Talk:Ceaușima

message: "World Monument Found" makes no sense. Is this "World Monument Foundation", "World Monument Fund", or something else entirely? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done--Vintila Barbu 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: the Romanian orthography reform of 1948 generalized the phonetic principle, so that words traditionally written with "s" like isvor or filosofie had to be written with "z"; actually you encounter the same situation in British vs. American English ( not to speek about the British "ou" replaced by the American "o" - see behaviour) Now, Isvor is an historical name and I prefer to write it the way it was. Feel free to change it if you want to.--Vintila Barbu 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "World Monument Found"? 

message: Per heading, it would be very userful here; particularly 'before, than, today'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask the same thing before... after...". --Error 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture request

message: Re: the new title, Demolition of historical parts of Bucharest by Nicolae Ceauşescu, shouldn't this be "historic" rather than "historical"? The issue is presumably that they were closely tied into, and represented, the city's history, not that had been historically part of the city. In fact, "historical parts of Bucharest" carries something of an implication that these areas are no longer part of the city. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is wrong. First, the title implies that those areas were destroyed and were let empty. Second, it implies that Ceausescu took his buldozer and began demolishing. A NPOV title is needed.Anonimu 13:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't see the problem with Ceauşima. But how about Ceauşescu-era demolition of historic parts of Bucharest? Biruitorul 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Biru. Dahn 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm (obviously) happier with Biruitorul's suggestion than with what we've got. And would be happy with Ceauşima, but for close variants on the current title, I'd probably go with Ceauşescu-era demolition of historic districts of Bucharest rather than parts. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "districts" does sound better. Time to move? Biruitorul 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think that the title shouldn't emphasis the demolition part. Remember that a signifiant part of those "historical districts" were slums and those demolitions actually brought them to the 20th century... Anonimu 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. However, demolition isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? We can state in the article (not in these exact words, but giving this sense) that he tore down decrepit old buildings and replaced them with something much nicer. Biruitorul 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic vs. historical 

message: What are "representation buildings"? I'm a native English speaker, and the term is entirely unfamiliar to me. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another confusing phrase 

message: Please note what has been done to the Systematization article, were somebody has hijacked the text to enforce some theories he did not bother discussing (worthy to note that the added text is not at all referenced). Dahn 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the...

message: The church in the picture is New Saint Spiridon Church, which still exists, not Old Saint Spiridon Church. Please replace the picture with a correct one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.40.69 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong church picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ceaușima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102183249/http://www.ici.ro/romania/ro/bucuresti/bu_nomore2.html to http://www.ici.ro/romania/ro/bucuresti/bu_nomore2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031191119/http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb04.jpg to http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb04.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209030731/http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb03.jpg to http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb03.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031191251/http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb19.jpg to http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/bucuresti/oldb19.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311044000/http://www.bucurestiulvechi.ro/bigpics/img010.jpg to http://www.bucurestiulvechi.ro/bigpics/img010.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified