Talk:Palace of the Parliament

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

message: I cut the following recent addition:
Considering the extraordinary finish and quality of the buildings interiour (tons of marble, crystal, handicrafts etc.) the building is often considered to be the most expensive one in the world (that is, if someone would like to build a replica).
That might be true, but it needs a citation. And I'm not at all sure it is true: even with the large scale of the Palace, it is hard to imagine that it really would be more expensive to replicate than, say, Versailles, which has an even higher standard of craftsmanship. Or, for that matter, certain cathedrals, which required large amounts of difficult and very technical stonecutting. Again: I'm not sure whether this is true or false, but we shouldn't just assert it, we should cite an authority as saying so. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an estimation of the materials used at http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/2861/display/3175968. Generaly when you make a toured visit they tell you some of these numbers, but I couldn't remember them exactly. --Orioane 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective cost of the building 

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

message: I have cut a sentence saying that the palace plus surroundings were sais to have been of about one fifth of the city. Maybe the figure refers to the total demolition in bucharest (which is a different issue); otherwise it is absurd.
: It was poorly worded. I have restored what was presumably meant: "Constructing the Palace and the Centru Civic required demolishing about one-fifth of the historic districts of Bucharest." - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of palace within city 

message: User:Marudubshinki reported the link http://daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=10221 to be dead 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bucharest Daily News seems to have totally trashed their archive search function; no idea if this is longterm or temporary. - Jmabel | Talk 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: "Impossible"? I seriously doubt this. Could we please have some source for this? Also, it looks quite Stalinist (given the recent construction date Neo-Stalinist) to me, but I may be wrong. Here's a website describing it as Stalinist (it isn't really a reliable source, but at least it's something). Todor→Bozhinov 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't resist mentioning that in my own 2001 guide to Bucharest, slightly updated since, I called it "Bourbon Stalinist", but I'm probably not citable. - Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Today's issue of Cotidianul has some details on the Palace:
http://cotidianul.ro/index.php?id=8633&art=22486&cHash=5917fa5eeo
bogdan 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotidinianul 

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

message: The first paragraph of the article says that the building "currently holds three records homologated by the Guinness Book of World Records". However, the link provided as reference is to the "World Records Academy". Can someone provide a valid link to the Guinness Book or a citation from the hard copy book?  apancu | Talk 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guinness Book of World Records certainly does not have the records mentioned in the article (as of January 2012). I'm removing that comment, and replacing it with the reference to "World Records Academy", though the latter site seems somewhat sketchy. Legendre17 (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinness Book

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

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

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

message: A "revert conflict" that was started by the above "statement".--81.101.159.55 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IP, please don't revert the changes again until it is discussed here and consensus is gained. I think we need to confirm if ArchDaily is a reliable source as it appears to be a weblog covering architectural news. Just because it is popular site visited and on Facebook doesn't automatically mean it is reliable. NZFC(talk) 22:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your reply sir, who and how will confirm, or not, that ArchDaily is reliable.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the (unduly promotional) Wikipedia article about ArchDaily describes it as a weblog. Maproom (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi sir, i don't think a average of 30 views/day is "promotion" for a site who has 8 million unique visitors/month, it is most visited "architecture website".
My interest is not about ArchDaily, but about the fact that that Casa Poporului a.k.a Palace of Parliament is expensive (to build&"operate"), unsuccessful (even for the purpose that it was "designed" by dictator Ceausescu) and a shameful architectural project (build at time when Romanians could buy food only with "state coupons" after queuing for long hours and number of calories that people could eat was calculated by communist party "scientists".)
Have a nice day.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Well unless you have a reliable source that states that, it can't be added to this article as ArchDaily isn't reliable. NZFC(talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that ArchDaily is actually a reliable source. Per its own website, it has its own editorial team and it has procedures to correct errors. In addition, it is used as a source by the Washington Post  and the Chicago Tribune . Thinker78 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  and I see you've taken it too reliable sources noticeboard so will see what others think. NZFC(talk) 09:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Good point. IMHO, why put numbers if the author didn't want to "rank" them buildings? I have seen many "lists" of x,y,z were there were no numbers, just alphabetical order.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because bullet points can be numbers instead of points or squares without the number meaning a rank, the numbers can be used just to keep count of the items in the bullet list, without any ranking order. Thinker78 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  It made second place in a ArchDaily list for "most expensive, unsuccessful and shameful architectural projects ever made" 

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

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

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

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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

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

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