Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ErrantX (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 15 July 2006 (→‎[[Macedonia (terminology)]]: agreed with above - plus a few more addition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Macedonia (terminology)

This may be the only article regarding the Macedonian question that has not been (and probably cannot be) victimised by edit wars. The reason being that it is comprehensive, yet concise, plus it expresses in the best possible neutral way all POV's from all sides on the issue. It also includes all information needed for an uninformed reader in order to understand what everybody involved is argueing about. :NikoSilver: 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have six notes and four citations. Most of the stuff is taken from other articles and general knowledge, but if you think anything needs citing, please add a {{fact}} tag, and we'll get right on it :) - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And all relative sourced articles are interlinked in every sentence. I would't add more references, to spare cluttering, since the reference here is mostly WP itself. If you feel anything needs more sources, kindly point it out with a {{fact}} tag.:NikoSilver: 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation: I'll read through it now that I understand. Sandy 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the article is a disambiguation of the various Macedonia definitions, arguments, and much more. I guess what threw me initially is that I didn't realize all the Macedonia links go to different articles: I can't think of a way to make that less confusing to the reader. I found a change in style here: Macedonia (as a province of the Byzantine Empire). (The other introductions are complete sentences.) It is followed by an incomplete sentence: were they intended to be one sentence? Despite its name largely occupied Eastern Thrace. The first sentence seems long, and we have to read down quite a ways to hit the first occurrence of the word "Macedonia": any way to fix that? This sentence needs a punctuation fix: There are many other terms which include "Macedonia", the terms with technical meanings are: Possible weasle words, with no reference: It is argued that the region is borderless That's as far as I got. I'm challenged by the complexity :-) Sandy 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried something with all 3 comments. Thanks for the remarks, please continue...:NikoSilver: 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good edits, I'm thinking about the intro, it is difficult without doing it with severe topicalisation, some suggestions:
  1. "Macedonia, the region traditionally referred as such has a plethora of terms used to describe..."
  2. "The terminology of the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia is complex. Various terms are used to describe..."
  3. "The terminology of Macedonia, meaning the regionally traditionally referred to as such is complex. Various terms are used to describe..."
Any of those sound at all better? - FrancisTyers · 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were these posted before I decided to try my English skills? If yes, then plethora would be one o' those Xenophon Zolotas words, so that's my choice! :-) :NikoSilver: 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:) - FrancisTyers · 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like plethora: if anything, because of the complexity of the article to begin with, you need the simplest introduction possible, IMO. Maybe you need shorter sentences, if you can do that without getting stubby. I still see punctuation errors. Changing "it is argued" to "is described as" still feels weasly, but possibly there's no way around it due to the controversy. Sandy 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sleep on it. Thanks and goodnight. :-) :NikoSilver: 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object.The article is mis-titled. Currently, such an article should be about either a certain term called "Macedonia" or the use of the word "Macedonia" in the broader field of terminology. A more accurate title would be something like "Terminology of Macedonia." zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See British Isles (terminology) for our inspiration. I would have no problem with changing the article name, but thought it wise to go with what we already had. Is this the only complaint? - FrancisTyers · 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and Americas (terminology) and Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) and...Electrical engineering (terminology)...:NikoSilver: 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I know, it is a little nit-picky. But still, it's grammatically incorrect. There may well be precedents, but that doesn't mean the precedents are right. And, of course, the precedents aren't up for featured article status! :-)
But if you're looking for other complaints (j/k), I can supply. I'm a little unsure if the scope of this article really qualifies this for FA status. Most of the article seems to be a glorified disambiguation page. A very well done disambiguation page, but still. If the terms are under such controversy, it would be interesting to learn more about the controversy. There's a section called "In linguistics" (an aside: "terminology" is part of linguistics!), so I wonder if there have been scholars disputing what one calls the language "Macedonian." There's a section called "In demographics," so I wonder if there have been disputes over who is considered a "Macedonian." (The "In politics" section goes briefly into such a political dispute, but the section is still entirely in list form.) Basically, I wonder about the consequences of the disputes over terminology, not just the terminology itself. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The scope of this article is not to elaborate on controversy, but rather to point out who-calls-what-how and who-is-offended-by-what-name-for-whom. Believe me, the whole controversy issue is largely evident in all other (linked) WP articles, so let's think of that one as an oasis in the middle of a nationalistic desert...:NikoSilver: 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments :) actually I think what you describe is one of the strengths of the article, we completely forego the analysis, other pages on Macedonia have a lot of analysis, and it is nearly always contentious. Perhaps this would do better as a featured list, although I think it slightly extends the list remit... I think maybe more directed notes pointing people at articles with further information might be a good way forward. Please, keep the criticism coming :) - FrancisTyers · 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now seen what Francis and Niko replied to above oppose, and I'd say that my problem with the title is not in naming conventions but in the fact that is looks unaestetic. But, as I said, it's a minor problem and I'd promote it even if the name stays this way. --Dijxtra 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda liked your second proposal though...:NikoSilver: 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I like it a lot, now that I think of it. I suggest we wait for more opinions on this (I've invited most editors from relative articles) before we give it a try...:NikoSilver: 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and do it, I think. Actually looking at the two articles (Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia), it makes ten times as much sense for them to be Macedonia and Macedonia (disambiguation). Hell, Macedonia already has the disambig template! zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me a chicken? :-) Well, apparently I can't do that on my own coz Macedonia (disambiguation) is not empty. We'll have to ask an admin. Fran?:NikoSilver: 10:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily Neutral Weak Oppose for several reasons (I'll make up my mind later). The title is definitely a detraction; when I originally saw it, I thought that it was perhaps referring to regional Macedonian phrasiology. I like User:Dijxtra's second idea as well, or maybe Region of Macedonia (even though there already exists Macedonia (region)...it seems to fit better. His first suggestion might be the best, but I wonder if something more positive than 'controversy' could be found...I'm a positive thinker ;) There are many many directions this could be taken. Secondly, I strongly dislike the use of "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" as the displayed term for all the primary links. When seeing a link in a wiki, I focus entirely on that linked phrase, and not on the directing terms inside parentheses. Probably not a widespread affliction among users, but I still feel there must be a better way of presenting the links. Both of these are just overall aethetic issues, but issues nontheless. On the flip side, everything is arranged in a very useful manner, and the maps are fantastic. I also agree with the above sentiment that the massive number of links should serve as a substitute for actual references and notes, so long as the linked articles contain appropriate references themselves. Overall, a pleasing article, but I'm on the fence as to whether it deserves FA status. I'm just not sure it's distinctive enough. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As it stands, I'm going to have to choose weak oppose for this article. As I said, it's really good, and I learned a lot from it, but in my mind, it doesn't fit FA status. Perhaps 'Featured List' would be the best option. Definitely a difficult situation. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more notes:
  1. "and seemingly for the inhabitants of the region themselves" - this is really awkward at best, especially to those unfamiliar with the situation. Maybe change "seemingly" to "often"?
  2. "The purpose of this article" - WP:ASR violator here. Not sure how to word this myself yet though.

RN 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Often" was already used in the previous sentence. We tried a different wording and sentence splitting. Like it better?
  2. Me neither. Any ideas please? :NikoSilver: 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great explanation of where the variuos hissy-fits come from. Shows that cooperation on this topic can produce quality.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - incredible, a Macedonia-related article in which we're not trying to shoot at each other ;-) If only for this, the article is a miracle, and I also believe that a good work has been done in keeping all perspectives.--Aldux 11:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My usual rule of thumb suggests more citations, but this article seems to have its own appropriate amount. It's well written and clear. Tdslappy
  • Weak Object - It remains neutral enough for me for such a controversial subject. The problem is, this whole issue will cause tensions 200 years from now, too. --Sean WI 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - I'm going to withdraw my support for now until the problems that are stated below are fixed. I think they bring up good points that could easily be completed in a short amount of time. Sorry about this. --Sean WI 14:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About WP:FLC, I'm covered by Fran below. About ref-numbering, it depends on how you read: If you read the text, jump to every ref/note to read it too, and get back to continue from where you were, then you will meet R-3 after R-1 and R-2. This is because both R-1 and R-2 are within [1], [2] etc notes appearing before R-3. I wouldn't object changing it if many users found this solution more confusing than the other.:NikoSilver: 22:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object. This isn't really an article: it's the history of Macedonia compressed into something far too short and uncomprehensive or else its an explanation of the debate compressed into something far too short and uncomprehensive. I could see it as a list, per above, though it feels more like a disambig page. Either way, it is not of featured quality as an article. —Cuiviénen 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above re: list. It isn't really the history of Macedonia, but you are right, it does feel like a disambiguation page, albeit on steroids, does "Featured disambiguation page" exist? :) Having said that it wouldn't be an adequate disambiguation page because we don't include all the other things that are called Macedonia, e.g. towns in the US, food etc. - FrancisTyers · 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this page isn't a featured article. Adding more prose made it not a list, but it's still not "meaty" enough to be an article. It still feels like a disambiguation page or a summary of "real" articles. I don't strongly object any more, but I still object. (The references also need to be cleared up, obviously.) —Cuiviénen 17:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria does it fulfill? Adequate lead? Excellent prose? Joelito (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do u think it is in an 'infant stage' with nothing good in it? It is better than other articles that have been featured in the past. --Hectorian 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joelito, IANAL, so I'm not exactly qualified to judge "excellent prose", but don't you think you're kinda unfair for "adequate lead"? Can you point out what is missing please? :NikoSilver: 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that there is no prose, it's mainly lists. It's hard to say what is wrong with the lead since there is no article structure for the lead to summarize. Joelito (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so in that case the lead should be empty! Just kidding. Anyway, I disagree about the list thing and I think you do too. I wouldn't call it a bonafide article either though. So where do you propose this notable gathering of information, disambiguation, clarification, explanation, neutrality etc be given the credit it deserves? I think that it just explains and includes a summary of everything there is to know on the Macedonian problem. I've found it quite handy as a fast tutorial tool for new users who ask. I think it's worth feature status for that. Now if WP decides to make a new category especially for this type of (few) articles, then we will list it there. For now, we can't demote it to a mere list. :NikoSilver: 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to vote support, but for now I'm saying pretty strong oppose. I won't be too hard to convince however! Here are some things I think need sorting out:
    • Make a distinct lead, per WP:LEAD. I think that a brief summary of/introduction to the article, 2-3 paragraphs long, is possible.TheGrappler
      • I did something. Ok now? More ideas anyone? :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an improvement. There needs to be a TOC though. The lead shouldn't "run on" to the article. Not sure if the Churchill quote is in the right place. The lead should be a summary of the article, as well as an introduction. I suggest the lead should focus on about 3 paragraphs, outline or at least mention the Macedonian Question, note that the terminology is confusing, and give a couple of the core points i.e. the use of the term to describe a large region, that the main clash is a naming dispute between the Republic and Greece, the dispute also spreads into linguistics and affects other countries, that the Republic does not claim the entire region, and that the naming problems have created international tension. Aim to both contextualize and summarize. TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • De-bullet some of the sections. Good candidates for this are: the introduction to "In geography" (at the moment this is quite unclear, are these just three parts of the Macedonia region that happen to include the name Macedonia, a complete tripartite division of the region, a selection of geographical terms sometimes containing the term "Macedonia", or a group of regions sometimes described as if they are the Macedonia region? - If this is a tripartite partition, in the mathematical sense, you could start by saying "The Macedonia region is commonly divided into three parts..." or alternatively you could start "Several regions are often referred to individually as Macedonia", if that's the case); the linguistics, demographics and politics section would also read easier if unbulleted.TheGrappler
    • There's no discussion of when "Macedonia" (any of them!) returned as an administrative unit. Neither is there any mention of the emergence of a Macedonian national/ethnic self-identity - for instance, when and where it developed. As such, this article falls short of being comprehensive (changes in terminology over time certainly fall within its remit).TheGrappler
    • On a similar note, what did medieval scholars in the West and in the Ottoman Empire have to say about the region? Even though it ceased to exist administratively, did the geographical label stick about? What did they call the region and its inhabits/cultures/languages? TheGrappler
    • There's a critical lack of referencing. One Wikipedia article can't really rely on another for corroboration. Examples of things that need to be referenced: Macedonia rarely appeared on maps during the Ottoman period; a lot of the terminologies (use a bilingual dictionary perhaps?); claims that "nationalists say this"; that Bulgarians see "Macedonism" as a pseudoscience (incidentally, that seems to link to an irrelevant article) and the language as just a dialect of Bulagarian; in fact, just make sure you have a reference for every single fact in this article and I will be happy :-) TheGrappler
      • I strongly disagree in double referencing. The "neutral summary" concept for "structured articles" cannot withstand the burden of additional refs. Wherever there is doubt or need for more info, one can simply click the wikilinks involved. Personally I prefer this article to be concise and strongly focused, otherwise the ref section will be longer than the article itself, repeating all (monstrous) lists of refs from sub-articles.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, see the guidance on summary style. All non-trivial claims should be referenced. Our articles should be pretty much standalone in this respect, featured ones especially. Referencing does not make an article longer it just makes the references section longer! Moreover, it produces a more complete bibliography (or "websitography") for interested readers to follow up on; and it ensures that information in the article is both verified and verifiable. Most of all, links to other Wikipedia articles are "see alsos" not references in their own right. I honestly fail to understand your objection so perhaps I am missing something, but adding a reference or citation only produces a line (maybe two) of text in the references section (look at other featured articles), I am not asking for a comprehensive footnote explaining things in greater depth (it's possible the article has too many of them already!) but source information. All information in this article, hopefully, comes from a reliable source. Tell me which one. And where in that source you found it. That's just standard for all articles (or lists), featured or not. In theory I have the right to remove all unsourced information from an article and you wouldn't have the right to put it back in until you provided a source. Because I'm not (I hope!) a disruptive editor I wouldn't do that, but if I were to, there'd only be about 3 paragraphs of text left. That's just not up to WP:WIAFA standards.
    • Sources at the moment are pretty badly referenced. If you're citing a web page, try using {{cite web}} which will help you remember to include details like author, publisher, date and date of last access.
    • And are you sure those are all WP:RS? If some of these are unofficial websites which espouse a particular view on the issue, could you paranthetically label them as such and indicate what kind of group is running the site - e.g. putting "(Website of a Macedonian nationalist group)" or "(Website of a Greek cultural organization)" behind the reference would be very helpful. This would also help ensure that personal blogs and suchlike don't end up getting referenced.TheGrappler
      • Well, I think these two above are nick-picks, but anyone still bothered with that can do it.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The summary of information from reliable sources is at the heart of what Wikipedia is about, so making clear where information is coming from is important. It's not a nitpick to claim that WP:CITE isn't being met: at the moment, it's not being met by a long shot. You need, for everything claimed as a reference, to deal with author, date of publication, publisher, title, page number(s) of particular reference (if from a book) and for websites, date of last access. It's that easy! No article that doesn't follow WP:CITE is going to get featured status, so it's not just nitpicking.
    • I've never seen the capitalization "fYRoM" before. Could you give me any hints? If this was referenced, I could have checked it myself, for example :-) TheGrappler
      • You haven't seen the other one either (FYROM). Truth is there is no official UN abbreviation; only spellout, and with that awckward intermingled capitalization. And it is referenced: You can check it by clicking Republic of Macedonia and reading the intro paragraph. :NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've seen "FYROM", just never seen "fYRoM"... it's rare to see any acronym with the first letter in minuscule... could you point me to a place where I can see somebody else using it? TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**As noted above, a lot of the English is unclear. When I read first through "Aegean Macedonia" (Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (Serbia) I wondered "Why on earth would they claim the whole of Serbia, even if in their terminology it is called "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" - then it dawned that there was a contextual "in" in front of the countries. Actually saying "in Greece", "in Bulgaria" etc would have made that clearer. What about as an emigrant community in Romania (Dobruja) - I wondered if Dobruja was an alternative terminology for Romania, or the emigrant community, or the Aromanians full stop. I'm sure that can be written in clearer English; I get the impression, having followed some links, that it means "as an emigrant community around Dobruja, Romania" but I'm still not sure... of course, had that fact been properly referenced I could have checked it myself :-)TheGrappler

**"Gora and Prohor Pchinski" doesn't seem to be explained at all. And the wikilink is a redirect.TheGrappler

    • The maps are nice, but it would be good to have references for what maps the Byzantine province, ancient Macedon, Roman province and geographical region are based on.TheGrappler
      • Ok. No refs. That's my view. Just one more click for the ref will not hurt anyone, plus the article will be much easier to read.:NikoSilver: 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "No refs" is simply unacceptable, all you need to do is repeat the reference from the other article. Most FAs have about 50-100 references, this doesn't even have 10 yet. You need to explain where you are getting the information from. And "click here" isn't good enough, because the idea is that this article could be printed out and form a coherent whole (or indeed, be published as part of a wikireader), so relying on information elsewhere in Wikipedia isn't good enough. What if the information isn't referenced on the article that the "see also" has been given to? TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only just noticed this now, but it's perhaps the biggest possible hole in the article as it stands. It's really nice to know who I will offend if I say what, in what language, to whom. But it would also be nice to know - if a survey on this has been performed, and I suspect that this is covered at least somewhere - what the standard English terminology tends to be. I can imagine that the introduction to a pretty standard English language textbook on the history of the region might stick in an explanatory note about the "standard terminology" the book uses, and note that it's not the same as some of the ethnic terminologies. History books about Russia very often have explanations of "Rus'" and "Rossiya", "russky" and "rossiysky" (the kind of stuff that appears in the Etymology of Rus and derivatives article on WP) and then notes that throughout the book English word "Russia(n)" will be used to mean precisely [whatever] unless otherwise stated.TheGrappler
"But it would also be nice to know - if a survey on this has been performed, and I suspect that this is covered at least somewhere - what the standard English terminology tends to be."
The standard English terminology, is, as far as I am aware to use Macedonia/Macedonian in all of these contexts. For example, the Macedonians are called just that in English, "Macedonians", and the Macedonians are also called just "Macedonians". Disambiguation generally depends on context, so if I'm talking about the delightful Macedonian actress, Labina Mitevska, we know that I'm talking about the Macedonians and if we're talking about Alexander, we know that we're talking about the Macedonians. Its less confusing than it sounds :) - FrancisTyers · 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for "standard English terminology" and it's rather confusing. There are many examples of misinformed native English speakers who equate Macedonian Slavs to Ancient Macedonians. That is another story though...:NikoSilver: 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some would say the Oxford English Dictionary is a source for "standard" terminology. We could give the definitions from there? Of course you are right, there are plenty of people who have no idea, but then thats why we're creating this page :) - FrancisTyers · 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are Russian and Armenian languages of region? Erase that and you have my support vote. Luka Jačov 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't got a clue, have you? Do some research before commenting - see the talk page. --Tēlex 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - No ToC, and much of the article consists of lists. While there are seven footnotes, there don't seem to be any actual inline citations... you might want to consider reformatting this article as a list, and then submitting it to featured lists. I don't think this cuts it as an article. Fieari 19:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On request, I relooked at the article. I'm still uncomfortable with it as an article as opposed to a list, although that concern is admittably less now. I've seen no explanation for the lack of ToC. Additionally, the referencing still needs to be completed. I might go neutral once the referencing is done, but I'm not comfortable enough with this entry to vote support. Fieari 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say a few things. This is an excellent Wikipedia entry. I use the word "entry" because I am not quite sure what else to call this creation. As many have observed, it's not really an article and it's not really a list. Regardless, the writing is excellent, NPOV, and worthy of what the community would want in a featured article.
Now the bad news. Many reviewers here have called attention to the obvious problem with this entry: much of it is filled with lists. Most of it is not written in summary style, and as such this entry does not meet the foundational characteristics for an article, much less a featured article. The even bigger problem is that the nominator of this entry, Nikosilver, has done little to address these issues that so many have raised. As long as something can be done to fix an objection in principle, it should be fixed. That's the main rule with how people should deal with objections in the FAC review process. All we ask for is that this article be written in summary style, which means deleting many of the lists and reformatting the current content. In principle, there is nothing to prevent Nikosilver from attempting to do this (that is, to rewrite the article in summary style), so why hasn't this attempt been made yet? I have other problems with this article, but this one seems like the most basic and the one that has been most often identified, so most definitely something should be done to fix. Rewrite......into....summary style....this is not that difficult. We're not asking for the impossible.UberCryxic 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not in summary style? I think that by just checking my answers to all the comments above and by checking the article's history, you will find that your claim about me not dealing with the problems is totally unfair. I have corrected (or attempted to correct) all serious suggestions. I am not calling yours not serious, I am just puzzled what exactly you mean. Can you please give an example? :NikoSilver: 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chill Nikosilver :D I think what he is saying is that the lists could get replaced with a prose style text. I see his point it would help to decide either way if it is a list or an article!! -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He means that the lists are bulleted lists I think. The problem is that to get rid of the lists would make the article really confusing. I mean, the premise is reasonably confusing to start off with (using Macedonia/n for everything), keeping it in structured lists makes this less confusing, to paragraph-ise it would be a kiss of death I think. - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concurr there, I did a quick hack (sorry to the guys who wrote the page) of the first 'list' in my sandbox complete rewrite to convert it to paragraphs. Which is hardly fair to the current authors. Shame -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of "not dealing with the problems," only of not dealing with this particular problem that has come up so often (in fact, it seems to be pretty much the only reason why people are objecting to this article going FA, those who are objective anyway, so it's odd that you haven't rectified anything that deals with it, or that you've only done so little). Part of the problem is because it's difficult to just completely transform an article, and I realize that. Ok....examples. There are many, but I'll draw your attention to the Linguistics section. Right now, there are four bullets with explanations. That does not qualify as summary style. That's nothing more than an explanatory list. What should be done is to transform that list into a paragraph-like section concerning linguistics and Macedonia. Paragraphs....not lists; that's what would make this summary style.UberCryxic 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style for more info.UberCryxic 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and did that with the geography section, but the list is still unavoidable, I am afraid. Regarding the linguistics section, I think that one of the purposes of the article is to clearly illustrate that the exact same term is used for different objects. I can't do that with paragraphs, and there really is not much I can add next to each language (syntax? verbs? vocabulary?) that contributes to the same terminology issue. The only thing that would probably worth mentioning is the controversial issue of whether Slavomacedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian (which is folk linguistics since a "language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy", plus it's adequately mentioned in Bulgarian terminology section) and the (lightly) disputed closeness of Ancient Macedonian to Ancient Greek. You think that any of this explains contemporary terminology issues?:NikoSilver: 20:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that the controversies (e.g. Macedonian/Bulgarian and Ancient Macedonian/Ancient Greek) should be kept in their relevant articles, Macedonian language and Ancient Macedonian language. - FrancisTyers · 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify a few more issues. Errant and Tyers are absolutely correct in identifying this transformation as a major problem. However, I am not particularly moved. I am sure that some of us here have written featured articles before. We realize the hard work that goes into them and the demands that reviewers make. I remember the changes people requested on my first featured article. I was like, "are you kidding me????" (inside, of course, I didn't actually say it!) It's just something you have to deal with. Tough luck. Unfortunately, this great entry does not satisfy all of the criteria to be a featured article, and it is not too much to ask it to do so. Please realize that my admonition is not insensitive; it is being made to ensure that this article deserves featured status and that it attains it fairly. Right now that's not the case.

Niko, I am going to suggest a few things on what you could do to make the transition easier, but regrettably I am not very familiar with this topic. On any section where you have bulleted lists, you could....

1. Talk about scholarly controversies regarding the subject. For example, in the Linguistics section you could talk about any controversies that might exist over where the word "Macedonia" derived from. Not to say that there is controversy about this one specific thing, but if there is stuff like that, you should talk about it (and you could do it in prose form).

2. You could talk about what different terminologies mean to different people within Macedonia (and outside of Macedonia if you want). For example in the Demographics section, why not talk about any possible friction regarding how the term "Macedonians" is used most commonly?

3. In the terminology by group section, talk about some of the origins and the reasons for why those names are used.

Anyway these are just ideas. Like I said, I can't really be helpful in this respect, but hopefully you have an idea of what you need to do. If you don't think you can reconfigure some of these sections, then they probably need to be deleted and be placed into daughter articles.UberCryxic 21:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I strongly believe that the entry will lose its practical purpose of being a fast tutorial for unaware readers if we add all that. Everything is adequately covered in all sub-articles. This is not an article about Macedonia (region), nor about Macedonian Question, nor about Macedonians or any language in the region. It is about third parties briefly understanding what is going on over here, and knowing what a Greek means when saying "Slavomacedonian/s", or what an ethnic Macedonian means when saying "Macedonian/s". In that sense, I am reluctant to modify it in that direction. :NikoSilver: 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to acknowledge this as an entry (whatever that means), and not an article, then it should not have even been nominated. It either loses its practical purpose of being a fast tutorial or it doesn't have the components of a featured article. "In that sense," that's your dilemma.UberCryxic 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree here. If it means that it doesn't get featured as a featured article then so be it. But I think that any largescale deviation from the current format would break, 1. readability, 2. the delicate compromise that has been developed over the past months. I think I would have to strongly object to mentioning any more controversy (in this article) than absolutely essential. There are hundreds of articles about Macedonia, most of them are disputed. This one by and large isn't... the reason is because we're leaving out the controversy (its a good thing). - FrancisTyers · 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I hope you understand more about the complex meaning of Macedonia having read the article :) - FrancisTyers · 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remain intrigued by and confused by this entry, so I keep coming back to the first sentence in the FAC: This may be the only article regarding the Macedonian question that has not been (and probably cannot be) victimised by edit wars. (With the recent changes, is that still the case?) I do believe that Niko has done what has been asked of him, and I'm not sure that has been good for what this entry set out to accomplish. The text has grown, and now it is approaching more of an article than a list. It would be a shame to see the authors move away from what they set out to do (and did do) only so that they could be a featured "article". Maybe being featured is less important than doing a great job at what they set out to do. I am still very neutral on this, but I'd almost rather see them move the other direction. So as not to compromise their purpose, I'd rather see it go to more of a list, and definitely be a featured list. If they keep going in the direction of expanding text, my concern is that they will get into the very controversy they sought to avoid. Still neutral, willing to take another look, as long as it takes. Please do ping me! I know our comments are all contradicting each other :-) Sandy 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty amazed, we still haven't had an edit war, although it was close for a while. We all kept our cool (well, pretty much). The talk page tells a slightly different story, but it didn't pass over into the article. I share your concerns about this moving away from its original purposes, we'll be including photographs or something next! - FrancisTyers · 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do, most certainly I do. This was a very informative "article." It's actually weird how much I learned because I was born right next to Macedonia (in Albania). Nice job by Nikosilver.UberCryxic 21:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just nominated it, I don't WP:OWN it! It was Fran's idea (although reluctant -I had to convince him) and we all contributed a lot in this. For the record, Cryxic, do you think this is a "Featured Something" or not? :NikoSilver: 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. I changed my mind. It won't hurt if we just specify the controversy on the language and demographics sections. I'll make attempts. Please bear with me for a while...:NikoSilver: 10:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List vs Article: From the first time that this issue was mentioned as a comment, the editors of the article collectively (and although some were disagreeing) tried to incorporate text and modify the article in order to seem less like a list and more like a structured summary style entry. The steps were the following:
    • Significant additions in the WP:LEAD
    • Full historic background in the geography section (and footnotes)
    • Full illustration of controversy in the demographics section
    • Same for the linguistics section
    • The political section was already expanded, still, it is further de-listed and modified.
  • Please reconsider your list complaints in view of these large-scale modifications, and comment. Thank you. :NikoSilver: 12:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the sourcing is worked out, I'll strongly support. By anyone's count, this is an impressive article. I think if anyone still objects on the basis of it being too list-y, they're being far too much of a stickler. This is great work; acknowledge that. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: you did ask me to {{fact}} the things I thought needed referencing. Now, I've sprayed it around liberally, and several of these could be dealt with using just a couple of good sources, multiple times. Nevertheless, everything I have tagged is a non-trivial fact that lacks a reference. Some more issues:
    • Don't address the reader - so no "please note"
    • References still need to be well-formatted. (Date of publication, author, publisher, date of last access for URLs)
    • And for goodness sake, tell us where you are getting all this wonderful information from! Saying "it's on another page in Wikipedia, so no need to repeat sources in this one" really isn't good enough. All articles should state their sources. References add nothing to the length of an article body. They don't make an article harder to read or break up the flow (unlike footnotes - this article may have too many of them, in fact), while they do provide a useful resource of reliable sources on the topic for further reading. They only take a line or two of text each. They make the article verifiable. A featured article can normally expect 50-100 of them, whether it's a summary article or not.
  • So still some work to do, but definitely improving. Plus, see comments above. TheGrappler 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: I agree with TheGrappler's comments regarding the need for references in this article. Jazriel 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re the list vs article issue: maybe some of the bulleted items could be prosified, but in any this article would have a hard time going through FLC as well. I'm willing to admit this is a borderline situation but IMO the "article" quality is stronger here. On another issue, referencing is lacking and poorly done; specifically web links should use the {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) format. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah Niko, I definitely think it is a featured something. I would have no problem if this entry set precedent and started a whole new category for featured material. Like this could be the first "Featured References Article" or something...articles about the different ways to refer to something. I'm liking the improvements that you and others have made to the article since I last saw it, but there could still be a little more prose. Much of my concerns center around visual appeal; I want to see enough paragraphs and prose writing so as to make the lists almost irrelevant. Lists should never be the focus of a featured article, and they most definitely are for this entry. Beyond that, there are the referencing problems that others have drawn attention to. Fix these things and I'll support.UberCryxic 14:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review my "object", so I perused the opening paragraph:

"The various terms used in the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia, are a source of confusion. Frequently overlapping terms are used to describe geographical, political and historical areas, languages and people. Ethnic groups inhabiting the area are using different terminology for the same objects, or same terms for different objects, creating confusion to foreigners, including other inhabitants of the region."
    • "various" is probably redundant.
    • Remove the comma after "Macedonia", or add another comma to mark off the phrase.
    • "are using" is probably too vivid/temporary for the intended meaning—more permanent, habitual verbs should be simple present tense.
    • "terminology" vs "terms"—use the same word unless you intend a different meaning.
    • "to" foreigners is wrong.

If this is the opening, what must the rest of the prose be like? Sorry, I can't approve this unless the entire text is properly massaged. Tony 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above points, there a re a few niggles in that first paragraph. Also have you tried replacing the word Term with the word word (errrrr) in places as it will make it read better. For example at the end of the lead section "The term Macedonia itself.." becomes "The word Macedonia itself.." (oh and you should probably get rid of all the quote marks around Macedonia that keep getting used. Instead Italicise the word :D ) -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 09:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Macedonia_(terminology)&oldid=63932066"