Talk:List of cities and towns in Bulgaria

Evidence for Stara Zagora being smaller than Rousse by population

1. World Gazetteer, 2006 calculation 143,164
2. CityPopulation.de, 2004 calculation 141,489
3. Head Direction of Residential Registration and Administrative Service, population table by permanent and present address as of 14 March 2006. Only official source, lists 146,870 permanent+present address, 163,193 permanent address, 155,021 present address. The data for Rousse is 160,987 permanent+present, 177,058 permanent, 170,169 present. All in all, Stara Zagora is clearly ~15,000 behind. Todor Bozhinov  → 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Its false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Хаха (talk • contribs)

There are even pessimistic numbers:

1. Population.wn.com, 137,422 (Rousse at 157,204, unknown date).

The data for Stara Zagora is 182,700 permanent+present, 178,158 permanent, 164,769 present. All in all, Rousse is clearly ~10,000 behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Хаха (talk • contribs)

You're confusing municipality data (за общината) with city data (за града). Or you are pretending to be doing so, so you could troll further. Todor Bozhinov  → 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Rousse being smaller than Stara Zagora by population

Stara Zagora 160 000 inhabitans, Rousse - 150 000 inhabitans

• [1]
• [2]

Stara Zagora 150 000 inhabitans, Rousse - 140 000 inhabitans

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9] and so on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Хаха (talk • contribs)

Please note that tourist websites are not reliable sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, only a broad estimate (160,000) is provided in the website cited by User:Хаха and the two references are actually one, as the material seems to be copied. In addition, the user in fact inserts a number of 163,193 while his unreliable references say 160,000. Todor Bozhinov  → 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Information about bulgarian regions - Stara Zagora

Situated in the Central part of Bulgaria, Stara Zagora is the 5th largest city in Bulgaria, with population of 165 000 people. It is one of the most economically developed cities in the country, with low unemployment rates and growing foreign investment.

Adress Bulgaria[10]

Bulgarian 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.128.141 (talk • contribs)

Same as above — unreliable as per the Wikipedia guidelines, gives a broad and exaggerated estimate, generally POV. Todor Bozhinov  → 11:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

3O

I would eliminate this dispute entirely by basing the sort solely on the last government census. It is not up to WP to determine population. Instead, find the most verifiable source. So, base the sort on the 2001 census (and not the 2006 estimates).

Either that, or do away with sort based on measurement.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

These are not actually estimates, but the calculations made by a national direction (i.e., they are official and used by the authorities). Anyway, the suggestion to use the 2001 census is quite good, the 2001 data only needs to be checked through primary sources, as I only checked the newest calculations for accuracy.

However, thinking in another way, imagine how old 2001 census data would look in 2010, for example. And city articles still have to use somewhat more recent data (all Bulgarian city articles in Wikipedia, be it Bulgarian, English or whatever, use these governmental calculations, not 2001 data). A large problem is what data actually to use — permanent address in the city, present address, or both permanent and present in the same city. The last one has been used in Wikipedia, but it has the disatvantage of erasing people (everyone's permanent and present address don't always match, so many people would in fact not be counted). You see, it's really a minor dispute and edit war with a troll, but has actually instigated an important discussion.

Thanks for the suggestions! Todor Bozhinov  → 18:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The tendency of decennial census data to become stale in an ever-changing world is unfortunate, but a problem hardly particular to WP. As for how to count, using a consistent source eliminates the problem -- someone else decides the count for you. Now, if someone can point to a published source that explains why such data may be in doubt, that is includable. However, this would get us way out of the appropriate scope of a simple list article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Since data from the National Statistical Institute has been used for the 1991 and 2001 estimates, I propose that we should continue using it as a source, not GRAO. Presently, there are some population calculations on NSI's page through 31.12.2007 http://www.nsi.bg/nrnm/index.php?ezik=bul&f=8&s=1&date=22.06.2008&e=1&s1=4&c1=3&a1=100000&c=0 Botam (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat varna new.gif

Image:Coat varna new.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vrlogo.gif

Image:Vrlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat varna new.gif

Image:Coat varna new.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GERB1.jpg

Image:GERB1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blagoevgrad-coa.gif

The image Image:Blagoevgrad-coa.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Razgrad coa.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Change the information

I'm going to change the last two columns which give misleading information. For the towns with over 20,000 inhabitants the mistake made by GRAO is over 5%. The real level of the population is given only by the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute (NSI). I'm going to take care of this list as well as all populated places and regions in Bulgaria. Everything will be well referenced to the official sources by NSI.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great. Good work. I hope we'll finally have some reliable statistics this year with the elections and everything. --Laveol ^T 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Centering all cells for aesthetics

I believe that centering the text of every or most columns would make the table look better and make it easier to digest. Since the cells are so large and the text is relatively small, there are large portions of unneeded and unappealing whitespace. In my latest edit I have centered only the coat of arms pictures, which hopefully partially demonstrates how this change could benefit the article. Thoughts? - Yougottaeat 04:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities and towns in Bulgaria. 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/20101113165731/http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53&a1=1583&a2=1584&a3=1588 to http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53&a1=1583&a2=1584&a3=1588

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) 19:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cities and towns in Bulgaria. 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/20160616133928/http://visitmybulgaria.com/destination/main-cities-bulgaria/ to http://visitmybulgaria.com/destination/main-cities-bulgaria/

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) 08:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)