Talk:Mila Rodino

Mila Rodino was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 5, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Bulgaria High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Старият текст[edit]

Сивият текст с отпадналите стихове е по-добре да се сложи под обяснителния параграф (който сега се намира отдолу) или може просто да не се публикува! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.146.73 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Добавих текста с текста на химн. Надявам се, че това решава проблема ви, моят приятел. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

If "Mila Rodino" is translated as "Dear Motherland", would it not also be translated as the same thing in the chorus? --User:Comrade Tassadar

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mila Rodino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090413132729/http://www.president.bg:80/adm_symbols.php to http://www.president.bg/adm_symbols.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Text of Song, Translation on the Page[edit]

It appears that the page should maintain the lyrics and translation on the page. This will keep in line with the national anthem pages for most other countries. It would be a positive to maintain some level of consistency among pages of similar topics, such as national anthems. It is highly important information and should not be deleted. I would ask that a consensus be reached between invested parties before it is removed again. It appears that failing to include lyrics here on this page would be a substantial mistake. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Κοματσουλάκης. No, it is not a mistake. Yes, there are a lot of articles about state anthems which fail to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but they are not the yardstick by which to measure content for this article. Firstly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLYRICS and, even more importantly, it is not original research. Lyrics from WP:PRIMARY sources are to be found on Wikisource (you'll see the link at the end of the article). Translations, transcriptions and all general incidentals must be attributed to reliable secondary sources, not by users introducing their personal translations. The WP:BURDEN is on the user/editor introducing (or, in this case, reintroducing removed content) to find reliable secondary sources to back up any content they add. This scenario has been replayed over and over on these articles with the same argument, being that it will bring the article in line with similar articles. Every time inappropriate and unfounded content is removed, it's reintroduced by good faith editors who believe themselves to be doing the right thing because 'everybody else does it'. In fact, it's 'all the other' articles which need to be brought in line with Wikipedia's policies. If you'd like to help out, it's those articles in need of being cleaned up. Thanks for your understanding! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate[edit]

I believe this should be a featured article due to the lengthy, rich information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.63.129 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Quick failed, due to loads of reverting edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mila Rodino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 15:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Instant ✗ Fail as this article clearly has a lot of reverting of edits from this year, with the latest one being IP vandalism. Even though they are not engaging in 3 edits per 2 users, there's too many reverting for it to be stable and as I mentioned, it is currently vandalised. Sorry about this! --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.