Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bulgaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulgaria page.
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Accountable source

Hello there, as I just read Simeon I of Bulgaria, how can I tell if the sources listed under References and Footnotes is accountable in the eyes of a non-Bulgarian language user? Ktsquare (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm what do you mean with accountable? Whether you can check them out or whether they come from respected historians ... or?--Laveol T 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
For instance, how would I know historical works by Vasil Zlatarski and Bozhidar Dimitrov is respectable in the eyes of an history outsider? The article seems to assume the point. Ktsquare (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimeeting in Bulgaria

FYI --Cameltrader (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dospat Dam (or Reservoir???)

I've been eyeing the Dospat Dam page for some time. I have some beautiful photos of this place, and a bit of knowledge about it (plus, I read Bulgarian well). I have two questions at the moment:

  1. It bothers me to have this called a "dam", because in Bulgarian they do distinguish between the Reservoir (Bg. язовир) and the Dam (Bg. язовирска стена). I have not been able to find solid evidence to support either usage, yet.
  2. I've been working on a map to show the shape of the reservoir and the positions of Dospat and Sarnitsa. You'll find a link to my attempt on the Talk page - comment would be appreciated (please put it on Talk:Dospat Dam). Thank you. — Martha (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling: really "Tryphon"???

I stumbled on the page Tryphon Zarezan — why would this be the transliteration of this name? Is there some precedent that I don't know about? I know Bg well, and it would never occur to me to search for Трифон зарезан with that spelling! I find also a stub for Saint Trifon (supporting my preferred spelling), but I also find a (brief) article for Saint Tryphon of Pechenga (supporting this spelling). Unless there is solid historical (or other?) precedent for the "Tryphon" spelling, can't we stop it before it multiplies??? — Martha (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They probably meant that it was "derived from the Greek τρυφη (tryphe) meaning softness, delicacy" (see Tryphon of Campsada). However, combining this spelling with the transliteration of "zarezan" ("зарезан", derived from "режа", "to cut", referring to the vines) is awkward, I think. --Cameltrader (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree - Трифон Зарезан is an old folk (pagan origins??) holiday, mixing two styles of translit seems peculiar. The alternate spelling and derivation could be added. Are we justified in changing the page title, then? Are you still working on some text (translation?) for the page? I think I saw that somewhere. — Martha (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take part in the translation of that article, but I'd support the title you proposed. It seems the original translator abandoned it nearly a month ago. Unfortunately, the Bulgarian-language version is not quite encyclopaedic or well-sourced, so I don't think we can quickly produce anything more than a stub here. --Cameltrader (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on User_talk:Bgtranslater about the spelling of the page, referring him to our discussion here. (It was amazingly hard for me to locate this page so could find out something about what's going on here! I'm still not used to how to find things in the various parts of Wiki, but I'm learning!) — Martha (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planning regions

Fellows, please comment on whether we should keep these articles: Severozapaden, Severoiztochen, Severen tsentralen, Yugoiztochen, Yugozapaden, Yuzhen tsentralen. They are not (yet) formatted, categorised, linked, and interwikied, the titles are bad (nothing more than transliterated compass directions), and I think the content has barely any encyclopaedic value. --Cameltrader (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

They're outdated as well - Delete. --Laveol T 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe they are used by the EU as level 2 statistical regions ([1]). Assuming they are part of a series on EU statistical regions, they should be kept, categorised as such, and improved (a lot!). Preslav (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I checked it out and you're right. It turns out my info is outdated (I'm not a geography type of person anyway). But it's not an administrative system, but some sort of a statistical region for European matters (that's what I suppose as the communal elections that took place last year did not include such regions, but the Oblastni centrove rather) --Laveol T 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that first we should create a NUTS:BG page with a chart, like other countries did. Note that divisions which only bear a "compass name" usually do not have dedicated pages (for instance, Austria or Spain's level 1-s). Those with a proper name and distinctiveness in historical context (equivalent, say, to Bulgarian portions of Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia) have their pages. Our current level 2 system looks like nothing more than arbitrary grouping of provinces by proximity, adjusted to match the population limits. I can't think of any useful information to put there in order to prevent those articles from becoming the next couple of unmaintained stubs. My vote is biased to deletion of the transliterations and merging them into a single page. Otherwise, they should at least be renamed to "South-western Bulgaria", etc. --Cameltrader (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)