Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Which picture?

NikoSilver and I have been love-bombing each other on my talk page over which image to use when this article gets to Main Page; I must say it's a nice change from most of WP.

The images can be found in situ at User_talk:NikoSilver#test and Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Macedonia_.28terminology.29. We still disagree on which to use, but at least our difference is aesthetic, not political: he thinks the one at right is pretty and I don't. What does everyone else think? Septentrionalis 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that out Sept! If I may add, our fellow editors must also judge which picture will be more intriguing for the readers of the main page to actually read our work. •NikoSilver• 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I read the entire discussion and I see nothing wrong with any of the two pictures. I tend to like the right one a little bit more because it catches the eye, think of it like a cover of a book. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't really find anything wrong with either, and would be satisfied with any choice that may be made. Maybe for the main page the coloured map would be best, as it promptly catchs the eye; but I really don't know.--Aldux 20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Left, almost certainly. - FrancisTyers · 08:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think the one at left more intriguing. The right one is a map of a transnational region; there are lots of those. I gather Niko thinks it will interest readers because of the encoded history: Macedonia was divided among three different nations in 1913, and part of it is now a fourth nation. But readers who don't know the history won't see it in the map. They will see Macedonia shifting around like a jumping bean on the left. Septentrionalis 18:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I still find the right one eye-catching; and the left dull, though...•NikoSilver• 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, check if you like any of the pics (or set of pics) in /Templates...•NikoSilver• 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Macedonia confusing has its points; it's certainly vivid. Can we see a version without the yellow present borders? Septentrionalis 22:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll drop it in here tommorrow (in about 10 hours). I don't have the source file at home. In the meantime, I'm inserting this one here in correct size. PS. The left pic you and Fran like has the present-day borders. (we also have to insert the template in the article somewhere...) •NikoSilver• 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My reservation about the borders is not that they're PoV, but that they're bright yellow. This isn't a political difference. Septentrionalis 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I couldn't remove them completely, because I can't reproduce the geo features below them. I toned them down to non-bright orange. Hit ctrl-F5. (we'll have to add the template in the article somewhere -any thoughts where?) •NikoSilver• 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I created Template:Macedonia historical borders. Please comment on it. We can place it:

In the intro, instead of the intro template (the new template includes the contemporary definition)
In the 'Notes' section, to attract attention

Either than that, replacing the historical template would remove substantial info and adding it in geo section would be too much (we'd have three images) not to mention irrelevant. The other sections are irrelevant also. Opinions? •NikoSilver• 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrgh! What happened to the map? It scared away the cat the dog and all the fishes in the sea! Politis 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to tone down the orange slightly? Maybe a different colour for the borders would improve it? - Francis Tyers · 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you make an animated gif? Send me the images for the four regions and I'll animate them :) /FunkyFly.talk_ 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The region throughout history

Since I dont have the individual images on the color map, I made one using the images on the left. Please comment. Also I can make the image delays proportional to the amount of years the region spent in the given boundaries. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw the changing brightness of the rest of the image is a bug that should be fixable. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Fixing the brightness is important, though. A plain map with no Macedonia to mark the beginning of the sequence might be worthwhile; but not if anybody's going to claim it's PoV :-}. Septentrionalis 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So here it is the bug fixed, as well as a three extra frames added. Refresh your browser cache. /FunkyFly.talk_ 03:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on this debate: The gray and white map is BORING. Nearly every article on a geographic entity in Wikipedia has a map with that color scheme. The topographic map with the regions colored in is far superior. Perhaps the national borders could be black instead of yellow, but otherwise it's clearly my preference.--DaveOinSF 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, I guess everybody more or less agrees on the colored maps for the main-page. Funky had the best idea ever! I'll cooperate with him and produce an animated gif from the color maps of Template:Historical Macedonia 2. What does everybody else think? •NikoSilver• 09:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just did it. Great thanks to FunkyFly for the idea. Ladies and gentlemen: I present you the new intro in Macedonia (terminology)! Kindly approve. •NikoSilver• 11:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. The image size in 326px (article standard in templates) is around 600Kb, but it loads progressively frame-by-frame in all browsers. I will create a smaller thumb, at 180px for the main-page to relieve servers from shrinking the gif, and save download time. I will also replace the current pic in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Macedonia (terminology). •NikoSilver• 11:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent. You might need to insert a few extra transition frames, that's a bit too sharp. I dont think it will increase the size all that much. Also have larger delay because there's too little time to read the text at the bottom. /FunkyFly.talk_ 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Malista! Animation looks really professional and clear, a concise journey - albeit through blurred centuries. May I propose that Philip's original Macedonian region was much smaller? Is it possible to include it? Politis 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion, make a thin bar in the lower part of the image, right above the text, which fills first a quarter white, then with a quarter blue, then yellow and red to signify the evolution of the region. /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that all colors have ah-hem certain connotations, so I'm gonna use white/brightness (which is neutral) everywhere. The region today must definitely be neither red nor blue!! I can't think of any other 4 different colors that don't match any of the flags, so white/brightness it is. Not until tomorrow though... •NikoSilver• 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded new versions. Clear your cache to view them. They incorporate the timeline, and all colors are different, yet neutral.•NikoSilver• 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good (and with the colored patch moving around, I can actually see the terrain). Septentrionalis 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! :-) •NikoSilver• 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the new version is very nice. However, in the first frame representing ancient Macedonia, the area highlighted is a bit dark and difficult to make out against the terrain. Especially in comparison to the three subsequent frames, which are quite clear. Maybe a lighter blue would be more clear?--DaveOinSF 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I'll see to it along with the dates (below).•NikoSilver• 11:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates

You may want to take out the dates, however.

The Kingdom of Macedonia did not include Chalcidice until Phillip's time.
Diocletian did divide provinces, but he didn't massively rename them. I will consult as to late-antique provinces.
The Theme of Macedonia did not come into existence around 300; themes were not invented until after 600, and I believe the Macedonian theme was a later division (which is why it's over in Thrace)
I recall something about themes not being used after the Byzantines recovered Constantinople; certainly this area stopped being under Byzantine rule well before 1453. In what sense it can be said to exist is debatable.

Septentrionalis 17:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right. I had thought about it when I was making it. However, those are the dates of the respective 'periods'. In the historic template, we specify that the borders are those of the 'maximum extent' during those periods. I used the dates mostly as reference regarding the 'period'. For example, Macedonia was indeed conquerred by Ottomans well before 1453. Finally, I have one huge problem: I accidentally closed the file without saving the new colors etc and the application closed it without asking because I had exported the frames! I'll need to re-do it from there. If you find this glich very important, I will. But please spare me! •NikoSilver• 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me do the research on late antique provinces first. (Can you scan the images back from WP?) Septentrionalis 20:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, please do that. And no, I can, but it won't do (objects and stuff). I'll just re-do it, don't worry. BTW, I also toned down the borders in that geo template you liked so much! :-) •NikoSilver• 20:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, I only moan from time to time, but I really am fast with this. I just re-built it. Just find the dates, and I'll fix it. •NikoSilver• 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Iam in fovour of the new map. It accurately portrays the historical changes of Macedonia.Heraklios 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving chronology looks fab (I still prefer the simpler version because it is less clutered; so I would combine the non-geographical map with colour). Politis 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd fail in Marketing courses you know... :-) •NikoSilver• 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sept: How is that date process going? If it's too tedious, I have an idea: Instead of trying to locate the specific dates for each province's borders, I can replace the text below to read 'Ancient period' , 'Roman period' , 'Byzantine period' , and 'Ottoman period' instead of the current 'province'. What do you think? •NikoSilver• 09:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done already per above for the meantime. •NikoSilver• 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you just take the dates out? There was a province of Macedonia under Constantine [1] , and probably Justinian [2]. Finding the exact line when the Roman system broke down and ceased to exist is going to be a real pain; but neither 284 or 395 is the relevant line here; Heraclius is more likely. Septentrionalis 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of that too, but I thought there may be too many people who don't have an idea of the sequence of empires in the broader region. The caption states 'periods', not 'provinces'. We all agree that those are the dates for these periods, don't we? If you insist, I'll remove it, but I think it says something about the history, without misinforming. It is evident from the text that follows that these swaps in dominion were not done with a flip of the switch! Maybe we should expand the history of Macedonia (region) section instead? Also, I don't see any harm in placing an indicative timeframe. The scope of the article is definitely outside those detais, and, really, who cares if it was a couple of centuries earlier or later? •NikoSilver• 14:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, that's the problem. Was Justinian a Byzantine Emperor, or was he one of the last of the late-antique Roman Emperors? The answer depends partly on what field you're discussing, and in administrative history 600 or 700 makes a lot more sense as a division than 284. How about single dates, showing the date of the boundary shown (c. 340 BC, c. 1 AD, c. 1000 AD, c. 1875)? Septentrionalis 16:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Are these the exact dates? Can you cite them please? (I'll have to remove the time-bar too, I guess, huh?) •NikoSilver• 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the time-bar doesn't make precise claims. But it might be just as well to make it four equal parts, just to show sequence; there is a gap between the province and the theme too. All these dates are approximate; that's why circa (or c.).Septentrionalis 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, circus is fine (actually Macedonia jumps around more than those acrobats). I've inserted my comments below: •NikoSilver• 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

340 BC: Philip took Olynthus and Chalcidice in 349-8; he controlled Greece only after Chaeronea, 338 BC. (Of course, Philip's rule extended much futher north than this map, but was it Macedonia?) Rostovtzeff History of the Ancient World I, 328-330
- Sure. Maybe also Aldux's source that 'Ancient Macedon approx. coincides with modern Macedonia, Greece' if the dates concur. I'll ask.
  - It may be the same problem in both directions: Philip was Hegemon of Thessaly and Captain of the League of Corinth; but that didn't make Corinth or Thessaly part of Macedon. So also the Thracian tribes up to the Danube obeyed Philip; but were they part of Macedonia? (Also, Philip's grandfather may well have ruled up to the Greek border only; but he didn't control Chalcidice either.) Septentrionalis
    - We can safely assume that those northern territories kept their original placenames (like the southern ones did) and slip out of this obscurity by trusting Aldux's source.
1 AD:Where did you get the map? Most maps of the Roman empire are under Augustus or Trajan, c. 100 AD
- No idea. Fran had taken it from the Roman Macedonia article, I think. I'll ask. 100AD is fine with me. Do the borders coincide with those maps under Augustus and Trajan? If not, can you mail me a pic or upload a scetch?

Yep, thats where I got it from. I think I looked for the 'fullest extent' for each. - Francis Tyers · 08:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

900 might be better for the theme. It was founded under Irene (empress) (Warren Treadgold: A History of the Byzantine State and Society, p. 421.; Treadgold's latest mention is Simeon I's invasion of 924 (p.478); and John Tzimisces reorganized the Balkans in 972 into ducates of Adrianople and Thessalonica divided into small themes. The map on p 546, btw, shows it as even further east than your map, with a boundary beginning in the highlands above the Euros, going just north of Adrianople, and then down the middle of the peninsula almost to Constantinople.
- Can you email me a pic? Or can you upload a rough self-made drawing?
  - I can't upload here; I'll see if something is on line. But did your map have a source? If sources disagree we can explain it in text. Septentrionalis 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    - I drew the map out of a descriptive text and extensive talk with the other contributors (who probably didn't have one infront of them either). It's all archived. That's why I need yours. You could check your e-mail and respond with a pic.
For 1875, see Wilkinson; 1875 is a round number, but if you prefer the date of Meinhard's map, fine.
- Yeah, that we knew already. Sorry for including it in my question. 1875 is fine as a round approximation.

Septentrionalis 20:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- •NikoSilver• 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for awnsering so late to the call, hope you'll pardon me Niko :-) Regarding the dates, I believe we shouldn't be too fastidious, or else you guys have no idea the mess we can put ourselves in. To start with, Macedonia for centuries was just a portion of Greek Macedonia, and much smaller than is assumed. For many centuries it was no bigger than this [3], with Upper Macedonia (today Western Macedonia) controlled by independent Macedonian tribes, and Thracian tribes in eastern Macedonia, and Greek poleis covering the coast. It started expanding really only with Archelaus, and parts of the today RoM and the Chalcidic peninsula were added by Philip; but not Thessaly or Thrace, that he ruled as head of the Thessalian League or as a sovereign over protectorates (Thrace). In Roman times, the borders changed considerably from time to time, and was once divided in Macedonia Prima and Secunda, but kept till the administrative structure broke down in the 6th century. The new theme of Macedonia is first mentioned in 802 (Ostrogorsky). Obviously, the structure fell to pieces in 1204. Hope I've not been too boring.--Aldux 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's basically why I recommended no dates at all; but a representative date may be helpful to the reader. Should Chalcidike be part of Philip's "Macedonia"? Septentrionalis 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Treadgold agrees that the whole system of themes was not revived in Europe after the recapture of Constantinople; but does Ostrogorsky say that the Macedonian theme lasted as late as 1204? Septentrionalis 15:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ostrogorsky's book is not very easy to search, since it hasn't got a place index and is full of notes, and I can only say for sure that it was there is 1025, as one of the maps on the book lists it. The word Macedonia is mentioned on a few occasions regarding the 12th century, but I'm pretty sure Ostrogorsky means today Macedonia and not the theme.

Help me out please. I don't know what to do. Can we just give it a rest as it is? I'm too tired modifying this picture so often! My proposal, is just leave the main historic periods (Ancient, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman-Contemporary) and keep the indicative timeframe regarding those periods. If you want me to remove the dates, that's fine, but keep in mind that there are readers who may not know. I've clarified the whole thing in the map text already, by replacing the (wrong) Roman Province and Byzantine Province, with the respective Roman Period and Byzantine Period. Please let us not elaborate any more with this. After all, this is a Terminology article (not History)! •NikoSilver• 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies. I'm still talking to the energetic NikoSilver, who redid the headers because he was bored. Would it be too much trouble to move the dates from the gif to the template caption, like Geographical Macedonia, so Aldux and I could edit them? If you think the theme not worth another upload, at least this month, fine. (It may well be that all we know is that it included Adrianople and the coast southwards of it.) Septentrionalis 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For me Niko, no problem.--Aldux 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok re guys... I'll remove the dates, I'll change the Byzantine frame according to your description below, and I'll make all four time-bars equal. This template caption is somewhat unrelative for these date details, as it describes the contemporary extent of the definition. I suggest you edit the captions in {{Historical Macedonia}} or {{Historical Macedonia 2}} (which I can update according to the gif if you wish). Ta-Dah!! •NikoSilver• 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Clear cache to view. •NikoSilver• 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

In fact, it's a very small-scale map, and the following description is probably as precise as intended: Start near Alexandroupolis, a hair east maybe; follow NNE up the middle of Evros province, parallel to the Euros, until you're west of Adrianople; draw a straight line, ENE, parallel and just short of the Bulgarian frontier, until you're past Adrianople; and then a curvy line ESE towards Istanbul, curving more southerly a bit to avoid Arcadiopolis (= Lüleburgaz, which was in the Theme of Thrace) then more easterly , then south into Marmora almost at the Bosphorus. The large inlet to Çatalca looks about right. Does this help?

But I strongly suspect that this is one theory of several, so you might be justified in skipping the whole thing. Septentrionalis 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you really meant those last four words...•NikoSilver• 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Links in headers

My understanding is that links in headers increase server load. It's done in talk pages all the time, anyway, so if anybody else thinks this edit a good idea, fine; but I don't find links to plain Etymology, history and so forth add very much. We should of course link to History of Macedonia and so forth, but that's what the {{main}} templates are for. Septentrionalis

~~reverting for now; but if no one chimes in, I'll take them out again.~~ I see Funky's edited; and this isn't worth merging edits to keep or to take out. Septentrionalis 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Naaah, I wasn't very fond of it anyway... Check my edit summary. I guess I was too bored and definitely had to do something! •NikoSilver• 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Selected" article in Greek WP

Hey guys, I know most of you were eager to see that in the main page, so I thought I'd let you know about this for starters! Congrats! •NikoSilver• 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Diocese

The diocese of Macedonia should have a bullet of its own, it's a separate entity from the provinces. Let me throw out another suggestion; revert if you must, but do comment here. Septentrionalis 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ok. I formatted it. •NikoSilver• 10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Notification

The intro image has been nominated for Featured Picture (here). I would appreciate your comments. Thanks! •NikoSilver• 12:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That image isn't working for me. After the Roman definition it goes black for a second, and jumps to the end. Anyone else having this problem? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Same problem. Using Firefox on Windows. Carcharoth 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it by replacing with the larger version. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Strange... Those images were tested here for weeks by a number of editors using different browsers. Just look at the debate above. Also, the version I uploaded today (both in commons and en:wp) were the same. (if that comment is irrelevant, just ignore/delete it -I'm catching up step by step...) Niko Silver 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

what did I miss?

I remember some time back there was a revert war over the Macedonia disambiguation page. One of the rare things where a revert war produced such a fruit? John Riemann Soong 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really... edit wars are always disastrous. This article is the product of international co-operation and extensive discussion :) Todor →Bozhinov 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Francis Tyers · 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're too romantic all of you. It's just the product of an evil deal: I'll let you swear at me, if you let me swear at you. All parties spilled their venom in this. Then we just removed exaggerations. Alcohol was also important... (Francis should remember) :-) Niko Silver 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But it really does make a change to see Wikipedians tackle such a controversial international issue is such a balanced and constructive way. I hope this can be a model for sorting out other contentious articles. Well done all round! Indisciplined 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! (literaly, mostly) :-) Niko Silver 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism while on Main Page

Vandalism (1)

Can we get edit protection for this page? There seems to be a problem with vandalism since the page went frontpage. Thanks! Tmrobertson 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a repeating image of a penis on the page now :S.....

Protection?

Isn't that against guidelines for articles on the mainpage? YankeeDoodle14

Ok, I see why now. I can't seem to get rid of the obsene pictures up, so an admin. might have to do it. YankeeDoodle14

Found it. :o) The vandalism was on Template:Please check ISBN. tiZom_(2¢) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I was going slightly insane looking for the origin. - Banyan Tree 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad that it was up there for 9 whole minutes! Should we protect that template due to vandalism, you think? tiZom_(2¢) 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been protected now, and there is a thread at WP:ANI, which is probably the best place to discuss it. Carcharoth 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also see the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, and the considerable number of editors who question this "policy". –Outriggr §

The policy Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection was changed on 5 December with the addition of a new section that reads: Templates included in the main page FA are sometimes vandalized, and it is more difficult to remove this kind of vandalism quickly. It is also less likely that casual readers would need to modify the templates. Admins may semi/full-protect the templates as needed. John Broughton | Talk 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As an experienced user and one of the main editors of this page who wasn't aware of this all, let me give my two drachmae: Had I known such a possibility (and recent change in policy) I'd have requested (semi-)protection of the various templates here. I suppose that most editors don't know that either, and would propose that (semi-)protection of templates within main-page articles becomes a routine job by admins. Niko Silver 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (2)

This page is protected, but can someone please fix the blatant vandalism on this page soon, it's a little gross. Thanks, Riguy 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too often giant penises get put on the front page or the article. Is there a way to restrict images more thoroughly? Emersoni 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get edit protection for this page? There seems to be a problem with vandalism since the page went frontpage. Thanks! Tmrobertson 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a repeating image of a penis on the page now :S.....

Yeah, nice penis. WHY THE F*** IS THIS FEATURE ARTICLE NOT PROTECTED!!!! I need to be an admin. Charlesblack 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hahaha that was fucking hilarious. i wonder what freud would say XD 03:28, 8 December 2006 User:24.44.87.212
(Sig added later by me: Charlesblack)

The offensive image was removed. Should report the user who added it.

Penis??

Why is there pictures of Penis's on this article. its vandalism, but I don't see how to take if off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.21.52 (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

See #Protection? above. - Banyan Tree 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (3)

(section header added later by Carcharoth 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone help!!! I can't find the source of that obscene image at the very top of the article!!

Geekler A Segway Geek 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please unlock this so we can get rid of the obscene images all over the article? 74.119.23.212 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlocked. If this article is vandalised but you cannot see where the vandalism is in the Wikitext, please check Template:Macedonia intro also - it is transcluded at the beginning of the page and contains the Macedonia map. Kimchi.sg 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It took WAY too long to get rid of the vandalism for a feature article, no one seemed to do anything. Just as a side point, all I did was delete a space and then space it again, that got rid of the pictures apparently.

There was actually no vandalism on this page. Apparantly one of the templates on the page was the one causing the trouble. And it takes a long time to go through all the templates. Gdo01 02:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was in Template:LCC. ... discospinster _talk 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In cases like these, admins may put the image on MediaWiki:Bad image list. I believe that the image remains linked but is no longer displayed, which relieves some pressure as people try to find the source of the vandalism. - Banyan Tree 04:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just send it to IFD, since it's not used on any articles. I'll do this. MER-C 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nude pictures

(this section was merged here by Carcharoth 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Someone put up some nude pictures, & I can't remove it, whoever did it, he/she should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FSG (talk • contribs) 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

yeah, I don't see the location in the edit-this-page source.Rake 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (4)

(this section, previously called "Penis Image on article", was merged here by Carcharoth 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

can't undo it, there are three big ones. Berserkerz Crit 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they seem to be in every revision. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

that's what i don't get... creepy vandalBerserkerz Crit 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I found some old revisions without it, and I'm getting closer the the ones with the penis; I'll revert to the last good revision, unless it's already been fixed. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the sections above that have already dealt with this. This is template vandalism. Don't revert the article. Revert the templates and get an admin to protect the templates (not the article page). I'm moving this section up into the right section. Carcharoth 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism (5)

I'm sick and tired of all this S**T going on! Please will someone lock this article from editing? For God's sake please do! This is a featured article and it is the saddest thing to be vandalized.--DimTsi 14:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates vandalized

By my count, 13 different templates were vandalized a total of 21 times. The longest instance before it was reverted was 21 minutes, and there were several others of five-to-ten minutes in length. Total time the templates were vandalized is now 1:58--DaveOinSF 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (updated stats--DaveOinSF 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Here's the latest. In total, the templates have been vandalized for 1hr 58 min so far.

Template:Bg icon - Vandalized, reverted 1 minute later.
Template:El icon - Vandalized, reverted 4 minutes later
Template:Geographical Macedonia - Vandalized, reverted 1 minute later
Template:LCC - Vandalized, reverted 6 minutes later
Template:Loc - Vandalized, reverted 4 minutes later, protected
Template:Macedonia intro - Vandalized, reverted 6 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 1 minute later; protected; unprotected; vandalized, reverted 4 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 5 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 1 minute later; protected
Template:Mk icon - Vandalized, reverted 2 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 1 minute later, protected
Template:Multicol - Vandalized, reverted 10 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 3 minutes later; protected
Template:Multicol-break - Vandalized, reverted 2 minutes later, protected.
Template:Note label - Vandalized, reverted 10 minutes later, protected
Template:Please check ISBN - Vandalized, reverted 21 mintues later; vandalized, reverted 9 minutes later; protected
Template:Political Macedonia - Vandalized, reverted 10 minutes later; vandalized, reverted 14 minutes later; vandalized, reverted same minute; protected
Template:Ref label - Vandalized, reverted one minute later

--DaveOinSF 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Animated image

At some point, Image:HistMac.gif was placed on commons and the local copy deleted. However, the animation of the one on Commons seems faulty, so I've undeleted the local copy - someone might want to take a look at the two of them and work out what's up. I've notified the original author. Shimgray | talk | 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the four (?) maps are very nice, but having them animated is silly. It's a long article, there is enough space for all four maps. Separate them. Gimmicks like animated images distract from content and annoy many users. --24.82.175.172 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice article

I enjoyed reading this article and learned a lot. The Byzantine history was interesting. Just a few comments: (1) The map showing the current regions of geographical Macedonia (Image:Europe_Balkans_Macedonia_geo.jpg) - the Serbian part is not easy to see - it is probably too small to show up at this scale. Can this be clarified somehow? (2) I followed a link to Macedonian Question, and boy, does that article need work. Do those who made this article so great want to tackle that one? :-) Oh, and this 'terminology' phrasing for the article is a good idea. Co-incidentially, a few hours before I read this article, I had suggested this for black people (terminology), and this kind of focused treatment of a subject does seem to help avoid some forms on controversies. Since I see Aldux and Septe-whatever (sorry, still can't spell your name) are around here, do they know how the Romans referred to black people such as Nubians? Carcharoth 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for skipping that comment before. (1)It is included in 'Minor' parts'. Yes, it is small (we also have the size). Do you suggest we could illustrate it further? (2) I saw it was (temporarily) corrected. For the rest, I'll let the specialists respond. Niko Silver 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

image rendering correctly?

I am having trouble seeing the animation, is it on my side, is anyone having trouble seeing it? how many frames is is supposed to be ? 65.13.3.52 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For me, Firefox (1.5.0.8), Opera (8.5), and IE6 don't animate it properly, but downloading and viewing it in Irfanview works fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

It animates fine for me on IE7. Kimchi.sg 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work properly for most people (given that most people use IE5/6 or FF), so it ought to be removed and replaced with a static image until it's fixed. As it's the first thing in the article which most people will notice, it is very distracting. Bazza 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Animates fine for me FF1.5.0.8 - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be intermittent rendering issues (due to glitches at the server end), regardless of what browser you are using. If it breaks again, clicking first here and then here should fix the image for everyone. If you are still seeing a broken image, refresh the page and/or Bypass your cache – Gurch 13:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some problem with the smaller version of the image. I have replaced it with the larger one, and it works just fine (why do we even need a smaller one, if the larger one scales fine)? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact I still can't understand what was wrong with the medium size pic (HistMac.gif) thank God I had uploaded the larger one too (BigHistMac.gif) or you wouldn't be able to do anything! The medium one (HistMac.gif) was 326x326px which is the standard width for the article. I had uploaded it because I thought that since big one's size is close to 4Mb, it would be really tedious for the servers to down-scale it everytime someone viewed the article. I had also created Image:SmallHistMac.gif for the main page, but wasn't selected by Raul. Niko Silver 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

Brilliant article. Why is the title Definition of Macedonia as it appears on the main page? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worded to fit smoothly with the rest of the sentence The bare phrase "Macedonia (terminology)" would not look too good, so it's best for it to be a piped link. Kimchi.sg 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand why the link would be piped given the current title. I don't understand why the current title is used instead of Definition of Macedonia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a definition. It is more a history of the boundaries of the region of Macedonia. The word definition has a precise meaning (maybe this is a genetic definition?). I don't personally think the phrasing "terminology" is brilliant either, as this article covers more than just terminology, but the important thing is that the article is a useful thing to link to from other articles, and that it is clear on reading it what it is about. Quibbling over the exact form of the title would be a bit WP:LAME (no offence). Carcharoth 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Interestingly Definition of Macedonia is a redlink... – Gurch 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I'm sure you agree there's nothing worst than when someone says "check the archives". So I'll give you a direct link: Talk:Macedonia_(terminology)/Archive_3#Renaming_proposal. You might want to skip our semi-trollish debate (actually don't -it's funny) and hit a coulpe of Pg-Dn's to see the relevant poll. Reasons that convinced all of us were:

the Help:pipe trick pointed out by Fut.Perf. (i.e., the fact that you can simply write [[Macedonia (terminology)|]] in the edit window, to automatically produce [[Macedonia (terminology)|Macedonia]] when you press save. This article could well be described as "a dab on steroids" (!!), and the pipe-trick would help in including it in other articles. If you see the true dab (Macedonia), you'll notice that it includes things outside the Balkans, which makes it more complete, but less focusing.
the precedents (such as British Isles (terminology), Americas (terminology), Netherlands (terminology) etc.)

However, if you are not convinced we can reopen this issue whenever you feel like it. I'd be glad to listen to other thoughts/proposals. Niko Silver 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another example is Black people (terminology). Another dab on steroids is Ptolemy (name). Carcharoth 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonian Question

There was an article called "Macedonian Question" which was an example of everything a Wiki article should not be. It violated NPOV, it was not formatted, it did not follow Wiki Style Guidlines, it had no Wiki links, and it was completely redundant with this article.

I removed it and redirected it to this article. I discuss this further in Talk:Macedonian Question.

I have archived the contents of the page for anyone who wishes to have them.

Do not flame me. If this is a problem for anyone send me a polite note and we can discuss it. Nwbeeson 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say over there at that talk page, but the strange thing is that I don't see any redirect in place now, or any redirect in the history. In other words, you haven't actually done any of the things you say you intended to do. What now? Carcharoth 10:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did it. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional information

YOu may have already done this, but onelook] usually turns up a fact or two that good to include in articles such as Macedonia. (As an aside, isn't the article and its images supposed to be locked while the article is on the main page?)-- Jreferee 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

To discuss the recent vandalism, do not add a new section. Please see #Vandalism while on Main Page and discuss there. To discuss other matters, please add new sections before this one (for the next 12 hours at least). Carcharoth 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Terminology vs Republic?

Just an opinion from a passing reader: I think it would be helpful to have a disamiguation-style line at the top of the page, something like "This page discusses different understandings of the term Macedonia. For specifics on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), see Republic of Macedonia." Those who developed this page may have considered it; I'm just putting in my two denars' worth. —OtherDave 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The dab link would be immense. The page is really intended as a kind of dab link in itself :) - Francis Tyers · 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Francis. There are plenty of links on it. Politis 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my Greekness, but you should change this section's title to 'Terminology vs Republic vs Province', because this Macedonia is (claimed to be) more notable historically, demographically and economically. :-) Oh, we have that one too of course, plus the languages, the people etc etc... Niko Silver 00:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro claimed territory in Macedonia?

Since the early stages of the Greek Revolution, the provisional government of Greece claimed Macedonia as part of Greek national territory, but the Treaty of Constantinople (1832), which established a Greek independent state, set its northern boundary between Arta and Volos.[14] When the Ottoman Empire started breaking apart, Macedonia was claimed by all members of the Balkan League (Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria), and by Romania.

Did Montenegro actually claim territory in Macedonia?I thought their only objectives were Shkodra and Novi Pazar, which are not inside any definition of Macedonia.--Jsone 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Languages of the Region

I am nonplussed. While I am an ethnic Russian and have friends in the Balkans, some of them having different notions of Macedonia, I don't see Russian as being one of the languages in the region. Please frogive me if I miss something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.188.108.24 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Quote from Churchill

The quotation is amusing but the attribution to Churchill is probably incorrect, In Saki's story, The Jesting of Arlington Stringham, one reads "the people of Crete unfortunately make more history than they can consume locally." In the story Stringham uses other people's jests without attribution. It is most unlikely that Churchill would have tried to get away with plagiarizing such a well known writer. Adawson13 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a source for that, plus it's one of the phrases we Balkanians have heard quite often. I would like a better source, but I wouldn't remove it just yet, since it is largely considered general knowledge in our neck of the woods. Do you have a source for the Cretans/Saki? Year? (just out of curiosity) Niko Silver 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of Saki's short stories are available at Gutenberg. Stringham can be found in Chronicles of Clovis (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/clovs10.txt).Adawson13 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Clovis were published in 1911. It is more likely that Saki was borrowing, and altering, Churchill's mot than the other way around; the plausible date for Churchill would be 1904-5, when he was a rising statesman. Crete was not producing history in those years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks

here is the count as of this post: 16 links for Macedonia, 6 forRepublic of Macedonia, 11 for Greece, 5 for Macedon, 6 for Ethic Macedonians, 7 for Bulgaria, 10 for Bulgarian or Bulgarians, 4 for Bulgarian Macedonia, 7 for Greek Macedonia or Greek Macedonians, 6 for Albania. to me that's crazy. I propose that most of these be un-wikilinked. some are right next to one another which makes no sense and makes the article look sloppy. please comment --Tainter 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's excessive. In a short article, one wikilink for a given article is sufficient. In a longer article, it might be desirable to wikilink something that has also been wikilinked in a prior section, so the reader doesn't have to hunt about. As a rule of thumb, I'd say a minimum of three or four paragraphs should separate wikilinking of the same article. Go ahead and take out most of the duplicates, I suggest. John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. They are a means for disambiguation. In most cases (especially the tables) all [Macedonian regioners] are called [Macedonians (foo)|Macedonians], all languages are called [Macedonian (foo)|Macedonian], all regions the same, etc etc. The article desperately needs to link the terms every time, and this is because someone may misunderstand (so they'll just mouse-over). This had been discussed during the FAC also. Keep in mind that it is otherwise impossible to dab if we use self-id terms (as we are supposed to). Niko Silver 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't really think about the fact that is a terminology article. More specifically, what appears to be identical wikilinks are in fact NOT, because of piping. So I withdraw my previous comment. John Broughton | Talk 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it would be madness to remove them. - Francis Tyers · 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun on this one John. Niko Silver 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Danforth

He's obviously a specialist on the issue, and I added a whole block of his text in Macedonia (terminology)#In geography, that was e-mailed to me by Francis. I really could not put it better than his own words. Please comment. Niko Silver 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I'll hold you to the "he's obviously a specialist on the issue" :) - Francis Tyers · 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I will read; it might help to indicate that he did his research in Melbourne, and that (as he says at the beginning) immigrant communities may have differences from the Old Country. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean Francis :). Let's write a damn good article about all this, and thanks for the great source. Sept, these parts I copied here are not from the Aussie section, they describe the "Old Country's" thesis. Sept you might also want to check our latest posts in talk:Macedonian language naming dispute... There's a new article in town... Niko Silver 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So I see, now I've read (the 36 page) article. Feel like including Danforth's summmary of the Greek nationalist position, from his paragraph immediately before the quotation now included? :-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, I'll let Niko do the honours :) - Francis Tyers · 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about Macedonia naming dispute. Kindly jump in. :-) Niko Silver 02:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

...and probably carried myself too far with it, thereby neglecting to see this talk. Will see what I'll do. Niko Silver 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dynasty

The Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine empire had many notable Byzantine Greek rulers, including Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer who defeated the Bulgars which are regarded as an ancestral ethnic group of both Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians.

The dynasty is not a demographic element, and so should be in a different section.
This write-up is tendentious in several ways. And we were getting along so nicely! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah! See my edit summary. I said that it is far more notable than the sect. I guess we can ~~slaughter~~ add both of these in the history section? I find it quite spicy... Feel free to reword. Niko Silver 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checked history and saw that Sept dealt with both issues. Two notes:

How about wikifying words within Danforth's text for Greek nationalism to link to respective articles?
- If there is anything we don't link to already. The comments on #Wikilinks were precipitate, but there is a point to not over-linking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Ok. Will check. Niko Silver 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If we start with "other uses" the article will probably end up as this dab list. How about we move both the sect and the dynasty to early history to prevent that? NikoSilver 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with a dab list; we are discussing all the meanings of "Macedonia", among other things. But if the sect will fit smoothly into "early history", I have no objection; it's not a "historical political entity" so the section will have to be recast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Ummm, I was thinking of restricting this article to the Balkans and skip all irrelevant stuff such as Macedonia, Iowa that is adequately listed in the dab article. There is no prerequisite of being a "historical political entity" to include something in a section titled "early history". I'll move them ther without bullets to differentiate from political entities. Niko Silver 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Terminology by group

This section is a mix of translations and transliterations with the unfortunate effect that the reader does not know which of these are used in English.

As a direct result, Bulgaromacedonian which may well be used as the article states in Greek now has a smattering of google hits in English, most of them wikipedia-derived.

This needs to be addressed. Jd2718 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jd mostly all of these terms are used in the respective languages. The point was to give a (quite detailed -I admit) idea of the terminology used by the involved ethnic groups to disambiguate one another. It didn't seem to annoy anyone else so far (call it a pleonasm in the extreme case). I would like to listen to other opinions on this. Niko Silver 01:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need for more input. I see two problems

The mix of transliterations and translations is confusing (we could choose to go with one or the other. I would recommend, but we'll see what others say, that we should not have some of each.)
Non-English terms need to be clearly identified as such. Did the editors intend to promote words from Bulgarian or Greek into English? No. But that is the net effect. Jd2718 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you propose we rename in all cases e.g. gr:Μακεδόνας to tl:Makedhónas instead of tr:Macedonian? (gr=Greek, tl=transliteration and tr=translation for short in case you want to give other exmples). Niko Silver 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would avoid transliterations; there are at least four different systems of transliterating Greek. What little I know about Cyrillic suggests that transliteration there can be a political issue; do we transliterate as in Bulgarian or as in Serbo-Croatian? Perhaps just reversing the present setup and saying, for example, Μακεδόνας ("Macedonian"). It should be clear that things in "" are our own translations, as opposed to English words (which are italicized), but we can add a note if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be better (I like the transliterations, but your concerns make sense). Is there a way to encourage more comment? Jd2718 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clearer. We should have something in the Roman alphabet for every term (even words like "Gărkomani", which has no English translation, as far as I know); but it's enough to have the original and an explanation, unless the "translation" would differ radically from the transliteration, which I don't think any of these do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask (given your previous example). I agree in reversing, but how are we to judge which words have usage in English and which not? I fear that this could prove much more of a political issue than the Serbo-Croatian vs Bulgarian transliterations... I think that the whole section is ok now since it attributes the whole terminology to three non-English peoples. Niko Silver 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

By seeing if we can find them in English. For Macedonian, this will be no problem. I doubt Gărkomani is used except as a loan-word. If somebody finds that we've made a mistake - this is a wiki, and can be changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation of World Book Encyclopedia for macednon

I had heard we should try to avoid citing encyclopedias. Yet World Book Encyclopedia is given as the source for macednon. This word (spelled or transliterated more appropriately) certainly could be substantiated from Liddell and Scott's Intermediate Greek Lexicon (a dictionary of ancient Greek). Before I dig up exact details, would other editors be open to using that as a source instead of World Book? EdJohnston 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Applause...

...to all who have worked on this article. For a subject of this contentiousness and complexity to be presented so well and make it to Frontpage status shows the best of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. — AjaxSmack 08:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

animated gif

please, please, replace that insane 3.8M(!) animated gif with a series of unanimated thumbnails. It's a bad idea to illustrate anything but animation itself (gaits and the like) with animation. dab (𒁳) 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There already is a series of unanimated thumbnails (at Macedonia (terminology)#In history). Perhaps it should be removed altogether.--Domitius 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz, get off dialup already! /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Image:BigHistMac.gif is (the insane indeed) 3.8Mb at 726x726 pixels. What you see in the article intro, however, is set at 326x326 pixels, which comes down to only 880Kb. To verify this, just check the size of Image:HistMac.gif (no "Big" in title) where I had uploaded the 326px downscaled version. For some reason an editor swapped Image:HistMac.gif in the article with Image:BigHistMac.gif, but the result should be the same in terms of size (at 326px). What I am concerned about, may be that the WP servers will have to downscale it every time someone downloads the page (presumably?). If there is no objection, I'll just go ahead and swap it back. The result should be the exact same, and the servers won't have to do anything since the image is already downscaled. Can anybody answer this technical question? Niko Silver 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change at the transcluded Template:Macedonia intro. Refresh your browsers and see if there are any differences (there can't be, and there aren't any). Niko Silver 09:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit text

I suggest removing most of the Danforth text; it give undue weight to a single author and a single book. Politis 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. An eloquent summary of the obvious from an English-speaking neutral source. If Politis can find a source who disagrees with Danforth's summary, we shold give that source due weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Sept in this one. Regarding Politis' concerns, may I stress that Danforth (or any third source I've seen for that matter) does not address (hence presumably does not oppose) the moderate Greek position of adding a disambiguating prefix in the name. It only addresses the extreme position of "no Macedonia in the title", and refers to it as "nationalistic". Niko Silver 12:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

there are other theories of the word 'Macedonia' or 'Makedonija' that should be included here. The etymology section is highly biased. The theory of Makedonija meaning Mother-home should also be inlcuded. In Macedonian, the work Majka = Mother and Dom = Home. therefore we have Majkadom or Makedon leading to Makedonija (the ija meaning land of) or the english equivalent 'Macedonia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.167 (talk • contribs) 06:00, March 6, 2007

Dear anonymous user, these theories have emerged after the original coining of the word "Macedonia" and after its use for at least a thousand years or so. Since we're improvising, may I refer you to these alternative, "very well sourced" and "scientific" "etymologies" here: Talk:Macedonia (region)#Real meaning of the word MACEDONIA. There are more we can come up with I think... Niko Silver 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We should also include the version that 'Macedonian' possibly originates from the Afro American, compound word 'my sheets': Ma = My and sedonia = sheets. This proves that the original Macedonians were blacks who possibly spoke a form of proto-English and discovered America at the time of Homer. As for, 'Makedonija', it probably orginates when opera loving strangers who have yet to be identifies and spoke a proto-Latinesed dialect, it could mean, 'but what a lady she is!' Maque = but what, and Dona = lady, and Ie = is. Politis 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The MC-Edony and the Mac-"edo"-oni-a alternatives were better. See my link above. Niko Silver 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives