Talk:Codex Zographensis

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

What does it contain?

Is it a Gospel Book or a Bible? Johnbod 19:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian (regional Macedonian)

There seems to be some conflict over the exact name, can we discuss this further here on talk? Also please do no remove sourced information was given in an edit summary, however I could not find a citation for this information. Perhaps adding a source could clear this issue up? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source Frightner is referring to is the one the whole article is based on, see References. In that source, there's this westbulgarischen (makedonischen) Raum, though Frightner perhaps fails to notice it describes a Raum (area, region), not a language recension. Todor →Bozhinov 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I'm a little rusty with my German (well, more than rusty). Hopefully this clears things up and everyone is happy with the current phrasing. Thanks for your reply.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian and Russian

Provide your reasons as to why Bulgarian and Russian are irrelevant? Bear in mind that the text was a matter of lots of studies in Russia and Bulgaria and is popular because of them. --Laveol ^T 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it wasn't written in either language? How's that? Try and add a Bulgarian translation here using the same reasoning. I dare you. It's an OCS text and needs the OCS title in either Glagolitic or Cyrillic. We don't add Italian or Spanish translations of the names of Latin texts. But feel free to add a note with the Bulgarian and Russian translations to the OCS translation (when it's added to the article) if you so wish. You seem to have a habit of throwing the word "Bulgarian" into every article even remotely related. You're very sly. --Hegumen (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I take this personally. But still you're missing the point that the text is more popular with the work done on him by Bulgarian (modern) and Russian scholars. This seems fair enough. And I'd have to say you have the habbit of removing BG names from articles just you don't like seeing them. That's pretty scientific, ey. --Laveol ^T 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it personally, I'm questioning your ability to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Would you add an Italian translation to the Dies Irae article? That seems fair enough, yeah? After all, it was the Italians who popularized it. I don't think so. I have a habit of removing unnecessary references to Bulgaria and the Bulgarian language because people such as yourself think they can slip the word in every second Wikipedia article. --Hegumen (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed your comment on a number of times and I wonder why. I already explained to you on the other talkpage of an article you don't like, why the names are relevant...again. You're out of arguments and you know it - why do you keep pushing? --Laveol ^T 10:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just correcting grammatical mistakes. Don't worry, I haven't had a change of heart and I'm not giving up that easy. I stand by my comments. I'm a little busy, so I'll reply in detail the next time I sign in. --Hegumen (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, you mean the next time after this one? --Laveol ^T 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the solution of having a translation in OCS is rather nonsensical. That phrase is almost certainly ahistoric and anachronistic, there's no reason to think the codex ever had any particular name at the time it was written. As for modern Bulgarian and Russian, I don't see a need either. Just look at entries in List of illuminated manuscripts, we simply don't do that in comparable cases. Names of things don't typically get translated into modern languages on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but since they gained popularity mainly with their BG/Ru names? And the only way you could find them in a library or something is to use them? Isn't it the most common names that we search for? --Laveol ^T 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most common names used in English. How to find them in a library is irrelevant - the way to help with that is to have a good reference section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do we need the names in any language besides English? --Laveol ^T 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We normally don't, that's just what I'm saying. Especially when those "names" aren't really proper names in the first place, but only descriptive phrases consisting of common nouns (e.g. "Evangeliar of..."). Place names get listed, where they have different versions in different languages. Descriptions of things don't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone with a little sense. You may also like to see BalkanFever's comment here. --Hegumen (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the arguments to keep bg and ru names, so rm. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]