User talk:Gligan/Archives/2008/August

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Vlach-Bulgarian Empire

It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. Here is a list to the articles sourcing them here [1]. --Olahus (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but we can discuss about it in our talk pages. I have patience. --Olahus (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking here about how this state is calle today. I give you some othe rexamples: fromer states who were called "Romania" do have also an other title (see Latin Empire or Byzantine Empire). So where is the problem? What you propose me is just a invitation to an original research. I didn't request the renaming of the article, but only an additional mention from a reliable source. --Olahus (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Ruse: why did you also remove the Turkish denomination? --Olahus (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You invite me to accept an original research. This state is sometime called as The Vlach-Bulgarian Empire and I gave you a reliable source: Encyclopaedia Britannica. I didn't ask for a renaming of the article, but only for a mention about how it is sometimes called today.

Concerning Ruse: Bucharest never belonged to the Ottoman Empire, but to Walachia and Walachia was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, not a part of him. The official language was Romanian, not Turkish. Walachia ceded only Giurgiu, Bucharest and Turnu Măgurele to the Ottoman Empire (and, as you can see, the Turkish demonimation is recorded there). And how should I add the Bulgarian name of Bucharest (does Bucharest habe a Bulgarian name?) as long as the city was mentioned for the first time in 1459, long after the Bulgarian domination over present-day Wallachia? --Olahus (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You can mention in the article that the denomination Vlach-Bulgarian Empire was invented by the Romanians in the 19th century when Bulgaria was still under Ottoman rule - with references, of course.

The Wallachian Principality was officialy a vasal state of the Ottoman Empire, this status was always recognized by the Ottoman Empire himself and it did never change. Wallachia was never an Ottoman Pashaluk because it kept it's statality. Although Wallachia belonged once to the Bulgarian Empire, Bucharest didn't exist on that time, so the Bulgarian demonination for Bucharest was never official (and also not the Turkish denomination, because the Turkish language was never official in the Wallachian Principality. The Turks were nor even allowed to settle in Wallachia). The Old Bulgarian language was never official in Wallachia, but it has the status of a lingua franca (a status which is not identical with the one of an official language), as in some other orthodox countries too. I don't insist to mention also the Romanian denomination in Ruse, finally there is not even a Romanian (Vlach) population living there, but I don't see a good reason to exclude the Turkish denomination.

I will look for some mapy about Bulgaria and Spain too, if you want to. No problems. I have also many other old maps of Bulgaria, like the southern continuation of this map. --Olahus (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we can add this sentence: Very rarely, the state is called called "The Vlach-Bulgarian Empire" even though this denonimation is anachronistic because the state was never called like this during its existence. In this case, persons like me could be prevented to make some wrong edits. I also requested the changing of the name of the article in the Romanian Wikipedia.

Concerning Ruse, e.g. for Edirne the Bulgarian (Slavic) denomination is also mentioned, while for Thessaloniki ... the Greek nationalism seems to be simply too strong.

I uploaded this map now, which is, as I said, the southern continuation of this map. I have also some other maps of Bulgaria available, but unfortunately the time is missing me ... Concerning the drawn maps: I draw my maps exclusively with Microsoft Paint (no joke!) and it works pretty good. The secret is: never save your maps edited with Microsoft Paint in an ".jpg"-format. Always save the file as a bitmap (.bmp), then open this bitmap with an other program (Irfan view, Adobe photoshop, Acd See, Corel Draw or some other prefessional program) and save the file as a jpeg from this professional program. --Olahus (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuil

Здравей, и аз се радвам, че мога да намеря повече време за Уики засега. Мисля, че статията изглежда много добре, има потенциал, но има и какво да се върши още... утре ще поизчистя и ще видя дали ще може без сериозни проблеми да издържи на кандидатурата. Това, което ми се набива от пръв поглед, е лошото форматиране във Family и това, че към края се насъбират много късички секции (Aftermath, Legacy, Family, Grave, Nomenclature), които трябва да се обединят в най-много две. Също, илюстрациите от Скилица сякаш са множко или може би трябва да се попренаредят... примерно, тъпо е, че имаме една илюстрация и под нея изрезка от нея :) Отделно имаме и три доста подобни илюстрации на воюващи армии една под друга, от които можем да се лишим от поне една. Откъм източници си железен, то е ясно, а утре ще мина пак граматиката и правописа, въпреки че все пак и моят английски не е идеален :S

Накратко, утре ще я прегледам най-подробно и ако успея да изчистя всичко направо я пускам; ако не, ще ти пиша. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Еми, добре... минах я пак, доста неща оправих, оказа се, че има нужда от още работа. Ще те помоля да си прегледаш пак цитирането на източниците, защото е хубаво, когато се дава пълна информация, да се прави с {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} и т.н., а в статията по-малко от половината цитати ползват тези форматирания и може да бъде ползвано като възражение. Също, когато вече веднъж е споменат източникът и нататък просто си го цитираш пак, или давай само автора, или и името (примерно ако има повече от едно издание от него цитирано) + страницата, винаги с точка накрая и интервал между "p./pp." и числото. Доста такива графични проблеми трябваше да оправям, а са много досадни :P Като цяло форматът на цитатите все още е в пълен хаос, според мен трябва да се оправи това първо преди да я пускаме където и да е. Todor→Bozhinov 12:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Бих ти препоръчал или да ги оставиш на кирилица, или да ги транслитерираш, едно от двете. Не мисля, че преводът е удачен, а и не съм виждал много да се прави. В моите избрани статии съм транслитерирал, и то по научния стандарт, не по официалния, но честно казано повече си ги оставям на кирилица вече. Така и така, който иска да ги чете ще трябва да знае български :P Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)