Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Greek Macedonia First!

Is there a good reason why FYROM is listed first and Greek Macedonia second? The original and true historical parts are in Greece which should be listed first! Ancient Macedonians spoke and claimed to be Greek.. The problem with the people of FYROM is that the past 60 years they are victims of politician's "propaganda" and "brainwashing" about their identity and language and finally convinced them that they are Macedonians... if FYROM had any relation to ancient Macedonia they would be speaking Greek and not a Bulgarian Language... • NO MACEDONIAN ETHNICITY • NO MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE • PROPAGANDA OF TITO MUST STOP. --Hankz1982 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy

I did not remove the name of the newpaper or the bank of Macedonia[1]. But u did [2], mistakenly as u say (so no reason to accuse me). What i reverted were nationalistic sentences like The first liberated part of the divided Macedonia, a former yugoslav republic. Be careful why and who u blame... --Hectorian 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! I don't know what exactly happened. I also made a mistake while editing. My bad, sorry again! --Realek 00:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Hectorian 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Македонија

First of all, I was shocked that after typing FYROM in the Wikipedia search box, I wasn't automatically redirected to the Republic of Macedonia page. There should be an automatic redirect, or at least put Republic of Macedonia as the term number 1, and not 2.

A huge part of Macedonia was given to Greece by world powers after WWII. Almost no Greeks ever lived there. The "Greek" Macedonia has only been a part of Macedonia for these 60 years, I think the Republic of Macedonia represents Macedonia better than the region given to Greece.

Its fact, not opinion, that the Greeks don't even want to give Macedonia the right to use their ancient name, so that Macedonia won't ask for their territories back. Macedonia is the land of Macedonians, it has always been like that, just because they lost a part of their territory, you can't erase history. MACEDONIA SHOULD REDIRECT TO REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, and then put "Macedonia redirects here, for other uses...". It's the right thing to do. --serbiana - talk 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If u were 'shocked' by what u typed, try typing 'Ireland'...The name has been used for the region of Macedonia for thousands of years, but just 15 years for the FYROM and by FYROM. The whole part of the ancient region of Macedonia (representing the 51% of the definition of the region in the beginning of the 20th century), was liberated by the Greeks in 1912-13 (during the Balkan Wars)-it has nothing to do with the time after the WWII. Search for the Ottoman censa: they clearly show that the Greeks formed the majority of this part.Macedonia(the ancient,historical region with the monuments and the people who speak the language of the ancient Macedonians, represents Macedonia better that ancient Dardania, which was the name of the land of FYROM.
Believe me,it's a fact that Greeks are not afraid of the people of FYROM, so it is not their territorial claims that makes us not letting them use that name. The Fyromians lost nothing of their territory...At least we agree in one thing: Macedonia is the land of Macedonians. the people of FYROM as Slavs who came in the region in the 5th century, so, even if the ancient Macedonians were not Greek (contemporary and the majority of modern historians say they were!), the modern day inhabitants of FYROM have nothing to do with them... --Hectorian 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

...And, I was really shocked too when I typed Macedonia and was presented with this disambiguation page that has its priorities wrong:

  1. First it has the region (i.e. the republic plus the Greek province plus Bulgaria/Albania) —which is OK by me ofcourse
  2. Second it has a country of 2.0 million people
  3. Third it has a province of 2.6 million people

Now if the country status is to your opinion automatically giving the precedence in the republic's name, I think you are wrong. Apart from the censa, check also the Google tests in Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position to see that the term "Macedonia" is twice more commonly used when referring to Greece, than when referring to the republic! I am sure, the users who were shocked like me, were twice as many as the ones who were shocked like you!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my two Eurocents:
  • I know Macedonia as the household name for the present-day republic of which the capital is Skopje, and I firmly believe everybody in the whole world who knows about this republic also knows it by this name, including those who insist that use of the name is wrong. In fact, I was taught this name in school, back in the days when Yugoslavia was a country and Macedonia a part of it;
  • I know Macedonia as the name of an ancient kingdom, capital Pella, headed by Alexander the Great, amongst others, and generally understood to be Greek, and I strongly believe anyone with any level of general education shares this knowledge with me; in fact, I was taught this fact in school, as part of my classical education;
  • I am well aware that the ancient kingdom of Macedonia was largely located in what is today a part of Greece, and therefore, is almost disjoint, both in language, and in area, with the present-day republic of Macedonia, and there isn't the slightest danger that I will ever confuse the two; moreover, I firmly believe that very few people who have heard of Alexander the Great and the present-day republic will make the mistake of confusing the two;
  • I know Macedonia as the name of a Roman province, which was much larger than the original kingdom of Macedonia, and more or less stood for Greece as a whole; in fact, I was taught this fact in school, as part of my classical education.

So what we see here is exactly what this disambiguation page describes: the term Macedonia is used to describe different things, and - as is the case with very many terms - there isn't actually much danger of confusion, since the intended meaning is practically always clear from the context.

  • It is extremely common for terms to have different meanings. There is nothing special about the term Macedonia in this regard. A screwdriver, for instance, can be a tool or a cocktail. A cocktail can be a drink or a part of an animal. An animal can be a human being with wild behavior or a particular class of organisms that is largely multicellular and capable of locomotion. Etcetera, etcetera. These meanings can happily live alongside each other, and so can the different meanings of the term Macedonia. The insistence, customary among Greek citizens, for the republic of Macedonia to be called 'FYROM' rather than just 'Macedonia', does not really help to clear up confusion (since there isn't much confusion to begin with), but is, rather, a source of ridicule among those who do not happen to be Greek citizens. Everybody who uses the term FYROM uses this term not out of necessity or convenience, but solely with the purpose of appeasing the Greek. Which is, of course, a very valid reason for using a term.

To sum up, I think the present disambiguation page is excellent, one of the shining examples of the powers of Wikipedia; and I believe it would be a dear mistake to replace it with a redirection to any of the specific meanings listed.

Rp 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem with Yugoslav Macedonians using Macedonia in reference to their country should be sorted - reason? Just look at the discussions here!

It's obvious that the issue is causing stress for both nations.

Personally, I think Greece is right to request they find another name. The greek state of Macedonia has survived throughout the ages, thus has had the name first. When I google Macedonia, I expect to find the orginal Macedonia not a slavic nation of the wider region. Also, I notice that many people of FYROM are arguing that Alexander the Great and other people of the Greek Macedonian tribe where their ancestors!! They try to convince people of this by distinguishing the Macedonians from the other greek tribes. Unsuccessfully since they still can't explain why the Macedons spread Hellenism.

I have heard the theory that Tito and Stalin devised the "altering" of the history books in that country to create a climate for the claim on the Greek State of Macedonia - and looking at world politics, I wouldn't put it past politicians to claim access to the Aegean no matter how fabricated their claims are or seem to be.

As such, I think Greece should stick to her rightful claim on the name of Macedonia since a lot of proganda sites from FYROM suggest that Greeks wrongfully "invaded" the "Aegean Macedonia". My point is, where will this end? It will just keep the confusion brewing througout the ages. To clarify, in my view there's only one true Macedonia - that is the greek region that produced the historically Hellenic empire of Alexander the Great. The other Macedonia of Slavic origin, will always be a slavic nation which has closer ties to the Bulgarians than to the original hellenic Macedonia. So, for clarity's sake and perhaps safety from confusion to future generations, FYROM should stick to a name that distinguishes them from the Greek Macedonia.Applesnpeaches 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 

 Macedonia is an acient greek state just like Athens and Sparta they had the same beliefs "12 gods",their flag symbolizes the 12 gods, earth , water, air, and fire, they used the same words, had the same achitecture, and their names finished by "is" or "os" and not by "vogski". Even if many King states where againgst the idea, with time Alexander the Great known as " Megas Alexandros" unified all the Greek states and traveled into Egypt and Asia and defeated the Persians and also spread Greek culture. And no i dont belive that FYROM (Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia) could use the name Macedonia or Alexander the Great because this is Greek history and Greek heritage.
  I agree Macedonia had a bigger territory and many of this lands where lost during many areas.

my point is to state that the issue of Macedonia is becoming a very sensitive case now in Greece and in Europe even if both countries live in peace and share a good economic trade. The issue of Macedonia first came to face during World War Two. FYROM is mosly locaded in Ancien Macedonian Territory and has a high population of Albanians living in it. The religion is mostly Orthodox. Most of the people living in FYROM are historic decedents from Slavs and some of Greeks who fleed during World War One and World War Two and no longer considered to be Greeks. In conclusion Macedonia is a Greek state which is now a Greek province and more then 3 million Greeks live in it. Alexander the Great is born in Greece, in Perla.

My say: 

 And by the way, speaking of propangada, look at all those FYROM's authors changing their original names in "is" or "os" in order to prove a point. Dose it ring a bell? 

 Greece has brought up Democracy, the ideology of western civilization and the way the world is pretty much today.

MatriX

You may want to see how this issue has been handled at British Isles (terminology). --Telex 10:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

why revert?

Why did Aldux revert the previous edit?

Line 9 was edited to * Republic of Macedonia, a European country, with the UN Name: former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

Reverted then to * Republic of Macedonia, a European country, also referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

I believe that referring to the United Nations in the specific line is a good choice, as it gives the user a better view of WHY the country is also named FYROM.

Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Manos (talk • contribs)

For the same reasons for which also Jkelly reverted the anon.: "belabouring point, weird formatting".--Aldux 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, meant solely to assist readers to find the article that they wanted when they typed "Macedonia" into the search bar. It is not the place to present the reader with any more information than necessary to help them make the right choice. No reader is going to think "Oh, I thought that I wanted Republic of Macedonia, but now that I see that the UN calls that country something else, I really want Macedonia (region)." Jkelly 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
'also referred to as' vs 'recognized by the UN', does not provide tons of unnecessary information to the reader and is more accurate. It may be disambiguation, but at the same time it should provide minimum information on the name dispute as it is an essential part of the term 'Macedonia' and it also might be a probable cause of searching for 'Macedonia' on Wikipedia. Dr. Manos 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Euler diagram request

Can someone create an objective Euler diagram for Macedonia, similar to the one used for the British Isles (terminology)?

Thanks :o Dr. Manos 00:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Squares and hotels

I removed these squares and hotels. I don't think they are notable to be added to the list.

When someone proves their notability by writing articles about them, you can add them back to the list. But until then, I don't think they belong in there. For squares, it is different than for villages and towns, which are natable by default. bogdan 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bogdan; no need to put them.--Aldux 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ditto that. I added the two Bulgarian squares because I saw another one. Todor→Bozhinov 13:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why there are direct links to the administrative subdivision of the greek part? Equivalently one should provide the entire list of administration units in the Republic of Macedonia then? Please, object removal of the list. Koliokolio 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

FYROM should be first

If Macedonia opens to a disambiguation page, then in my view the first link should at least be the one to FYROM. Regardless of the political undercurrents that cause the dispute, one should look at the matter practically. I am certain that the vast majority of users that type in Macedonia are interested in the state, not any of the numerous other usages of the name. Although I don't believe there is a rigid policy in this matter, I still believe that a sovereign state should take precedence, not only due its greater importance at the international stage, but also because it has a higher probability of being the exact term searched for by a person. TSO1D 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've always suspected that most would be looking for the empire of Alexander the Great to help with their homework. Jkelly 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The most common name for that would be Macedon. In any case look at "what links here" for Macedonia, and most uncorrected links intend the state, not anything else. TSO1D 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
They have not been properly disambiguated yet.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
True, however look at WP:disambig#Primary_topic. Official policy in selecting the primary topic is to find what particular definition most links refer to and what the most common inteded target for a query is. Thus if this page is to be kept as a disambiguation page with no primary article, then the guidelines should at least be followed in choosing the first link. Regardless of geographic, political and other considerations, the Republic of Macedonia is what most links pointing to Macedonia refer to at the moment which gives a rough overview of the more popular usage of the word. While looking at the archives I saw that most other users came to the exact same conclusion, that most users who search for Macedonia are interested in the state, not the general region. There are other similar cases, such as Moldova pointing to the Republic of Moldova, although Moldova is also the historic name for the region Moldova that includes a greater territory which is currently found under its alternate name Moldavia. If all agree that the most common intended article is the one about the republic, than I believe that should at least be given favoured status as the first link, whatever other elaborate arguments can be presented. TSO1D 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Moldova is not equal to Moldavia. See Ireland.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Right, the Republic of Moldova is not equal to Moldavia (which can also be written Moldova), it is a part of it, that is my point. In any case, I agree with you, the page should stay as it is, I see the same is done for China or other such examples. TSO1D 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, the list is ordered in a geographical rather than political order of hierarchy. Thus Macedonia the region is the superset, containing Macedonia the country and Macedonia the Greek and Bulgarian provinces (which are all parts of the wider region). Historical Macedonia is a second category containing extinct political entities. I have no particular preferences for the order, but a geographical hierarchy does have some logic to it. -- ChrisO 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Versions

May I know why was the article reverted? Please answer or I will have to request this article for comment. AdoniCtistai 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See ChrisO's comment right above this line. Macedonia (region) should be first. --Telex 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will take that into consideration. AdoniCtistai 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte, what's with the RfC fixation? First Todor, now request for comment from an article (??(   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Bonaparte? Some questions: Why does Macedonia (Greece) appear twice? Why does Vardar Macedonia links erroneously? Why does the rest of the geographic meanings (like East Macedonia or West Macedonia) are not on top? AdoniCtistai 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See Macedonia (terminology). I don't like the present version either - I'll try to do something now - please give me a minute. To answer your other question, Bonaparte is a permabanned user, who's edits may be reverted without regard to the 3RR. --Telex 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! Isn`t that better than that former messy version? AdoniCtistai 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoy it while your proxy isnt blocked yet.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
?????? AdoniCtistai 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Check these edit summaries (both): [3]. I suggest we make a list discussion on what should/should not stay. •NikoSilver• 08:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include Macedonia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for sorting of 'Places in the Balkans'

I am the user who, as of today, did the last major cleanup. Since then, there have been attempts (all rv by other users) to move one entry or another up the list, in the section 'Places in the Balkans'. For their information, and for future reference, I'll present here my logic behind the arrangement of that section:

  1. I wanted to create a section small enough - but nevertheless cohesive and comprehensive- so that it could be 'absorbed' all at once, a section that, if there were no sorting criteria, would still serve its purpose of dabbing places in the Balkans.
  2. BUT, as this is an acknowledged politically sensitive issue, there must be some sorting criteria, so that one does not impose their own personal agenda. The criteria I came upon is:
  3. Articles titled 'Macedonia (anything)' come first, as this is presumably what someone who typed 'Macedonia' is looking for.
  4. Articles titled 'anything Macedonia anything' come second.
  5. So, there are two blocks in the section 'Places in the Balkans'.
  6. Why didn't I split the blocks into sections 'Places in the Blakans called Macedonia' and 'Other places in the Balkans with Macedonia in their name'? Because Republic of Macedonia would not fit the criteria for the first section and would have to go into the second section. I recognize that would not be a stable solution for everyone, however.
  7. Why didn't I split the blocks into sections 'Major Balkan places' and 'Other Balkan places'? Because there would have to POV on determining what places were 'major' and what were not. If I look at the list, I can find only two places which cannot be defended as 'major', making for a very small second section. This criteria would not be a solution, either.
  8. So, I think one section only, with all places in the Balkans, composed of two blocks, is the best solution and the best compromise.
  9. In each block, I sorted the article titles by alphabetical order. The easiest on the eye and the easiest on the brain, no contest.
  10. The alpha sort criteria also saves on arguing if other criteria were to be used: sort by area? sort by region creation date? sort by article creation date? sort by population? sort by number of WP links? sort by Google count? sort by 'importance'? sort by 'hierarchy'? sort by name length? Alpha sort is neutral and avoids all arguments.

That's it. As someone totally unconnected with any Macedonia or anything Balkan at all, I am happy with these criteria. I hope everyone else is too, after reading this. Thank you. --maf 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we are not happy... I don't know how you came up with this sorting schema, but placing a republic after an airport does not seem very objective to me... When a foreigner (by a foreigner i mean someone not from the Balkans, otherwise here we are all the same despite our century long quarrels ), refers or searches for Macedonia, he or she in most cases means the Republic of Macedonia. When a Greek hears such a thing, he will correct him in a furious manner (and start lecturing about history), but nevertheless can not revert the fact that people mean Republic of Macedonia when they say simply Macedonia... therefore i think that The Republic of Macedonia should be placed at the top, and then everything else... --Martin taleski 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you already changed the sorting. Please state your rationale here so others can discuss (I suggest you start a new section). If we follow WP:BRD, a method for reaching consensus in these situations, we may quickly arrive to a stable version! --maf 03:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added section headings. While I appreciate attempts to render items neutrally (i.e., alphabetically), I find it very odd that the republic is noted near the bottom in this section. The Wikipedia guidelines for disambiguation indicates to "place the items in order of usage". Given this, the alphabetical method may not be sufficient. I suggest the following:

  • (1) consult a reputable volume/entry for Macedonia, and render similarly (since that may imply prevalence), and/or
  • (2) conduct simple web counts of the terms and order that way.

Per (1), for example, my edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English orders them as follows:

Merriam-Webster is even more minimalist. Anyhow, as proposed, everything else would follow these entries, in usage or alpha order.
An aside (and alternative): I must admit that I would tend to arrange entries for places (geographic locations) in order of size or acope (larger > smaller), currency (current > historical?), or a combination. I also acknowledge that this may be an imperfect solution for a complex topic. Thoughts? Corticopia 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not address the Macedonia naming dispute (which you should read if you are not familiar with it) (and because, being THE issue here, led me to put Macedonia (terminology) back at the top, from the bottom where you had put it). The dispute in a nutshell: Macedonia (Greece) should go first because it is richer and/or more popular and/or older and/or because Republic of Macedonia is a name not recognized by the UN; Republic of Macedonia should go first because it is a country, ranking over political provinces and geographical regions. Any 'usual' criteria you use will not appease both disputing sides; any 'popularity' or 'count' variable you use, I'm sure someone will give another equally valid variable that gives the opposite results. Result: always a stalemate. That's why I proposed a neutral criteria - an alpha sort. --maf (talk-cont) 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
OK -- but an alpha sort, in and of itself, is odd. Anyhow, as a possible alternative, I have tweaked this article. You will note two main sections for 'Places': one for those in antiquity, the other for not; within both, items are arranged hierarchically by size/scope: wider region > smaller regions > subregions/units. I hope this'll do. :) And I am familar: I placed Macedonia (terminology) below for similar reasons as in America (e.g., Americas) -- which has similar issues. Corticopia 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
i think i agree with this one! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin taleski (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
I had prepared a few hours ago an almost identical sort to the one you put up, but ended up discarding it because someone will almost certainly say "RoM is a country and should go first". But if User:Martin taleski is happy, maybe there's hope after all! So interesting to see how these things can get so emotional, and yet some of us are totally detached from them and also participating in the discussion. --maf (talk-cont) 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Great! (I'm keeping my fingers crossed ...) :) Corticopia 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When people say Macedonia, they most probably mean RoM

My reasoning is very simple: When somebody types Macedonia in the textbox for searching, he usually wants to learn more about the Republic of Macedonia! That's why RoM should go first... Somebody in this discussion said that it is more likely that he wants to learn more about the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon... True, this article is more popular than the one about RoM, but if i want to go the article about Ancient Macedonia and read about Alex, i would type Alexander the Great... but that's just me... since Alexander is more popular, let him be first, which i think would satisfy the Greeks and their POV to some extent, and let the Republic of Macedonia be second, since after all is a country (republic)... than will be the region, and all the parts, and then everything else if people that visit Wikipedia are that bored and want to read about our wars, disputes and neverending negotiations... i think this sorting is better than placing the Republic of Macedonia after an airport on the disambiguation page of Macedonia...

to elaborate further on this issue, i think that the airport should be out of the picture in any case since it is standing out of the crowd of regions, provinces and a country... after all the airport might be destroyed by an earthquake or flooded by rising sea levels (which is highly likely btw), but Macedonia, (region, province or country) will remain the same... at least we hope that will remain the same :)

Martin taleski 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So which are you advocating, that RoM goes first, or that Macedon goes first? For my part, I think RoM should be first (country), the airport (and perhaps Makedonia Palace since it now has a page?) last (buildings), and the order for the rest (regions past and present) was fine how it was under the previous criteria. -Bbik 03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My sorting criteria is fully objective. Your sorting criteria is almost all subjective, using words as "usually", "likely", "more popular", "I would", "satisfy the Greeks". It's hard to argue based on subjectivity, so let me try to restate your criteria taking out as much subjectivity as possible:
  1. Macedon on top, because it's the most popular article
  2. Republic of Macedonia, because it is a country
  3. The region and its sub-regions
  4. Everything else
My questions on your sorting are:
  • How do you establish what is the most popular article in WP - are there page counters in WP to see which article is the most viewed or did you use a different counter?
  • Is there the risk that someone will request the region or a sub-region to be put ahead of the country, based on area, population, age, GDP, or another objective criteria?
  • There are contemporary regions and one historical region. How do you rank them together?
I would also like to address the issue of the articles being dabbed. Per WP:MOSDAB, only articles that could be titled "Macedonia" should be dabbed; articles that contain "Macedonia" in their title should NOT be automatically dabbed. Just to give you an example: if the Macedonia Airport is also commonly known as just Macedonia (as in "the plane landed at Macedonia"), it should stay in the page; otherwise, it should be removed. I'm not going to remove any entry because I'm not competent on the subject but I would like to raise the question on the airport but also on the diocese and on the sub-regions. Are all of these instances commonly referred to as just "Macedonia"?
--maf (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please argue order in the order section--208.102.210.163 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a shopping mall in Thessaloniki called Macedonia... do you think that we should include it too in this list? I don't have the time to discuss now, but you know that it is not right that ancient roman provinces, regions that very few people know of their existence in the form that they are described (Pirin, Vardar, Aegean) and airports should not be in a list in front of a internationally recognized country...
and what will happen if we start saying that Greece should disambiguate to Ancient and Modern Greece, which is exactly the same thing with the disambiguation of Macedonia. And does any other country on wikipedia disambiguate? Does China disambiguate to POC and Taiwan, or Germany to the roman province of Germania, East and West Germany and Bundess Republik Deutchland, or Russia to the Kievian Russia, Moscow Russia (Russian Empire), Russian Soviet Socialistic Republic or Modern Russia... here is another one: Mongolia to the region of Mongolia, Mongolian Kingdom of Gengis Khan and modern Mongolia!
i think that you will agree that it is stupid to disambiguate a country! But ok, we have this thing with the Greeks, and we must live with it! But still, almost all of the people in the world (except Greeks) mean the Republic of Macedonia when they say Macedonia! And this is clear to everybody, even to Greeks! We might have a poll to test this... and this is the only relevant factor: What do people mean when they say something...
and since we have this disambiguation i am adding another thing: The Socialist Republic of Macedonia, the federal unit in Yugoslavia... there is an article on it, and it has a place on this list!
Martin taleski 20:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You think everybody . . . no! Most people have never heard of FYROM. What people mostly think about (if they have heard of it) is Alexander the Great. Secondly, I am sure people associate the term Macedonia with Greece. A small state that only became independent a decade ago and stole the name of an ancient one ought to put up with a disambiguation page.

Re: The dates I added -- If they're wrong, someone please correct them, I will admit right now that I don't know nearly enough about any of it, and I only skimmed the various pages, so I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if I mis-read something. However, at least it gives a general timeframe now, even if it is off by perhaps a few years. -Bbik 02:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When people say Macedonia, they definitely mean Macedonia (Greece)

Not that I (as a Greek) would care if Macedonia was first or second (lol), but country or not, the Greek Macedonia certainly receives much more attention and interest. The following are some of the reasons:
In short, it's more likely for someone to look for something in Macedonia Greece, than the country or the other province. Still, I wouldn't care if it were first or second (and nobody should, because it's lame). There are some who do, though, as I see... NikoSilver 01:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
yes, i agree with the Stats... but the point is that foreigners do not know that there is a Greek province called Macedonia![citation needed] if they want to go to a vacation on Halkidiki, they will look for Greece, not Macedonia,[citation needed] they know that Thessaloniki is in Greece, not Macedonia...[citation needed] that is a fact, just like the fact that Greek Macedonia is more developed than Slavic Macedonia
Martin taleski 01:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Everyone has heard of Halkidiki. No. I assure you Thessaloniki is much more famous than Halkidiki. (that is a pain to type) And not just in general, Thessaloniki is a famous center(e) of Macedonian culture.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the time to cite all my claims above. Can you please cite yours? NikoSilver 19:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a gut-instinct view, but I suspect that Martin's comments above are probably right. If you see anything to do with "Macedonia" in the news, for instance, it will most likely be to do with the country rather than the Greek region - see for instance this BBC News story, which has been much discussed over here in the UK in the past week. It contains one reference to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and four to "Macedonia" or "Macedonian", without any prefixes. You can see a very similar trend on Google News here. I suspect that over time, as the FYROM name falls out of use, we'll see something like what's happened with Luxembourg - foreigners will associate the name exclusively with the country and won't be aware that a neighbouring country has a province of the same name. We shouldn't change our current approach to disambiguating the name, though, as it's very much a long term trend which isn't as nearly well established as the example I just cited. Can we come back to this question in 10 years' time, please? :-) -- ChrisO 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The hits disagree for now (although too WP:OR to present them as I did back then). Furthermore, I doubt there was ever a dispute for the Luxembourg issue. As for the obvious reference to the "in 10 years nobody will remember" quote by the 1992 PM Constantine Mitsotakis, may I remind that he was defending his line for an alleged agreement for "Slavomacedonia". :-) It's already been 15 and nobody has forgotten since, as it seems... NikoSilver 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there probably was an issue back in 1839 when Luxembourg was divided, but I'd bet that nobody remembers it now. Regarding the "in 10 years" line I didn't know that Mitsotakis had said something similar! Still, I think the underlying sentiment is the right one - history will be the judge, not us... -- ChrisO 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hah, he said it indeed, and yes, you're right: history will be the judge, not US. :-) NikoSilver 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
When you say US, I suppose you mean us and not US whose Congress recently decided to re-use the term FYROM in official documents?--Yannismarou 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I left it to the reader to decide... NikoSilver 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Niko, I presume this is what Yannis was talking about. -- ChrisO 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and this proves IMO one thing: that your conclusion could be reversed. History will be the judge, not "us" ... but history is also influenced by "us". Interpret "us" in any way you want. The two sentences still make sense!--Yannismarou 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No offence to history, but Yannismarou has a point. We need to decide now. I doubt any time-travelling will help us decide, but I do not doubt Wikipedia will have a say on how the debate goes in the English-speaking world. To speak of the future is no solution. Action ought to be taken to ensure the preciseness (along historical definitions of terms). Macedonia should refer to what Wikipedia calls Macedon, the region of Macedonia or the modern Greek region. 'Repubic of Macedonia' is an outrageous compromise for FYROM considering the 'Greek' Macedonian argument (a title like "Republic of" is ignored readily). Even Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYRO Macedonia) could be considered offensive. However, considering there is no common alternative, the use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should be accepted.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with SRM?

now i don't see what you have against SRM? I have expanded the article a bit so its not just a mere link to the republic of Macedonia... SRM does not exist anymore, just like the roman provinces, or Alexander's kingdom... and plese see the Russia (disambiguation)... there is a link to the old Soviet Republic, so in the same maner we'll have a link to SRM here! since we want to dissambigute the matter that much

Martin taleski 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What to list

In an attempt to head off this argument before it becomes another case of the above:

As far as I'm concerned, I really don't care one way or another whether they're listed. It seems a bit overboard, but it doesn't hurt anything, so whatever. I'd just like something to be worked out so my watchlist can settle down again. -Bbik 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback -- yes, it can be confusing. However, these districts are included not so much because they are subregions per se (which they are) but because they are related terms containing the term in question (Macedonia). The Mercury example supports this: if Mercury Records is taken to be a valid inclusion for Mercury, surely the eponymous subdivisions of note in this discussion are worthy of inclusion here.
Greek Macedonia is often referred to without the modifier: in the Macedonia entry in the New Oxford Dictionary of English (p. 861, sense 2), it is defined without Greek even being noted as the modifier. This is part-and-parcel of the overarching naming dispute regarding the Republic of Macedonia. West, Central, and East Macedonia comprise (Greek) Macedonia. In this respect, if one considers that West, Central, and East are modifiers just the same as Greek, Vardar, Republic of, Socialist Republic of, et al. -- with Macedonia functioning as the noun throughout -- then there's NO reason at all to exclude these related terms. I hope this helps. Corticopia 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Corticopia for the elaboration. FWIW I wouldn't care removing them, but it seems ilucidating to include them as you put it. NikoSilver 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Corticopia 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I had already questioned the validity of the sub-regions being called just "Macedonia" and no one living in the regions or at least knowledgeable has answered directly. IF Pirin, Vardar, West, Central, and East (but NOT Greek, as demonstrated) are modifiers that HAVE to be present in order to identify their respective regions, THEN they don't create any possible confusion with the dabbed term, and should not be included because they are just cluttering the page with an additional level of indentation. --maf (talk-cont) 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is that any such part can be simply referred as "Macedonia", and before you jump to say that the same applies for e.g. Thessaloniki, well, the word doesn't exist within Thessaloniki's name (in contrast to the others). Still, I wouldn't care removing them, but I found Corticopia's argument convincing. If I may propose an intermediate solution to list them in one line? As in:
What do you think? (personally I visualize things better in lists) NikoSilver 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes: we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if these entities didn't have Macedonia in their names, but one of the intents of a disambiguation is to link "to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title." These apply. Relatedly, note that the overall region of (Greek) Macedonia, while commonly referred to as that, is no longer a formal entity within Greek governance, while the peripheries of West, Central, and East Macedonia (and Thrace) are. Given this, it actually seems absurd to not include these legitimate entities. Add to this the prior apparent rigmarole regarding Macedonia-related article, and I remain surprised about the resistance of including these terms here.
I prefer the arrangement as is (as unique entries are more apparent); the one-line inclusions seem overloaded but may do in a pinch or if this doesn't end soon. Maybe a combination:
Corticopia 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours is better than mine. But only if there definitely needs to be an adaptation of the present format for some reason. Also, I just thought that I shift my opinion to strong disagree for changing the present format, on the grounds that the new one is too cluttered (thereby creating the opposite effect from the one desired), and also, generally in dab pages, we only link one word in every line to avoid confusion (per WP:DAB#Disambiguation pages). NikoSilver 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. :) Corticopia 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion, the usual hierarchy in such instances is determined by the level of sovereignty possessed by each entity. Thus it goes:

  • country
    • region
      • province
        • city
          • town
            • village

See Luxembourg (disambiguation) for a similar example, where the country (as the most politically important entity on the list) takes precedence, followed by various sub-entities of the same name in Luxembourg and Belgium. -- ChrisO 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Very lame example, if I may say. Not only is it a simple one- or two-level dab, but above all I don't see any naming dispute there. Please find a dab with a naming dispute that has stayed stable. In the meanwhile, I have been watching with amusement at how some editors aggressively stick to their sorting results and reject any other approaches, and other editors who keep finding reasons to push their favorite links upwards. I find especially amusing that the argument "larger goes first" is now serving for both disputing parties to push their agenda. By now, I would accept as natural the regular switching of places of the disputing links, as long as the overall structure of the dab stays intact. --maf (talk-cont) 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The naming dispute has nothing to do with it. If you look at Sysin's justification for reversing the order, he wrote: "Greek Macedonia is larger, more populous, older, 7x larger in ecomony, etc. etc." Which is true, but it ignores the obvious point that the Republic of Macedonia is the most politically significant entity on the list. It's a nation state, with a seat at the UN, its own armed forces, foreign relations, currency, language etc. None of those things is true for any of the other entities. Any nation state - whatever it might be called - automatically outranks any subnational entity. -- ChrisO 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, WP didn't care for such BS as "officiality". E.g. WP doesn't care about UN's position on TRNC, and doesn't call it "illegal". WP doesn't care about de jure, and has an article for every de facto pseudostate in the world. WP doesn't care how UN calls the country North of Greece, and uses the self-id. WP doesn't care if Kurdistan is -or if it ever declared- autonomous. So, the "automatic outranking" is moot in my book. "Political significance" counts zilt for what I care. And a UN seat is as bollocks, as that of Cyprus proper.
Arguments like these are never ending. The same happened in Georgia, (although not -1-neighboring -2-disputed), and the same will happen everywhere. I don't drop these arguments here to argue (because I don't give a damn), I just drop them to illustrate the vanity in defending the one or the other case.
Be as it may. Flip a coin. Swap it every even calendar month. Make two columns with different orders (-duh- who's will be the left column? And in Arabian wiki?) Or leave it as it is -and I honestly haven't checked where the roulette stopped this time. NikoSilver 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting into WP:POINT territory here. -- ChrisO 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Mild though. Plus it motivated you devise a better solution. NikoSilver 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'd attribute that to simple irritation on my part. :-) -- ChrisO 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be a violation of "don't irritate other editors to make them more productive", but we don't have such a rule! :-) NikoSilver 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Who goes first?

Answer: Who gives a [insert euphemism here]!

  • Do you want to be the prologue or the epilogue?
  • Do you want your word to be the first or the last?

Try answering those questions first, before choosing which is "the best", "the first" alphabetically, or in size, or in economy, or in population, or in entity status. Then, we can continue the fight over who will get the good place (last or first). And then all of you will deserve a prominent place in WP:BJAODN (and a long block to match it). NikoSilver 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I fully agree with you as long as (insert favorite here) goes first." Oh well. Philosophy doesn't work here. --maf (talk-cont) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nor does polemicism. Corticopia 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Kumbaya! --maf (talk-cont) 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least Greeks (Macedonians included) come first where it really matters! [4] [5] A new criterion maybe? NikoSilver 10:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Come on people, please use good sense. Anybody who has no Balkanic roots knows very well (and please don't pretend it's not true) that the first things the word Macedonia links to are 1) the ancient kingdom 2) the modern republic; and I'm sorry, but the Greek province comes miles after, let alone the Bulgarian region, which risks to come behind the USA town.--Aldux 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If we begin assessing notability ourselves, won't we be running foul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Also, what's wrong with being Balkanian, are Balkanians second class citizens?!--Ploutarchos 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page, not an article, and our interest here is estabilishing what is best for the reader, not for us editors. As for the second point, I must admit I didn't know a Balkanian citizenship existed ;-p What I meant (honestly I thought this was obvious) is that wikipedia is worldwide, and that the japanese reader has the same rights to find immediately what he's searching, without having to pass first for the Macedonian peripheries. Please lets think of the 99/98% of potential readers who are not from the Balkans.--Aldux 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually when I said "see talk", I meant the section above, where valid notability arguments are illustrated. I have serious doubts regarding the (IMO false) premise that "the Greek province comes miles after". On the contrary, I have valid and sourced reasons to believe that it leaves the others miles behind in terms of notability. May I also add that Macedon coincides with Macedonia (Greece). See above. (plus we do it more often lol)[6] [7] NikoSilver 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am not intruding, it seems like there are three options, alphabetical, Pro-Macedonia, and Pro-FYROM. FYROM supporters may argue that the "Republic of Macedonia" is a fully independent state (thus it being more important and) deserving a position topping the list. However, the problem with this reasoning is that although in technical diplomatic understanding FYROM has greater power, Macedonia is more important historically, culturally, economically and demographically. A Pro-Macedonian listing, however, satisfies the importance position of the Pro-FYROM. The alphabetical listing is also an acceptable compromise for obvious reasons, though may seem odd.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A new approach

I've made some changes to the sort order in an attempt to break out of this futile wrangle. The sort is now strictly by order of political and geographical precedence, hence supranational region -> state -> subnational region -> administrative unit. -- ChrisO 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I preferred the order based on frequency of sex. Check Fictionlandia when you find the time and tell me your thoughts. NikoSilver 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems an interesting idea; unfortunately we can't ask the ancient Macedonians regarding how much, uhmm, well, hmm, what to say - oh well, you know what I mean....;-) Certainly, if Philip was a typical Macedonian, then due to his conquests (no, I'm not speaking of his battles, diplomacy and other boring stuff) I doubt anybody would not give Macedon the first place ;-) (can't speak for modern Greek Macedonians, I've known some but I don't know them that intimately ;-))--Aldux 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Making such major changes and then announcing them as a done deal is not productive. In any case, the order you propose is as arbitrary as anything else. Larger->smaller makes more sense. sys < in 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If anything "is as arbitrary as anything else", why can't anything but your "arbitrary" order stay on? Is it because you are partial to the dispute? --maf (talk-cont) 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A general comment: when someone reverts or restores a particular order, they are making a point and are, thus, partial to that version. I am rather ambivalent regarding this, but prefer the prior order (RoM, then GM). Why? A few reasons: (Greek) Macedonia is no longer an official constituent within Greek governance, though its constituents are, so arguably it seems odd that a state which does have that name (at least according to some) must take a backseat to it. However, the current order also has advantages and harks of America: even though another variant may be more common (the United States), at least in English, the supranational region is listed first because of its many potential meanings or combinations (the Americas). Anyhow ... Corticopia 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia proper (or "Greek Macedonia" to some) is much larger than FYROM, more populous and has a much, much higher GDP. By any quantitative criterion, it is more likely to be the subject of any inquiry than the FYR. The soft and fuzzy criteria that some try to introduce are based on wishes and ambitions, not facts. sys < in 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just it: this is for the benefit of those who consider Macedonia proper to not equate with Greek Macedonia but, perhaps, with the overarching Balkan region, FYROM, or something else. And it isn't merely about quantitative measures, but qualitative ones too. Corticopia 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The newspapers over here were reporting last week that a "minister of Macedonia" was driving a stolen BMW. Sysin now has me confused: was she Greek? --maf (talk-cont) 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, merely a thief - of a BMW and a historic name, among many other things. sys < in 19:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Whereby with this comment you have proven that you are too biased to have a neutral stance on this matter, and therefore your opinions and your edit rvs deserve the respect which is inversely proportional to your bias. --maf (talk-cont) 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sysin's editing record shows that he's plainly acting as a nationalist POV-pusher, not just here but across a range of articles where he's repeatedly been deleting the name "Republic of Macedonia". I've left a warning and request to desist on his talk page. -- ChrisO 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So he deserves the same fortune as those who advocate the other view? And what's wrong with having a view? I have the same views with him. You say statehood, I say double size. You say own currency, I say 7 times more of it. You say they are people too, I say they are double. You say USA, I say UN. Who's a nationalist and why? Probably those who advocate that a nation should go first? Heh, I never thought it was a portmanteau of nation+A'+list! :-) NikoSilver 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh* Maybe we should really flip a coin and then subject the article to full protection, so at least we would put an end to it. I seriously doubt there's a disambiguation page that has been edited, reverted, vandalized, moved and discussed more than this one in all wikipedia.--Aldux 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong in having a view as long as it is expressed on the proper place, which WP IS NOT. As I said above, I've come to accept that regular rv's are unavoidable, and full protection is not a solution (the resentment will provoke a new fight elsewhere). If only there could only be a rv every week or so so as not to clutter our watchlists. --maf (talk-cont) 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
All views are represented in WP in due weight. Sys in considers that his view is NPOV, just like the others think the same for their own. I'm just saying they all have a point. You are saying that everybody but Sys in is allowed to express it. It has also been suggested that Sys in is a nationalist for having this view. I disagree. NikoSilver 19:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So, Aldux, you decided to flip a coin, in your room, by yourself, and then you announced the results, changed the page, and started RVing anyone who preferred the page as it was organized before. Very mature. sys < in 06:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that that's particularly fair, it seems to me that you're all doing an awful lot of reverting, and it's anything but several-versus-1.
And as for the ordering... To my mind, the heirarchy with ROM and Greek Macedonia as the major factors, and antiquity separate, is the easiest to see. It clearly shows which exist currently, and of those, makes obvious the two most important ones -- one for size (population, etc), one for international status, and it quickly shows the relationship of all the others to the three key Macedonia's, without having to read more to determine if it's related to the Greek region, or the country, or something historical, or whatever else.
Much as I think it's pretty sad if it does need to come down to a coin toss, I'd be all for telling an admin to come along and protect the page so long as it's with that heirarchy, and whether it's Greek Macedonia or ROM listed first, well, that'd be luck of the draw depending on when the admin gets here. Again, silly, but at least it would stop the edit warring. And honestly? First or second, is it really that big a deal? It's not like it's hard to look through a list of two to find the one you want (and the one you want isn't going to be affected by which is first, it's either the right link or it's not, so I don't see how nationalism should mean anything here, though apparently it does...), unlike originally when it was a list of ten or so. -Bbik 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bbik; I don't think ChrisO's recent changes were productive: not only did this not promote clarity (too many categories for not what, I would think it would be open to even more edit warring out of disagreement about what should listed where. Anyhow ... It seems that the current arrangement is rather agreeable to many editors (and I have restored it) -- I believe it is more an issue of what within it should be listed first or later. I really don't care, but I am partial to retaining the current hierarchy -- really, arguments can fly incessantly in support of one or the other, but let's just agree on the order and move onto more worthwhile pursuits. Corticopia 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving apart from the Sysin comment (who, brilliant as usual, didn't note it was just a jest I took from Niko; disambig pages are never placed under long term full-protection). I think (correct me if my memory is getting me wrong) many of you you (Corticopia, Maf, Bbik) or moderately new on this page; it's two years I'm here, and it's being vexing observing all arguments go in circles. Unfortunately, there's little we can do: the order will be changed repeatedly, as always. Anyways, I've got beter things to do, so I at least shall follow, as Corticopia rightly said, more worthwile pursuits.--Aldux 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How comes the name is spoken with an "s" instead of a "k"? --Mustafa Mustamann 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that we pronounce 'mace' with an 's' and not a 'k'. English pronunciation isn't regular like most languages. In this instance the English pronunciation is similar to the native Macedonian pronunciation of the country's name. 213.230.130.56 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean the other way around. The English pronunciation is not similar to native Macedonian pronunciation in this case. JdeJ (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert should not exist

This page should direct automatically to the "Republic of Macedonia" page. This is the common name for the country and almost every other country has its own page without any silly redirects (except for Georgia maybe). Greek complaints about this issue should be annoyed - let's just be grateful that Denmark doesn't object to the name "New Zealand", Wales doesn't object to "New South Wales" and the people of York don't object to "New York". Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a political tool that appeases the exhausted and unfounded beliefs of the Greeks. 213.230.130.56 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The crucial difference being, of course, that in each instance you mention, the disambiguating term New leaves no room for confusion between the original and the copy. Why not follow their example? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am macedonian and my luck is that I am married with greek woman.Just shortly to put one question to everybody who claim about name Macedonia.Why in the North Greece called Macedonia inside their homes people speak different language(not greek). By the way that is same with language from Republic Macedonia. Of course who knows little bit of history and politic that changing starts after Balkans war and politic of Greek gouverment in that time like every politic they make their history(Even I am Macedonian I can say same for my country Republic of Macedonia that everything is a politic and also my country is changing the History books like serbian country also like every country when they have chance). Thats the reason why people start war. Instead of that just go forward and stop to ask who is who, it`s more important what do you want to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is an outrageous inaccuracy. People living in Greek Macedonia speak Greek. The Slavic speaking minority is so small that it cannot even be registered in the censi. Demographics of Macedonia Huxflux (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate the wikipedia community for directing the viewer immediately to the dissambiguation page when typing "Macedonia", as well as for the order of the terms appearing, by putting the better known term of the Macedonia peripheries in Greece and afterwards the new Republic of Upper Macedonia. This proves that wikipedia is not as biased as it seemed before for a matter that is on debate. Soon, the new state will realize the deadlock it has set itself into by defalcating the neighbouring nations' history. Congratulations. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The User "Laveol" always puts the links with Bulgarian background to the top of "Miscellaneous", although there is only one link to something Bulgarian that contains the name "Macedonia". Please stop this childish behaviour. Cukiger (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The user Laveol is completely right in doing that edit, the heading makes it clear that the sections are in alphabetical order. Even if one would agree with the edit, it is in no way vandalism and Laveol has broken no rules. Cukiger, however, violates WP:NPA when labelling a perfectly valid edit as vandalism. JdeJ (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

the user laveol only put the category "Bulgarian" to the top without ordering the rest alphabetically, so it is obvious that his intent was just to put that section to the top. indeed, the articles should be alphabetically ordered. i myself made that change. however, that change only depends on the articles, not on the categories. Cukiger (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is your very own interpretation and it seems that no other user agrees with it. Bulgarians come first as B is the second letter of the alphabet. As you can see, you have been reverted by at least three users and nobody has yet supported your interpretation. Please stop edit warring over the issue JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the section Order, below.--208.102.210.163 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great etc.

This is a disambiguation page used when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. that only lists articles rrelated to that term. More detailed explanatons such as the role of Alexander the Great in spreading Hellenistic culture does not belong here. These topics are treated in the respective full articles.  Andreas  (T) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort alphabetically

Could someone please sort everything alphabetically? Currently like this it's pretty hard to locate stuff. Check the guidelines if in doubt. --87.219.84.58 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia

The term "Aegean Macedonia", as applied to this region, is considered to imply irredentist ambitions by Slav Macedonians, and its use is therefore rejected by Greece

This term seems like a quote from the "naming dispute" and seems completely out of place. It seems like an argument for why Greece won't recognize ROM rather then if it has anything to do with the disambiguous Macedonia page. Because of its redundancy, it will be removed, but can be placed in its rightful article. Maktruth (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I also reworded the article which includes their official names. Maktruth (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Order (or not, just order as of June second)

Greek Macedonia should come first; FYROM should come second. Thessaloniki is the most famous Macedonian anything, after Alexander the Great. Argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.210.163 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the section should be labeled alphabetically. (see Vandalism and Sort alphabetically, above)

Actually, you probably shouldn't argue that here at all. I think I just recreated the section, What to list. Do argue why the order is now:

Europe (Balkans)
Macedonia (region), a region of the Balkan peninsula which includes:
Republic of Macedonia, a current state, also referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
Socialist Republic of Macedonia (1946–1991), a federal unit of Yugoslavia and predecessor to the current Republic of Macedonia
Vardar Macedonia, a geographical region that mostly overlaps the Republic of Macedonia
Macedonia (Greece) or Greek Macedonia, a region of Greece, subdivided into three administrative districts:
West Macedonia
Central Macedonia
East Macedonia and Thrace (Western part only)
Blagoevgrad Province, unofficially called Pirin Macedonia, a region of Bulgaria
(For an overview of these terms, see Macedonia (terminology), explanation of the application of the name and the naming dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia.)

This is erroneous:

It seems like there are three options, alphabetical, Pro-Macedonia, and Pro-FYROM. FYROM supporters may argue that the "Republic of Macedonia" is a fully independent state, and thus being more important, deserving a position topping the list. However, the problem with this reasoning is that although in technical diplomatic understanding FYROM has greater power, Macedonia is more important historically, culturally, economically and demographically. A Pro-Macedonian listing, however, satisfies the importance position. The alphabetical listing is also an acceptable compromise for obvious reasons, though may seem odd. --208.102.210.163 (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be labelled as clear as 'pro-FYROM'. The country of Macedonia is far more likely to be sought than the Greek region by visitors, and though the Wikipedia has (embarrassingly) bowed to Greek pressure in the main Macedonia article we need to keep this list (at least) functional and convenient. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

no term Agean Macedonia? (FYROM) in bold?

1. there is no evidence that the term Agean Macedonia is coined or used mainly by „some irridentists“ and i personally dont see why the terms Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia are accepted and used in the article and the historic term Agean Macedonia is „problematic“ so its changed with the new term „Greek Macedonia“. Furthermore we see the use of the term Aegean Macedonia by many official sources it is even used in the Britannica article about Macedonia [8]. There is no reason to esclude the historic term that delineates the region of the Aegean Sea Macedonia - Agean Macedonia.

2. is there any plausible reason for writing "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM)" and "Pirin Macedonia" in bold?

Alex Makedon (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of appearance

A logical order of appearance would follow the "importance" of the terms eg. first Independent States than regions etc. Its the common order of appearance used in may other similar disambiguation pages, see Luxembourg (disambiguation), Ireland (disambiguation), Karelia (disambiguation) Alex Makedon (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename artcle from Macedonia to Macedonia(disambiguation) request

It would be correct to rename the artcle from Macedonia to Macedonia(disambiguation), since defacto its a disambiguation page, see also Luxembourg (disambiguation), Ireland (disambiguation) etc. By doing so I would suggest to keep the wiki page named simply Macedonia linked and identical with Macedonia(disambiguation) page so no one vandals takes advantage of the situation. If some Admin can help renaming the page, than you.Alex Makedon (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Makedon (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some syntax ajustments

  • Keeping both Macedonia(Greece) and Greek Macedonia is saying the same information twice.

Furthermore there it is clearly stated that it is "a region of Greece" so it's unnecessary to use the word Greece three times in the same sentence in the same context. If there is a reason for doing so plz state it, if not im doing the correction. thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have underlined in bold the issue, mainly the different sintax fotmula and context of the homogeneous terms Agean Pirin and Vardar Macedonia. So its best to work out a single formula for Agean Pirin and Vardar Macedonia.Alex Makedon (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia is not "known" as Aegean Macedonia, it is referred as such by Slavomacedonian nationalists.--   Avg    17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Before stating unverified POV and Greek lies-propaganda about "nationalists", "irridentism" take a look at Britannica. [9] "The ensuing treaty in 1913 assigned the southern half, or “Aegean Macedonia,” to Greece and most of the northern half “Vardar Macedonia” to Serbia; a much smaller portion, “Pirin Macedonia,” went to Bulgaria"

As i have stated before, read above, since both Vardar and Pirin Macedonia are stated in the article and dont seem to be "problematic" there is no plausible reason to exclude the term Aegean Macedonia or to consider it "problematic".Alex Makedon (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I would be surprised if the treaty mentions "Aegean", "Vardar" and "Pirin" Macedonia. In fact I would bet that it doesn't. Just a reminder, the fact that you were taught in your schools that Greek Macedonia is "Aegean" Macedonia, doesn't mean that everybody else was taught the same or that this is an accepted term in scientific literature.--   Avg    19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

@Makedon, we don't go by some "single formula", we go by what is the simplest for readers. The things that you are bolding do actually suffice. @Avg, cut the crap. "Aegean Macedonia" has been used in English without irredentist or nationalist connotations. Remember, this is a dab page, not your retarded forum. BalkanFever 05:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's google it... Aegean Macedonia 25.500 results Greek Macedonia 57.400 results and Macedonia (Greece) 285.000 results. If you will check the links that google results give from "Aegean Macedonia" you will see were the majority of the sources are ;-) --xvvx (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
BF, I know it's difficult to grasp there's a difference, but "used in English" means by English scholars, not by your usual weirdo pals.--   Avg    11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, this is a dab page, so let's keep the "also known as" crap to a minimum, shall we? --Tsourkpk (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jochen Abr. Frowein, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1997, p. 239. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998.

Denes nad Makedonija but not Makedonia ksakousti?

Shouldn't this be an either both or none thing? My personal preference would be none. In fact, this may be a more general question, are we supposed to mention expressions/names that simply include Macedonia or only articles named Macedonia (obviously with the relevant qualifiers)?. I'm leaning towards the second so neither anthem has any place in this disambig article.--   Avg    23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The basic difference is that Denes nad Makedonija is official national anthem of the Republic of Macedonia while Makedonia ksakousti is "often regarded as the unofficial anthem" of a region, or in other words Makedonia ksakousti is just a song. This said i dont mind the presence of this song in the Macedonia (disambiguation) page if a consensus if found that the information is not obsolete or irrelevant. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You've brought up some very good questions. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)? --Tesscass (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out and in fact per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches: Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.--   Avg    22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia.

If the term is currently only used within FYROM, then why should it be mentioned in the term of Macedonia in Greece? I don't understand why we should pertinaciously come up with a term to accompany the other informal terms of Vardar and Pirin? This is stupid. The neighbouring countries of Greece don't know how to kill their spare time and chop and bag hellenic terms. Others say Aegean is within Asia, others say Aegean is the coast of Macedonia. After this, I wouldn't be surprised to see a term such as Attica as southern Albania due to the Arvanites that resided around. Geography has gained a new dimension, in the negative sense. They should probably open up their geography books (of the international literature I mean) before editing in wikipedia. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a term used in Britannica, among the other sources, in relation to the 1913 division of the Region Macedonia between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria, Aegean, Vardar and Pirin Macedonia accordingly.This term has nothing to do with present day Republic of Macedonia, and is not currently used only by Republic of Macedonia. So i dont see a place for concern. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you mention another country that uses the term? --Hectorian (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This is of course false, these terms were not in use in 1913 since they were invented three decades later. It's even mentioned in our own article here.--Avg (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"The origins of the term seem to be rooted in the mid 1940s" this is pretty convincing. Before 1913 this territory had a name hadn't it? Before this territory became "Greek Macedonia" it had a name didn't it? Alex Makedon (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess, these were probably the names Alexandar Makedonski himself had chosen?--Avg (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
No he just slaughtered the real Hellens. Alex Makedon (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Now you show your real face and why you want so desperately to change some articles dude... i'm sorry for you! --xvvx (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I knew I can always count on you to make my case.--Avg (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently ancient history is not your great, is it? As for "your case" i think you are the only one to see this "case". Alex Makedon (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop. Now. BalkanFever 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia is not mainly used by Republic of Macedonia, there are 7530 results for Aegean Macedonia by Google Scholar [10] just very few of them are from Republic of Macedonia. Alex Makedon (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, there are only 223: The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
223 International sources on Aegean Macedonia is in clear contrast with "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia". Alex Makedon (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Most are from RoM. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
its a fact that most are international, any way its clearly not mainly Republic of Macedonia sources.Alex Makedon (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There are also 291 for "Yugoslav Macedonia", shall we add that to the article as well??? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Google Scholar also gives 4,080 results for FYROM and about 7,000 for "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Shall we rename the respective article? --Hectorian (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The question is "Is the term Aegean Macedonia used mainly in Republic of Macedonia", the answer: No, since we have Britannica and many other Google Scholar 223 non Republic of Macedonia sources that use this term. About the use of the term Republic of Macedonia, Google Scholar with 12,600 results is pretty clear about the name: Republic of Macedonia 12,600 results "Republic+of+Macedonia"&btnG=Search Alex Makedon (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is irrelevant here Hectorian, and you know that. BalkanFever 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What I know is that the country's name is relevant in all related articles. --Hectorian (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In terms of the topic of section. BalkanFever 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The topic is linked to FYROM. Had the naming dispute never arisen, this discussion wouldn't have occured. --Hectorian (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
linked topic or not, the main issue is Aegean Macedonia, and as i have showed above its not a term used mainly in Republic of Macedonia.Alex Makedon (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Mainly it is used in/by FYROM; and this is obvious by the results. Of the first 50 results almost half are either from FYROM or have a slavic name (i cannot distunguish whether it is a Skopjean or a Bulgarian though). Also, note that there are about 10 results concerning Greek authors; if you take a closer look, you will realise that the term "Aegean Macedonia" is placed either in quotes or in parenthesis. This obviously means that the term is rejected and used in the said book only in order to show how FYROM calls the region. --Hectorian (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"Of the first 50 results almost half are either from FYROM or have a slavic name" your statement just goes in favor of the fact that the term Aegean Macedonia is not mainly used by Republic of Macedonia, since the word mainly significates "for the most part; principally" so it means at least 70% or more. Almost 50% cannot be descibed by the term mainly. Alex Makedon (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced that "Athens does not raise issue" with the term "Aegean Macedonia", so the term cannot be considered "offensive" or whatever. The Greeks have absolutely no problem disambiguating their own part, especially by means of an also Greek qualifier ("Aegean"). You see, not all ethnic groups in the neighborhood suffer from disambiguation allergy! Therefore, there is no problem with the term itself, but only with its irredentist use (so even if the term was different, the problem would be the same). "Aegean" is also indeed used in English scholarship and I honestly don't give a shit as a Greek either. Neither should any of my compatriots. NikoSilver 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually this has been one of the proposed solutions to the naming issue, let Republic of Macedonia be renamed Vardar Macedonia and Greek Macedonia be renamed Aegean Macedonia and voila, here's your solution. As far as I know, Greece has not objected to such a partition, even if it is a quite recent (mid-fourties as we said above) naming and even if it was probably created for sinister means. And in fact I myself can happily accept it. But it failed and guess which part rejected it. When for so many years non Greeks have been labelling themselves as "Aegean" Macedonians, there is a serious contradiction if the term Aegean is used for the Greek part of Macedonia, which is inhabited by Greeks, bar a few thousands. If Greek Macedonia is referred as "Aegean" Macedonia then "Aegean" Macedonians becomes a qualifier characterizing Greeks. At the same time, inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia should be "Vardar Macedonians". And this was problematic for the side that wants to monopolize all Macedonia-related terms. Because currently, according to RoM's view, and correct me if I'm wrong, Vardar Macedonians are exclusively Slav Macedonians, Aegean Macedonians are exclusively Slav Macedonians, Pirin Macedonians are exclusively Slav Macedonians and even plain Macedonians are exclusively Slav Macedonians. So to sum up my view on this, I don't have a problem accepting Aegean Macedonia to refer to Greek Macedonia, but only if Aegean Macedonians is a term that also refers to a Greek population. Otherwise we just feed irredentist dreams.--Avg (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Appart from the name dispute off topic part, it seems that we all pretty much agree that the term Aegean Macedonia is not mainly used in/by Republic of Macedonia.Alex Makedon (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us be more clear: the term "Aegean Macedonia" is mainly used in/by FYROM. No other country or scholars of other countries use it more than those in FYROM. Obviously, it is not strictly limited in FYROM, and that's I suppose what you mean. --Hectorian (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
oh dear here we go again, Hecto even your compartiots have agreed that the term Aegean Macedonia is not mainly used in/by Republic of Macedonia, Google Scholar prooves it [11], you have agreed too with "Of the first 50 results almost half are either from FYROM or have a slavic name" (less than 50% is not mainly), Britannica uses this term, what more you want? And for christ's sake this "mainly" statement is not that relevant on a disambiguation page. Alex Makedon (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You're mixing two things. The discussion above was whether Greece officially finds the term offensive. The assumption that Greece might be prepared to accept such a naming for Greek Macedonia even if the name was created in RoM and used in RoM rather shows how much they want to get over this dispute and has nothing to do with the fact that the term has no scholarly use outside RoM. But getting more into the article itself, why RoM is not "also referred to" as Vardar Macedonia, but the latter is just "a geographical region that mostly overlaps" the Republic? --Avg (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear again lame arguments, ppl really dont know what to do with their time ths days... What Greece "accepts" or not is not relevant to this wikipedia page, so its off topic. I have showed that the term is not "invented" or mainly used by Republic of Macedonia in several occasions till now. what evidence to support this "mainly used by Republic of Macedonia" have you presented? The state Republic of Macedonia cannot be "also referred to" as the region Vardar Macedonia, one is a state name other is a region name, note the difference? To make things even clearer: The region Greek Macedonia is also named as the region Aegean Macedonia; The state Republic of Macedonia is not also named the region Vardar Macedonia, so we can just say that the region overlaps this state; Alex Makedon (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So you are you prepared to say that Greek Macedonia is Aegean Macedonia but you're not prepared to say that Republic of Macedonia is Vardar Macedonia? Did I get this part right? This is just another proof of what's going on here. --Avg (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
work on the difference between regions and states, its not that hard to understand Alex Makedon (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't grasp yet that Greek Macedonia is not a region but an official province split into three peripheries? There is no difference at all. Both are equally official. So if Greek Macedonia "can be referred to" as Aegean Macedonia, so the Republic "can be referred to" as Vardar Macedonia. Same thing. The fact that you do not want it to be the same thing speaks volumes about your motives. Unless of course you agree that Aegean Macedonia is "a geographical region that mostly overlaps" Greek Macedonia.--Avg (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A new term now "official province", official are the regional administrative divisions-peripheries and we don't talk about them. We talk about the region Macedonia (Greece) familiarize with it, "Makedonía (Greece), is a geographical and historical region of Greece". And Wikipedia is not about what I or you "want", its about how it is, and we have international sources and evidence that the region is also called Aegean Macedonia. Alex Makedon (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well I'd appreciate if you spared the patronizing, coming from you it just borders the surreal, now what is your problem again that RoM is also referred to as Vardar Macedonia? Is this part of your quest to prove that RoM is more "established" or "legitimate" than Greek Macedonia? --Avg (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Avg that you got the point perfectly! For my part, all I can say is that "RoM" believes its more "established" in international affairs; but Macedonia (and simple as that), in scholarly historical records since antiquity, refers exclusively to what Wikipedia chose to call "Greek Macedonia" and its inhabitants. Sorry FYROM... I know since long ago that in the back of your mind you have claims on history and territory, but they are never gonna be materialized... --Hectorian (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that's because it isn't. Nobody ever calls the country "Vardar Macedonia". Most people call it Macedonia, or if need be Republic of Macedonia or "FYROM" (and variants thereof). Vardar Macedonia always refers to an area. BalkanFever 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And who you think calls Macedonia "Aegean"? Certainly not most people in the world. --Hectorian (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Let it be noted once more that the same people who advocate for Greek Macedonia to be called Aegean, do not want Republic of Macedonia to be called Vardar. Now please everybody draw your conclusions.--Avg (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not about what I want. Just telling it like it is. BalkanFever 04:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Like it is where? The only place where "Aegean" has prominence and "Vardar" has not (for the usual irredentist reasons) is RoM. In Greece no term of the two has prominence. In third party scholarly references, it is only marginally mentioned. And where it is, whoever mentions the terms, mentions both (actually all three), one to refer to the state, the other to refer to the Greek province and the third to refer to the Bulgarian one, including your beloved Britannica reference. Again, it speaks volumes that this whole discussion is about Greek Macedonia to be referred to as "Aegean", however God forbid if RoM is to be referred as "Vardar".--Avg (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Easy on the ouzo, matey. Britannica refers to the area of the larger region that was incorporated to Serbia as "Vardar Macedonia", not the state. Try using this next time. BalkanFever 08:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why, thank you. This is exactly what it says for Aegean Macedonia as well. So again, why treat them differently? Either both are regions, or both are official entities.--Avg (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
We dont, Vardar Macedonia and the Greek part of the Macedonia (region) also known as the region Aegean Macedonia are all regions and we all treat them in the same way. Republic of Macedonia is not a region, its a state, so the state cannot be "also known as" the geographical/historical region Vardar Macedonia. To make the absurdity of your requests even clearer it equals to insisting that the region Apennine Peninsula is an alternative name for the Italian Republic, one is geographical/historical region and the other is a state, note the difference? Alex Makedon (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The Italian example is irrelevant. The Republic of Italy also includes Sicily, Sardinia and the area north of the Po Valley, that is not part of the Apennine Peninsula. Don't just throw an example, even if its case is much different. Macedonia is not just a region; it is a province in almost all senses, with its own regional flag and anthem. But, if we are about to use Aegean Macedonia next to Macedonia in this disamb page, we should also use Vardar Macedonia next to FYROM. Geographically speaking, both second terms match roughly to the first terms. Historically, both terms were born (or invented, if you prefer), at about the same time (if not by the same people as well). Including the one, while ommitting the other, is simple POV-pushing. --Hectorian (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Same as Apennine Peninsula vs Italian Republic, Vardar Macedonia does not coincide perfectly with the Republic of Macedonia borders so its a perfect example that shows the absurdity of your POVs. "Including the one, while ommitting the other", all the regional names Aegean, Pirin and Vardar Macedonia are there, omitting what? Talking about POV pushing, do you have any evidence that the Republic of Macedonia is also known by the name region Vardar Macedonia? Till you have this evidence please refrain from pushing POV.Alex Makedon (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The same source you have quoted; Encyclopedia Britannica. --Hectorian (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL... Who mentioned the Italian Peninsula (aka Apennine Peninsula) as an example? Actually Italy sets a fantastic example for the case. See also Italy (disambiguation). Maybe the country should be called "Vardaria" and the people "Vardarians" then, to follow the same logic? (according to Alex, of course...) NikoSilver 11:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a list of countries other than RoM that officially use the term "Aegean Macedonia" to refer to Greek Macedonia and then let's talk about it again. Till then we keep it just. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Who cares what "countries" do, "officially"? People use names. And yes, people seem to be using "Aegean Macedonia" pretty much all over the place. – About the other issue, of how "Vardar M." doesn't equal "RoM" the same way "Aegean M." equals "Greek M.", I agree with Alex and BalkanFever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And who cares about minor (and quite insignificant in this case) geographical or geo-political deviations? People use to equate (name) the so-called Vardar region with Southern Serbia, then political SFR Macedonia then FY/ROM. Within the republic and out if it. Even academics do so now. --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, common usage varies from country to country. In particular, all the three names Aegean Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia, and Pirin Macedonia have been, and are used in Bulgaria, in referring to Greek Macedonia, to Republic of Macedonia (since 1991; to Serbian Macedonia and the intermediate entities before that), and to Blagoevgrad Province respectively. Apcbg (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing evidence/sources about "mainly used by Republic of Macedonia" POV

The last consensus from 12:10, 12 November 2008 was interrupted with the POV edit "term mainly used by Republic of Macedonia"[12], with no evidence/sources submitted about this personal User:The Cat and the Owl opinion. Instead of making lame revert wars and disruptive editing with unsourced POV please submit evidence. Till then this page will be as the last consensus from 12:10, 12 November 2008. Thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut back

Actually, since the details are so absurdly contentious, I'm proposing a radical cut back of the entries. It's a dab page, folks. There are only three terms that need to be listed here. Only three terms that a person can mean when they say "Macedonia": Either the whole Macedonia (region), or Macedonia (Greece), or Republic of Macedonia. That's all. All the sub-units, synonyms, parts and whatnot don't belong here, they belong in the main articles Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (terminology). This one's a dab page, and should not try to be more than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Four terms not three, actually. Pirin Macedonia is also Macedonia. Apcbg (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It is part of Macedonia, but I'm not aware of anybody using the term "Macedonia" to refer only to it, to the exclusion of the others. Interestingly, Bulgarian editors have pressed long and hard to suppress almost any reference to "Pirin Macedonia" anywhere in the wiki, for some reason, that's why we don't even have an article for it. Those are the two reasons I don't see a need for a dab entry. Always remember, this is only a navigation help for people who have entered "Macedonia" in the search box, nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Keep it simple.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree too Dimorsitanos, KISS principle is actually what this article needs and i hope to stay that way. I believe it's the best version so far! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Re. Apcbg's revert [13]: Since you agree Blagoevgrad province isn't a disambiguation term for Macedonia, the link shouldn't be here. As per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation pages should contain only links to terms that are actual dab entries, i.e. things that a reader would expect to be referred to by the search term alone. Each entry in the dab list should only contain one such link. This is not the place for encyclopedic explanations about what exactly Macedonia (region) consists of; that remains for the actual articles to do. This page should only contain the minimum of information necessary for readers to understand what topic each of the entries is going to deal with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, link removed. Apcbg (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

I believe we should add and the Macedonians that live in Macedonia (Greece) and diaspora on the article. We can't deny the existence of the 2,5 million Greek Macedonians and the thousands of them living outside Greece. --xvvx (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not an ethnic group. BalkanFever 01:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
They are a large, notable regional group of people, with different ethno-linguistic affiliations. And this is and should be a sufficient reason to index them. --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
And, most crucially, they don't have an article of their own. This is not about denying or recognising groups, it's about directing readers to articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This group of people is referred to by outsiders and refers to itself as "Macedonian" (Makedones) i.e. Greek Macedonians. We can and should index them in the "People"'s section, directing to the relevant article, the relevant section again, up until we have enough material to split it (again), if there is a need or desire to do so. --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course these people are referred to as "Macedonians", just like Athenians are referred to as Athenians and Texans as Texans. That doesn't mean we need an extra article on them. Trivially, people from region X are treated in the article on region X, like everywhere else in this encyclopedia. And as long as that is so, readers will have no problem finding the information where it is, in the article on the region. As long as there is only one article, the dab page should contain only one entry for it, everything else is confusing. Please, people, stop treating dab pages as if they were a competition for the honour of highest visibility for your favourite national side, that's not what it is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well they used to, until someone thought it a good idea to get rid of them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There was nothing in the one article that wasn't also in the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure "ethnic group" would be the best way to describe the ancients, by the way. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too sure about that too. Why not use a simple, effective, accurate and "neutral" format as in <<Places --> People--> Languages--> Miscellanea etc with all their relevant subsections e.g. "Historical" entities? --157.228.x.x (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
"Ethnic groups" is restrictive. Why does a group of people have to qualify as an "Ethnic group" to fit in? Changing to "People". NikoSilver 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody did already. No problem with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Macedonians (Greek) redirect definitely fits in, regardless if the info is merged within the article for Macedonia (Greece). In many cases we insert redirects in dab pages, such as in Italy (disambiguation) where we include the Apennine Peninsula under its alternative name. NikoSilver 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Like so often, my sense of analogies differs from yours. Of course we could theoretically have an entry listed under a redirecting name rather than the ultimate article title. But not if the ultimate article title already has an entry on the same dab page. It's all a matter of ergonomics: if a reader clicks on two different entries in the dab page, they should end up on two different pages, everything else is counter-intuitive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
(By the way, Italian peninsula is in fact the actual article title, Appenine peninsula is a redirect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is very logical that someone can be searching for the Macedonians "proper" (LOL, you know I mean the Greeks!), and since this dab page is redirected to if you type Macedonians (simply), then obviously there must be an entry for them under "People", because that's where you'll be looking to (and not Miscellaneous, or Places or you name it, because they are irrelevant). Also, this is not the ..."Macedonia square" or my ..."Macedonian mother in law" for chrissake; it's 2.6 million living souls, more than half of the region's population. Another example is Sicilian people, where it says "look under Sicily#Demographics". Regardless, I don't believe it is counter-intuitive, or excessive, simply because there is a subsection for "People" in the dab, and it takes quite an effort to suppose that they may be listed in a Demographics section of a province's article. I wouldn't call the people facing such a difficulty non-intuitive. NikoSilver 11:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The Sicily example you give is one of the most useless dab pages I've seen in a while, definitely not a model to follow, but in any case, not even that page does what you want to do here and what I keep vehemently opposing: having two entries from two different places of the same dab page ultimately pointing into the same article. I imagine myself as a reader: I first click on the *[[Macedonians (Greek)]] link and am led into a subsection of some larger page. I read it, then go back to the dab page and click on another entry which seems to be about a related topic, *[[Macedonia (Greece)]]. I start reading that page, and suddenly I find: dang, I've been here before, this is the same page I've already read, Wikipedia has sent me around in circles. I'd be pissed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
And please, please, please, for heaven's sake, stop treating these questions as if they depended on how "important" a group is or how "worthy of an entry". They may be 2.6 million or 20 million, a reader will still easily understand that the inhabitants of a region are treated in the article on the region. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Are youse done indenting? BalkanFever 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Niko and myself does be indenting as much as we want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Calm down bre choek! BalkanFever 12:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So if you typed Macedonians simply, then you'd search under "People", then not find the people you want, then assume "ah, they must be listed under some kind of province because I am all so familiar with the wiki how-to stuff", then look under "places", then assume that the Macedonians you were searching for are in Greece's part because you are also familiar with the greatest ethnic group mix ever, then exclaim yourself as "intuitive" and call all others idiots for not knowing that (a) we list people under places and (b) the Macedonians you were searching for don't exist anywhere else except the particular place, and the particular section of that place! Nice! NikoSilver 12:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've added a note at the section to help Niko overcome his confusion. Seriously though, I doubt this is really ever an issue. Wiki-induced emotional fixation on this particular group aside, when was the last time anybody here ever tried to look up "Texans" or "Illinoians" or "Thessalians" or "North-Rhine-Westphalians" or "Parisians"? Readers just don't do that. Readers know, before they type in the search box, that inhabitants of places are treated in the articles about the places. Why would anybody expect that this particular group has something so special to it, over and above the fact that it lives in that region, that it would have its own article? Inhabitants of geographical regions normally don't even constitute an interesting topic at all, because they typically have nothing interesting in common except precisely the geographical facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To give you a sense of the proportions, this dab page gets about 1000 hits per day. The Macedonians redirect gets between 20 and 30 a day, world-wide. And I bet the overwhelming majority of those are people looking for the ethnic group, not the Greeks. "Greek Macedonians" gets around 5. Republic of Macedonia ends up with 3000+, and Macedonia (Greece) with hardly one tenth of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Great stats! Where from? NikoSilver 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
http://stats.grok.se/. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Could it be that people are misled due to our lousy dab page? :-) NikoSilver 15:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that the combined sum of the hit rates of the articles themselves is a lot higher than the hit rate of the dab page, I conclude most people must get there through other means, probably through direct article links mostly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying we should {{main}}-out the Macedonians (Greek) again? BTW how disappointing that the history of the stats goes back to November 2007, when we merged them on October 2007! We can't see how many were the hits on equal grounds! NikoSilver 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, those stats are so low for all relevant articles, they could very well result from the editors themselves! Even our proud terminology article gets 300 hits per day... I guess the world doesn't give a rat's ass for all this! This alone shows how stupid all of us are to deal with them in the first place, not to mention edit war over them etc! NikoSilver 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into an article again

Keep it short. Keep it to the minimum. This page has only one single function: send a reader to the right place when they have entered "Macedonia" into the search box. This is not an encyclopedia article.

  1. No double entries. One target article, one list entry.
  2. No lengthy explanations. Only the minimum of what is necessary for the reader to understand which entity each article is about. No further encyclopedic information about that entity.
  3. No synonyms or alternative names, except as needed for identification under #2. The purpose of this page is only to tell them that something called "M" is treated in article M (foo), not whatever other names that something also goes under.
  4. Nothing that requires footnotes. If you need a footnote in a dab page, you are doing something terribly wrong.
  5. Only entries for entities that are actually called Macedonia or Macedonian, tout seul. Not things that are parts of Macedonia, attributes of Macedonia, connected to Macedonia. (For geographical items, the test is: If you heard somebody say a sentence starting with, "All of Macedonia was ...", could they possibly mean X?)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really buy into that "keep it to the maxima-bare minimum" mentality with regards to this and many other dab pages. What is minimum here? Should we say "HMS Macedonian a British frigate captured by the United States in the War of 1812"? Or a British frigate captured in the War of 1812, or a British frigate captured in war by the United States of America -or just United States, or U.S.A, or U.S.-, a British frigate captured in 1812 by the United States, or ..., or a British frigate in the 19th century, or a defunct British frigate, or a British frigate, should we specify it was British after all or just a frigate, or a ship?
This is not an encyclopaedia article, that is true but something just don't look right when a modern Slavic language which few people started to call "Macedonski" about 100 years ago is grouped together with the ancient Macedonian tongue and their only differentiation qualifier is that the latter is extinct. Both are Indo-European languages after all. We should use the Slavic affiliation for the former (as we do) and the Greek affiliation for the latter.
  1. On #1 #2 . No double entries, yes. One list entry, yes. One target article, no. One relevant section and/or subsection (within an article), yes. We can and we do so frequently in various dab pages. One thing is Macedonia (Greece) and another the Macedonians (Greek). We had them separately, we can still separate them , we can source reliably the information. People used it, people use it, we should use it. Same goes for the language section.
  2. On #4. I hate footnotes in dab pages or other dab tools or text. Nevertheless I have used them mostly by following suit with other editors, or trends, or in desperate need to treat the exceptional. Get them out of here.
  3. On #5. I think something different when I call for 'attributions' with regards to ethno-linguistic groups but I see what you mean. No entries for "Macedonian Halva" (Greek Macedonian halva brand) or "Macedonian Radio Television" (MRT, state broadcaster of FY/ROM). Sure. The quest by some editors to squeeze as many entries as possible was so comical, that bordered tragic.
  4. On #3 (partial #5) Last but not least, who are the Macedonian Slavs? Are they called just Macedonians? Are they the same with the Slav Macedonians or the attribute Slav or Slavic and its position denotes something different? Are they the same as the Macedonians (ethnic group) or a Russian in Macedonia (whatnot) is a Macedonian Slav hence a Macedonian (ethnic group) hence a Macedonian? Putting aside the charade orchestrated to change its name and lock its position, we used to have the entry of the ethnic group in [[Macedonian Slavs]] for years. Yes this is not the Slav/Ethnic Macedonians article but I really do not see any problem at all using something like "Macedonians (ethnic group) aka Macedonian Slavs, the Slavic ..." (not just Slavic-speaking) since it is denoting both ethnic and linguistic affiliations. We lose next to nothing in terms of verbal brevity, we gain much in clarity and usability. We should strive here for conciseness (i.e. direct, brief, prompt but also clear, succinct and accurate) not just brief. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong about the current solution "Macedonians (ethnic group), the modern Slavic-speaking ethnic group"? Answer me this: what reader, on seeing this entry, could possibly fail to understand which of the possible referents is meant by it? That's all that matters. About the Macedonians (Greek) target, I still maintain, no dab entry as long as it's not a separate article, and no separate article as long as there's no reason for having one. What would such an article contain that couldn't just as well be said in the geography article? I've never heard a proposal for that. I get the distinct impression some people want to have an article only so that they have a pretext for linking to it. They don't want the article, they only want the cheap symbolic satisfaction of seeing their favourite term marked in blue colour. That's the mentality I will continue to oppose. You guys need to stop evaluating such editorial decisions as if they were symbolic badges of recognition of some entity's real-life importance. They are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The reader that has no understanding whatsoever about the ethnolinguistic affiliations of the groups in the wider region, and that would generally include the vast majority of the lay-users. The possibly pre-teen or teenage user who did not hear about the "Slav Macedonian" terminology, who have no clue that even though a "Macedonian Slav" can generally mean a person of Slavic ethnolinguistic affiliations (e.g. a Russian, a Bulgarian, a Slovak) who originates for the Macedonia (whatnot) is considered different to an "Macedonian Slav" in the sense of an "Ethnic Macedonian" [i.e. Macedonian (ethnic group)]. Perhaps a 10-12-year-old child from say Sweden, much like [this] who deemed it as NPOV to use the Makedonski name for "Alexander den store". What's wrong with using "Macedonians (ethnic group) a.k.a. Macedonian Slavs, a Slavic ethnic groups associated with ROM". Why restrict this entry only to the linguistic aspect and not treat the ethnic one, concisely? --157.228.x.x (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not the task of this page to teach people what "Macedonian Slavs" are or in what sense they are an ethnic group. That's for the article to do. The entry on this page is only for readers who (a) already know that they want to read about the ethnic group (which entails they already know about its existence), and (b) have typed simply "Macedonian" in the search box, being perhaps unaware of what other meanings exist or too lazy to guess how we'd handle the exact titling. The only task this entry has to achieve is to tell this class of readers: yes, click here, this is where you wanted to go. Nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Should we not mention that Macedon is called also "Macedonia"? Should we also remove that "or Upper Macedon" for the Australian mountain town? You haven't answered me why we are doing a disservice to our lay users (I do not use that to degrade them, I just feel that the vast majority simply is unaware of these issues and justifiably so) or to this project in the sense of misusing this disambiguation tool (dab page). What is wrong with "Macedonians (ethnic group) a.k.a. Macedonian Slavs, a Slavic ethnic group mainly associated with ROM"? --157.228.x.x (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
In the "Upper Macedon" case, we need the a.k.a. in order to motivate why the entry is here in the first place. "Macedonians (ethnic group) a.k.a. Macedonian Slavs, a Slavic ethnic group" is wrong because it is stupidly redundant. And please don't resume any silly semantic games about "Russians who happen to live in Macedonia"; nobody is going to be confused by those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope everyone (bar the perennial irritants) is satisfied with my editing suggestions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm still missing the Greek Macedonians. Say someone encounters the Pan-Macedonian Association and wonders what kind of Macedonians these people are and types Macedonians in Wikipedia. Is she going to find her answer? The Prime Minister of Greece claimed he's a Macedonian along with 2.5 million people in his now famous statement. What kind of Macedonian is that?--Avg (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be a very stupid reader indeed if they didn't understand that "Macedonian" referred to 'people of Macedonia'. The reader must then pick their choice of which of "Macedonia (foo)", "Macedonia (bar)" or "Macedonia (baz)" matches best - just the same as if the dab page offered different entries for "Macedonians (foo)", "Macedonians (bar)" and "Macedonians (baz)", where the reader would have the same problem. Just the same if they were searching for "New Yorkers", "Congolese" or "Georgians", indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked there was no bordering Slavic (or whatnot) ethnic group called "New Yorkers"! The "Congolese" and the "Georgians" that you mentioned are indeed very good examples. Check their links. In the end, what is this? A pissing contest against mentioning Greek Macedonians? NikoSilver 10:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is a pissing contest for cramming in Greek Macedonians, on the parts of certain people, am I right? And you have still not provided an example of a well-done dab page that does two separate entries leading into the same target article, have you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[undent] I have. Check the first three entries in the Georgians. Even the second bullet is descriptive for "a citizen of Georgia", and it provides a list of related articles for information on those citizens, like as if the readers are dumb and can't understand that a demographics article will exist on the country. I suppose the existence of the "citizens of Georgia" (while there' already a link to the Georgian people, and to Georgia itself) is more important information? But of course, every other page on WP has to be a lot more relaxed than this one! Here we invent all sorts of rules in order to hide the darn link on the Greek Macedonians that we managed to sweep under their province's carpet. Had I known this, I wouldn't have agreed to merge them back then. And right now I seriously don't. You tricked me. NikoSilver 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Come off it. The "Georgian" dab page was extremely poorly done (a certain user had recently messed it up along with many other nation dab pages), but it still wasn't doing what you claim it did. The entry for "a citizen of Georgia" did not contain an extra link into an already-covered article. (The page did contain a huge lot of other redundant links within the explanations, but that's something that's expressly against WP:MOSDAB anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
And, sorry, wanting to have an article solely so that you have a pretext for linking to it is simply childish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Rational compromise: We let the adjective (Macedonian, which now incorrectly redirects here) be on its own like it was before and like it is applicable in most other adjectives in WP. Then there will be just people and languages, so there won't be a "repetition" of the link on Greece's region. You or me? NikoSilver 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Would still have the same problem: necessarily two separate entries for the red team (one "anything related to the RoM" and one "ethnic group"), but only one entry for the blue team. Likewise a language entry for the red team ("M. language"), but no corresponding entry for the blue team. (Varieties of Modern Greek has next to nothing specifically about Macedonian dialects rather than geenerally northern ones.) 3:1 for the red team. Oh the injustice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yay! :) BalkanFever 11:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(But pssst, I gave the Greeks a cookie for consolation. Let's see if anybody notices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC))
I hear they are more partial to halva BalkanFever 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Expect the usual bevy of macadamia nuts to roast themselves to a crisp over the latest version. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Walnuts go better with taratur. BalkanFever 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not mix nuts with nuts please! :-) NikoSilver 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Or brushes with... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonians (religious group)

... should not be grouped among the others because they weren't actually named after, or connected with, the region in any way. They were just named after a guy who happened to be called Macedonius. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ungroup it if you think, but this Macedonius lived then (4th century AD) and there (the Late Roman Empire, not the diocese, I mean), didn't he? Similarly, the Macedonian dynasty did not rule just the Macedonian theme (under which it is listed), but the whole of the Byzantine Empire; and that shouldn't change either IMO. The only difference is the one has a parenthesized "(Byzantine theme)" in its title, while the other doesn't have a parenthesized "(Late Roman Christian sect)", -which probably it should, but we anyway specify in the black text that follows. NikoSilver 15:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the fact that the dynasty's name originates from the theme, while the sect's name doesn't, is indeed a difference; but the similarity is (a) in the timeframe and (b) the general entity (the LateRom/Byz empires) under which each respective subdivision (diocese or theme) existed. How do we weigh these things? Thoughts, anyone? NikoSilver 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Putting the religious group under the name of the Roman theme is a scandalous POV maneuvre and unfair to the followers of Macedonius, who are thus presented as if they had been an uncouth bunch of provincials restricted to some outlying fringe part of the Empire. In fact, putting all the geographic entries on top is a shameless act of misappropriation and monopolisation of the name, at the cost of an even-handed presentation of the Pneumatomachian issue, which has a far older and better claim to the term "Macedonian dispute" than all those Johnnie-come-lately pseudo-ethnic conflicts of later centuries that people are so preoccupied with here. Pneumatomachians demand fair treatment and due attention to the intricacies of their Homoioousian beliefs. Just because Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards Homoousian, so-called "orthodox" (!? hah!) creeds, doesn't mean you can just sweep the true and only Macedonians under the table like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
How dare you attempt to spread your deplorable heresy to our unsuspecting neophytes? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I mean this is some serious excommunication material. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WT...?

I'm gone for a week and a huge edit war happens, on the Macedonia dis. page! MY GOD PEOPLE!!! Anyways, I changed it back to how it looked before (from what I remember). Seriously, don't edit war about something as little as a dis. page. Mactruth (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not participate in this discussion as anything else, but an observer, but I can't help it and ask you something. Why did you say something like "don't edit war about something as little as a dis. page." after which you jump right into it? --Laveol T 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice argument Laveol, "jumping" into it would mean I was EDITING IT TO MAKE IT BIASED, which I have not been doing... instead ordering it based on time to make it more neutral. The reason I stated that was because the dis. page seemed to satisfy everyones taste for a while, since it had not been edited for a while. Then an editer made it biased, undoing that persons actions is not "jumping into it" but rather, correcting the persons mistake. Mactruth (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Now it me ask you something, why do ask questions you know the answers too? Do you purposely instigate? Mactruth (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Your telling me that an edit which put Ottoman Macedonia, Byzantine Macedonia, and Roman Macedonia under the "Macedonia (Greece)" column (thus making it exclusively Greek) is fair? It seems you should be asking why the editor changed it in the first place, instead of constantly finding ways to instigate me. Mactruth (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone believes the page needs work, please state what you think needs changing. Mactruth (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You said "Your telling me that an edit which put Ottoman Macedonia, Byzantine Macedonia, and Roman Macedonia under the "Macedonia (Greece)" column (thus making it exclusively Greek) is fair?". I agree 1000000000% with that, just like you should agree with the fact that the Ancient Macedonians and the Macedon kingdom belong to the Greek heritage. We can make a separate category about Ottoman Macedonia, Byzantine Macedonia, and Roman Macedonia.

You are also talking about neutrality, but as i can see in your profile you are using the Vergina Sun and i see your beliefs about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mactruth#On_the_Vergina_Sun this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mactruth#How_propaganda_works and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mactruth#Macedonia_and_Macedonians_speak_Slavonic_in_1630.2C_and_the_Greek_language_is_nearly_extinct So please stop talking about neutrality... first try to be neutral yourself, so that the others can respect your opinions! ;-)

P.S. And please stop editing all the time, first discuss it here and if it's acceptable then it can be changed. --xvvx (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sakis, before I comment... you stated for me to be neutral, then state "the Ancient Macedonians and the Macedon kingdom belong to the Greek heritage" which makes your view biased also. Many historians state the kingdom of Macedonia wasn't Greek, but then again there are some who state that Macedonia was Greek. The fact that the articles express only one view shows how politically incorrect Wikipedia can be. In either case, putting ancient Macedonia under "Macedonia (Greece)" would state there was continuity between the two, when really Macedonia was a Slavic state before 1913. It doesn't matter what my opinion was, I didn't intend to say Macedonia was or wasn't Greek... that's the point of chronological arrangement - chronological arrangement doesn't suggest what it was, but when it was, therefore keeping it neutral). Mactruth (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And about my opinions on my home page, your welcome to comment on them in my discussion. Its not my view more then it is statements about facts, which you are welcome to contend. If you have a source showing that a statement of mine was wrong, I'll change my opinion. But saying things like "many Macedonian fighters were from Crete" isn't biased, its fact. Mactruth (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's the narrowness of your mind, I show you a source from 1630 clearly stating "Macedonians speak Slavic" and separate Macedonians from Bulgarians, because they later mention Bulgarians also speak Slavic, but instead of being interested in the manner and discussing it, you state "I have biased views" (you reject it because it doesnt have the same view as your own). It's not biased, its a document written in 1630. Mactruth (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys some objections: a. Is there any perticular reason not to include the Upper Macedonia article under macedon. It s an interesting piece of information completely neutral. So I will go on and add it under ancient macedon. b. The issues around the greek-ethnic macedonian dispute should not be allowed to stretch around historical facts. For instance, whether there was and ancient macedonian language distict from ancient greek prior to the 4th century is irrelevant. This is an issue regarding linguistics research of lost languages with no written form or written heritage. The fact remains that ancient macedonians adopted the greek language - first attic and later koine- since classical times. There is not a single writting monument in another language other than the greek one. What happened 2,500 years ago is not an argument. b. Samewise everybody speaks about the ultimate origins of ancient macedonians. Experts are discussing about this issue based mostly on arguments around a dubius hypothesis of an ancient macedonian language that left no written mouments and if so existed became extinct 2,500 years ago! The fact again remains that these people, the ancient macedonians self-determinded themselves Greeks since the 4th century BC. Again 2,500 years ago those people absorbed in Hellenism, should they were not greek themselves since the dawn of their existence. If you think that 2,500 years ago is not plenty of time to say that -irrespectively of their ultimate descent that came to be abandoned for certain 2 milleniums ago- ancient macedonia and macedonians were part of greek antiquity well... Melathron (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below in the next section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation entries

OK, I have removed "Nova Makedonija" and "Makedonsko Sonce" since these are not called locally or anywhere else plainly as "Macedonia" or "Macedonian", so they are not disambiguation entries. As for the "Upper Macedon" well I have some reserve over its non-inclusion, mainly because the inhabitants were or became part of the ancient Makhedones who gave their name to ancient region hence to the modern one and everything that comes along with it. (Ancient) "Upper Macedonians" are regarded by experts as Greek-speaking people after all. Please give your input on this one. And please do not add "Macedonian whatever" here; there are literally myriad notable "Macedonian or Macedonia” ‘whatnots’ both in FY/ROM and Macedonia (Greece) or in/from Greece in general. Some examples include the "Macedonian airlines" defunct Greek air-carrier, "Macedonia-Thrace Bank", "Ministry of Macedonia-Thrace", "Macedonian halva", "University of Macedonia" and notable publications as "Macedonian Voice- Makedoniki Foni" (not this Macedonian Voice, but the Greek one - if anyone is interested to know more just consult H. Poulton’s and L. M. Danforth‘s widely cited publications - ). And before someone starts to jump up and down about the Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine empire well these royal people were called the "Macedonians", plain; their article is in the "Macedonian dynasty" by our own convention. --157.228.x.x (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree on everything except "Upper Macedon". That one is a clear case for non-inclusion. It's a part of Ancient Macedonia. If we included it, we could just as well include every town or village or subregion of Macedonia, because they are all notable parts of it. It's entirely immaterial how important a part it was. It's as clear a case of just a "Macedonian whatever" as all the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
In a way I agree. But lay people from Upper Macedon (e.g. Lyncestians or Pelagonians) and notable historical figures from these regions became known as "Macedonians" as well. Yet before the incorporation of these land into the kingdom of Macedon many experts tend to describe them just as Greek-Speaking north western "tribal" people. --157.228.x.x (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
So what? Not getting your point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The point is that in a way upper Macedonians became "Macedonians" after ancient Macedonians (e.g. the people from Emathia, modern Pieria nomos). I see it as a "Macedonian dynasty" predicament, kind of. Hence, they may need a seperate entry here. --157.228.x.x (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's for the article to explain. In no way does it affect the function of the dab page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but one of our criteria is to include notable "Macedonians" who became known as Macedonians plain in so to direct our readers to their indented article of choice. If Upper Macedonians = ancient Macedonians = Macedonians, yet, perhaps not exactly as the archetypical "Makednoi" then why not include their entry under the "Ancient Macedonians"? Which brings me to another point. I think this merge tends to become highly problematic if not plainly controversial after all. I agree with User:NikoSilver here; it is preferable to split back the disambiguation entry for "Macedonian" in line with any other adjective of the kind within wikipedia. (BTW has anyone seen the (awful ?) entry for Bavarian and please spare me the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and any perceptions of "our", of "you guys", or "their" 'national pride' brouhaha). --157.228.x.x (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Splitting back would solve none of the (non-existing) problems we have here, it would only shift them elsewhere. The "Macedonian" page would still need to reduplicate every single entry of the "Macedonia" page (at least those from the core Balkan entries). It would be virtually identical to what this page is now. And it is still the case that nobody would ever say "Macedonians" and mean only and exclusively Upper Macedonians, so no, the page for Upper Macedonia is irrelevant in either context. If people's "intended article of choice" is Upper Macedonia, then they will have entered "Upper Macedonia" in the search box from the start; they'll never even pass through here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Of course there is. Well at least there is much higher probability for a student (in its specific and wider meaning of the word) of history or relative sciences or similar interests to look up for "Upper Macedonia" and/or "Upper Macedonians" (which its is not a common name after all) using just the search term "Macedonian" than to look for "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" having in mind the (obscure ?) village of Mount Macedon, Victoria, Australia [of 1,700 or so population]! No offence to "Mount Macedonians". As for shifting problems to another talk page, that's a non-issue. It is very moronic and naive to say that just because there are some issues we need to deal with the "Macedonian" disambiguation page, therfore we need to scrap that page all-together. For one, we can have any relevant conversations there as we do so here (now) and as we have done for years and years on. I think we need more input by other editors here because as it seems NikoSilver is spot-on. It has become a pissing-contest, not to have a disambiguation page for the adjective "Macedonian" in line with every other pertinent case within or without wikipedia. --157.228.x.x (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about the village in Australia, but still, a person could say "Macedon" and mean specifically and exclusively that village; also, a person might refer to that village as "Macedon" without even being aware other Macedons exist elsewhere, so yes, they will come here searching for it. (They'd be directed here from the hat note at the Macedon article.) But if somebody wants to know what "Upper Macedonia" is, they'll type "Upper Macedonia" in the search box, and if they don't, they can just as well go through Macedonia (region) or Macedon and be further directed from there to the sub-article. This is not a directory of links to subtopics. I still have no idea why you guys suddenly get so fixated on this one subtopic, it is no different than all the others. – As for the splitting, I have still heard nothing about what problem would be solved by that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Its just a bit of information worth including, I think as it is good to provide as much info as possible to a new reader that comes forward and search about the topic macedonia. Ithink it just fits to the idea of an encyclopedia. But equally its not a subject for prolonged disagreement. Melathron (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Split out "Macedon"?

Another thing, should we split out "Macedon (disambiguation)"? There are currently at least four entries that are called specifically "Macedon", and at least two of them are called only that and never "Macedonia" (namely, the places in the US and Australia). Plus, there's "Macedon" as a synonym for the guy we have at Makednos. So, a page Macedon (disambiguation) would have enough content to be meaningful.

Of course, I'm not saying that the entry for ancient Macedon should be removed from here, it would be listed in both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes more sense than the rest of today's suggestions. BalkanFever 12:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No shit Sherlocks :-) --Ninio (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow. So everything is just a vicious cycle. BalkanFever 13:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you had me wondering for a moment how that ages-old account found its way back to us so suddenly :-) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedon (satrapy)

Another thing: do we really need Macedon (satrapy)? It's a two-sentence stub, very poorly sourced, the only source it quotes doesn't even mention that it was a satrapy at all, and our treatment of the Greco-Persian wars claims that Macedon didn't become a satrapy but merely a client state (but implies it may have been a Persian province at some earlier date).

I have next to no knowledge about that period, and not much interest, so I can't really judge how much sense it all makes. But it looks like another instance of the same fallacy as the Macedonians (Greece): an article created not because there's something interesting and encyclopedic to be said about a topic, but merely for the sake of the POV satisfaction of being able to link to something from somewhere else (in this case, a template listing all the Achaemenid provinces). Can't this all be merged into Macedon itself? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Discuss about changing the "Macedonians (ethnic group) Persons from Republic of Macedonia or of Macedonian ancestry, instead as it's incorrect now as it reads Macedonians (ethnic group) a modern Slavic ethnic group, and politicaly influenced which is wrong to politiacly base articles on WIKI, there should still be a neutral point of view.

If you look at any other nation, there is Persons from * or of * ancestry. This is the correct point. There is small Slavic heritage in the Macedonian people but that doesn't mean it should read "a modern Slavic ethnic group". If so then there should be that statement on every other nation on WIKI. For Swedes, Norweigens, Danes.. there should read "a modern Viking ethnic group", for Germans, Austrians, Dutch.. there should read "a modern Germanic ethnic group", for Poles, Croates.. there should read "a modern Slavic ethnic group" and I can go on. But I wan't to point out that certain members on WIKI break the rules and wan't to use Slavic as anything that has to do with Macedonians. Nicoliani (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pirin Macedonia

I have also added Pirin Macedonia (Blagoevgrad Province), hence it is also a part of the geographical zone "Macedonia". Fireleaf (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion above, especially the section Cut back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
But Pirin Macedonia is also a part of Macedonia... isn't it? Fireleaf (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, we can call it Blagoevgrad Province... Fireleaf (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "part of". But not the whole. See what I wrote above. The test is: if you hear someone say "Macedonia" (as in: "I travelled from one end of Macedonia to the other"), could they mean exclusively and specifically Pirin Macedonia? No, they wouldn't. You get people saying "Macedonia" when they mean specifically the R.o.M., or when they mean specifically the Greek region, but not the Bulgarian bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, I am not Bulgarian and I don't care really that much, but that part of Bulgaria is a part of the geographical region Macedonia, and I think that it should be added to the article so that people know. Fireleaf (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, here's your mistake: This isn't an article. And it's not to make people know things. It's only a disambiguation page. It's for people who have typed "Macedonia" in the search box, and its function is only to direct them to the article they meant. If a person types "Macedonia" in the search box, they might mean either the Greek bit or the R.o.M. bitm or the whole of all three of them together. But never only the Bulgarian bit to the exclusion of the two others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, ok, ok, whatever... Fireleaf (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Fut's assumption is partly wrong. Indeed, as most of my Bulgarian friends point out -and I travel there a lot-, when Bulgarians say something like "I went to Macedonia yesterday", they mean that they went to their Macedonia, which we Anglophones call Pirin Macedonia or Blagoevgrad. Based on this, I'm not sure why it should not be listed. Shouldn't we just ask a few Bulgarian users here for confirmation? NikoSilver 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But that usage still falls under "I went to Macedonia", doesn't it? Let me put it this way: If they say "I travelled through all of Macedonia, from one end to the other", could they mean that they went from Blagoevgrad to Satovcha? (A Greek certainly could use that sentence to describe going from Kastoria to Kavala, and others could use it to describe going from Tetovo to Strumica.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right they wouldn't mean the whole of it, but your criterion is too strict. Reference to the word Macedonia is the key, not reference to the meaning behind the word. Certainly not all users can be psycho-analysts of what the particular Bulgarian guy meant when he simply said "I went to Macedonia yesterday". When they type here to see where tf that Bulgarian went they'll get a moutza instead of Blagoevgrad. NikoSilver 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
And aside from that, your criterion is unmeasurable. There are some Greeks who consider the wholeness of Macedonia to be equal to that of the region (including me and the Greek MFA). There are also very few Bulgarians who consider that the only Macedonia that exists is their own. At which percentage does the notion of wholeness of your "own" part merit inclusion in the dab page? And how are you going to measure that? NikoSilver 15:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the "moutza". The reader who wants to find out where the Bulgarian went will be lead to Macedonia (region), an article whose introduction will (or should) give them the most pertinent overview information possible, and will easily lead them on to Blagoevgrad if they require more detail. That's just as it should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You didn't explain why he will be lead specifically to the region article. He sees "most notably" above, he picks one of the two below. Anyway, I agree with the overall thinking of limiting the links, but Pirin should be the least of our concerns. In contrast with the minor bits in Albania and Serbia, it is definitely one of the most notable links. NikoSilver 11:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's probably not worth putting up a further fight about this, but it shouldn't be saying "most notably" in the first place [14]. The dab sentence is about linguistic reference, not about the state of the world and what's "notable" in it. It should be read as: X may refer to A ..., or specifically B, C, D (which is a statement about linguistic usage). It shouldn't be read as: X is ... divided between A ..., most notably B, C, D (which is a statement about the real world). It would have been better if the countries were already named in the first line, only that's difficult to do without a rather wordy anticipation of the following stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth I certainly don't feel taking part in a fight whenever I deal with you. :-) "Specifically"'s problem is that it has a limiting sense, and I'd be glad if there were a proposal other than my "most notably". Notability aside, our key element here is that the Bulgarian part is indeed referred to as plain "Macedonia", and as such it should be listed. NikoSilver 12:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Niko's reasoning; as a matter of fact I did try to point out that Pirin Macedonia ought to appear here but was rebuffed and didn't feel like fighting over that ... surely it would get fixed, later if not now. Apcbg (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Niko too. Now I think we need to address any issues regarding the [[Macedonian]] disambiguation page and its entries. I believe it's utterly wrong to scrap the page just because some people do not like to see the Greek Macedonians ([[Macedonians (Greek)) being listed. --157.228.x.x (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see what the one issue has to do with the other. Can you explain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Never meant to imply that the "Pirin Macedonia" case is utterly connected with a "Macedonian" disambiguation page (even though it is obvious that there is some generic connection). What I am still maintaining is that we need a separate "Macedonian" disambiguation page. And it is better to start addressing any potential entry (or whatnot) issues, there, sooner rather than later. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) No, my question was, what has the question of separate vs merged dab pages to do with the question of listing or not listing a separate entry for your beloved "Macedonians (Greek)"? The reason for not having such an extra entry will apply to an unmerged "Macedonian" dab page just as it applies here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to "your beloved" invoking of WP:MOSDAB, I thought I made it clear that I do not buy into it. 'Greek Macedonians' are sufficiently notable to be listed here as it is and in a potentially [[Macedonian]] disambiguation page, with or without a separate article of their own. It's one thing to say, "hey I am a Mergist or I do not think that we have sufficient material for a separate article thus your "childish" calls to split it back are just that, childish" and another to say that potentially there would be no people that might use the search term "Macedonian" having in mind these guys and gals. On the contrary, I believe there is sufficiently high probability that some users are/will/would do just that. So we need to oblige. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
When you talk of merging or splitting, are you referring to the dab pages or the articles themselves? The article was merged for a very simple reason: because the split-out article never had any legitimate content. There simply isn't anything encyclopedic to be said about that group that couldn't just as well be said (and indeed, has to be said) in the main Macedonia (Greece) article. It was, and would again be if you re-created it, useless duplication of content. And yes, I maintain that to split it out only as a pretext for multiplying the links to it would be childish. – As for the dab pages, the matter is and remains this: no two entries to the same article. As long as Macedonians (Greek) isn't an article, it will not get extra dab links to it over and above those that exist for its main article anyway. Of course, a factored-back-out Macedonian dab page would contain an entry saying "something related to, or a person from, Macedonia (Greece)" or the like, which would cater for the readers searching for what you said. But just that. I have nothing in principle against factoring that dab page back out, I just don't see it as solving any problem. (And of course, if we did factor it out, all the entries about -ian(s) terms would be removed from here, this would then serve only for literally -ia entries) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with your last sentence. Go for it.--Avg (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

People from FYROM say that they don't have any territorial or historical claims against the Greek region of Macedonia, but they always try to eliminate every word that says "Greek" and have to do with the ancient kingdom of Macedon. We know from the ancient myths that they were Greeks, they believed in the 12 gods of mount Olympus. The mount Olympus, the most secret place for all the ancient Greeks was in Macedonia region. Even Alexander him self was proud to be Greek. The inscriptions of that period are only in Greek. Can someone please tell me why are you doing this? Because some minority of historians say that they might not related to the Greeks... just because they say it might? What about all the others? I want to believe that you guys from FYROM have good will, but i really don't know, what your real goal is! :-( --xvvx (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The terms "Aegean Macedonia" and "Pirin Macedonia"

I don't see why you keep deleting the term "Aegean Macedonia" from the article. People in Republic of Macedonia and the other Slavic countries recognize "Macedonia (Greece)" as "Aegean Macedonia" and "Blagoevgrad Province" as "Pirin Macedonia". It is supposed to be mentioned in the article so that people don't get confused... Fireleaf (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why are you keep deleting the word "Greek" from the ancient Macedonian kingdom and ancient language, since the majority of the historians in the world believe that... except of FYROM's of course. Don't you think that people get confused by deleting that? Can you deny this Pella curse tablet and this Argead dynasty? Why are you keep deleting it, since these sources are undeniable? --xvvx (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, that was not what I was talking about! Second, the ancient "MACEDONIAN" kingdom can't be "GREEK" BECAUSE IT IS "MACEDONIAN", IT IS "ANCIENT MACEDONIAN KINGDOM" NOT "ANCIENT GREEK KINGDOM", THAT'S WHY IT IS NOT GREEK! AND IT IS PART OF REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA'S HISTORY, NOT GREECE. But nevermind, that was not what I wanted to talk about in the fist place. I am talking about the terms "Aegean Macedonia" and "Pirin Macedonia" which are used by all Slavic countries! These terms should be mentioned in the article. Fireleaf (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is a dab article. Whoever types "Macedonia" gets their direction through the primary article titles. Alternative names are irrelevant.--Avg (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So the Athenians, Spartans, Thebans, Thessalians etc weren't Greek? I guess you have to study first some ancient Greek history, to see that the Greek tribes had very strong regional identity. Even nowdays it's the same! People from Macedonia, say "i'm Macedonian", people from Crete "i'm Cretan", people from Thessaly "i'm Thessalian" etc. We are all Greeks, but we also identify ourselves by the region we come from, just like the ancients did! You said: "THAT'S WHY IT IS NOT GREEK! AND IT IS PART OF REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA'S HISTORY, NOT GREECE". Thank you for showing your real goals. And where exactly are the evidences (that are world wide, scientifically and historically accepted) about what FYROM claims? I gave you this Pella curse tablet and this Argead dynasty, what do you have? --xvvx (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Woa ChrisO, hold it a bit, you put a separate entry for Vardar Macedonia "because it has its own article"? Aegean Macedonia has also its own article, where it is clearly mentioned it is an irredentist term. Perhaps we should put that too then? Also may I remind you what disambiguation means?--Avg (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is soooo going in circles. I refer back to the section above, #Please don't turn this into an article again. A separate entry for Vardar Macedonia is clearly beyond the scope of the dab page, and all the rest of the squabbles over the wording above is just ridiculous. People, please. (Especially Fireleaf and Sakis, please take this to some forum outside Wikipedia.) :-(( Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree to that circle thing, but my point wasn't ridiculous, even though the title of this section is not for the ancient Macedonia, but Aegean and Pirin. I'm just trying to be as neutral as i can be, staying in the historical and archaeological facts and not just some theories. I also wanted to expose and know what are the real thoughts and goals of Fireleaf (by deleting the word "Greek") and i think he was quite clear. You are right and i won't continue the conversation, but anyone who will try to change it, i will undo it... unless he has some evidence for the contrary. --xvvx (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Threats of continued edit warring will get you nowhere except into the logs at WP:ARBMAC. And please try to get it into your head that this page is not for exchanging opinions about the history of Macedonia, it's only for working out how to most efficiently direct our readers to what they are looking for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
We are trying to ease the readers and not confuse them. If we leave things uncertain, then someone with zero knowledge about the Macedonia, will be confused and perhaps misleaded. --xvvx (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If that happens, it will be because the articles confuse them, not this dab page. BalkanFever 12:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You are not helping things by conducting polemic debates about the ethnicity of ancient Macedonians here. Just go elsewhere if you want such debates. As for the dab page entries, the only solution is to keep them as short and minimal as absolutely possible. And the only confusion I can sense here is not in the minds of readers (who are generally far more intelligent than some people make them out to be) but in the minds of nationaist editors who keep confusing the state of their own ideological inferiority complexes with the state of the real world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
O.k i just thought that wikipedia was a neutral source of knowledge, you can do whatever you want. I didn't knew that the Pella curse tablet and Argead dynasty were nationalistic (and me too) and not archaeological and historical facts. --xvvx (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (Greece) >> Macedonia

Macedonia (Greece) is the title of our article here not the relevant actual geographical name which is Macedonia. If we are so formal as to use official names only ('Republic of Macedonia' and 'Blagoevgrad Province'), then in order to be correct and consistent that entry should appear as Macedonia in this dab page. Apcbg (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the relevant guideline (WP:MOSDAB) strongly recommends that all entries in the dab list should appear in the form of their actual article titles, so that readers will know at first glance where they are being taken. (Always remember: all this dab system is meta-info, not encyclopedic content. It's actually supposed to be a list of statement about articles, not a list of statements about real-world entities). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I guessed I would get an answer like that, but the dab page now says: "a region divided between several states in southeast Europe, or in particular:" ... "Macedonia (Greece), a region in northern Greece", which is misleading, should be "Macedonia (Greece), article about a region in northern Greece" etc. Apcbg (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
True. As I wrote somewhere further above, my own prefered wording was: "Macedonia may refer to...., or specifically: ....". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Your present version seems okay ... as long as it survives that is :-) Apcbg (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree, although the phrase "Macedonia (Greece), a region in northern Greece" should be "Macedonia, a region in northern Greece". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, MOSDAB very explicitly mandates that it should not. No pipes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vardar Banovina

I suggest that the following entry would be appropriate to insert along with "Socialist Republic of Macedonia":

  • Vardar Banovina, an earlier province of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia comprising the same territory and some adjacent areas of present Kosovo and Serbia

Apcbg (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia/Archive_2&oldid=1140145491"