Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 4

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

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Links in headers

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Selected" article in Greek WP 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure, ok. I formatted it. •NikoSilver• 10:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diocese

message: The intro image has been nominated for Featured Picture (). I would appreciate your comments. Thanks! •NikoSilver• 12:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Me too. Same problem. Using Firefox on Windows. Carcharoth 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it by replacing with the larger version. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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...) NikoSilver 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seconded. - Francis Tyers · 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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) :-) NikoSilver 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cheers! (literaly, mostly) :-) NikoSilver 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what did I miss? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism (1)

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism (2)

message: 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)
replies: text: See #Protection? above. - BanyanTree 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis?? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: It was in :Template:LCC. ... discospinster talk 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - BanyanTree 04:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism (3)

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

message: (this section, previously called "Penis Image on article", was merged here by Carcharoth 12:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they seem to be in every revision. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's what i don't get... creepy vandalBerserkerz Crit 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism (4) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism (5)

message: Other discussions on this topic are here, here, here and here. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location. Carcharoth 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other discussions on this topic

message: 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)
thread_title:  Animated image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. NikoSilver 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It animates fine for me on IE7. Kimchi.sg 05:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Animates fine for me FF1.5.0.8 - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. NikoSilver 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image rendering correctly? 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I did it. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Macedonian Question]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional information

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, I agree with Francis. There are plenty of links on it. Politis 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... NikoSilver 00:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology vs Republic? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Montenegro claimed territory in Macedonia?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Languages of the Region 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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) NikoSilver 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I
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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Quote from Churchill

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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). NikoSilver 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Sorry for jumping the gun on this one John. NikoSilver 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: 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. NikoSilver 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation of [[World Book Encyclopedia]] for macednon 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Applause...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Gee whiz, get off dialup already!   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? NikoSilver 09:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). NikoSilver 09:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: animated gif

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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". NikoSilver 12:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit text

message: 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)/Archive 2#Real meaning of the word MACEDONIA. There are more we can come up with I think... NikoSilver 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!  /FunkyFly.talk_  18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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