Talk:History of Bulgaria (1878–1946)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for History of Bulgaria (1878–1946): | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
[edit] Independence
VMORO, why did you moved it back? Bulgaria was not independent until 1908, so the current title is wrong. bogdan 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Formally not, de facto yes. And in the end, it is a title we are arguing about - show some aesthetic sense. VMORO 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you could say about current Bulgaria as being independent, too. But the period described here (1878-1946), Bulgaria was a kingdom. So, how about Kingdom of Bulgaria, History of the Bulgarian Kingdom or something like this? bogdan 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, can I have a say? Usually a monarchy is referred to according to its 'highest' rank, (monarchies have ranks I guess you know that?) so, Bulgaria became a vassal principality in 1879 but in 1908 declared itself an independent kingdom, therefore, it should be referred to as a 'Bulgarian kingdom' when we speak about the entire period from the Liberation until the declaring of the people's republic in 1946. This does not exclude the specification of the periods of 'principality' and 'kingdom'. Agree with me? Just as Romania, the same, just earlier, happened with Romania, Serbia and Montenegro. Not with Greece if I know well. As for the title 'tsar', when speaking of the Third Bulgarian State it is equal to a king, but when speaking about Bulgarian tsars in the Middle Ages, they were recognized by the Byzantine emperors as 'caesars', that is, emperors. Agree with me? Cheers. I see here an active Romanian participation, I went to Bucharest last year, such a beautiful city, compliments! 85.11.148.60 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The article only covers the period from 1878-1946 and has been located at History of Bulgaria (1878-1946) in the past. Bulgaria was not de jure independent until 1908 and it is currently indpendent making the title "History of Independent Bulgaria" a little nonsensical. — AjaxSmack 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Bulgaria
[edit] Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in the appropriate section with
#'''Support'''or#'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support as nominator. — AjaxSmack 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support; the treatment of Soviet overlordship is perhaps more serious than the purely nominal Ottoman suzerainity. The first sentence should include autonomy, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed from History of Independent Bulgaria to History of Bulgaria (1878–1946) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
