Talk:Ratiaria

Why remove these categories and stubs?

What is the justification for removing these categories?

• Category:Ancient cities
• Category:Ancient Roman geography
• Category:Roman Empire
• Category:Former populated places in the Balkans
• Category:Former populated places in Eastern Europe

• {{Romania-hist-stub}}
• {{AncientRome-stub}}

I find they are very relevant to the article. At least open a discussion before removing other people's work.

I think the goal here is to categorize the concept such that people can find it from different kind of searches/interests. Furthermore, the stubs invite people with different backgrounds and interests to contribute.

This cross referencing exercise has nothing to do with nationalism, territorial claims or other ideas. This article about Ratiaria belongs to the world, not to Bulgaria or Romania and it should be objecting and findable. Ratiaria existed long before the two countries --Codrinb (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization. "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch". Category:Roman towns and cities in Bulgaria is a subcat of the first three categories you've listed, and I find Category:Former populated places in the Balkans to be quite enough without the need for Category:Former populated places in Eastern Europe. It is more precise.

A Wikipedia:Stub is an article "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". This one, I believe, provides adequate coverage, and its length certainly does not warrant a stub tag. Even if it needs more work, it is not a stub at 2282 characters...

Also, why you're adding {{Romania-hist-stub}} to all articles about Roman sites in Bulgaria you're creating is beyond me. It's not about nationalism, it's as simple as Dacians ≠ Romanians.

Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 07:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the Wikipedia:Categorization rules but they are not written in stone. I understand the part with maybe not being a stub anymore, although this is very subjective, as it needs clearly more work and the purpose of stubs was to invite people to participate, constructively. While Dacians ≠ Romanians similar to how Bulgars ≠ Modern Bulgarians, the Dacians and Romans are the direct ancestors of Romanians and their it is clear continuity in this space. As I mentioned to you before, the history of Dacia is an integral part of history of Romania, regardless of modern borders. Burebista conquered this city and is Dacian kingdom is taught in Romanian schools as part of Romanian history. You can mark it as part of history of Bulgaria as well since the city ended up there today. Not a problem. There a millions of places that belong to the history of multiple nations or countries. You quickly cropped today another category named Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria so you can see Bulgaria all over the place. But you removed even categories like Category:Ancient Roman geography, Category:Roman Empire, and Category:Dacian towns which were not part of other higher level categories (or the overcategorization situation) that you also removed. This article was about the ancient world, Dacia and Roman Empire not about modern Bulgaria. With the remaining categories, people looking for articles related to Rome and Dacia will never find it. Without contributing anything of substance you decided to hijack it invoking rigid rules. And again, you removed things without starting a discussion first. You clearly started a WikiWar out of Bulgarian nationalism and I have to request a mediation.--Codrinb (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So you understand the article is not a stub anymore. You also understand Category:Ancient cities, Category:Ancient Roman geography and Category:Roman Empire all ultimately lead to Category:Roman towns and cities in Bulgaria. And you still have a problem with my edits?

It's sad to see that you're not assuming good faith, I have to say. As you can see, Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria is rather well populated already. I saw the need for the category and I created it because ancient cities in Bulgaria were being thrown into the parent categories "Balkans" and "Eastern Europe" while they were clearly enough for a separate name, just like Category:Former populated places in Romania. I did not mean to remove Category:Dacian towns, I did not actually notice its inclusion. I've readded it by replacing its parent Category:Dacia.

What exactly is the whole Dacians and Romanians thing about? The article is not a stub, so no stub tags have a place here. Nothing to discuss in this respect.

The article is easy to find for Dacia-curious readers thanks to the Category:Dacian towns and previously thanks to its parent Category:Dacia, which I have never removed. Readers interested in the Roman Empire could easily arrive to Category:Roman towns and cities in Bulgaria.

You are wrong in your accusations that I "removed things without starting a discussion first". My edit is clearly marked "per talk", and my post clearly preceded my edit. Again, you have no grounds to assume that I have "clearly started a WikiWar out of Bulgarian nationalism". I find that to be a personal attack and I fear I'll have to report you if that continues. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Todor, in your first edit you removed in one shot 5 categories and 2 stubs without any attempt to discuss. I find this very aggressive and non-constructive by itself. Creating 20-level deep categories, and removing all the upper level ones only buries an article way deep, without the chance to be found by diverse searches. There is a reason why tagging was invented. While tagging doesn't seem supported by Wikipedia yet, I think we should all use common sense when categorizing and following the Wikipedia:Categorization rules. But above all, to me, all your actions mask an aggressive and subjective Bulgarian nationalism while you play innocent. I am not interested in wars, nationalistic ideas, personal attacks. I would rather use my energy to create articles like this, but for this situation I am forced to ask for a mediation in an attempt to make peace. See here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Ratiaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that I have to write a notice when fixing an article's wrong categorization and its inappropriate stub tags? Wikipedia does not support tag clouds and never should. Categories do the job perfectly, particularly when they are deep and specific enough. Your views on that matter contradict Wikipedia policy and there's little I can do about it. I'm merely following the guidelines in that respect.

If you're not interested in personal attacks, then please don't make any. Simple as that. As you can see, I've remained perfectly WP:CIVIL, which is what I'm asking from you.

Are you aware of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process? You're not supposed to be filing for mediation unless all other means have been exhausted. The first step is to request a third opinion. Mediation is for disputes which are much more complex and severe than this one, there's no reason to escalate to it just yet. This discussion is unsuitable for mediation, so I'd kindly ask you to abort this in order for us to ask for a third opinion. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What you call fixing, others might find as offensive or aggressive, especially when is done in a clearly subjective and nationalistic way. I don't know if it is written anywhere about notifying (although I've seen many guidelines that could apply), but this is simply common sense and only way conflicts don't arise. Fixing spellings is one thing, removing other peoples work and ideas about the way the article should reach the audience, it's another. When you spent the time to create a Bulgarian category for the sole purpose of removing the previous categories, that speaks a million! If you can find an objective third opinion, by all means.--Codrinb (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Responding to the Third Opinion request, I have read the discussion above, the article, and reviewed the article history. Thank you both for engaging in discussion, and the limited number of reverts made on the page before seeking an outside view. While starting a discussion prior to major changes to an article is preferred, the bold, revert, discuss cycle is normal, and should be left out of the debate. It seems that you agree on the removal of the stub tags. While I would prefer to see an article assessment from an appropriate WikiProject, it is certainly not a requirement. I agree that the article is beyond the stub classification, and note that this is a positive step in the progress of any article. If I were to review the assessment, I would classify it as Start-class. Categories generally should not be duplicated, but I must admit to having a very hard time following some of these category trees. The Former populated places in the Balkans category is simply one level above the similar Bulgaria category, so those are probably too close to consider having both. The Eastern Europe category confuses me, as I don't understand why Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria is in Category:Former populated places in Europe and not in Category:Former populated places in Eastern Europe. That, however, is a discussion beyond the scope of this article. There does not seem to be a standard as to whether Dacian towns should be in the parent Category:Dacia or the child Category:Dacian towns. Editors seem to have used both. I would suggest that the more specific the category, the easier it is to find for those who are seeking specific information. I would not look for towns in Category:Dacia once I saw that there was a subcategory for towns. We should be as clear as possible in the categories added to an article. Since Category:Dacian towns is in both Ancient Cities and Dacia, it should be sufficient to cover both and the parent categories are not necessary. I would recommend the following be the categories used in this article: Category:Roman towns and cities in Bulgaria Category:Former populated places in Bulgaria Category:Dacian towns along with the undisputed Category:Vidin Province and the other parent categories should be left out.—Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jim, for taking the time to review the article and present your opinion! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Clear romanian nationalism

For how long Vidin was Dacian city? 10,20,50 years? And that makes the town part of todays Romania?Of course but only in the nationalists heads. Bulgarian borders in 7th century are near Frankish empire including todays Hungary. Is that fact makes Romania and Hungary part of Bulgarian interests? Of course no!! Or maybe Tessalia or Albania? Sure not!! We do not claim these teritores of ex bulgarian belonging. How then Vidin is part of Romanian belongings?

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ratiaria. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110723015151/http://archaeology.archbg.net/fs_excavations_ratiaria.html to http://archaeology.archbg.net/fs_excavations_ratiaria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707064458/http://4coolpics.com/show.php?id=97412&ln=EN to http://4coolpics.com/show.php?id=97412&ln=EN

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)