage. I would remove the bottom photo. Then, on the second line of photos from the top, I would remove the 3 photos to the right of the statue, and replace then with two photos (one above the other), of the available photos I would use the one which is currently at the bottom of this collage, coupled with the futuristic shot on the bottom left of collage #3. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, friends! What you think about that? I followed the advice of Onel5969 about the overview. Saint Sofia Church is keeping as Green skokljo want and finally I add the futuristic shot from the left image, given by Serdik. I hope you like it! Regards!--Stolichanin (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Because the Parliament and Largo are of architectual styles, representing in the collage. We don't need by 2 or more than 2 buildings from one architectual style. Also, there are many significant and beautiful buildings in Sofia, but there is no place for all in only one mosaic. Too many images are problem, because the viewer can be lost in such multiplicity.--Stolichanin (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Stolichanin hits the nail on the head regarding # of photos in the montage. I like this last one, although I would make one definite change, and then perhaps one other. The buidling in the lower left, it may be very significant, but it's a pretty drab picture. I would swap it out. In one of the earlier montages, there's a night shot of what looks like a plaza, with the moon just slightly right of center. That's a pretty good photo, but if there is another shot of one of Sofia's lovely buildings, that could work. The other change I might suggest is that you add another shot that spans either the entire bottom, or the entire top. In that same earlier montage there's another shot, a panoroma with a statue of a guy on a horse, that would work. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Onel!--Stolichanin (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

And please, look at some old opinions about the Sofia's collage from other editors - [1], [2][3]

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

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

How about not to upload mine or your image, but to edit together a common image? Like that much more people can participate. I agree with the inclusion of all images from your collage, but I object to the removal of the Largo and the Parliament as they are the most symbolic structures and I also object to the removal of the panorama with Vitosha, because it is the most summarizing view of the city.--Serdik (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the idea to include the statue. As you see, some images I borrowed from your collage. This means you have good suggestions and vision for building the collage. Without you, the collage would have been worse. So keep the good work, Stolichanin. If you want to join the editable image, it would seem better if you replace the bottom part at first - the fourth or the fifth row. I think that Eagle's Bridge looks like the owl of the statue - so it definitely needs to be replaced with something, probably the Saint Sophia Church? The picture of the Largo looks better at File:Sofia_Collage.png, but is unfortunately outdated as the flags of all the NATO members have been removed yet. Maybe NDK can have a better photo during daylight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please, read very carefully Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop with your attacks, because you have been blocked! Comment the content, not the editors, PLEASE!--Stolichanin (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Serdik has never been blocked. You, on the other hand, have been blocked twice for edit warring related to this article (and you have, quite franky, a very bellicose attitude about it, see for instance the recent bogus allegations of vandalism). Give us a break, please... LjL (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sofia 555.jpg

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

Last mosaic, named Sofia 555.jpg is the best of all. The current collage is very poor and ugly.--85.118.68.1 (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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"Milano – Città Gemellate". © 2008 Municipality of Milan (Comune di Milano). Retrieved 17 July 2009.
• Paris, France"Friendship and cooperation agreements". Paris.fr. Retrieved 12 October 2013."Les pactes d'amitié et de coopération". Mairie de Paris. Retrieved 14 October 2007."International relations : special partners". Mairie de Paris. Retrieved 14 October 2007.
• Lisbon, Portugal"Acordos de Geminação, de Cooperação e/ou Amizade da Cidade de Lisboa". Camara Municipal de Lisboa (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2013-08-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  • Berlin, Germany{{cite web|url=http://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/staedteverbindungen/index.en.html%7Ctitle=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 [5] - 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 Wikipedia: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. --NeilN ^{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#Crime 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 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#Crime 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)

RfC: Inclusion of "Crime" data

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include sourced data of crime in the article. The consensus is that this is a normal part of articles about cities and should be included. Wiipedia is not censored and conflicting poits of view should both be presented when they are found in reliable sources. AlbinoFerret 20:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

The sources are not reliable and of controversial origin. Reports from government of one coutry about the situation in another country often has a controversial status. Moreover one internet site is not a reliable source. The content is too unencyclopeic as well. Read WP:No origianl research, WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have. Have you? Because they don't say what you think they say, as I have again explained on my talk page (not sure why you elected to write there instead of here). LjL (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean the part sourced by the US embassy? Maybe we can remove it instead of removing the entire section.--Serdik (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly improvement of sources is always preferable to blanket removal of sections, as I've by now pointed out numerous times. I do not think there has been a convincing explanation as to why that source wouldn't be reliable enough for this, though: if there is a well-grounded reason to believe US sources are biased against Sofia then it has yet to be stated. Note also how we deal with WP:Conflicting sources (hint: not by deleting everything). LjL (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they represented a wrong information about Sofia. I don't know why - ask some political analyst! But this info is too different by official statitics, cited above. And US departament is not an independent agency.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you "don't know why", then maybe you should refrain from removing information. And "Official statistics" are also, obviously (do you know the meaning of "official"?) not independent. Again, read WP:Conflicting sources. LjL (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just use the information, given by the reliable sources. Again, simply: If Europe was state of USA, this will be reliable source. But they are not and we use another sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No. If Europe were a state of the USA, it would be a less reliable source. You misunderstand what a reliable source is completely. My suggestion: stop talking; stop editing; read WP:RS and all the other Wikipedia policy/guidelines/essays I've linked to you today (which are a number). LjL (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP, give a source, so we can add this statement in the section?--Serdik (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if true by official statistics, we don't only include "official" statistics, in fact, non-official may be better, and if anything, we include both. I also find it peculiar that an IP editor with no prior edits anywhere would suddenly make a comment about this RfC, but whatever. LjL (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Demographic politics in Bulgaria, Author: Genoveva Mihova, 2013, ph: prof. Marin Drinov, link to the book -http://m.helikon.bg/index.php?action=product&cid=1&pid=9348717&itemId=500000. Page 98 - 99:Quote:"In 2013 Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime. Bulgarian in original: Статистиките показват, че към 2013 г. София е сред европейските столици с най- ниски нива на престъпност", стр. 98 - 99.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That looks like a useful semi-governmental source (she works for the Center for Population Studies), and it's probably wroth including - although it doesn't trump other WP:Conflicting sources, and should be presented alongside them. LjL (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The text of at least those pages isn't available online, is it? (it's not required, just asking) --LjL (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If is saved with copyright - not. But you always find the book in City's library.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Copyright doesn't necessarily prevent snippets of a book from being legally on the web (see Google Books), and clearly I am unable to access Sofia's libraries to verify this citation. LjL (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Excuse me, are you serious about this, that Sofia has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Do you know anything about crime rates? Please be more concrete, give a link with the statement, the numeber of the page, we all doubt that otherwise. All the sources you provide are Bulgarian so they are probably not NPOV, can you give a foreign source to meet the verification? What does lowest crime mean and which city today has low crime?? The crime rate was low only during communism, because criminals were scared then. What is illegal on paper is common in practice, i.e. crime, since the organized crime-octupus and his tentacles such as drug and human traffic are the everyday routine in each capital worldwide, excluding probably the city-states like Vatican and Pyongyang, despite this living there is far more dangerous. Almost none city has "low crime". Sofia is the leading capital in Europe by Gypsy population, which is the most criminal population there with highest incarceration , probably leading in human traffic of prostituties in Europe, along with Moldova, at least at some period, go to a brothel in West Europe and you will be suprised that Bulgarian workers are the majority there. Sofia is the route through which all the opiate enters West Europe through Asia and all the smuggling. However some cities are far less dangerous than others, but please distinguish, this is safety index, not crime index, but a crime index, rates of some crimes may be lower than others, this does not mean that Sofia has lower crime index than Teheran, but Iran is still one of the most dangerous places to live in. One man there was executed because he published a photo, in which he touches the nose of his daughter, which was considered an insult and crime for a capital punishment.(link) In some cities, definitions for crime are different and in Saudi Arabia for example you have the right to slaughter somebody by yourself in certain cases and this is not a crime. Numbeo summarizes better all the needed data than the Bulgarian sources cited above, including safety index and all parts of the crime rate. I know many people from Sofia, who were robbed or attacked with a knife by the recent refugees from Africa or the Middle East, or by their opponents the skinheads, who also attack white men for wearing long hair, also cars are usually stolen and apartments are robbed, I say this form personal experience.. So the refugee wave to Bulgaria from Syria, the Middle East and Africa started in 2013 and there have been many criminal cases since then, you should know at least the most popular ones. I think that the crime rate have risen since then and the book from 2013, which I can't find in your would be outdated, numbeo and other sources are up to date and far more reliable. So I don't think that crime rate is low in Sofia or in any city in general, there are types of crime rates that are low though, nevertheless safety index is high is Sofia and you are generally safer there compared to other cities. Nevertheless, in Bulgaria it is anarchy, if you are the victim nobody helps you, if you are criminal you get away with it easily, especially if you have money or if you know organized crime's bosses. I think that Sofia has high organized crime-related crime rate, as Italy and Russia it is a typicial mafia rendezvous, but just smaller in size. Unlike the two, in Sofia authorities are more corrupted and criminals easier can get away, just see how low is the incarceration rate - less than 0.1%. Sofia has lower rate for other crimes such as delibarete homicies that are unrelated to business and probably low rape rate, though domestic abuse and rape is unfortunately a tradition. No city has low crime rate, in Europe they are almost even, you should be very childish to think that there is a single capital with a low crime rate. Law is commonly violated everywhere, types of crime rates have different frequencies around the world but there is a high crime rate everywhere, safety index is something different and Sofia, I reckon, has high safety index because I've heard what it is in other places, Africa and Asia. See Pornography by region, Bulgaria is one of the few countries where this is illegal, there hasn't been a single case when TV broadcasters are bothered for broadcasting it every day, this means that most citizens of Sofia are criminals, excluding some minors and porn-haters. Bulgaria has the highest rate of watchers in a country where it is illegal. Bulgaria is not so developed country as you say, in fact the least developed, not only in the EU, but low developed compared to other Balkan states, where wages are higher, (link) the probability of death is also the highest among EU states. Many English people come to live there and get themselves eaten by stray dogs(link), a US professor was eaten in Sofia. Also, if you are, let's say sick of a curable disease, medicians sometimes diagnose you with "incurable disease" and let you die, there was one such case, the man had gone to another European country and got the right diagnosis and got cured easily by regular Spanish medicians. --Serdik (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Compared to other european capitals Sofia is more peacefully. Maybe yo' be never lived in Paris, London or Amsterdam and you do not understand. But it doesn't matters. According to statistics of Eurostat and cited above source Sofia has a low levels of crime. This long novel is only your opinion, but it is not what the sources says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. You made me laugh, thank you! I have never learnt that English dialect. BTW, how do you get the conclusion that I am a racist? You can't be that bad in English, nothing personal but you are clearly acting with that speech don't you?? Please don't stop acting, it is unique. You do not link to any sources and their statements, you just allege the sources of saying something doubtful and unverified! Please link to the statement if you have links, if not bye bye. You know what? I have a source where it is said that Sofia is the most criminal capital of Euorpe, but I won't give you the link, so you won't read it. --Serdik (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) @Serdik: please let's keep this on-topic and civil, shall we? And note that the fact I defended the inclusion of a Crime section doesn't mean I endorse such inanity as counting use of pornography as "crime" in the city. That's bogus. Let's keep to non-bogus facts. LjL (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC) If you want delete the Crime section, I don't care much. Things are more complicated, that pornography is crime on paper in Bulgaria, in Africa and the Middle East is a fact, in the latter murder is commonly not a crime. Definitions for crime vary by established laws, there is not right and wrong.--Serdik (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC) And who's talking about right and wrong? This is about making an encyclopedia, which can include statistics about crime. Crime is well-defined enough. By the way, the IP user did provide a source, pages, and an exact quote from it. LjL (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Of course the encyclopedia should include reliable conflicting sources. I think the IP haven't cited the quote with statement's url yet.--Serdik (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC) IP, please read this source (link) which places Sofia at the "FIRST" position among dangerous cities in Europe and says quite much interesting information for what we are discussing here. I personally thought that Glasgow is the most dangerous but I may have been wrong living in the recorder. Your view is still your own view as long as you don't cite your statements, you only allege some sources of saying something. --Serdik (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Offline sources are just as valid as online ones. There is no need to cite a URL (although of course it would be handy). LjL (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, but would he sent these books to us to read it? How we can know that he is not lying? That's like saying, "I found one book saying that I am the smartest person in the world" then we should add statement that such a person lives in Sofia without checking the source for verification? I think, he should sent the offline books by the post mail if he can't find an online one, because this is very likely a lie. Other sources consider Sofia the "corruption capital of Europe" ([6]). These statements should be added instead in the section. More such statements can be found, but I don't have all night for this. All this means that the city is anything, but not the city with the "lowest crime" in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous... send the books via mail?! That's not how Wikipedia works. He gave a title, author, page and citation, it's up to you if you want to source the book and read it. Really, let's stick to the topic instead of wasting further time. LjL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Offline sources is not a guideline but suggestions from some editors, build into an essay. I can't guess if the source says the alleged claims or not. It's better to stick to WP:VER. Wikipedia articles must not publish or contain original research, which further wastes our time. It would be better to ignore suggestions involving original research instead of wasting time. --Serdik (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Your interpretation of WP:V here is at complete odds with just about every Wikipedia editor's. WP:SOURCEACCESS is a policy (actually part of WP:V), anyway, so feel free to check it out, it even links to WP:Offline. Your expectation that this editor must send us paper copies of the cited book is very close to simple trolling and I'm not not discussing this any further. I'll add the source as I see nothing against it, certainly not WP:NOR since it's a published secondary source. LjL (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) If it involves payment, shouldn't any user else check it first ? If nobody check it is like dead source, verification should be confirmed by a user who will buy and check the book first? Is this what what SOURCEACCESS says?--Serdik (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC) No. What it says is that if you can't/won't buy a book, it's your problem, although someone may be nice enough to provide access to it for you (but is in no way required to). --LjL (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC) It is not a big deal, but just of curiosity I'll check the book tomorrow and upload a photo of 99th and 98th page since nobody else can.--Serdik (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC) What is your problem, dear angry user: serdik? Maybe you need by more civility and to read more books and to learn to respect the different opinion.--85.118.68.169 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

I've come to this discussion from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Yes, 'Crime' is a common section in Wikipedia articles describing cities. The Economist and Business Insider are both considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. I feel this article section is supported by the sources, however, some of the reference to statistics pages like Numbeo cross over into original research, which is generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think the article fairly balances the conflicting sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Like Dkriegls, I come due to the posting on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities talk page. To me there are 3 issues. First is a crime section appropriate. Usually the answer is yes, and that would be the answer in this case as well, especially if it interfered with their admittance to the EU. The second issue is reliable sources. I do not know about the Numbeo source, but the others appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. The third issue is that of POV. In my mind, there is a slight POV issue, with use of terms like "exploded" and "impotent". Other than that, again like Dkriegls, I think the paragraph maintains a fairly balanced and neutral tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I added Numbeo, and I'm not wholly surprised it's considered a dubious source; I think I'll let others sort that one out (my main concern is of not suppressing the section as a whole, which would smack of censorship, then details can be settled), but while Numbeo can probably be called a primary source (they do the research directly by asking users), how would reporting their results be original research? On Wikipedia, editors aren't supposed to do original research, but sources can most certainly do it. As to the used terms, "exploded" and "impotent", they were used simply because they are the same terms that the sources employ. LjL (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi LjL - I understand the justification for the use of the two terms, but unless employed as part of a direct quote, there is no reason to use the same terminology. That being said, since they are used in the underlying source, there is less of a rationale to remove them. In other words, there is some justification in their use. Personally, I would re-word them to make it sound less inflamatory. The section, in its current summary form should remain. If a separate article is warrented, which goes more in-depth into this subject, that would be fine, but a summary section, as per city guidelines, should remain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the wording. I left Numbeo there, though, as I think it's properly cited per primary source guidelines (with clear in-body indication that it's data directly from it, and it's consumer-provided). LjL (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, in my opinion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now looks good as well. Thank you, Onel5969!--Stolichanin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, crime stats are a standard part of WP city articles. I'm not going to wade through all of the above bickering. The section should remain. Yes, it should be purged of questionable claims with unreliable sources or based on original research (as a matter of WP:V and WP:NOR policy; that's not even up for discussion). No, mainstream newspapers are not unreliable sources (categorically; a particular article can be shown to be unreliable if there is evidence for that, of course). Moving on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The right way to move on, if there is deemed to be policy-based consensus, is for an uninvolved editor to close the RfC, I think. LjL (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup. That's correct. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: agree with SMcCandlish above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I also agree with SMcCandlish above. I came here based on invitation of RfC bot (diff).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, do you people above realize that, if you agree with the idea that it's time to "move on", you have the ability to close the RfC, at least while you're still uninvolved? It's not up to me to decide whether it's time to do so of course (since I am involved), but under the assumption you think the opinions put together form a consensus to move on... LjL (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) 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#Geography, Paris#Geography, Rome#Geography, Madrid#Geography, 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#External_links ? --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. ([7])(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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 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)

Infobox pictures

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

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

• 
  1
• 
  2

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