Talk:Macedonia (terminology)
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.
 | Macedonia (terminology) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives | |
|---|---|
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
| Templates | |
ROM/FYROM official propaganda
There was a querry regarding the official involvement or otherwise of Skopje in promoting material that shows the region of Macedonia as the official borders of the state - thereby claiming lands from Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. I would like to add to the previous list:
- The official history manual for schools: History book, Grade 8 History, Skopje 1992.
The table of contents is quite indicative http://uranus.ee.auth.gr/new/eng/macedonia.old/kofos/fig15.html]: For the period from 1913 to 1990, the chapters are divided into subchapters on 'The Aegean part of Macedonia' and 'The Pirin part of Macedonia'. The text and context promotes the notion that the ROM consists of the region of Macedonia, a region that forms geographically and ethnically a single entity, but has been politically divided since 1913, with only 'Vardar Macedonia' being liberated. For the partisan activities in WWII, there is a map of 'The free zone in Macedonia in August 1943' [1]. The free areas are shaded and they include those parts of Greek Macedonia that were temporarily controlled by Yugoslav Macedonian partisans; but the map excludes the free areas of Greek Macedonia liberated and controlled by the Greek partisans of ELAS. In other words, the areas of Greek Macedonia held by Greek partisans are considered as much under occupation as those controlled by the Axis. As for Greek history (excluding Greek Macedonia), from antiquity to the modern age, it is treated quite fairly. There are more examples in those school books [2] Politis 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This: [3] is a text we should all carefully read and criticise before we start modifying the article. The link was provided by Politis, and I truncated some part of the address. Please read and comment. :NikoSilver: 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, is this to say they have one textbook for the whole country? I'd like to get some !!!DISAMBIGUATION MODE ON!!! Macedonian !!!DISAMBIGUATION MODE OFF!!! input on this. As it is presented (by Mr. Kofos) it certainly is quite damning. How does this refer to the article though? - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, a few years ago, Skopje issued standard school manuals for all the country. If this is still the case, perhaps a friend from Skopje can fill us on that. But the point remains that, at least until the 1990s, the history books held that line; and we have the pictures of the relevant pages. Personally, I very much doubt if changes were made; school manuals are quite reluctant to re-edit themselves. Now, how is it relevant? Good question. Perhaps somewhere in the context of irredentist usage of history and, in our case, of terminology? The floor is yours... Politis 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is yet another example of how gross the propaganda in that country is... All of "their" history is either fabricated or the twisted history of Bulgaria and Greece. I really hope our government is finally going to do something about it now (see Ivaylo Kalfin), like vetoing their EU membership (around 2015) if they don't put an end to this. They've been usurping Bulgarian history for decades now and it's a shame our government hasn't done much to stop them. I mean, when it's the history of the Bulgarian (now Slavic Macedonian) population of Macedonia, it's also theirs, it's a part of their Bulgarian heritage, but they just steal it and traduce us and all things Bulgarian in their history books (and not only there). Todor→Bozhinov 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw a news item recently whereby Sofia would consider blocking its EU membership if it continued misusing Bulgarian history. I think their historians have lost all sense of overlapping history; there is also a tendency where everything containing the term 'Macedonia/n' is 'theirs'. It is unfortunate that they do not seem to accept there are some historical situations that belong equally to many nations (ex. Saints Cyril and Methodius), in their case, this is most of their historical totems. Imagine if they had called the country 'Byzantium', or 'Illyria', or even 'Europa' :-). Politis 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, what do Bulgarian and Greek textbooks have to say about the region? I wonder do Greek textbooks mention those little inconvienences and do Bulgarian textbooks accurately reflect the role their country played in the cold war. I know from experience that our textbooks include hardly anything of the Empire, so it wouldn't be surprising to find "Macedonia has always been Greek" in a Greek textbook or perhaps a downplaying of Bulgaria's subserviant role in a Bulgarian textbook. It certainly is a shame that people can't see that some culture belongs to the world (I think it was a Greek who said this). - FrancisTyers · 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes but that means nations should stop ranking and comparing themselves in any way, and that's not going to happen. /FunkyFly.talk_ 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not with that attitude it isn't! :) - FrancisTyers · 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Trust the Greeks to come up with all the best quotes ;-) Will try and find out what Greek school manuals say. Politis 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Full text for 1829 quote
John Comstock, History of the Greek Revolution complied from official documents of the Greek Government... and other authentic sources; New York, 1829.
p.2. [Title of chapter] 'Geographical Situation and Population of Greece'. There is some difficulty in prescribing the exact boundaries of the country properly called Greece. Formerly it included Macedonia, Peloponnesus, the Ionian Islands, Crete, and a part of what is now called Albania. [...] The present divisions of Greece, adopted by the provisional government, are the following: Eastern Hellas, Western Hellas, Morea, Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, Crete, and the Islands. p.7. M. Beaujour concludes the total population of Greece to be 1,920,000 including Macedonia. Politis 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and Ypsilanti planned a government which would include the entire Balkan peninsula; so what? Nor does anything here show that Macedonia was never "presented" as part of the Ottoman Empire. Septentrionalis 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Has Politis actually looked at the book he cites, or is he also copying citations from elsewhere?
- Comstock nowhere says anything about the "first presentation" of Macedonia, and since he is copying a document of the provisional government, the event is more likely to be in 1821. (And it can't be 1829; the London edition was printed 1828.)
- Comstock is not a historian; he's an MD; it says so on his titlepage.
- he identifies the pashalik of Salonica as the "southern portion of Macedonia".(p. 8)
- "What portion of Macedonia comes within the boundaries of Greece we have no means of deciding. A line due east and west from the northern extremity of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salonica) to the mouth of the river Viosa (the ancient Aous) would include, according to the recent maps, a considerable proportion of that territory; while, according to Anacharsis, Macedonia Proper is still entirely north of such a line."
- Having said that Greece is "bounded on the north by Macedonia and Upper Albania, Comstock proceeds to "estimate the population within the limits of Crete on the South, Thessaly and Epirus on the North, with the Eastern boundary of the Aegean, and Western boundary the Ionian Sea, together with the Islands over which the government claim jurisdiction" as 12.2 million, before citing Beaujour's wider area and estimate.
In short, part of the text fails verification; much of the rest of this is selective quotation. This leaves the bare statement that the provisional Government included Macedonia as one of the divisions of Greece, which should be located elsewhere than it is; clearly they did not state its boundaries. I will move it; if someone thinks it off topic, I will not complain. Septentrionalis 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Macedonians"?
| “ | Macedonians might speak a different language at the market and at home, and the same dialect might be called Serbian "with Bulgarian influences", Macedonian, or West-Bulgarian. | ” |
Ooh, I don't like this. I'm strongly opposed to calling a mostly Bulgarian-identifying population "ethnic Macedonian", if that is meant by "Macedonians". The Slavic population may have certainly spoken Turkish and Greek at the market, but that's not important. I particularly dislike the way that "same dialect" is first described as Serbian, than "Macedonian" (anachronistic) and in the end "West-Bulgarian". POV. Todor→Bozhinov 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it's the basis of one of the ethnographic maps, I believe by a Bulgarian. (And it cuts both ways; the Pomaks spoke Bulgarian at the market.) Septentrionalis 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is that in the article? - FrancisTyers · 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I see now. Well, it is cited, from Wilkinson, so unless you want to remove Wilkinson as "hopelessly POV" (which I think would be a bad idea) we should probably live with it. He doesn't specify ethnic Macedonian or regional Macedonian — presume it is the one that fits your POV and sleep soundly. - FrancisTyers · 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to "an inhabitant of Macedonia", alrhough clumsier. Wilkinson does mention that the dialects of the area around Skopje were differently named by different ethnographers; if the order of the labels is somehow offensive, feel free to change them. Septentrionalis 13:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, is it really important to the article? And what period does Wilkinson refer to? Currently that part is very ambiguous, not quite important and possibly inaccurate. After all, it's the geography section and discussing language is a bit of a divergence from the topic. I'd suggest removing it. Todor→Bozhinov 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It refers to the period between 1878 and 1912 (and to some extent after 1912); I thought that was clear. I think it important to show that the major difference between the ethnographers is in the internal divisions of Macedonia rather than the borders; and that their differences are in part justifiable. If you would rather have Wilkinson's comments on the motives, reasoning, and integrity of ethnographers of all nationalities, I can supply those instead. (That there are other applicable standards than self-identification is important.) Septentrionalis 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, is it really important to the article? And what period does Wilkinson refer to? Currently that part is very ambiguous, not quite important and possibly inaccurate. After all, it's the geography section and discussing language is a bit of a divergence from the topic. I'd suggest removing it. Todor→Bozhinov 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to "an inhabitant of Macedonia", alrhough clumsier. Wilkinson does mention that the dialects of the area around Skopje were differently named by different ethnographers; if the order of the labels is somehow offensive, feel free to change them. Septentrionalis 13:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I see now. Well, it is cited, from Wilkinson, so unless you want to remove Wilkinson as "hopelessly POV" (which I think would be a bad idea) we should probably live with it. He doesn't specify ethnic Macedonian or regional Macedonian — presume it is the one that fits your POV and sleep soundly. - FrancisTyers · 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer to have Wilkinson's placenames spelt as he does; this avoids anachronisms; but I put this forth for discussion. Septentrionalis 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A modest proposal
If any editor wants to write
...or
please go ahead and do that. Please make sure every clause is sourced and verifiable (as somebody's assertion); I will help defend such articles against hostile edits. Septentrionalis 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better (lol, edit: worse) to have Claims to Macedonia? - FrancisTyers · 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure they can each fill up an article ;-}. I am serious in suggesting that such articles would be encyclopedic, and that (if every claim is sourced as "X claims this and this, and Y argues as follows that therefore Macedonia is rightfully Fooian") they would be NPOV - describe arguments, don't advocate them. Septentrionalis 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. The only contemporary X claims to Macedonia that have been sourced are the ones already illustrated in the article. I doubt you will have any content for contemporary Greek or Bulgarian claims to Macedonia to match these and make them deserve the equal status of an article title. This is just one more biased whitewashing attempt of undue weight. :NikoSilver: 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Greeks have no claim to the periphery called Macedonia? The Bulgarians have no claim to the area around Gotse Delchev? These are novel positions indeed. If you mean that these nations have no claims beyond their present borders, I'm not sure Todor would agree with you. Septentrionalis 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments below. Please explain, because I don't understand how we can compare a Bulgarian claim over Bulgarian soil (Gotse Delchev (town)) and a Greek claim over Greek soil (Macedonia (Greece)) to a (pardon my Greekness:) Slavomacedonian claim to Greek and Bulgarian soil (all of Macedonia (region)). I don't consider that London being claimed by the Brits deserves a British claims of London article either. :NikoSilver: 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
10 August
I will, this once, consider the day's edits individually, with edit summary.
- Pmanderson, I am responding below each, and this once, I am requesting politely you become more civil, assume good faith, and quit underestimating other people's work. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- pmanderson, this does not need citation, it's obvious.
- No, it's not; the question at hand is whether ancient Macedonia included Paeonia. I'm sure it can be sourced; at least as one view. (Even if it were obvious, it should be sourced; all debating points on the title to Macedonia should be.) Septentrionalis
- Citation added. It was obvious already, see the maps.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not; the question at hand is whether ancient Macedonia included Paeonia. I'm sure it can be sourced; at least as one view. (Even if it were obvious, it should be sourced; all debating points on the title to Macedonia should be.) Septentrionalis
- makeDNOS is not used in any other IE language, and even if it did, I doubt you'll find such an early reference. 1st citation requested is for tall people -or- for Doric adj?)
- The earliness of the reference belongs in Greek claim to Macedonia, not here.Septentrionalis
- This is your pov for butchering the article and equalising the (non-existent) Greek or Bulgarian claims for the entire region for the (apparent, shocking, blatant and semi-official) Slavomacedonian claims. I disagree. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that we are finally discussing makednos and not its cousins. There are in fact two unsourced claims here:
- Makednoi are named for their height,Septentrionalis
- I really don't care if it is removed, but I am sure it is widely known and not (worth being) disputed. There was a whole theory about the length of the Sarisa (spear) of the soldiers in the Macedonian phalanx. If not, remove it. If yes, cite it. If you don't want to cite it, remove it, or remove the annoying tag. I will not bother in citing things that are not worth being cited.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The length of a sarissa is about 5 or 6 meters. Its use has nothing to do with the height of the Macedonians, and a lot to do with their close-order drill. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Anyway, you seem very familiar. Do you have any source about their height? I am sure I've heard it before, and I know you'll agree it doesn't really add anything to the Greekness or not of the term. Could you cite it please? I'll ask Aldux too.:NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The length of a sarissa is about 5 or 6 meters. Its use has nothing to do with the height of the Macedonians, and a lot to do with their close-order drill. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I really don't care if it is removed, but I am sure it is widely known and not (worth being) disputed. There was a whole theory about the length of the Sarisa (spear) of the soldiers in the Macedonian phalanx. If not, remove it. If yes, cite it. If you don't want to cite it, remove it, or remove the annoying tag. I will not bother in citing things that are not worth being cited.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- a Doric adjective appears in Homer.Septentrionalis
- That was already cited. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The tag was intended for the first, since the second claim can be avoided by rephrasing. Septentrionalis
Rephrase what? It's clear.Didn't use to be clear before your rewording. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Makednoi are named for their height,Septentrionalis
- The earliness of the reference belongs in Greek claim to Macedonia, not here.Septentrionalis
- sensible dab
- Sheer guesswork. If this is what Gladstone meant, the OED does not say so. This therefore fails verification; it is also off-topic, since the question at hand is the existence of a recognized region of Macedonia. Septentrionalis
- Yeah, sheer guesswork, right! I suppose Gladstone was implying that either the Macedonians (Slav) or the Macedonians (Greek) should perform ethnic cleansing and keep the region for themselves. That would make sense. Your pov is unacceptable and confusing. I am going to clarify for the 'uninformed reader' accordingly (and for the informed one, coz nobody really knows why you had to add this quote and what the hell it means).:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bitter talk aside, I'd really like your opinion on this.:NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, sheer guesswork, right! I suppose Gladstone was implying that either the Macedonians (Slav) or the Macedonians (Greek) should perform ethnic cleansing and keep the region for themselves. That would make sense. Your pov is unacceptable and confusing. I am going to clarify for the 'uninformed reader' accordingly (and for the informed one, coz nobody really knows why you had to add this quote and what the hell it means).:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sheer guesswork. If this is what Gladstone meant, the OED does not say so. This therefore fails verification; it is also off-topic, since the question at hand is the existence of a recognized region of Macedonia. Septentrionalis
- Italicize quote.
- Unnecessary and unidiomatic, quotation marks show a quote; we don't want both. Septentrionalis
- Whatever. I suppose this is your most justified commnet. Or is it my idea you just had to go ahead and undermine the entirety of my edits, no matter how insignificant? Do bother to check the whole history of the article, you'll find hundreds more to keep you occupied. Or maybe, just go ahead and delete the whole thing, coz I am of the ones who wrote most of it. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am considering the present state of the article, not who wrote each bit. Most of it is excellent (which is why this discussion is about a few isolated points), and I congratulate you. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let's work together. :NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am considering the present state of the article, not who wrote each bit. Most of it is excellent (which is why this discussion is about a few isolated points), and I congratulate you. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. I suppose this is your most justified commnet. Or is it my idea you just had to go ahead and undermine the entirety of my edits, no matter how insignificant? Do bother to check the whole history of the article, you'll find hundreds more to keep you occupied. Or maybe, just go ahead and delete the whole thing, coz I am of the ones who wrote most of it. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unnecessary and unidiomatic, quotation marks show a quote; we don't want both. Septentrionalis
- dab mode on.
- The assertion that the dialects in question were called "Macedonian (Slavic)" is a misrepresentation of the source. (That they were Slavic dialects should be obvious, but can be added. Septentrionalis
- The assertion is misquoted. It should be 'Macedonian' (Slavic), rather than 'Macedonian (Slavic)'. It has been agreed (and the only sensible thing is) that we disambiguate every single ambiguous term. I will proceed in correcting it if not already done. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your self-reversion here. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- It wouldn't have taken place had you not clarified adding the 'Slavic' adj first. Thanks, and sorry for rushing in the first place. :NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your self-reversion here. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The assertion is misquoted. It should be 'Macedonian' (Slavic), rather than 'Macedonian (Slavic)'. It has been agreed (and the only sensible thing is) that we disambiguate every single ambiguous term. I will proceed in correcting it if not already done. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The assertion that the dialects in question were called "Macedonian (Slavic)" is a misrepresentation of the source. (That they were Slavic dialects should be obvious, but can be added. Septentrionalis
- Italicize all quotes.
- Unnecessary and unidiomatic. Septentrionalis
- Whatever, see 2 comments above.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I shall edit accordingly. Septentrionalis 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- And I will too. Please don't make me feel your comments are ironic again. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Map
I would prefer this map to the present {{Geographical Macedonia}} template; chiefly because it is a geographical map; the template is a political map - it's most visible content is the 21st century boundaries, which are an anachronism. (I don't particularly care which geographical map we use, however.) Septentrionalis 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Replaced. Septentrionalis 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, lovely map, but my only problem this map reflects a particular and individual interpretation. It is a historical map and this article is not 'history' specific. I think the previous one was more neutral and representative, just the area. Politis 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
.
- We can use this one again, I suppose; but a geographical map should have some geography on it, don't you think? Septentrionalis 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the purpose of the map is to show the area as it spreads across 5 countries, rather than its geographical features. This French one actually extends up to Prishtina and is inaccurate. Politis 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the high resolution version; it extends, like most maps, just short of Prishtina. In any case, the caption notes what Wilkinson demonstrates, that maps vary slightly on including this or that town. But I don't insist on this one; a scan of Meinhard's map would be perfectly acceptable; Bianconi does have the advantage of making no ethnographic claims, however. Septentrionalis 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the templatised map too. Reasons:
- It is an accurate geographical map (sat pic from NASA site)
- It shows the geographic ___location of all sub-regions (major and minor), described in the adjacent text.
- The present day borders coincide with the sub-region borders, as defined in the text.
:NikoSilver: 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That template is objectionable; I have explained my objections in nominating it for deletion. Briefly, I find the map garish and unreadable, the prose tendentious, and both redundant. But one reason to nominate it is to find out what everyone else thinks. Septentrionalis 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- That template is highly descriptive, informative and object
ionableive. Your tendentious objection is ...objectionable and has been dealt with accordingly. Another thing that is objectionable, is how on earth the vague east-ward Byzantine thema, managed to become the nice 1885 map without any description of that process. The whole Ottoman history chapter of Macedonia jumps from a vague distant area to the present day convenient interpretation of the region. What a coincidence! :NikoSilver: 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)- Westerners, including English speakers, have always called the area north and west of Thessaloniki "Macedonia"; there is no other name for it. This has nothing to do with the Byzantine theme (except cousinship), and the article does not claim causality. Most of the Westerners involved were ignorant of it, and the rest did not care. It is bad faith to assume FYROM influence; here, as on Talk:Imbros and Tenedos, I am a classicist, speaking for established English usage. Septentrionalis 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for a Westerner calling that area 'Macedonia' during Byzantine period? During early (let's say first 300 years) Ottoman period? :NikoSilver: 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- As far as the Byzantines were concerned, Macedonia was a province with its center at Adrianople (in Thrace). If any Byzantines did use the term in a different way, it would have been in a historical sense. --Telex 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for a Westerner calling that area 'Macedonia' during Byzantine period? During early (let's say first 300 years) Ottoman period? :NikoSilver: 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Westerners, including English speakers, have always called the area north and west of Thessaloniki "Macedonia"; there is no other name for it. This has nothing to do with the Byzantine theme (except cousinship), and the article does not claim causality. Most of the Westerners involved were ignorant of it, and the rest did not care. It is bad faith to assume FYROM influence; here, as on Talk:Imbros and Tenedos, I am a classicist, speaking for established English usage. Septentrionalis 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have no objection to the satellite map itself; I think it might be useful; but I can't see the terrain, or even the alleged borders of "Macedonia" for all the coloring. Septentrionalis 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Renaming proposal
I wanted to post this during the nomination of the article, but I see that it gained FA status. Congratulation! Anyway, I'm suggesting that we change the article to Terminology of Macedonia. According to Naming convention and Wikipedia common practice, the current title implies that the article is about Macedonia, a field in the "science of terminology" or at least in linguistics (like in Plasma (physics)) whereas it is about the terminology of Macedonia (like Terminology of homosexuality). What do you think? CG 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good thinking. Sounds good to me. Politis 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Terminology of homosexuality is about terms for several things, whereas this is (except for the table of ethnic terms at the bottom) overwhelmingly about "Macedonia". So Terminology for Macedonia might be better. Septentrionalis 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good thinking. Sounds good to me. Politis 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that 'Terminology for Macedonia' indicates that there are different terms for the appelation 'Macedonia'. For instance, Terminology for Germanhy would mean: Allemagne, Germania, Tedesco, Deurschland; for United States it would be, Etats Unies, Inomenes Polities, Estados Unidos, etc... At least we agree that we can find something better than Macedonia (Terminology). Politis 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- You say that the word "terminology" is wrong for this article. So we have to change the current title. CG 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that 'Terminology for Macedonia' indicates that there are different terms for the appelation 'Macedonia'. For instance, Terminology for Germanhy would mean: Allemagne, Germania, Tedesco, Deurschland; for United States it would be, Etats Unies, Inomenes Polities, Estados Unidos, etc... At least we agree that we can find something better than Macedonia (Terminology). Politis 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposals:
- Terminology for Macedonia
- Terminology of Macedonia
- Terminologies in Macedonia
- Macedonian terminology
Feel free to add yours too. Also, how about Macedonian exterminology (sic)? :-) :NikoSilver: 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand how Terminology for Macedonia is different and I don't like Macedonian terminology. Read Terminology#Types of terminology: the article says that "terminology" might deal with a single term. Therefore you're definition above is wrong. CG 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a pointless conversation. Systematic terminology deals with everything, so it might not be dealing with a single term. I am adding your proposal above, but really don't care which preposition we use. I still am not satisfied with the title, and wish someone comes up with a stunning idea. :NikoSilver: 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- What about Definition of Macedonia? CG 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nice, but not super. It only includes geographical and political. I suggest we try harder to find a title that can include demographics, linguistics etc too. I wish I could come up with an idea...:NikoSilver: 11:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- What about Definition of Macedonia? CG 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a pointless conversation. Systematic terminology deals with everything, so it might not be dealing with a single term. I am adding your proposal above, but really don't care which preposition we use. I still am not satisfied with the title, and wish someone comes up with a stunning idea. :NikoSilver: 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Geia sou file Niko, piasame kanena xtapodaki?, dino paron alla seira mou na leipo. Thinking of a new name; but one thing is certain, it will have to contain the term 'Macedonia' ;-). Politis 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Macedonia (term): nice and simple! Politis 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Macedonia (terminated)
- The Terminator IV: Macedonia
- Termacedonia (portmanteau)
- Terminal Macedonology
- Maze-donia
- (maybe I should get a blog or something, but since we're brainstorming...) :NikoSilver: 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- No reasonable guy can doubt; Terminal Macedonology, one of the most obscure branches of knowledge!
--Aldux 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- No reasonable guy can doubt; Terminal Macedonology, one of the most obscure branches of knowledge!
- Humour aside :-p , do we all agree on Macedonia (term) (or word) or it's just me and User:Politis? CG 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ha ha, I'd actually prefer something without the annoying parentheses. Any ideas? :NikoSilver: 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Make your mind. I'll be out of proposals soon :-p CG 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award this humble barnstar to all those who worked tirelessly to make this one the best article related to Macedonia, arguably the most complex and tense topic in the universe[citation needed] :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) |
- Common! There is more complex that that. :-) CG 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nuclear physics? Back off, here comes Macedonia! :P Todor→Bozhinov 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)