Talk:Tutrakan

Romanian name

There is a dispute about the inclusion or not of the Romanian alternative name Turtucaia

Arguments for the addition of the name in Romanian:

• it belonged to Romania for 27 years: 1913-1940
• it is located on the border with Romania
• 3820 google books results
• there is an article Battle of Turtucaia; Battle of Turtucaia has 600 to 800 views/month, approx the same no of visitors like the article about the city Tutrakan (Turtucaia) itself
• In 1913, when Southern Dobruja was annexed by Romania, it was, alongside Silistra, one of the settlements with the highest no of Romanians [1](RomanianCadrilater (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

Arguments against the addition of the name in Romanian:

• There is significant Romanian population.
• It was part of Romania for a mere 27 years (or even less).
• The fact that such an article exists (Battle of Turtucaia) does not determine what should be in this one.

Further: Mind that you've already broken WP:3rr. Any further reverts would be considered disruptive. --Laveol ^T 12:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more arguments to insert Romanian name here than to keep bulgarian for Constanta (79.117.159.91 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

You really have to start relying on wiki policies if you intend to edit here. What you're doing now is summarized here. For now - since you did not provide any other reasons for the addition, I'm removing the name. And once again - editing from different IPs to game the system is considered disruptive. Please, stop. --Laveol ^T 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I already agreed that the name might stay here after Anonimu's input. Please, do not change your comments since they represented the flaw of the conversation. And congrats on the new nationalistic username you got there. Way to go. But mind you that even if you create a dozen more accounts, you still won't be able to edit the article for some time. --Laveol ^T 09:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

congrats for your nationalistic behaviour, you knew from the beginning that the Romanian name should be included, but you refused it then(RomanianCadrilater (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

I was going to say that, can we please avoid usernames like User:RomanianCadrilater or User:BulgarianNorthernDobruja and stuff? I mean, it's ridiculous. Todor→Bozhinov 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per WP naming convention, the Romanian name should be restored. The city was under Romanian rule for about 20 years (and it was actually one of the few places in Southern Dobruja with a Romanian minority before 1913), and during that time it was mentioned under the Romanian name by several English language sources, as this Google Book Search results (optimised for non-Romanian language results) shows. People should remember that such alternatives are only to help readers (and the encyclopaedia is to be optimised for them, not for editors), and, when properly mentioned, don't serve any nationalist purpose.Anonimu (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include the name in Romanian. If other Bulgarian editors are reluctant to have the Romanian name in the lead, then we can always have a Name section. "On the border with Romania" is hardly an argument because that border is the Danube, by that logic we would have to add the Bulgarian names of anything in Romania along that river, and the Romanian population was never significant, but the 1913–1940 argument is solid, and so is the one about the battle. Todor→Bozhinov 06:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the Romanian name as it is in accordance with WP:naming and general practices. If the place does have a Romanian name, it is a relevant information here and must appear. Apart from big cities with long history, places usually have name in more than one language if they were inhabited or ruled by different ethnic communities over time, therefore, contoversies are also more frequent among editors. National sensitivity in this matter is not a reason to restrict appearance of information. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian name misleads that there are Romanian people in the town and that the town was in Romania for many historicall and maybe important years. If that Tutrkan was in Romania for 27 years is an argument to put a Romanian name, let's put Bulgarian names on the most of the cities in Romania, which were in the Bulgarian empire for hundreds of years, the same is for its location to the border, on that way we should put Bulgarian names in the Romanian towns to the border. If in 1913 for 27 years there were mixing of Romanians with Bulgarians, Tutrakan was Bulgarian inhabited for 1300 years. It should not be disputing a simple thing much time there are no reasons for the Romanian name. Pensionero 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The town was in Romania and there were Romanians in the town. Nobody says that the Romanian name should come first or that the Bulgarian name should be removed. The matter has already been discussed, your arguments are not new and have been largely answered above. I don't think there's more to be said about that matter. I fail to see why it's a big deal, really. Constanţa has the Bulgarian name listed, Hârşova, Sânnicolau Mare and Galaţi just as well, and I reckon that Giurgiu may be a good place to add it if you feel like it. What's all the fuss about removing perfectly relevant names? — Toдor Boжinov — 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tutrakan. 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/20110706142758/http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf to http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209151833/http://www.tutrakan.net/Museum/ to http://www.tutrakan.net/museum/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824203050/http://www.tutrakan.net/muzei/ to http://www.tutrakan.net/muzei/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061202124726/http://www.kalimok.org/ to http://www.kalimok.org/

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) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)