Template:Article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

North Macedonia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

Mercy, you had it Republic of Macedonia stealing a big part of our history and now you have it Macedonia stealing all of our history? The guy who did this is a d****** and the ones who agree with it are a******* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.135.60 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This note was left like a ,,lonely monument in the middle of a desert" in the History section:

In the following passage, the term "Macedonian" is used to refer to the ancient people with the same name and not to the ancestors of the citizens of the modern country.

Do you really think it's necessary and why? Bomac (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Xenovatis, have in mind that people came in North America (as well Australia) from across the ocean. Let me make an analogy here with evolution - a new species can occur most likely if an organism from a continent inhabit a nearby island. Bomac (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was baseless and you are of course not going to admit it. Though the fact that you didn't use it again is proof enough that you think so too though won't admit it obv.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bomac, I'd use another metaphor: a diamond amidst a nationalistic cesspool. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is as self righteously ignorant as it is wide off the mark. Another case of point missed.18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merely my opinion. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made my point perfectly clear - why do you put this really unusual note? Name me at least one example where such note is used here in Wikipedia? Since we've started to psycho-analyze ourselves, have in mind that your fears are in contradiction of creating a good quality encyclopedia. It is very well stated in the article that the modern Republic of Macedonia was established in 1945. So I see no damn reason why this (product-of-fear) note should be left there. It's really ugly. Bomac (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say? You are employing the red herring fallacy, your point was not "Why use the comment" but rather that the comment was in itself wrong "All people are descended from previous inhabitants." Well I showed you that this is not true. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not showed me anything, like to give me an example of at least one article where this unusual note is used? Bomac (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you just did it again.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the note does appear to be unnecessary and, frankly, bordering on POINTy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted that note because I didn't know how else to handle the problem of disambiguation between "Macedonian" as a noun and adjective used to describe people and things of the Republic of Macedonia in contrast to those having to do with "ancient Macedonia". There is no real Wikipedia policy on this matter yet, this is why we had an ArbCom just days ago, and the problem has to be addressed. "Macedonian" in the article of RoM should be used to denote anything that has to do with the country, yet in this case, the southernmost part of RoM were parts of a totally different and alien entity which we call Macedonia (ancient kingdom). By simply using "amcient Macedonian", the reader will erroneously understand that we are talking about the Macedonians (ethnic) of the ancient times, so a disambiguation has to be given. I posted my question as to how to handle it above (Disambiguation Issue in the "ancient history of the territory" section) and I would like us to work out something to be able to incorporate Macedonian (ancient) within the article Macedonia (country) properly. The header of the section reads "Ancient history of the territory" and this has been done to disambiguate between all other Macedonians of the region (Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (Greece)). Pelagonia and Lyncstis are parts of this history, but their "Macedonism" has to somehow be disambiguated. I think that a tag in the beginning of such sections (as we usually do with articles) would do the job much better that disambiguate every time we speak of something Macedonian (ancient), a long explanation instead of a tag in the section or just avoiding any mention to anything Macedonian (ancient), as was the case until now. Please, give your suggestions but do not speak about POVs and "nationalisms". This is a very important disambiguation problem and the core of the issue. GK1973 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Macedonians are mentioned only once, and the term is wikilinked. That article explains it. There isa hatnote at the top of this article saying that it is about the modern country not the ancient kingdom. There is a hatnote at the article on ethnic Macedonians explaining that they are not related to ancient Macedonians. That's plenty of clarification. BalkanFever 11:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.. now that most instances of the name "Macedonia" disappeared, there seems to be no problem BF... The text was different yesterday. GK1973 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that were done yesterday only prove the disambiguation problem we have here. In order not to mention the term "Macedonian" and avoid "problems", we just do not allow any information other than the most basic to appear in this section. If this is how you people think we should handle the issue, it is fine by me, but mentioning the states that lied within nowadays RoM borders, their rough history, the Gaulish invasion and some more info on the history of the territory looks quite important to me. BtW, The Paeones are mentioned by Homer, so their state is indeed the first reported state that can be linked with the area (although, Homer could have in mind only the Southern Paeonian tribes). GK1973 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to come to an agreement on what you're actually going to put in that section, since obviously there is some disagreement among you, Jingiby, Polibiush and Athenean (looking at the page history). Disambiguation can be solved once the text in that section stops changing every few hours. BalkanFever 12:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jingby and I came to an understanding yesterday. I liked much of his input. I guess that the later changes were made to not have to disambiguate, for much was just removed, not rewritten in a more appropriate way... sad.. I won't pursue this further. Should we try to expand this section, I will help in. Should we think it is too much trouble with policies, I will also understand. GK1973 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Ohhh.. and of course another issue crops up with the use of the term "Upper Macedonia", which to the unaware reader would mean "North" or "mountainous" Republic of Macedonia... So, if we are going to use this term also, something should be said... (too many ambiguities in this frigging section, should we try and expand it...) Should we write "....Upper Macedonia in the southernmost part of the Republic"? Do not forget that we are trying to compile an ancient histyory section for the territory of the Republic, so modern geography should be used for precision purposes. We are not writing the history of the Paeonians nor of the Lyncestians or the Pelagonians.GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to start editing and changing things again. Instead, I think that discussing here the content of the text is better, this is what discussion pages are ther for after all... So my proposal as a start is

I think that this text addressed most if not all problems. I didn't use "Upper Macedonia", "Ancient Macedonian" appears only once and it is very clerar that we are talking about the territory and nothing else. I still think it can be expanded, but we should start from somewhere... GK1973 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. BalkanFever 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I want it reverted back to my version. It was much nicer. FAUoFPaS (Ж) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fauofpas, your version lacked WP:MOS#Internal consistency. Perhaps you should make a sandbox to work on in your own time, and then try and come to a consensus with other editors on whether your version can be included. BalkanFever 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future please drop by the Greek Embassy to collect this month's stipend. The consul is worried about you and the ambasador's wife has made dolmadathakia and diples that are your favorite. See you at the Ekklesia!--Xenovatis (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I don't like diples. Too sweet. But I wouldn't say no to the dolmadakia. The Macedonians have only Tavče Gravče. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have other food, but it's not for foreigners. BalkanFever 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we set up automatic archiving of this talk page with a time delay of two weeks. Thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]