Macedonia (terminology)

I'm restarting this nomination - the old discussion was too long to parse and contained a number of no-longer applicable sections. I'd like to see more work done on addressing the issue of list-heaviness. Raul654 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We tried converting history to list form, it made it very confusing. - FrancisTyers · 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! I know it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I Support! RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, well that was easier than I expected :) Besides, Niko took care of the history section now :) - FrancisTyers · 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Veto power :) - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that this is (and never was) a list - so if it's not an article then what is it. Regardless I am supporting this still simply because it is a great piece of work that both these 2 and others have spent a long time perfecting... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand the objections. We could view all wiki articles as a "list" of facts, especially since there is no room for original research, and we have the POV factor. Indeed, most articles consist of a list of different facts, in appropriate order, they build a picture of the same object. Here we have a list of facts describing a same noun/appelation but which is interpreted in different ways. It is that difference of interpretations that forms the core of the article, one that has preoccupied a number of academics, politicians and historians. In my opinion, several experts in the field - some of them also true experts in the ways of wikipedia - have poured over the article, debated and concured that it is an article, not a list. Therefore, I think its FA suitability needs to be evaluated in terms of a bona fide article. Politis 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Errant and Politis. I too think that it may have been something close to a list earlier, but it is simply unfair towards the extensive efforts and attempts that have been made to de-bullet it, to simlply stick on the list issue and not want to discuss! The precedents are numerous and the arguments above were compelling (did the opposers read them? Why don't they respond?) I will make one more attempt, though, but I strongly believe it will be to the detriment of the article's readability. Again, please do not ignore the wide consensus of the rest of the users who support, and of those that have dropped their 'list' objections. It is simply unfair to veto this great article, without any real basis, and without any discussion! I am deeply dissappointed. :NikoSilver: 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To opposers: Please see it now, and respond if this is the direction to which you wish the article was formulated...:NikoSilver: 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody responded to this, but my opinion is it sucks coz it repeats the same thing in three places, just to include some prose: maps+text+table. :NikoSilver: 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone wishing to verify the "clear and extensive improvement in that area" here are the diffs [1]. I still see the same lists. Joelito (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply eye-jogging through the article reveals massive differences, either large white spaces where none existed or new material. I am not going to document every change, but you can see that the lists in the lead were taken away. Beyond that, you haven't really addressed my point. Some of the lists are still there, but Niko has made huge strides in adding prose to what is now firmly an article. This statement by me, "Simply compare the article now to its initial form when it was nominated. Quite a contrast!" holds very true with your link. Anyone can see that there have been huge changes made. At the very least, you questioning Niko's efforts to address the problem are disingenuous in light of evidence that you yourself have presented.UberCryxic 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joelito: Point? Where exactly do you see the same lists? Also, I think the diff is so messed up, that I am beggining to think you haven't followed the article's evolution since nomination. Let me put simply:
  • Major additions:
  • WP:LEAD 1 par -> 3pars
  • Etymology: ->New section, 3 pars
  • History: 1 sentence + a list (still incorporated in lead) -> 3 pars + list, separate section + 2 subsections
  • Templatised Maps: as cool as always. Unchanged
  • Geography: 2 lists with 3 pars intermingled -> 2 lists plus 6 pars
  • Demographics: Just a list -> a paragraph and a list with much lengthier entries
  • Linguistics: Just a list -> 3 pars + 1 opening sentence + a list
  • Politics: List with sublists containing 1 par -> No list + 3 pars
  • Names in the languages of the region: Unchanged
  • Terminology by group: 1 opening sentence + 3 lists -> 3 pars + 3 lists
  • Notes (one of the most important parts): 4 essential notes -> 5 essential notes
  • References: 4 -> 73! (we even have an objection for that now below!)
  • Totals: 9 pars + 2 sentences + 9 lists + 4 refs -> 27! pars + 2 sentences + 8 lists + 73 refs
  • How can you (Joelito) not notice that and ironicaly request us to verify UberCryxic above? I think you better strike that last unfortunate comment (at least), or your opposition is likely not to be taken seriously at all. :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop trying to dismiss anyone (attacking the messenger) who opposes you and start addressing the concerns. I have commented every time a new section for the FAC has been created so I have been following the progress. 9 lists --> 7 lists + 1 table are still too many lists for an article. If I am not mistaken only 1 of the lists has been converted to prose. I know the article has been expanded considerably (also some of my past concerns) but the list concern has not been addressed to my (and others) satisfaction. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not dismissing you. He has already significantly addressed concerns like the ones you have brought up. We can certainly have a conversation regarding what degree of satisfaction Niko has given those objecting, but don't making the categorical statement that he is not addressing your concerns. That's just a plain lie. Obviously he has; you can see the article for yourself. Niko has actually proven himself to be one of the most involved and quickest FA nominators I've ever seen.UberCryxic 01:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006: I suppose 5 tables and 3 lists would be fine then, huh? Nobody attacked you. It is your insufficient arguments I am attacking. You have never responded on the issue. You always just post a message to keep the conversation alive. Kindly respond to every single argument in my two lengthy posts above. If you can't then you're wrong. I am certain the article is in the wrong path with the recent irrational additions. This is not Macedonia (region) we're writing here. It is Macedonia (terminology). :NikoSilver: 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • object so many references to such a small article. Needs proper development not to reference every word. Very nice and instructive maps!!! --Pedro 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's an original! :NikoSilver: 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much refs isn't a reason to oppose any FAC Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the article are refs, that's original! An article is not a collection of references. It seems a reference page in a PHD, not an encyclopedia article. --Pedro 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not very kind, Pedro. How can references be original? All articles in wikipedia are, arguably, a list of referenced facts because we do not accept POV or original research. I would say this article is an OK introduction to a PhD thesis, not its reference pages. Politis 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I cannot satisfy you and remove references. Feel free to keep opposing. Thank you.:NikoSilver: 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i'm just saying it needs expansion and better formating and not concentrating to much on references, many of those references are not very useful, but you shouldn't remove them - That would be stupid. --Pedro 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, we can't expand it further. (a)It is already almost 50Kb, without the templatised maps. (b)We will not be "tightly focused on the subject". The subject is terminology. Why the hell should we expand further e.g. history? The parts that are relevant in illustrating the controversy and confusion in terminology are expanded more than adequately. After reading it, do you have any question on the how's and why's of the terminology? Anything you believe would apply? The fact that we have so many refs, is because we can't tolerate nationalist rant about 'unsubstantiated material'. (Greeks included). :NikoSilver: 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of work here has been done. A lot of various things have been tried. The essential problem I see is scope. This isn't a history article, nor is it a geographical article. It isn't an article on linguistics either. It is an article on terminology. The stated purpose of the article is to describe the way that the terminology surrounding Macedonia is used by various groups. Now then, people may say "but why on earth do you need that, and whats with all the lists?", the reason for the lists is simple. The principle that was decided upon on the inception of the page was to use Self identifying terms. So many other articles related to Macedonia have been edit warred into oblivion because of terminology. In fact, you can even see it in the history of this one.
The more prose that was added, the closer we got to edit warring. It really is very difficult to write an article regarding Macedonia that all sides accept. By and large everyone accepts this. Back to the lists! The lists as they are so lovingly called are imperative to keeping the content readable. When we have 6 different meanings for the term Macedonia, how else are we to present them, We have 3 different meanings for the term "Macedonian" relating to linguistics, and 5 relating to "Macedonian" in demographics.
How then should we format this, whilst maintaining self-identifying terms that it wouldn't be entirely opaque? Is it possible to have a featured article on terminology? I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I may be naïve, but I think that the article has the potential to improve articles about Macedonia as a whole. When a non-Balkanian comes to a Macedonia related article and sees such a large dispute going on, the first instinct is to hop it, get out of there, it isn't worth the trouble to get involved, those guys will never agree. A top class reference on terminology might help to lessen that, and get a larger number of non-Balkanian editors involved, something that the articles are in serious need of. This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this.
So, my final plea, do not oppose solely on the fact that there are a large number of lists in the article, perhaps oppose because you don't think that is some of Wikipedia's best work, or oppose because you don't think it is neutral, or there is a full stop out of place. Just not the lists. - FrancisTyers · 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the length of my reply. Feel free to remove parts you feel are irrelevant in order to keep the page more legible. - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gone through a considerable change since it was first put up for a nomination. I now see the work that has gone into transforming the article into a stable, informative, and interesting read. My prior objections to the format have been aleviated by the endless work that a select few people have accomplished. I now feel that the bullet points are an acceptable way to convey the message, making it easy for the uninformed to digest the material. This article has my support. --Sean WI 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you didn't want to read the whole post, it was pretty long, so I'll direct you to, "This isn't even an argument for FA status, just to give some idea of why we are doing this." - FrancisTyers · 09:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should better direct him to: I don't know. I don't see "must not have quite a few lists" in the requirements, but I do see "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". It is my opinion that, for the main topic, which is the terminology surrounding Macedonia, it is both of an appropriate length, and, tightly focused.
I second your whole comment 100%. Let it burn, I don't care. I am not ruining a great article because some people cannot justify their opposition. I have presented compelling precedents and arguments in two lengthy posts above and nobody has responded to either. You can't veto something unless you have a solid rationale. Therefore, I consider all 'list' oppositions moot. :NikoSilver: 09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys lets stay calm and friendly! The article has improved alot and will continue to do so over the years. I think you should forget about FA for now and wait a couple of months - then relist it and see if time has matured it enough for people to have changed their minds --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Errant, but thanks. I sincerely believe that all 'list' oppositions are invalid. Reasoning above.:NikoSilver: 10:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some recent additions in prose. Mainly, a new 'etymology' section, and several paragraphs in 'history' section, which was also split in two subsections. For more details, refer to my comment above under 'Major additions'. Kindly re-evaluate. :NikoSilver: 12:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niko, you do not have any authority to dismiss these arguments as 'moot' or 'invalid'. Okay, the scope of the article is thoroughly explained by the title itself. This is the terminology of the region of Macedonia. Maybe it is easier to make lists when explaining six different points. I understand this, too. But these reasons do not make it alright to ignore the central problem - the formatting does not agree with many people. And because the formatting is so rigid, the entire article does not have a "flowing" quality. A proper featured topic should read like a novel - there is a beginning, middle, and end (though the end is less important). This feels like a grocery list. Now I fear that some people are giving support for all the wrong reasons. You reverted all of your "in history" section (which wasn't satisfactory, anyway) and made it a list again...and this guy above me says the prose are now good? What!? I will vehemently oppose this article and try to convince others to do the same until this is solved. Perhaps this is just one article that can never be featured...or maybe it needs a slight re-write. --Sean WI 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean WI. Here is an article: List of United States mobile phone companies. Now this is what I call a list - a collection of US companies and it does not "read like a novel", as you mention above; but then. But if that is a criterion (and under normal circumstances I would probably agree with you) where will you find a novel accessible to the editorial whims of anyone browsing the net, coming across wikipedia, and wanting to have a go? That is why wikipedia articles are a collection of information, a list of information. So how does anyone draw the line between a list of mobile phone companies, this article in question and an article on windmills or sugar? What are the criteria you espouse? I would have thought that such article would make fascinating reading as a FA; the information races along, it is varied, full of links and dynamic - those are not qualities you will find in a "grocery list". Politis 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sean: No I don't have the authority, but I have a right to express my opinion. My opinion still is that none of the 'list' arguments has a basis in the requirements. Also, opposers have not addressed any point in my rationale above, including the precedents that I listed. So, having both requirements and precedents in my side, I am safe to express that opinion: Any 'list' opposition is moot!
  • Speaking about authority, I see a very small minority still complaining about any list within the article. Kindly read User:Jimbo's page, rule #7 for inspiration.
  • Still, I have made further additions in prose. So, what about now? :NikoSilver: 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Politis. I must apologize for using the term "grocery list" to explain my position because even I know that it is absurd. I was merely a bit peeved that someone could dismiss the points of myself and others as being not relevant to the discussion. Most of the opposition (including the archived portion) has a problem with the format, and not the information. This article has come a long way from its humble beginnings. Remember, I initially voted in favor of it. However, as trivial as something like formatting seems, it can allow for a powerful voice while reading. If we take a good featured article, say Kolkata, and compare it to this one...the difference is not in the amount of information, but in the way it is presented. If the people who are most active in this article decide that they will not budge, I guess I will change my vote to a neutral like I did in the previous vote.

I ended the paragraph, but when I tried to save, I noticed the new reply, so I will address that, too. Niko, I am withdrawing my vote. You are free to make it a featured article. --Sean WI 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive approach and your frankness. Also thanks to Niko for his relentless work/ Just to point out that though I believe this is, indeed, an article - and a very useful one, I have not voted on the FA issue. Politis 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally though, I've re-looked over the prose/list issue, trying to really get to the heart of the matter, and I've concluded that while there have been leaps and bounds of improvement towards this being an article, it still contains too many lists to be one of our best. If this came up at Featured Lists, I would probably still support it there, as the list content is pretty heavy and still seems to be the focus of the page. Nearly all the information currently contained in lists could be re-written as prose... heck, much of it already has! Why not go all the way with the rest of it, and get rid of all these objections once and for all. Fieari 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fieari, I just inserted those maps for editing/commenting/etc. You don't have to object to the FAC for that. We can solve it in the talk (and it is being discussed as we speak). Now for the prose, we tried to get rid of it all, three times (see above). It doesn't work, because the present format is simply unbeatable! The present format is:
[[Macedonia/n/s (foo)|Macedonia/n/s]] (as in foo) refers...
This is a hell of a way to illustrate that... we all mouse-over in our brains when we use those terms! :NikoSilver: 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason stability is a FA requirement... for situations like these. Fieari 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Right. Only we're not talking POV reverts here, I just drew some new maps for God's sake! You and others don't like them? Fine! I'll revert. Now if you mean stability vs prose, then I think you're right. The article's prose has multiplied. If it came up at FLC's, I'd dump it because of too much prose! :NikoSilver: 22:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the article now is exactly as it was before your latest objection, with two minors:
  • Changed grey maps to colorful sat-maps. This may be changed back to the originals if you feel they are too colorful.
  • Added the (attempted) intro template below in the 'Notes' section to create attention, as this section is quite important. This too may be deleted later if the rest of the editors do not agree.
Please participate in talk and state your opinion for this trivial issue.:NikoSilver: 23:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, I'd first discuss at the talk page, address these concerns, look for any previous replies and then, if nothing has been done, change my vote. Are you sure these are lists and not bulleted paragraphs (and they're as limited in number as possible now!), because that's what I think they are? I wouldn't ever object because I don't like the TOC and the large quote over the image too, I'd fix and make it look it the way I like it. It's a wiki. And that's just my opinion anyway :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors would stop dismissing the formatting objections (lists) as "ungrounded" then this would be a featured article. Stop trying to convince us that the topic is worthy of featured status and start convincing us that the article is worthy of featured status. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists or bulleted paragraphs? IMHO the bullets only provide clarity and are actually very useful (you're using them at this very page to separate your comment from the others). The article contains as much prose as possible, but some things are actually worse as lists (for example, ever thought how messy this FAC page would look de-bulleted?). Could you please specifically say which lists exactly you're referring to, and how you would solve the problems you believe there are with them? I'm sure Niko, Francis or whoever else (me including) would be glad to improve the formatting if what you suggest would really be an improvement. Also, perphaps you've got me wrong; I've never meant it's because of the topic that the article should be featured — but its current and future impact on the topic's Wikipedia coverage is more than remarkable — take that in consideration. And that impact is because of its undispited pure quality. Todor→Bozhinov 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joelito, we did our best in three attempts to meet your requirements ([2], [3], and [4]). Your approach is highly unconstructive. None of your comments has contributed anything to the article (unlike the comments of all others). You didn't even respond if you thought the third attempt was in the right path. Can you specify what exactly it is you want? Do you want maybe to push characterise the 'bird lists' as articles as well through this opposition? I see you've created many of them... :NikoSilver: 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the remainder of the nomination process. Jazriel 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that "Geographical Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No; it was treated as a political entity in 1904; also, the statement is that Macedonia was not used on maps for several centuries is extremely misleading, since it was so used as soon as there began to be maps of the interior of the Balkan Peninsula in English. Septentrionalis 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the main issue. The point about maps may be unintentional ambiguity. If these can be resolved stably, I shall strike this objection. Septentrionalis 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see the [citation needed] tags dealt with.
  • I believe the etymology section slightly mis-states one of the hypotheses. The main article linked to says that there is an unattested word form that is hypothesized to be the basis of the name; this is rephrased in this article to be an "unattested hypothesis". This isn't really right. Struck since I went ahead and fixed this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to create a stub for Crna hills, to avoid a redlink.
I would support if the citation needed tags are replaced with citations. I should add that I do not see the lists as a problem; they are a good, clean way to present data that is inherently better treated this way than in prose. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More