Macedonia (terminology)
This may be the only article regarding the Macedonian question that has not been (and probably cannot be) victimised by edit wars. The reason being that it is comprehensive, yet concise, plus it expresses in the best possible neutral way all POV's from all sides on the issue. It also includes all information needed for an uninformed reader in order to understand what everybody involved is argueing about. :NikoSilver: 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support per nom. :NikoSilver: 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Question sounds like a very controversial topic, from your description here. Can you explain how it gets by with only six inline citations, if it is in fact controversial? I'd like to understand your sources before judging them. Sandy 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- We actually have six notes and four citations. Most of the stuff is taken from other articles and general knowledge, but if you think anything needs citing, please add a {{fact}} tag, and we'll get right on it :) - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- And all relative sourced articles are interlinked in every sentence. I would't add more references, to spare cluttering, since the reference here is mostly WP itself. If you feel anything needs more sources, kindly point it out with a {{fact}} tag.:NikoSilver: 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation: I'll read through it now that I understand. Sandy 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so the article is a disambiguation of the various Macedonia definitions, arguments, and much more. I guess what threw me initially is that I didn't realize all the Macedonia links go to different articles: I can't think of a way to make that less confusing to the reader.
I found a change in style here: Macedonia (as a province of the Byzantine Empire). (The other introductions are complete sentences.) It is followed by an incomplete sentence: were they intended to be one sentence? Despite its name largely occupied Eastern Thrace. The first sentence seems long, and we have to read down quite a ways to hit the first occurrence of the word "Macedonia": any way to fix that? This sentence needs a punctuation fix: There are many other terms which include "Macedonia", the terms with technical meanings are: Possible weasle words, with no reference: It is argued that the region is borderlessThat's as far as I got. I'm challenged by the complexity :-) Sandy 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)- Tried something with all 3 comments. Thanks for the remarks, please continue...:NikoSilver: 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good edits, I'm thinking about the intro, it is difficult without doing it with severe topicalisation, some suggestions:
- "Macedonia, the region traditionally referred as such has a plethora of terms used to describe..."
- "The terminology of the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia is complex. Various terms are used to describe..."
- "The terminology of Macedonia, meaning the regionally traditionally referred to as such is complex. Various terms are used to describe..."
- Any of those sound at all better? - FrancisTyers · 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Were these posted before I decided to try my English skills? If yes, then plethora would be one o' those Xenophon Zolotas words, so that's my choice! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- :) - FrancisTyers · 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like plethora: if anything, because of the complexity of the article to begin with, you need the simplest introduction possible, IMO. Maybe you need shorter sentences, if you can do that without getting stubby. I still see punctuation errors. Changing "it is argued" to "is described as" still feels weasly, but possibly there's no way around it due to the controversy. Sandy 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll sleep on it. Thanks and goodnight. :-) :NikoSilver: 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like plethora: if anything, because of the complexity of the article to begin with, you need the simplest introduction possible, IMO. Maybe you need shorter sentences, if you can do that without getting stubby. I still see punctuation errors. Changing "it is argued" to "is described as" still feels weasly, but possibly there's no way around it due to the controversy. Sandy 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good edits, I'm thinking about the intro, it is difficult without doing it with severe topicalisation, some suggestions:
- Tried something with all 3 comments. Thanks for the remarks, please continue...:NikoSilver: 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- And all relative sourced articles are interlinked in every sentence. I would't add more references, to spare cluttering, since the reference here is mostly WP itself. If you feel anything needs more sources, kindly point it out with a {{fact}} tag.:NikoSilver: 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- We actually have six notes and four citations. Most of the stuff is taken from other articles and general knowledge, but if you think anything needs citing, please add a {{fact}} tag, and we'll get right on it :) - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Object.The article is mis-titled. Currently, such an article should be about either a certain term called "Macedonia" or the use of the word "Macedonia" in the broader field of terminology. A more accurate title would be something like "Terminology of Macedonia." zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- See British Isles (terminology) for our inspiration. I would have no problem with changing the article name, but thought it wise to go with what we already had. Is this the only complaint? - FrancisTyers · 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ...and Americas (terminology) and Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) and...Electrical engineering (terminology)...:NikoSilver: 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I know, it is a little nit-picky. But still, it's grammatically incorrect. There may well be precedents, but that doesn't mean the precedents are right. And, of course, the precedents aren't up for featured article status! :-)
- But if you're looking for other complaints (j/k), I can supply. I'm a little unsure if the scope of this article really qualifies this for FA status. Most of the article seems to be a glorified disambiguation page. A very well done disambiguation page, but still. If the terms are under such controversy, it would be interesting to learn more about the controversy. There's a section called "In linguistics" (an aside: "terminology" is part of linguistics!), so I wonder if there have been scholars disputing what one calls the language "Macedonian." There's a section called "In demographics," so I wonder if there have been disputes over who is considered a "Macedonian." (The "In politics" section goes briefly into such a political dispute, but the section is still entirely in list form.) Basically, I wonder about the consequences of the disputes over terminology, not just the terminology itself. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. The scope of this article is not to elaborate on controversy, but rather to point out who-calls-what-how and who-is-offended-by-what-name-for-whom. Believe me, the whole controversy issue is largely evident in all other (linked) WP articles, so let's think of that one as an oasis in the middle of a nationalistic desert...:NikoSilver: 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments :) actually I think what you describe is one of the strengths of the article, we completely forego the analysis, other pages on Macedonia have a lot of analysis, and it is nearly always contentious. Perhaps this would do better as a featured list, although I think it slightly extends the list remit... I think maybe more directed notes pointing people at articles with further information might be a good way forward. Please, keep the criticism coming :) - FrancisTyers · 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Nice article. Sumarises the problem in very NPOVish way. The only problem I find is the title. Not that big problem in fact, but I think there could be a better name. Something like Macedonia naming controversy would be fat better, I'd say. Or, moving it to Macedonia and moving Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) with replacing the first paragraph with a link to the article we're discussing now... --Dijxtra 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have now seen what Francis and Niko replied to above oppose, and I'd say that my problem with the title is not in naming conventions but in the fact that is looks unaestetic. But, as I said, it's a minor problem and I'd promote it even if the name stays this way. --Dijxtra 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I kinda liked your second proposal though...:NikoSilver: 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I like it a lot, now that I think of it. I suggest we wait for more opinions on this (I've invited most editors from relative articles) before we give it a try...:NikoSilver: 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just go ahead and do it, I think. Actually looking at the two articles (Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia), it makes ten times as much sense for them to be Macedonia and Macedonia (disambiguation). Hell, Macedonia already has the disambig template! zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you calling me a chicken? :-) Well, apparently I can't do that on my own coz Macedonia (disambiguation) is not empty. We'll have to ask an admin. Fran?:NikoSilver: 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just go ahead and do it, I think. Actually looking at the two articles (Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia), it makes ten times as much sense for them to be Macedonia and Macedonia (disambiguation). Hell, Macedonia already has the disambig template! zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I like it a lot, now that I think of it. I suggest we wait for more opinions on this (I've invited most editors from relative articles) before we give it a try...:NikoSilver: 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I kinda liked your second proposal though...:NikoSilver: 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have now seen what Francis and Niko replied to above oppose, and I'd say that my problem with the title is not in naming conventions but in the fact that is looks unaestetic. But, as I said, it's a minor problem and I'd promote it even if the name stays this way. --Dijxtra 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
TemporarilyNeutral.for several reasons (I'll make up my mind later).The title is definitely a detraction; when I originally saw it, I thought that it was perhaps referring to regional Macedonian phrasiology. I like User:Dijxtra's second idea as well, or maybe Region of Macedonia (even though there already exists Macedonia (region)...it seems to fit better. His first suggestion might be the best, but I wonder if something more positive than 'controversy' could be found...I'm a positive thinker ;) There are many many directions this could be taken. Secondly, I strongly dislike the use of "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" as the displayed term for all the primary links. When seeing a link in a wiki, I focus entirely on that linked phrase, and not on the directing terms inside parentheses. Probably not a widespread affliction among users, but I still feel there must be a better way of presenting the links. Both of these are just overall aethetic issues, but issues nontheless. On the flip side, everything is arranged in a very useful manner, and the maps are fantastic. I also agree with the above sentiment that the massive number of links should serve as a substitute for actual references and notes, so long as the linked articles contain appropriate references themselves. Overall, a pleasing article, but I'm on the fence as to whether it deserves FA status. I'm just not sure it's distinctive enough. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit: As it stands, I'm going to have to choose weak oppose for this article. As I said, it's really good, and I learned a lot from it, but in my mind, it doesn't fit FA status. Perhaps 'Featured List' would be the best option. Definitely a difficult situation. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very good article, undeserving name, but then again who is perfect?--FocalPoint 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know how to evaluate this article. Attractive layout, though. Jkelly 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is really silly and pedantic, but Wikipedia:Footnotes specifies that ref tags are supposed to go after punctuation marks. RN 04:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I always notice that, too. I fixed those for them. Sandy 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy and RN. Originally I had left them there intentionally, since the refs applied only to the immediately adjacent term, rather than the whole sentence (in some cases). If you like it better like this though, then no objection from me.:NikoSilver: 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note: I did not move the references at all, only moved punctuation inside them. If a reference was mid-sentence with no punctuation, I left it there. Sandy 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution and for all your productive comments in general.:NikoSilver: 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note: I did not move the references at all, only moved punctuation inside them. If a reference was mid-sentence with no punctuation, I left it there. Sandy 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy and RN. Originally I had left them there intentionally, since the refs applied only to the immediately adjacent term, rather than the whole sentence (in some cases). If you like it better like this though, then no objection from me.:NikoSilver: 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I always notice that, too. I fixed those for them. Sandy 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support TheArchon 05:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. A non-controversial article about Macedonia of astonishing quality. —Nightstallion (?) 08:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- A couple more notes:
- "and seemingly for the inhabitants of the region themselves" - this is really awkward at best, especially to those unfamiliar with the situation. Maybe change "seemingly" to "often"?
- "The purpose of this article" - WP:ASR violator here. Not sure how to word this myself yet though.
RN 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Often" was already used in the previous sentence. We tried a different wording and sentence splitting. Like it better?
- Me neither. Any ideas please? :NikoSilver: 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Great explanation of where the variuos hissy-fits come from. Shows that cooperation on this topic can produce quality. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - incredible, a Macedonia-related article in which we're not trying to shoot at each other ;-) If only for this, the article is a miracle, and I also believe that a good work has been done in keeping all perspectives.--Aldux 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support My usual rule of thumb suggests more citations, but this article seems to have its own appropriate amount. It's well written and clear. Tdslappy
- Neutral (editted) - I still see differences in quality between other featured articles (especially south asian ones), but I no longer am against it becomming a featured article. --Sean WI 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Object and move to WP:FLC. This article is a list and should be nominated atWikipedia:Featured list candidates. Article lacks prose, consisting primarily of bulleted lists. Furthermore, in the references section why does R-3 appera beofre R-1 and R-2 in the text? Joelito (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- About WP:FLC, I'm covered by Fran below. About ref-numbering, it depends on how you read: If you read the text, jump to every ref/note to read it too, and get back to continue from where you were, then you will meet R-3 after R-1 and R-2. This is because both R-1 and R-2 are within [1], [2] etc notes appearing before R-3. I wouldn't object changing it if many users found this solution more confusing than the other.:NikoSilver: 22:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
StrongObject. This isn't really an article: it's the history of Macedonia compressed into something far too short and uncomprehensive or else its an explanation of the debate compressed into something far too short and uncomprehensive. I could see it as a list, per above, though it feels more like a disambig page. Either way, it is not of featured quality as an article. —Cuiviénen 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- See above re: list. It isn't really the history of Macedonia, but you are right, it does feel like a disambiguation page, albeit on steroids, does "Featured disambiguation page" exist? :) Having said that it wouldn't be an adequate disambiguation page because we don't include all the other things that are called Macedonia, e.g. towns in the US, food etc. - FrancisTyers · 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still think this page isn't a featured article. Adding more prose made it not a list, but it's still not "meaty" enough to be an article. It still feels like a disambiguation page or a summary of "real" articles. I don't strongly object any more, but I still object. (The references also need to be cleared up, obviously.) —Cuiviénen 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- See above re: list. It isn't really the history of Macedonia, but you are right, it does feel like a disambiguation page, albeit on steroids, does "Featured disambiguation page" exist? :) Having said that it wouldn't be an adequate disambiguation page because we don't include all the other things that are called Macedonia, e.g. towns in the US, food etc. - FrancisTyers · 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Support, its substantial - weak, because: Imagine if a person that has never in his life ever heard of Macedonia comes/views that page and tell me: Will he understand everything? --HRE 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dunno, know anyone? Let's test it! :NikoSilver: 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Tēlex 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Contrary to popular belief, a major Macedonia-related article can actually be well-written, stable, non-controversial, neutral, well-organized and actually informative. Todor→Bozhinov 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support it fullfils the criteria, so why not... --Hectorian 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- What criteria does it fulfill? Adequate lead? Excellent prose? Joelito (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do u think it is in an 'infant stage' with nothing good in it? It is better than other articles that have been featured in the past. --Hectorian 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Joelito, IANAL, so I'm not exactly qualified to judge "excellent prose", but don't you think you're kinda unfair for "adequate lead"? Can you point out what is missing please? :NikoSilver: 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- My argument is that there is no prose, it's mainly lists. It's hard to say what is wrong with the lead since there is no article structure for the lead to summarize. Joelito (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, so in that case the lead should be empty! Just kidding. Anyway, I disagree about the list thing and I think you do too. I wouldn't call it a bonafide article either though. So where do you propose this notable gathering of information, disambiguation, clarification, explanation, neutrality etc be given the credit it deserves? I think that it just explains and includes a summary of everything there is to know on the Macedonian problem. I've found it quite handy as a fast tutorial tool for new users who ask. I think it's worth feature status for that. Now if WP decides to make a new category especially for this type of (few) articles, then we will list it there. For now, we can't demote it to a mere list. :NikoSilver: 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- My argument is that there is no prose, it's mainly lists. It's hard to say what is wrong with the lead since there is no article structure for the lead to summarize. Joelito (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Kalogeropoulos 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Qualified support. It's a good.... something. Not quite an article, nor a list. It's useful, well made. Maybe it's the first featured disambiguation page? Whatever. It's good enough that it deserves to be a featured something. Let me know when you decide what that is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha! Thanks! :-) :NikoSilver: 10:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--Bomac 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Nice article indeed, covering most aspects. Splee 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I want to vote support, but for now I'm saying
pretty strong oppose. I won't be too hard to convince however! Here are some things I think need sorting out:- Make a distinct lead, per WP:LEAD. I think that a brief summary of/introduction to the article, 2-3 paragraphs long, is possible.TheGrappler
- I did something. Ok now? More ideas anyone? :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's an improvement. There needs to be a TOC though. The lead shouldn't "run on" to the article. Not sure if the Churchill quote is in the right place. The lead should be a summary of the article, as well as an introduction. I suggest the lead should focus on about 3 paragraphs, outline or at least mention the Macedonian Question, note that the terminology is confusing, and give a couple of the core points i.e. the use of the term to describe a large region, that the main clash is a naming dispute between the Republic and Greece, the dispute also spreads into linguistics and affects other countries, that the Republic does not claim the entire region, and that the naming problems have created international tension. Aim to both contextualize and summarize. TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I did something. Ok now? More ideas anyone? :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Make a distinct lead, per WP:LEAD. I think that a brief summary of/introduction to the article, 2-3 paragraphs long, is possible.TheGrappler
De-bullet some of the sections. Good candidates for this are: the introduction to "In geography" (at the moment this is quite unclear, are these just three parts of the Macedonia region that happen to include the name Macedonia, a complete tripartite division of the region, a selection of geographical terms sometimes containing the term "Macedonia", or a group of regions sometimes described as if they are the Macedonia region? - If this is a tripartite partition, in the mathematical sense, you could start by saying "The Macedonia region is commonly divided into three parts..." or alternatively you could start "Several regions are often referred to individually as Macedonia", if that's the case); the linguistics, demographics and politics section would also read easier if unbulleted.TheGrappler- Geography done and on steroids. Linguistics, demographics and politics I am reluctant. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's no discussion of when "Macedonia" (any of them!) returned as an administrative unit. Neither is there any mention of the emergence of a Macedonian national/ethnic self-identity - for instance, when and where it developed. As such, this article falls short of being comprehensive (changes in terminology over time certainly fall within its remit).TheGrappler
- There is now. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- References would be good. Still no information on when Macedonia reappeared as an administrative entity... was it as late as 1945?TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is now. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's no discussion of when "Macedonia" (any of them!) returned as an administrative unit. Neither is there any mention of the emergence of a Macedonian national/ethnic self-identity - for instance, when and where it developed. As such, this article falls short of being comprehensive (changes in terminology over time certainly fall within its remit).TheGrappler
- On a similar note, what did medieval scholars in the West and in the Ottoman Empire have to say about the region? Even though it ceased to exist administratively, did the geographical label stick about? What did they call the region and its inhabits/cultures/languages? TheGrappler
- Scarce and irrelevant sources in the terminology issue. I wouldn't expand it any more. We have Macedonia (region) for that (linked everywhere). :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, this is an article about terminology, not the modern naming dispute. The history of said terminology is therefore essential for a comprehensive coverage of the subject.TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Scarce and irrelevant sources in the terminology issue. I wouldn't expand it any more. We have Macedonia (region) for that (linked everywhere). :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- On a similar note, what did medieval scholars in the West and in the Ottoman Empire have to say about the region? Even though it ceased to exist administratively, did the geographical label stick about? What did they call the region and its inhabits/cultures/languages? TheGrappler
- There's a critical lack of referencing. One Wikipedia article can't really rely on another for corroboration. Examples of things that need to be referenced: Macedonia rarely appeared on maps during the Ottoman period; a lot of the terminologies (use a bilingual dictionary perhaps?); claims that "nationalists say this"; that Bulgarians see "Macedonism" as a pseudoscience (incidentally, that seems to link to an irrelevant article) and the language as just a dialect of Bulagarian; in fact, just make sure you have a reference for every single fact in this article and I will be happy :-) TheGrappler
- I strongly disagree in double referencing. The "neutral summary" concept for "structured articles" cannot withstand the burden of additional refs. Wherever there is doubt or need for more info, one can simply click the wikilinks involved. Personally I prefer this article to be concise and strongly focused, otherwise the ref section will be longer than the article itself, repeating all (monstrous) lists of refs from sub-articles.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, see the guidance on summary style. All non-trivial claims should be referenced. Our articles should be pretty much standalone in this respect, featured ones especially. Referencing does not make an article longer it just makes the references section longer! Moreover, it produces a more complete bibliography (or "websitography") for interested readers to follow up on; and it ensures that information in the article is both verified and verifiable. Most of all, links to other Wikipedia articles are "see alsos" not references in their own right. I honestly fail to understand your objection so perhaps I am missing something, but adding a reference or citation only produces a line (maybe two) of text in the references section (look at other featured articles), I am not asking for a comprehensive footnote explaining things in greater depth (it's possible the article has too many of them already!) but source information. All information in this article, hopefully, comes from a reliable source. Tell me which one. And where in that source you found it. That's just standard for all articles (or lists), featured or not. In theory I have the right to remove all unsourced information from an article and you wouldn't have the right to put it back in until you provided a source. Because I'm not (I hope!) a disruptive editor I wouldn't do that, but if I were to, there'd only be about 3 paragraphs of text left. That's just not up to WP:WIAFA standards.
- I strongly disagree in double referencing. The "neutral summary" concept for "structured articles" cannot withstand the burden of additional refs. Wherever there is doubt or need for more info, one can simply click the wikilinks involved. Personally I prefer this article to be concise and strongly focused, otherwise the ref section will be longer than the article itself, repeating all (monstrous) lists of refs from sub-articles.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a critical lack of referencing. One Wikipedia article can't really rely on another for corroboration. Examples of things that need to be referenced: Macedonia rarely appeared on maps during the Ottoman period; a lot of the terminologies (use a bilingual dictionary perhaps?); claims that "nationalists say this"; that Bulgarians see "Macedonism" as a pseudoscience (incidentally, that seems to link to an irrelevant article) and the language as just a dialect of Bulagarian; in fact, just make sure you have a reference for every single fact in this article and I will be happy :-) TheGrappler
- Sources at the moment are pretty badly referenced. If you're citing a web page, try using {{cite web}} which will help you remember to include details like author, publisher, date and date of last access.
- And are you sure those are all WP:RS? If some of these are unofficial websites which espouse a particular view on the issue, could you paranthetically label them as such and indicate what kind of group is running the site - e.g. putting "(Website of a Macedonian nationalist group)" or "(Website of a Greek cultural organization)" behind the reference would be very helpful. This would also help ensure that personal blogs and suchlike don't end up getting referenced.TheGrappler
- Well, I think these two above are nick-picks, but anyone still bothered with that can do it.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The summary of information from reliable sources is at the heart of what Wikipedia is about, so making clear where information is coming from is important. It's not a nitpick to claim that WP:CITE isn't being met: at the moment, it's not being met by a long shot. You need, for everything claimed as a reference, to deal with author, date of publication, publisher, title, page number(s) of particular reference (if from a book) and for websites, date of last access. It's that easy! No article that doesn't follow WP:CITE is going to get featured status, so it's not just nitpicking.
- Well, I think these two above are nick-picks, but anyone still bothered with that can do it.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen the capitalization "fYRoM" before. Could you give me any hints? If this was referenced, I could have checked it myself, for example :-) TheGrappler
- You haven't seen the other one either (FYROM). Truth is there is no official UN abbreviation; only spellout, and with that awckward intermingled capitalization. And it is referenced: You can check it by clicking Republic of Macedonia and reading the intro paragraph. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen "FYROM", just never seen "fYRoM"... it's rare to see any acronym with the first letter in minuscule... could you point me to a place where I can see somebody else using it? TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- You haven't seen the other one either (FYROM). Truth is there is no official UN abbreviation; only spellout, and with that awckward intermingled capitalization. And it is referenced: You can check it by clicking Republic of Macedonia and reading the intro paragraph. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen the capitalization "fYRoM" before. Could you give me any hints? If this was referenced, I could have checked it myself, for example :-) TheGrappler
**As noted above, a lot of the English is unclear. When I read first through "Aegean Macedonia" (Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (Serbia) I wondered "Why on earth would they claim the whole of Serbia, even if in their terminology it is called "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" - then it dawned that there was a contextual "in" in front of the countries. Actually saying "in Greece", "in Bulgaria" etc would have made that clearer. What about as an emigrant community in Romania (Dobruja) - I wondered if Dobruja was an alternative terminology for Romania, or the emigrant community, or the Aromanians full stop. I'm sure that can be written in clearer English; I get the impression, having followed some links, that it means "as an emigrant community around Dobruja, Romania" but I'm still not sure... of course, had that fact been properly referenced I could have checked it myself :-)TheGrappler
- I tried with most. Kindly re-examine. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
**"Gora and Prohor Pchinski" doesn't seem to be explained at all. And the wikilink is a redirect.TheGrappler
- That too. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The maps are nice, but it would be good to have references for what maps the Byzantine province, ancient Macedon, Roman province and geographical region are based on.TheGrappler
- Ok. No refs. That's my view. Just one more click for the ref will not hurt anyone, plus the article will be much easier to read.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- "No refs" is simply unacceptable, all you need to do is repeat the reference from the other article. Most FAs have about 50-100 references, this doesn't even have 10 yet. You need to explain where you are getting the information from. And "click here" isn't good enough, because the idea is that this article could be printed out and form a coherent whole (or indeed, be published as part of a wikireader), so relying on information elsewhere in Wikipedia isn't good enough. What if the information isn't referenced on the article that the "see also" has been given to? TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. No refs. That's my view. Just one more click for the ref will not hurt anyone, plus the article will be much easier to read.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The maps are nice, but it would be good to have references for what maps the Byzantine province, ancient Macedon, Roman province and geographical region are based on.TheGrappler
- I've only just noticed this now, but it's perhaps the biggest possible hole in the article as it stands. It's really nice to know who I will offend if I say what, in what language, to whom. But it would also be nice to know - if a survey on this has been performed, and I suspect that this is covered at least somewhere - what the standard English terminology tends to be. I can imagine that the introduction to a pretty standard English language textbook on the history of the region might stick in an explanatory note about the "standard terminology" the book uses, and note that it's not the same as some of the ethnic terminologies. History books about Russia very often have explanations of "Rus'" and "Rossiya", "russky" and "rossiysky" (the kind of stuff that appears in the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article on WP) and then notes that throughout the book English word "Russia(n)" will be used to mean precisely [whatever] unless otherwise stated.TheGrappler
- I agree with the explanatory note concept. However, I think it is a general issue and that it should exist in every name-controversial article. I have commented on that multiple times. Please continue this in my talk for designing a general course of action with the relevant guidelines. For starters on standard English terminology and explanatory-note, read Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position, and Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive10, and we go on from there. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've only just noticed this now, but it's perhaps the biggest possible hole in the article as it stands. It's really nice to know who I will offend if I say what, in what language, to whom. But it would also be nice to know - if a survey on this has been performed, and I suspect that this is covered at least somewhere - what the standard English terminology tends to be. I can imagine that the introduction to a pretty standard English language textbook on the history of the region might stick in an explanatory note about the "standard terminology" the book uses, and note that it's not the same as some of the ethnic terminologies. History books about Russia very often have explanations of "Rus'" and "Rossiya", "russky" and "rossiysky" (the kind of stuff that appears in the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article on WP) and then notes that throughout the book English word "Russia(n)" will be used to mean precisely [whatever] unless otherwise stated.TheGrappler
- "But it would also be nice to know - if a survey on this has been performed, and I suspect that this is covered at least somewhere - what the standard English terminology tends to be."
- The standard English terminology, is, as far as I am aware to use Macedonia/Macedonian in all of these contexts. For example, the Macedonians are called just that in English, "Macedonians", and the Macedonians are also called just "Macedonians". Disambiguation generally depends on context, so if I'm talking about the delightful Macedonian actress, Labina Mitevska, we know that I'm talking about the Macedonians and if we're talking about Alexander, we know that we're talking about the Macedonians. Its less confusing than it sounds :) - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is no source for "standard English terminology" and it's rather confusing. There are many examples of misinformed native English speakers who equate Macedonian Slavs to Ancient Macedonians. That is another story though...:NikoSilver: 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, some would say the Oxford English Dictionary is a source for "standard" terminology. We could give the definitions from there? Of course you are right, there are plenty of people who have no idea, but then thats why we're creating this page :) - FrancisTyers · 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is no source for "standard English terminology" and it's rather confusing. There are many examples of misinformed native English speakers who equate Macedonian Slavs to Ancient Macedonians. That is another story though...:NikoSilver: 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The standard English terminology, is, as far as I am aware to use Macedonia/Macedonian in all of these contexts. For example, the Macedonians are called just that in English, "Macedonians", and the Macedonians are also called just "Macedonians". Disambiguation generally depends on context, so if I'm talking about the delightful Macedonian actress, Labina Mitevska, we know that I'm talking about the Macedonians and if we're talking about Alexander, we know that we're talking about the Macedonians. Its less confusing than it sounds :) - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, basically, it 's getting there, but I'm going with "no, for now". TheGrappler 13:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks for all these suggestions. Do you mind crossing out those that have already been covered (if they are covered). I'll get back for the rest later...:NikoSilver: 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I intermingled my responses for continuity and forged your signature in-between. Kindly respond briefly. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong OBJECT The lead is quite poor, disjointed, and lacking encyclopedic analysis, which is in fact a problem for the article throughout. Some sections are merely lists of the various conceptions of Macedonia, but again, there's a complete lack of genuine discussion about the issue. All references are online sources, which is also another problem. This article needs to be completely rewritten before it can meet FA criteria.UberCryxic 14:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)- Strong Oppose for all the objections cited above. CG 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose—It's just lists. Tony 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me.--Eupator 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
ObjectSupport - an excellently written, NPOV page, with great images,but it's a list. Would support as a Featured List though.Now prosey enough to be an article. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)- Neutral worthy article, I would enthusiastically support it as a Featured List, and believe its editors deserve barnstars. Wish I knew how to bestow one. Sandy 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Meets all NPOV criteria. --FlavrSavr 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - meets all the criteria - well written, NPOV etc. etc. - needed. Killfest2 12:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support Wow, quite apart from the subject of the article this should be how all Wikipedia articles get written, informative, objective and readable. As to the content it's easy to follow and seems to flow ok. Pictures and infoboxes complement the text well. As to the list argument well I suppose there is a case there but I get the feeling that stick it over at featured lists and it'll get called an article not a list!! -- Errant talk(formerly tmorton166) 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha! Thanks. Right out of my mouth! Were you an uninformed reader (like Killfest2 above)? :NikoSilver: 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: How are Russian and Armenian languages of region? Erase that and you have my support vote. Luka Jačov 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't got a clue, have you? Do some research before commenting - see the talk page. --Tēlex 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Object - No ToC, and much of the article consists of lists. While there are seven footnotes, there don't seem to be any actual inline citations... you might want to consider reformatting this article as a list, and then submitting it to featured lists. I don't think this cuts it as an article. Fieari 19:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- On request, I relooked at the article. I'm still uncomfortable with it as an article as opposed to a list, although that concern is admittably less now. I've seen no explanation for the lack of ToC. Additionally, the referencing still needs to be completed. I might go neutral once the referencing is done, but I'm not comfortable enough with this entry to vote support. Fieari 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to say a few things. This is an excellent Wikipedia entry. I use the word "entry" because I am not quite sure what else to call this creation. As many have observed, it's not really an article and it's not really a list. Regardless, the writing is excellent, NPOV, and worthy of what the community would want in a featured article.
- Now the bad news. Many reviewers here have called attention to the obvious problem with this entry: much of it is filled with lists. Most of it is not written in summary style, and as such this entry does not meet the foundational characteristics for an article, much less a featured article. The even bigger problem is that the nominator of this entry, Nikosilver, has done little to address these issues that so many have raised. As long as something can be done to fix an objection in principle, it should be fixed. That's the main rule with how people should deal with objections in the FAC review process. All we ask for is that this article be written in summary style, which means deleting many of the lists and reformatting the current content. In principle, there is nothing to prevent Nikosilver from attempting to do this (that is, to rewrite the article in summary style), so why hasn't this attempt been made yet? I have other problems with this article, but this one seems like the most basic and the one that has been most often identified, so most definitely something should be done to fix. Rewrite......into....summary style....this is not that difficult. We're not asking for the impossible.UberCryxic 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- How is it not in summary style? I think that by just checking my answers to all the comments above and by checking the article's history, you will find that your claim about me not dealing with the problems is totally unfair. I have corrected (or attempted to correct) all serious suggestions. I am not calling yours not serious, I am just puzzled what exactly you mean. Can you please give an example? :NikoSilver: 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chill Nikosilver :D I think what he is saying is that the lists could get replaced with a prose style text. I see his point it would help to decide either way if it is a list or an article!! -- Errant talk(formerly tmorton166) 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- He means that the lists are bulleted lists I think. The problem is that to get rid of the lists would make the article really confusing. I mean, the premise is reasonably confusing to start off with (using Macedonia/n for everything), keeping it in structured lists makes this less confusing, to paragraph-ise it would be a kiss of death I think. - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Concurr there, I did a quick hack (sorry to the guys who wrote the page) of the first 'list' in my sandbox complete rewrite to convert it to paragraphs. Which is hardly fair to the current authors. Shame -- Errant talk(formerly tmorton166) 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of "not dealing with the problems," only of not dealing with this particular problem that has come up so often (in fact, it seems to be pretty much the only reason why people are objecting to this article going FA, those who are objective anyway, so it's odd that you haven't rectified anything that deals with it, or that you've only done so little). Part of the problem is because it's difficult to just completely transform an article, and I realize that. Ok....examples. There are many, but I'll draw your attention to the Linguistics section. Right now, there are four bullets with explanations. That does not qualify as summary style. That's nothing more than an explanatory list. What should be done is to transform that list into a paragraph-like section concerning linguistics and Macedonia. Paragraphs....not lists; that's what would make this summary style.UberCryxic 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style for more info.UberCryxic 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tried and did that with the geography section, but the list is still unavoidable, I am afraid. Regarding the linguistics section, I think that one of the purposes of the article is to clearly illustrate that the exact same term is used for different objects. I can't do that with paragraphs, and there really is not much I can add next to each language (syntax? verbs? vocabulary?) that contributes to the same terminology issue. The only thing that would probably worth mentioning is the controversial issue of whether Slavomacedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian (which is folk linguistics since a "language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy", plus it's adequately mentioned in Bulgarian terminology section) and the (lightly) disputed closeness of Ancient Macedonian to Ancient Greek. You think that any of this explains contemporary terminology issues?:NikoSilver: 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I really think that the controversies (e.g. Macedonian/Bulgarian and Ancient Macedonian/Ancient Greek) should be kept in their relevant articles, Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonian language. - FrancisTyers · 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify a few more issues. Errant and Tyers are absolutely correct in identifying this transformation as a major problem. However, I am not particularly moved. I am sure that some of us here have written featured articles before. We realize the hard work that goes into them and the demands that reviewers make. I remember the changes people requested on my first featured article. I was like, "are you kidding me????" (inside, of course, I didn't actually say it!) It's just something you have to deal with. Tough luck. Unfortunately, this great entry does not satisfy all of the criteria to be a featured article, and it is not too much to ask it to do so. Please realize that my admonition is not insensitive; it is being made to ensure that this article deserves featured status and that it attains it fairly. Right now that's not the case.
Niko, I am going to suggest a few things on what you could do to make the transition easier, but regrettably I am not very familiar with this topic. On any section where you have bulleted lists, you could....
1. Talk about scholarly controversies regarding the subject. For example, in the Linguistics section you could talk about any controversies that might exist over where the word "Macedonia" derived from. Not to say that there is controversy about this one specific thing, but if there is stuff like that, you should talk about it (and you could do it in prose form).
2. You could talk about what different terminologies mean to different people within Macedonia (and outside of Macedonia if you want). For example in the Demographics section, why not talk about any possible friction regarding how the term "Macedonians" is used most commonly?
3. In the terminology by group section, talk about some of the origins and the reasons for why those names are used.
Anyway these are just ideas. Like I said, I can't really be helpful in this respect, but hopefully you have an idea of what you need to do. If you don't think you can reconfigure some of these sections, then they probably need to be deleted and be placed into daughter articles.UberCryxic 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. I strongly believe that the entry will lose its practical purpose of being a fast tutorial for unaware readers if we add all that. Everything is adequately covered in all sub-articles. This is not an article about Macedonia (region), nor about Macedonian Question, nor about Macedonians or any language in the region. It is about third parties briefly understanding what is going on over here, and knowing what a Greek means when saying "Slavomacedonian/s", or what an ethnic Macedonian means when saying "Macedonian/s". In that sense, I am reluctant to modify it in that direction. :NikoSilver: 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are willing to acknowledge this as an entry (whatever that means), and not an article, then it should not have even been nominated. It either loses its practical purpose of being a fast tutorial or it doesn't have the components of a featured article. "In that sense," that's your dilemma.UberCryxic 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would have to agree here. If it means that it doesn't get featured as a featured article then so be it. But I think that any largescale deviation from the current format would break, 1. readability, 2. the delicate compromise that has been developed over the past months. I think I would have to strongly object to mentioning any more controversy (in this article) than absolutely essential. There are hundreds of articles about Macedonia, most of them are disputed. This one by and large isn't... the reason is because we're leaving out the controversy (its a good thing). - FrancisTyers · 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- That said, I hope you understand more about the complex meaning of Macedonia having read the article :) - FrancisTyers · 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I remain intrigued by and confused by this entry, so I keep coming back to the first sentence in the FAC: This may be the only article regarding the Macedonian question that has not been (and probably cannot be) victimised by edit wars. (With the recent changes, is that still the case?) I do believe that Niko has done what has been asked of him, and I'm not sure that has been good for what this entry set out to accomplish. The text has grown, and now it is approaching more of an article than a list. It would be a shame to see the authors move away from what they set out to do (and did do) only so that they could be a featured "article". Maybe being featured is less important than doing a great job at what they set out to do. I am still very neutral on this, but I'd almost rather see them move the other direction. So as not to compromise their purpose, I'd rather see it go to more of a list, and definitely be a featured list. If they keep going in the direction of expanding text, my concern is that they will get into the very controversy they sought to avoid. Still neutral, willing to take another look, as long as it takes. Please do ping me! I know our comments are all contradicting each other :-) Sandy 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty amazed, we still haven't had an edit war, although it was close for a while. We all kept our cool (well, pretty much). The talk page tells a slightly different story, but it didn't pass over into the article. I share your concerns about this moving away from its original purposes, we'll be including photographs or something next! - FrancisTyers · 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do, most certainly I do. This was a very informative "article." It's actually weird how much I learned because I was born right next to Macedonia (in Albania). Nice job by Nikosilver.UberCryxic 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey! I just nominated it, I don't WP:OWN it! It was Fran's idea (although reluctant -I had to convince him) and we all contributed a lot in this. For the record, Cryxic, do you think this is a "Featured Something" or not? :NikoSilver: 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hold it. I changed my mind. It won't hurt if we just specify the controversy on the language and demographics sections. I'll make attempts. Please bear with me for a while...:NikoSilver: 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I really do find it to be informative, but there is very little prose. Honestly, if this was nominated at WP:FLC I would likely vote support, but this is not a featured article IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- List vs Article: From the first time that this issue was mentioned as a comment, the editors of the article collectively (and although some were disagreeing) tried to incorporate text and modify the article in order to seem less like a list and more like a structured summary style entry. The steps were the following:
- Significant additions in the WP:LEAD
- Full historic background in the geography section (and footnotes)
- Full illustration of controversy in the demographics section
- Same for the linguistics section
- The political section was already expanded, still, it is further de-listed and modified.
- Please reconsider your list complaints in view of these large-scale modifications, and comment. Thank you. :NikoSilver: 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Once the sourcing is worked out, I'll strongly support. By anyone's count, this is an impressive article. I think if anyone still objects on the basis of it being too list-y, they're being far too much of a stickler. This is great work; acknowledge that. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Further comments: you did ask me to {{fact}} the things I thought needed referencing. Now, I've sprayed it around liberally, and several of these could be dealt with using just a couple of good sources, multiple times. Nevertheless, everything I have tagged is a non-trivial fact that lacks a reference. Some more issues:
- Don't address the reader - so no "please note"
- References still need to be well-formatted. (Date of publication, author, publisher, date of last access for URLs)
- And for goodness sake, tell us where you are getting all this wonderful information from! Saying "it's on another page in Wikipedia, so no need to repeat sources in this one" really isn't good enough. All articles should state their sources. References add nothing to the length of an article body. They don't make an article harder to read or break up the flow (unlike footnotes - this article may have too many of them, in fact), while they do provide a useful resource of reliable sources on the topic for further reading. They only take a line or two of text each. They make the article verifiable. A featured article can normally expect 50-100 of them, whether it's a summary article or not.
- So still some work to do, but definitely improving. Plus, see comments above. TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Object: I agree with TheGrappler's comments regarding the need for references in this article. Jazriel 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Re the list vs article issue: maybe some of the bulleted items could be prosified, but in any this article would have a hard time going through FLC as well. I'm willing to admit this is a borderline situation but IMO the "article" quality is stronger here. On another issue, referencing is lacking and poorly done; specifically web links should use the
{{cite web}}
: Empty citation (help) format. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah Niko, I definitely think it is a featured something. I would have no problem if this entry set precedent and started a whole new category for featured material. Like this could be the first "Featured References Article" or something...articles about the different ways to refer to something. I'm liking the improvements that you and others have made to the article since I last saw it, but there could still be a little more prose. Much of my concerns center around visual appeal; I want to see enough paragraphs and prose writing so as to make the lists almost irrelevant. Lists should never be the focus of a featured article, and they most definitely are for this entry. Beyond that, there are the referencing problems that others have drawn attention to. Fix these things and I'll support.UberCryxic 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I was asked to review my "object", so I perused the opening paragraph:
- "The various terms used in the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia, are a source of confusion. Frequently overlapping terms are used to describe geographical, political and historical areas, languages and people. Ethnic groups inhabiting the area are using different terminology for the same objects, or same terms for different objects, creating confusion to foreigners, including other inhabitants of the region."
- "various" is probably redundant.
- Remove the comma after "Macedonia", or add another comma to mark off the phrase.
- "are using" is probably too vivid/temporary for the intended meaning—more permanent, habitual verbs should be simple present tense.
- "terminology" vs "terms"—use the same word unless you intend a different meaning.
- "to" foreigners is wrong.
If this is the opening, what must the rest of the prose be like? Sorry, I can't approve this unless the entire text is properly massaged. Tony 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above points, there a re a few niggles in that first paragraph. Also have you tried replacing the word Term with the word word (errrrr) in places as it will make it read better. For example at the end of the lead section "The term Macedonia itself.." becomes "The word Macedonia itself.." (oh and you should probably get rid of all the quote marks around Macedonia that keep getting used. Instead Italicise the word :D ) -- Errant talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ease of reading
Hey, does anyone seriously think the lead is better without the list of "Macedonia (as foo) is X" ? I think it reads horribly. No offense to Niko (and I know he won't take any), but it was better before. Unless anyone seriously thinks it is better this way, I'm going to move it back. - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Fran for speaking ahead of me. I wanted to experiment and see what would happen if I de-listed the whole thing. I too am waiting for the comments of the others...:NikoSilver: 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I have erased my initial objection and am now switching to Wholehearted Support after the massive improvements. I still have some complains about the lead, namely that it should be shortened a bit, but the dedication and quality that surround this article (it's an article now finally) make it worthy of FA status.UberCryxic 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think the present version covers all well-intended comments from all users so far. If there are further suggestions, kindly advise. There is no way the friends of all Macedonians are going to let this article (finally an article) not get the FA status it deserves. The whole category of related articles definitely needs a point of reference, and this article may well be it. :NikoSilver: 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which specific lists would these be? I think we're stuck with the necessary ones. There was a version regarding the History section that wasn't very appealing([1]). Care to examine it? Bulleting paragraphs for clarification and illustration of confusing terminology must not be considered as listing.:NikoSilver: 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
"There are still too many lists to be considered an article." No there aren't. Not at all. At this point, this is decisively an article. The lists are only an addition to the prose. The History section and the Terminology by group section requires more prose, but beyond that there are few other problems.UberCryxic 23:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
hmm I think really the only lists you are stuck with is the Ternminology by group section. The other liosts could easily be converted to prose with a little work. With all of the In.. sections converted like that I think you may find alot of peoples opinions change. You see at the moment the lists actually make up a very large part of the article which is probably why people are disputing it. Why not give it a go and convert a couple to prose to see what it looks like - then maybe the rest if it looks good! -- Errant talk(formerly tmorton166) 11:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- We tried, it looks confusing and bad. I don't want the article to be confusing just to pass FAC. - FrancisTyers · 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- """Further comment on my object: The first sentence is bizarre: "The region traditionally referred to as Macedonia is a source of confusion". Surely the confusion concerns terminology, not the region. Tony 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Anything else? :NikoSilver: 13:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's now: "The terms used in the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia are a source of confusion." That's not much better. How about: "The terms used to refer to the region that many people know as Macedonia", or something like that? As for the rest, it's nowhere near good enough. Here are random examples:
- Done. NikoSilver 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's now: "The terms used in the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia are a source of confusion." That's not much better. How about: "The terms used to refer to the region that many people know as Macedonia", or something like that? As for the rest, it's nowhere near good enough. Here are random examples:
- "... the region presents markedly shifting borderless across the Balkan peninsula since its borders had been loosely defined according to ...". Ungrammatical; "since" is ambiguous.
- Reworked. NikoSilver 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The name Macedonia had disappeared from most maps, under the Ottoman conquest for a period of four centuries, since it was not an administrative division of the Ottoman Empire." Problems with tense, commas, logical connection to the last clause, and redundancy ("a period of").
- Reworked. NikoSilver 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- "As language is tied in with national identity,...": Possible POV. Tony 15:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Added "As language is one of the elements tied in..." NikoSilver 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- "... the region presents markedly shifting borderless across the Balkan peninsula since its borders had been loosely defined according to ...". Ungrammatical; "since" is ambiguous.
- Still objecting, although the article is improving. A few comments:
- In History: "Macedonia (as an ancient kingdom) existed in the northern-most part of ancient Greece, bordering the kingdom of Epirus on the west and the region of Thrace to the east." It would help to include dates for Macedon, to provide a timeframe for the reader - similar to the dates provided for the Roman province of Macedonia.
- In History: "It incorporated the provinces of Epirus vetus Thessaly, and parts of Illyria and Thrace." A comma is needed after 'Epirus vetus'.
- In History: "Macedonia (as a province of the Byzantine Empire) was an administrative division which largely occupied the region of Eastern Thrace. It was bordered by the provinces of Constantinople, Thrace, Thessaloniki and Strymon." It would help to include dates for the province of the Byzantine Empire, to provide a timeframe for the reader.
- Prose - see Tony's comments above. Jazriel 09:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done, done and done. Thanks. There have been improvements to prose also (before your post) per Tony's suggestions. :NikoSilver: 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Lists?
- Back to the "lists" issue:
- There have been (unsuccessful) attempts to completely de-list sections like that of History. One by Errant (here) and another by me (here).
- There was a recent extensive addition of prose in the history section by FrancisTyers.
- The whole "list" (don't drop the scare quotes), is in essense not a true list, but paragraphs or sentences that have been bulleted in order to align the "Macedonias" [sic] and illustrate the terminology conflict. We should not consider "bulleted paragraphs" as a "list".
- The "terminology by group" section is in the end of the article and is used as a type of reference for the prose that precedes it. Typically references are in the form of a list, and so is this. That, cannot and should not be changed, and this will not be the only featured article that incorporates lists.
- Two users who objected due to the extensive lists that used to exist in the article, have reconsidered their votes and now support. (UberCryxic and Smurrayinchester)
- Also, please note that the references section has been extended to cite all information contained in the article. Please reconsider your objections. If there is a specific comment, kindly provide a specific example on how it should be handled. Otherwise please support, because this is a great article that matches all FA criteria. :NikoSilver: 13:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still objecting - looking much better but I have the following comments:
- Lead doesn't seem to follow WP:LEAD. The Churchill quote is interesting but not developed elsewhere in the article (not sure what to do with it, but the bottom line is that in general anything not developed outside the lead probably doesn't belong there, with the only exception I can think of being pronunciation information). I strongly recommend that some of the key uses of the term be mentioned - the general region, the ancient civilization, the modern country - and the naming dispute between the country and Greece specifically referred to.
- Done. A full outline of the article, without details, to intrigue further reading... I didn't remove Winston Churchill's quote though. The quote itself (especially by such a personality) could well summarise the whole article! NikoSilver 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks better.TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. A full outline of the article, without details, to intrigue further reading... I didn't remove Winston Churchill's quote though. The quote itself (especially by such a personality) could well summarise the whole article! NikoSilver 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still have a couple of issues with referencing, although it is a lot better now:
- When citing a website you need to include date of last access of the URL and also include author, publisher and date of publication details if relevant.
- Done. NikoSilver 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Page numbers for the books?TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. NikoSilver 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- References need to be to reliable sources (see WP:RS). Is Urban Dictionary really the sort of reference we want to see in a featured article?
- I added the Urban Dictionary links as I supposed that it is reliable as a source of slang expressions, which is what many of these are. - FrancisTyers · 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can see the point, although it remains true that Urban Dictionary is in general less reliable than Wikipedia. The OED contains slang, I just wonder whether Bulgarian and Macedonian dictionaries might do the same? TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I added the Urban Dictionary links as I supposed that it is reliable as a source of slang expressions, which is what many of these are. - FrancisTyers · 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that referencing is watertight. A lot of the "terminology in different languages" section should perhaps be sourced from a multilingual dictionary. Some of it goes beyond a pure dicdef and may need "harder" referencing. A (non-exhaustive) set of examples:
- Bugarashi (Бугараши) and Bugarofili (Бугарофили) are derogatory terms used to refer to people in the Republic of Macedonia self-identifying as Bulgarian, or having a pro-Bulgarian orientation. - need a reference to state that the term is derogatory. May be in a dictionary.
- Srbomani (Србомани) is a derogatory term - same here
- Bulgaroskopian (Βουλγαροσκοπιανός) is a derogatory term - and here
- For the three above: It is quite impossible to find decent sources for indecent material. These words appear in sites and blogs of irredentist/nationalistic nature. We could either cite some of these (e.g. Gerkomani) or delete them. NikoSilver 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, but again, "It is quite impossible to find decent sources for indecent material" isn't true in general. The OED contains all kinds of indecent material and all kinds of lexicographical information about them... still, I can understand if there is no Bulgarian equivalent. TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- For the three above: It is quite impossible to find decent sources for indecent material. These words appear in sites and blogs of irredentist/nationalistic nature. We could either cite some of these (e.g. Gerkomani) or delete them. NikoSilver 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Macedonism (Македонизъм), Macedonistics (Македонистика) is a derogatory term, generally synonymous with disciplines such as study of the origins of the Macedonian language and history of the Macedonian people conducted in the Republic of Macedonia and in former Yugoslavia. It is generally considered in Bulgaria to be a kind of pseudoscience. You really claim that a discipline is regarded as a psudoscience (at least in Bulgaria) without citing a source for that claim. Additionally "Macedonism" is bluelinked to an irrelevant page.
- Added citation. There is no discipline to begin with. "Macedonism" is a term that is used in Bulgaria to illustrate the over-zealous attempt of certain extreme members of the Macedonian Slavs to over-establish their national, linguistic and historic status, by means of pseudoscience. For example, it refers to the highly pseudoscientific belief of certain Macedonian Slavs that they are descendants of Alexander the Great. The blue link is highly relevant, so maybe the wording in the article is misleading. If that was the case for you, can you please propose an alternative wording? NikoSilver 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article seems to be about an ideology while "Macedonistics" sounds like an academic discipline. I think that's what threw me... not sure what to suggest about it.
- Added citation. There is no discipline to begin with. "Macedonism" is a term that is used in Bulgaria to illustrate the over-zealous attempt of certain extreme members of the Macedonian Slavs to over-establish their national, linguistic and historic status, by means of pseudoscience. For example, it refers to the highly pseudoscientific belief of certain Macedonian Slavs that they are descendants of Alexander the Great. The blue link is highly relevant, so maybe the wording in the article is misleading. If that was the case for you, can you please propose an alternative wording? NikoSilver 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Names in the languages of the region" lacks any references.
- Citation on different spellings of the same term, as they are adapted in different languages, is to my opinion redundant. I doubt there will be anybody to dispute that e.g. the Turkish term for Macedonia is Makedonya. Please do not insist in creating a list of dictionaries within the ref section. Anybody can check that nowdays, with a very small amount of effort. NikoSilver 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, we don't reference trivial details, but is it genuinely non-trivial to say that the Turkish for "Macedonia" is "Makedonya"? I don't know... I certainly couldn't do it easily through "paper" means. It's non-contentious, but references aren't just there to head off disputes. I'm happy with the benefit of the doubt being given here. TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Citation on different spellings of the same term, as they are adapted in different languages, is to my opinion redundant. I doubt there will be anybody to dispute that e.g. the Turkish term for Macedonia is Makedonya. Please do not insist in creating a list of dictionaries within the ref section. Anybody can check that nowdays, with a very small amount of effort. NikoSilver 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- When citing a website you need to include date of last access of the URL and also include author, publisher and date of publication details if relevant.
- Occasionally addresses readers still (there's a "note that") which I dislike stylistically, though that may just be my personal choice.
- Done. NikoSilver 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lacks comprehensivity: (minor quibbles)
- Doesn't state clearly when the first post-Ottoman political entity of "Macedonia" was formed. Presumably it was the Socialist Republic of Macedonia? Year of formation? (I seem to remember that under the previous kingdom, it had been fragmented? Though that probably isn't worth including)
- SFRJ SROM was officially established in 1946 by Tito. Greek Macedonia was incorporated in 1913. Adding info in article. NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Great.TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- SFRJ SROM was officially established in 1946 by Tito. Greek Macedonia was incorporated in 1913. Adding info in article. NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't state whether the region was seen as a region at all by the Ottomans. Did they actually perceive that there was some kind of coherent region here? Or did they perceive the land as belonging to various other regions?
- There is no data on the issue. If you have any information please lead us to it (although I really don't think it makes any difference). NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect there is data but have no idea where to look for it. The Ottoman terminology for the Macedonian region (which is relevant enough since they used to run the show) would help give absolutely comprehensive coverage of the topic, but in the absence of readily available information I wouldn't insist on it.
- There is no data on the issue. If you have any information please lead us to it (although I really don't think it makes any difference). NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very vague about what Greek-administered "Macedonia" is. If I recall correctly, is it not a periphery? This article merely calls it a "region" and "political division", which is like saying "California is a region and political division of the United States" without actually pointing out that it's a U.S. state.
- One of the meanings of the word "periphery" in Greek is region/district and it was linked already to Peripheries of Greece. I replaced it with the original. Do you suppose we should also change "province of Byzantine Empire" to "Byzantine thema"? NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- In English, "Periphery" is not at all synonymous with "region" - when referring to Greece, the former specifically means a particular kind of administrative unit (in the same way that "State", "County" or "Unitary Authority" do), while region has no administrative connotations (it may just mean "the area around..."). "Province" on the other hand has a clearly administrative meaning; so long as the themata may be called provinces without any confusion, there is no real problem. But there would be a certain logic and consistency to using the historically correct term.TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- One of the meanings of the word "periphery" in Greek is region/district and it was linked already to Peripheries of Greece. I replaced it with the original. Do you suppose we should also change "province of Byzantine Empire" to "Byzantine thema"? NikoSilver 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The associated term "Macedonism" (and maybe also "Macedonistics") also has a disputed meaning. This is clearly part of the terminology used to describe Macedonia, so perhaps ought to be elucidated a little here?
- See note above. Also, "Macedonism" with the pseudoscience meaning is clearly a... Bulgarianism. There is no disputed meaning. NikoSilver 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken.TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- See note above. Also, "Macedonism" with the pseudoscience meaning is clearly a... Bulgarianism. There is no disputed meaning. NikoSilver 11:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't state clearly when the first post-Ottoman political entity of "Macedonia" was formed. Presumably it was the Socialist Republic of Macedonia? Year of formation? (I seem to remember that under the previous kingdom, it had been fragmented? Though that probably isn't worth including)
- While substantial portions of this article do need to be written as lists without a doubt and shouldn't receive any objections, the "history" section could probably be written in narrative form. Hope this seems reasonable, TheGrappler 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Did you notice the two attempts for de-listing history section? Please check here and here and respond if you like either. If you can think of a third way, we are welcoming suggestions.:NikoSilver: 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Other than the grammatical mistakes (I believe corrections are suggester above?) and the periphery vs region issue, I very much liked Tmorton166's suggestion. I think it would definitely be an improvement over the list. TheGrappler 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Did you notice the two attempts for de-listing history section? Please check here and here and respond if you like either. If you can think of a third way, we are welcoming suggestions.:NikoSilver: 09:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lead doesn't seem to follow WP:LEAD. The Churchill quote is interesting but not developed elsewhere in the article (not sure what to do with it, but the bottom line is that in general anything not developed outside the lead probably doesn't belong there, with the only exception I can think of being pronunciation information). I strongly recommend that some of the key uses of the term be mentioned - the general region, the ancient civilization, the modern country - and the naming dispute between the country and Greece specifically referred to.
Now?
All comments have been taken care of. Please re-evaluate.:NikoSilver: 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Still objecting. Lists. But I will not explain myself since you don't want to understand. Notes and references are a bit confusing with R-3 going before R-1 and [1] going after R-4 but I it's nothing major. Date links per WP:DATE. Terminology introduction vague ("Groups in Macedonia use terms in conflicting ways.") and uninformative. I still agree that the page is of good quality but I fail to see it as an article. Joelito (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will work on dates and Terminology by group intro. It is impossible to fix the automatic ref function errors though, because they are a system bug. Old refs ({{ref|name}}/{{note|name}}) within new refs (<ref name="name">...</ref>) are always counted first! :NikoSilver: 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know, I am not objecting for the refs, it is a "bug"/inconvinience of the software. Joelito (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, tell me about it! BTW, worked on dates and added text in terminology by group section. Still being worked out though. Care to jump in the discussion there?:NikoSilver: 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know, I am not objecting for the refs, it is a "bug"/inconvinience of the software. Joelito (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Now we are really done! :-) :NikoSilver: 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*Weak object I'm worried about using urban dictonary as an source, as it's not considered a critible source. Still a bit listy as well but it's very good other than that. Jaranda wat's sup 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Support' Jaranda wat's sup 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Would you recommend another source for slang ? - FrancisTyers · 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is looking an awful lot better. The new look lead probably needs a going-over from the grammar and style specialists, but personally I thought Politically, the use of the Macedonia name, has lead to a dispute that has reached the highest levels of international mediation (United Nations), still pending full resolution is some way short of brilliant prose. The second comma is definitely wrong and "lead" should be "led" ... but the sentence still feels jarring, probably mainly due to the brackets. Why not mention who the dispute was between? Perhaps "Politically, the use of the name Macedonia has led to a diplomatic dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece. Despite intervention from the United Nations, the dispute is still pending full resolution" would be at least a little better? The lone sentence, stranded on its own at the bottom of the lead, should probably be culled; it doesn't seem to be achieving anything. The references now look much stronger, in general, though when citing a book to back up a particular fact, it's good practice to include the page numbers (like almost other other FA to pass recently). I wonder whether it's worth mentioning that the terminology dispute also affected the way the Macedonian language is referred to - when trawling through europe.eu some years ago I burst out laughing when I discovered that a lot of the documentation about the new single European currency was available in Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Russian etc and "the official language of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - somehow using 10 words because they didn't have the balls to use just "Macedonian". TheGrappler 06:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- HAHA - FrancisTyers · 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean Macedonian or Macedonian? :-) :NikoSilver: 11:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- HAHA - FrancisTyers · 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Object - Agree with others that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Find another way, or remove the assertions it supports as unverifiable.—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)- Urban dict taken care of. All comments have (again) been addressed. Only exception is the mentioning of the parties implicated in the naming dispute in the intro, but rewording was neccessary and dealt with. (Reasoning: Intrigue reader to read further). More terms and claims have been cited. Kindly push the red button for lift-off. :NikoSilver: 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Almost supportThis is an awful lot better than it was before its nomination. I am happy that the contents and structure of the article are sound, that they are well-referenced, appropriately illustrated, and belong on FAC not FLC (this doesn't look anything like most of the the entries at WP:FL). The fact that the dispute was FYROM/Greece does seem worth mentioning in the lead (it is perhaps the most important issue in Macedonian terminology so should appear in more detail in the lead) but I wouldn't insist on it - there's editorial discretion involved there. But it's not fit to go on to the main page with English like:
- Urban dict taken care of. All comments have (again) been addressed. Only exception is the mentioning of the parties implicated in the naming dispute in the intro, but rewording was neccessary and dealt with. (Reasoning: Intrigue reader to read further). More terms and claims have been cited. Kindly push the red button for lift-off. :NikoSilver: 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- "For more details see Boundaries and definitions section in the main article."
- Reworded for consistency with the rest "see..." notes like: "(For more details on the bordrerless nature of the region of Macedonia, see Boundaries and definitions section in Macedonia (region))."
- "Politically, the use of the name Macedonia has led to a diplomatic dispute, still pending full resolution, despite intervention from the United Nations."
- Sorry, I joined your two sentences above. For consistency, each section deserves only one sentence. Reworded now as: "Politically, the use of the name Macedonia has led to a diplomatic dispute, which despite intervention from the United Nations, is still pending full resolution." Like it better?
- "A region of Greece is also called Macedonia, divided in the three sub-regions (peripheries) of West, Central, and East Macedonia."
- This sentence is a result of a mini-list-cull. Not controversial at all. Reworded now as: Macedonia refers also to a geographic region in Greece, divided in the three administrative sub-regions (peripheries) of West, Central, and East Macedonia. Better?
- In addition, I suspect that the "idiom" in "In terms of the word "Macedonian" to describe a linguistic phenomenon, be it a language, dialect or idiom..." is incorrect (especially if following the wikilink to "idiom") - all the phenomena listed are languages or dialects, and certainly none of them are "figures of speech".
- Actually there are idioms in the area, but not listed here. The link is to a wrong destination. I'll remove it for clarity.
- "For more details see Boundaries and definitions section in the main article."
- I suspect this could do with one last, thorough, copy-edit from a native speaker unfamiliar with the text. I know I am giving this a very very hard time but a final copy-edit and this really will be a top class article.
- I had already asked the suggestions of an experienced native-speaker copy-editor who was kind enough to help. If you see anything else please advise accordingly...
TheGrappler 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- NikoSilver 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy enough with this now. Although I think that it will be worth taking Robth's comments (below) into account and it would be good to see this done before this article hits the main page, I am just about content to say support. TheGrappler 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still Object - I'm having a hard time finding my old vote in the middle of all this text, so I'm just tacking this on to the end. This is a fantastic entry into the encyclopedia, but I still feel that it consists more of lists than actual article, and in fact, the prose involved simply provides an introduction and explanation for the lists, which is the real meat of the entry, in all honest. As such, I would SUPPORT this wholeheartedly as a featured list, but can't quite allow myself to support it as a featured article. Fieari 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Object. In a quick glance through this, I spotted at least a few cases where the description of a term is somewhat misleading. Examples:- "Macedonians (as an ethnic group), in reference to the majority of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. As of 2002 the population is 1,297,981."
- While it is true that ethnic Macedonians are the majority of the population of Macedonia, that is not the definition of the group, as the phrasing of this sentence might lead you to conclude. The article linked to defines Macedonians as "a South Slavic ethnic group who live in the southern Balkans region of Europe. They speak the Macedonian language, a South Slavic language, and most of them are part of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."
- I rephrased accordingly.
- While it is true that ethnic Macedonians are the majority of the population of Macedonia, that is not the definition of the group, as the phrasing of this sentence might lead you to conclude. The article linked to defines Macedonians as "a South Slavic ethnic group who live in the southern Balkans region of Europe. They speak the Macedonian language, a South Slavic language, and most of them are part of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."
- "Macedonians (as a regional group in Greece), in reference to the majority of the population in the Macedonia region of Greece. As of 2001 the total population of the region in Greece is 2,625,681"
- Again, why do we have this line about being the majority of the population of that region, which is only going to muddle the issue? According to our article, these are ethnic Greeks from Macedonia as a whole and Greek Macedonia in particular.
- Ummm, the population was a recent addition requested by another user. I find it highly informative too. Why do you claim that it "muddles" the issue? I just made clearer what the data concerns.
- It's certainly informative, but needs to be presented in such a way that it's clear that this is one characteristic and not the defining feature of the group. A clearer phrasing might be "Macedonians (as a regional group in Greece), in reference to ethnic Greeks living in regions referred to as Macedonia, and particularly Greek Macedonia. This group composes the majority of the population of the Greek region of Macedonia..." Note that I'm not talking about the line giving the total population of the region, but rather the line that says "the majority of the population of the Macedonia region of Greece". This point is analogous to the one above; just as the defining characteristic of ethnic macedonians is not the fact that they are the majority of Macedonia (the country)'s population, the defining characteristic of Macedonian Greeks is not the fact that they are the majority of the Greek province's population. --RobthTalk
- Done. Thank you. Although it was clear enough anyway because the region's population does not restrict the reader to assume that Greek Macedonians can travel or migrate.NikoSilver 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's certainly informative, but needs to be presented in such a way that it's clear that this is one characteristic and not the defining feature of the group. A clearer phrasing might be "Macedonians (as a regional group in Greece), in reference to ethnic Greeks living in regions referred to as Macedonia, and particularly Greek Macedonia. This group composes the majority of the population of the Greek region of Macedonia..." Note that I'm not talking about the line giving the total population of the region, but rather the line that says "the majority of the population of the Macedonia region of Greece". This point is analogous to the one above; just as the defining characteristic of ethnic macedonians is not the fact that they are the majority of Macedonia (the country)'s population, the defining characteristic of Macedonian Greeks is not the fact that they are the majority of the Greek province's population. --RobthTalk
- Ummm, the population was a recent addition requested by another user. I find it highly informative too. Why do you claim that it "muddles" the issue? I just made clearer what the data concerns.
- Again, why do we have this line about being the majority of the population of that region, which is only going to muddle the issue? According to our article, these are ethnic Greeks from Macedonia as a whole and Greek Macedonia in particular.
- "Macedonians (as an ethnic group), in reference to the majority of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. As of 2002 the population is 1,297,981."
- A further problem arises with statements that need a reference, but don't have one. Examples:
- "These regions are also considered geographically part of Macedonia. They are referred to by ethnic Macedonians as follows, but typically aren't referred to by non-partisan scholars."
- The first sentence is sourced, by the same source provided in the sentence before the sub-headings (3+2 parts reffed by Danforth, p.44 if I remember well :-)). For the second sentence, a reference has just been included.
- "All these controversies have led ethnic groups in Macedonia to use terms in conflicting ways. Despite the fact that these terms may not always be used in a pejorative way, they
are generallymay be perceived as such by the receiving ethnic group." (The second sentence in particular needs a reference).No it doesn't.The terms below point to the Notes section which is sourced very adequately. When e.g. the Greek Ministry uses "Slavomacedonians", they surely don't do it in a pejorative way, but Helsinki monitor reports it may be considered as pejorative. Same for "Aegean Macedonia" etc. Update: You were right though, the sentence needed that rephrasing (see strikethrough vs underlined above).
- "These regions are also considered geographically part of Macedonia. They are referred to by ethnic Macedonians as follows, but typically aren't referred to by non-partisan scholars."
- For both issues, not only these cases but similar examples throughout need to be addressed. --RobthTalk 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Similar examples? Please go ahead...:NikoSilver: 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have time to go through and pick them all out case by case; the two types of cases I'm pointing to are descriptions of a type of usage that don't match what that usage's article says and analytic statements for which a reader might want quick access to a supporting source that don't have an inline citation. --RobthTalk 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, until you find time to specify another particular objection that has not been rectified, I guess we can consider your opposition unjustified. LEADs of articles generally don't have citation, obviously because the claims in the lead, are justified below. In the same sense, τhe introductory paragraphs of the sections, do not have citation, because the terminology terms themselves along with their proper references justify the introductory paragraphs. However, if you feel we should repeat the same citations on the lead of each section, then we can discuss it. Please respond. :NikoSilver: 13:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a list of statements that need inline citations. (I think I confused this issue earlier by saying "references" when I meant "citations"):
- and they seem to have been established only in 1899, by the Greek cartographer C. Nicolaides for political purposes.
- Done. Wilkinson p.120. Added p.130 and p.136 about the other ones too.
- The perception of the division of a single area emerged as a historical hindsight.
- Removed, although, I think it is obvious, that since geographers of the multiple ethnicities inhabiting the area took the map, and since the area in the map was indeed divided, then someone (or some people) had to 'perceive' it. If it bothers you, don't add it back. If it doesn't then please do add it back, because it explains what followed.
- Ethnic Macedonian nationalist fringe groups have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (in Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (in Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (in Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (in Serbia).
- Done. Removed word 'groups' and added citations.
- The terms are used in non-partisan scholarly works, although more often they are used in ethnic Macedonian literature of an irredentist nature:
- Although there is one citation regarding the irredentist origin of one of these terms in an article linked to, this statement should have a citation of its own.
- Done. Rephrased: "...more often they are..." -> "...they are also..." and added citation.
- Although there is one citation regarding the irredentist origin of one of these terms in an article linked to, this statement should have a citation of its own.
- Greece and the Republic of Macedonia each consider this name a compromise: it is opposed by some Greeks for containing the Greek self-identifying name Macedonia, and by many in the Republic of Macedonia for not being the short self-identifying name.
- Done. Added citation.
- and they seem to have been established only in 1899, by the Greek cartographer C. Nicolaides for political purposes.
- Insert citations for those and that'll take care of my objection. --RobthTalk 15:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have time to go through and pick them all out case by case; the two types of cases I'm pointing to are descriptions of a type of usage that don't match what that usage's article says and analytic statements for which a reader might want quick access to a supporting source that don't have an inline citation. --RobthTalk 01:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Similar examples? Please go ahead...:NikoSilver: 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Noted and thanks. I'll copy them all to the article's talk page for speed. :NikoSilver: 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done all. :NikoSilver: 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strike Former Opposition, Support Now - This is now an article. I can get behind this. Fieari 01:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Final concerns
- Comment I continue to maintain my objection to the featured article candidacy. A series of single sentences in bullet lists and tables is a featured list, not a featured article. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response: I can understand how you may be lost in the lengthy debate here, so here goes a small outline of the basic points:
- Your previous comment was: Oppose I really do find it to be informative, but there is very little prose. Honestly, if this was nominated at WP:FLC I would likely vote support, but this is not a featured article IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- The version that you considered listy then (21.1Kb) was less than half than the present one (45.2Kb), and all additions were in prose -not lists.
- Please compare lists vs prose in the article:
- Macedonia (terminology) LISTS (20.4Kb)
- Macedonia (terminology) PROSE (25.2Kb)
- I doubt you will find the LIST part informative, while I am certain that the PROSE part, explains most of the situation.
- Seven users above have already retracted their opposition regarding the "list" issue (User:Zafiroblue05, User:Huntster, User:UberCryxic, User:Smurrayinchester, User:Jaranda, User:TheGrappler. User:Fieari) in view of these large scale modifications.
- The Macedonian category desperately needs a well-sourced, comprehensive article, as a reference for all the rest. Please reconsider your reluctancy to accept that bulleted paragraphs must not be considered mere lists. We formatted them (those that remained) this way only to illustrate confusion. They could have been without the bullet mark next to them, and the article would still make great sense. Even so, the prose in the article is longer than any lists that remained and it is more informative than the actual lists as proven above.
- Please compare lists vs prose in the article:
- In view of the above, I consider that there is a wide consensus for this article (don't drop "scare bolding" [sic]) deserving featured status, and any debate whatsoever closed. Anyone with a justified objection is welcome to analyze it for further improvement, but I seriously doubt there can be any (justified objection). :NikoSilver: 10:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not to come off wrong, but that's rather arrogant given the long list of people who continue to object to the "article" as a list despite the edits. And I did review it with the new content from my previous post or I wouldn't have posted. Sentences are not paragraphs just because they are long, and plenty of featured lists contain some prose (like this one). I'm not sure why you don't like this though, IMO FLs are rarer and tougher to put together than a FA, and this is easy FL material IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- What list of people? You're the only one left. User:Tony1 hasn't responded despite my repeated messages (since July 16 - 5 days ago) when he was not actually still objecting about the list issue, but about copy-edit suggestions, which were all rectified (and more than that). User:Joelr31 too has not responded since July 17, when the article was about half in size. I repeat that seven users have removed their opposition on the list issue (not counting dozens of others who supported anyway). Also, if you say so, then kindly provide an example of a FL with equal or more prose to this article. Please do not dissapoint so many users who have worked so hard to write this great article, which deserves all the credit it can get for neutrally and adequately describing one of the most controversial situations in Europe and most frequently edit-warred category in WP: Macedonia.:NikoSilver: 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I just want to say I am not challenging the quality but the TYPE of article. It IS very well written and sourced. As for lists with large blocks of prose, List of Anuran families, List of Kansas birds, List of Florida birds, List of Oklahoma birds, just from 10 seconds of looking at the FL list. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm just going to add my comment to the bottom here rather than have it lost in the sea at the top (where you can still find my objection). I still feel (and am beginning to think I always will feel) that this "article" does not stand on its own, whether written in full prose or in list form. All it does is summarize the basis for the debate (covered elsewhere), the history of the region (covered elsewhere) and present a long list of words in Greek, Bulgarian, "Macedonian" and other local languages. That isn't a full-fledged article, and, frankly, I doubt it can ever be a full-fledged article. I am sorry. —Cuiviénen 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like this one? Or that one? Or even that one? (All picked from last month's log!) Or any article concerning a huge issue, for that matter? Isn't that correct, according to WP:SS? Can you elaborate on your objection please? Also, the article does a lot more than what you say: It gives all the necessary information to understand why the whole mess in the terms used exists! According to it's title, that should be its purpose, and that is covered more than adequately, for anybody who wishes to have a quick tutorial on the issue. I am sure that there are a lot of people out there puzzled with Macedonia, and what term to use, when referring to whom, adressing whom, and for what reason. This is covered more than adequately. The history you mentioned, is not the aim of the article, but it just happens that all those inclusions there were called "Macedonia", hence have to be disambiguated. Same goes for the debate on the name, and anything else. :NikoSilver: 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those other articles are still about specific topics. Is this about a specific topic? I don't feel so (in regards to using the page for how to reference things in Macedonia, remember that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide).. If it were about the debate, it would cover the actual impact of the debate. If it was about Macedonia, it would also talk about the economy, the culture, the government, etc. As it is, it isn't an article. It's a disambiguation page and a list of terms for Macedonia in other languages. That's all. My objection can be disregarded if Raul feels that it is invalid, but that's my final opinion on it and I can't see it changing. —Cuiviénen 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cuivienen, this has nothing to do with 'how to'. It is an article on the terminological [sic] mess. It gives all the background for that mess, all misconceptions about the mess, all side-effects of the mess, and how we came to that mess. It is complete in doing that. Please respect some 27 users above who think so, some 7 users who have dropped the 'list' issue, and some 15 users from all countries in Macedonia (region) and outside, who have actually managed to create an article without bitching and edit-warring all the time...:NikoSilver: 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Those other articles are still about specific topics. Is this about a specific topic? I don't feel so (in regards to using the page for how to reference things in Macedonia, remember that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide).. If it were about the debate, it would cover the actual impact of the debate. If it was about Macedonia, it would also talk about the economy, the culture, the government, etc. As it is, it isn't an article. It's a disambiguation page and a list of terms for Macedonia in other languages. That's all. My objection can be disregarded if Raul feels that it is invalid, but that's my final opinion on it and I can't see it changing. —Cuiviénen 23:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like this one? Or that one? Or even that one? (All picked from last month's log!) Or any article concerning a huge issue, for that matter? Isn't that correct, according to WP:SS? Can you elaborate on your objection please? Also, the article does a lot more than what you say: It gives all the necessary information to understand why the whole mess in the terms used exists! According to it's title, that should be its purpose, and that is covered more than adequately, for anybody who wishes to have a quick tutorial on the issue. I am sure that there are a lot of people out there puzzled with Macedonia, and what term to use, when referring to whom, adressing whom, and for what reason. This is covered more than adequately. The history you mentioned, is not the aim of the article, but it just happens that all those inclusions there were called "Macedonia", hence have to be disambiguated. Same goes for the debate on the name, and anything else. :NikoSilver: 23:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I support this proposal Heraklios 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)