Talk:Midžor

Bulgaria Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia High‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

OMG

Simple question,is this peak in Serbia or in Bulgaria?

If it`s in Serbia,then the name of article should be Midžor (acording to the serbian name) and map of Serbia should be used in the article.

If it`s in Bulgaria,then it should be removed that it is highest peak of central Serbia from the article.

Simple as that. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The peak is on the border but the very top itself is within Bulgarian territory so it is more fair to be spelled with the Bulgarian form. --Gligan (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case (some ofical view on this would be great),then you should remove that peak is in Serbia and that is the highest peak of central Serbia,since it`s not. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Gligan is wrong! The border between Serbia and Bulgaria runs directly over the summit ("very top") of the mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.166.133 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is shared, not in Bulgaria. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 result of the move request was: Accepted: Consensus supported the move and per WP:COMMONNAME. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midzhur → Midžor — Midžor is by far more common name.

Google scholar:

It was moved from Midžor without community agreement, so it should be back, as by far most common English name. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It was moved by Gligan in good faith, but 1) It is far more known as Midžor by virtue of being the highest peak of Central Serbia, while it is just one of peaks of Bulgaria and 2) It originally stood at Midžor, so it was moved sort of contrary to the good customs (leave toponyms of international importance at the original title, unless a WP:COMMONNAME exists), 3) Even WP:COMMONNAME hints in favor of Midžor, No such user (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy until 30 January so please do not make any changes until then. As for the map, claiming that the peak is more important for Serbia is ridiculous, such things cannot be measured and the only compromise I know of is following the alphabetic order. --Gligan (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is no deadline (and the WP:RM backlog is so huge that we will wait for a closing admin for quite a while). The alphabetic order seems arbitrary and unworkable in practice; the primary criterion is WP:COMMONNAME in English. If it cannot be reasonably established (and in this case, it seems that it can), the only working compromise is "leave it as it was". Similar principle (for British vs. American English usage) is applied at WP:RETAIN. For example, Ruj redirects to Ruy Mountain and everybody is fine with that. I am not accusing you of anything, but you moved this article [1] because it was purportedly "wrongly transliterated". However, that premise was wrong, because it was correctly "transliterated" from the start -- just, using Serbian, not Bulgarian convention. No such user (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not question of importance, but of Common name. Anyway, both are in favor of Serbia, and Midžor, as Midžor is one of the extreme points for Serbia, and it is much better known by it's common name "Midžor". Please bring some sources, as you are the one who moved it , without any agreement or discussion, despite wiki rules. But all of that in the other thread, after move request. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: far more common, and no particular reason to use the Bulgarian name has ever been presented. Nikola (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Serbia

As community agreed, Midžor is common name. Also, as per this topographic map, we can see that peak is just on the border, so it is not only in Bulgaria, as you told us. Summitpost told us only Serbia for Midžor, not Bulgaria. And as this peak may be one of the Extreme points of Serbia, it is by far more internationally important for Serbia then Bulgaria. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely uncivilized. I have told you on the upper section that I am busy and cannot defend my point until 30 January and yet the page was moved before I could present arguments; I asked you not to change the map and yet you changed it. I have no intention to discuss anything with such kind of people. Do as you wish; if you please, put only category "Mountains of Serbia", which was what the original article only contained and which continues to be like that in the Serbian language article (where BTW until very recently there was no mention of Bulgaria at all, as if the peak is only in Serbia). --Gligan (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to WhiteWriter, the move was made by an admin who just followed the usual one week rule. As for the Serbian Wikipedia, that has been now corrected.

For future references, WhiteWriter, how important something is to somebody is of no interest of Wikipedia; only relative usage in Wikipedia is important. And though I have no intention of getting involved in such a silly dispute, the alphabetic ordering in the infobox is the only objective one, so perhaps you should change it back. Kostja (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i am very sorry if i insulted someone, that was the last thing i have on mind. For the Serbian wikipedia, i dont know, as this post is not connected to Serbian wiki. As you can see, it was faulty, but i didn't ask anything about it here. En wiki should be better then some local wikipedias, don't you think? It is by far larger. I changed the map per extreme points explained above, and order followed that. I don't want to remove Bulgaria, as that would be wrong. And per all of this, i really don't know what do you find wrong here? Do you question that this peak is internationally more important for Serbia then Bulgaria? I thought it is logical? Any one more thing. I didn't saw ANY argument for Bulgarian point of view on this talk page yet... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated that I am busy. How do you expect me to write down arguments when I have an exam every two days up to 29 January plus writing of paperworks. You managed to lose some of my time today because I could not let unanswered a statement like "As community agreed" because as you have said the Bulgarian point is not presented. I asked you to put the discussion on hold or to raise it later but you did not (by you I mean all Serbian editors on the issue, not only WhiteWriter). And now there is point to present any arguments since the discussion is over. If your intentions were as you claim to be, you could have waited. --Gligan (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who moved it, but admin who followed usual one week rule for requested move template. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, I know it was not you who moved the page but I asked you to postpone the moving discussion so that I could answer. You did not pay any attention to my request and of course the admin would move the page after 7 days; you also did not wait to discuss the change of the map although I asked you to do that as well. I am disappointed by such an attitude. In fact, you did not even notify me; if the article was not in my watchlist, I wouldn't have even reacted. Not that my reaction was heard... --Gligan (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take in account that Serbian language uses both Cyrillic and Latin script, while the Bulgarian language uses only Cyrillic. That makes the argument that Midžor is a more common name not so well placed. Other sources about the name should be found before settling the matter. gogo3o 12:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Midžor. 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://archive.is/20070105144410/http://www.chuprene.net/Midzur.htm to http://www.chuprene.net/Midzur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]