Template talk:History of North Macedonia

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

North Macedonia

This template is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia articles

Different COA

Instead of the current modern COA would File:Coat of arms Macedonia ancient.svg work better. The Quill (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, or just use the Sun of Vergina, to reflect the whole history of the country/region. Gryffindor (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sun of Vergina is a copyrighted Pan-Hellenic national cultural symbol of Greece and represents the culture and history of Greece used by all cities and states of Greece representing Helios the Greek Sun God. The Argead Dynasty of the ancient Greeks from Argos who founded the Macedonian Royal house also used it for their Dynasty. It is not a representative of a wider administrative unit while under foreign occupation and it does not represent the newly founded Republic of the Former Yugoslavia in any way, as per the interim accord signed by the government of the newly founded Slavic country. This template is clearly not representative of Greece but of the Slavic country and thus use of this Greek cultural trademark for the template is inappropriate. Vergiotisa (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is seen as a symbol of the whole of Macedonia, see here Vergina_Sun#Republic_of_Macedonia. Gryffindor (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entries to section redirects

About these [1] edits: for reasons of reader friendliness / ergnonomics, navboxes should not contain links that are mere section redirects, when the full target article already has its separate entry in the navbox. If a reader is on the page History of the Republic of Macedonia and sees a link to "Ancient history" in the navbox, they will naturally expect to be taken to a separate article with more information. If they click on that link and find themselves back on the same page, only some paragraphs down (where they can't even see the page title to verify they are still on the same page), it will be highly confusing to them.

That said, Mactruth, if you see somebody has objections against your edits and you don't understand those objections, it is your task to initiate a discussion on talk, rather than mechanically edit-war your version back in. You are back to your old disruptive habits, and probably will have to be sanctioned again soon if you don't mend your ways. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are my recent edits wrong? All I did was add Krusevo Republic and remove Ohrid Agreement. Krusevo Republic was a government precursor to Macedonia, and Ohrid Agreement is within the article 2001 insurgency in Republic of Macedonia. And honestly Future, how about you become unbiased for once? You've already been punished for your actions in the past, using select sources to make Macedonians look bad while dis-allowing other sources shows what is going on here. Mactruth (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, how am I supposed to contribute the Macedonian side of the story when every source used by Macedonians on wikipedia, biased AND unbiased, are removed by Bulgarians and Greeks. Maybe you should do your job and make sure those sources aren't removed for the wrong reasons. But you don't do you? Mactruth (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic. Stop whining, start discussing actual edits. What on earth has your rant here to do with the point I made above? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pathetic. Stop whining" is not constructive neither in debate nor discussion. It is simply your negative attitude towards Macedonians showing through. My "rant", as you may call it, is about allowing Bulgarian and Greek sources to make up most of Macedonia related articles. On top of that you don't ensure Macedonian sources are used in MACEDONIAN articles, so how am I supposed to discuss edits when their is an AGENDA on Wikipedia? Do your job instead of judging. Mactruth (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And of course that Ohrid Agreement shouldn't be removed. It has it's own article and of course it's part of the history of the country. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Shouldn't you put link to the region Macedonia in the section Other? It is very important fact, the country Macedonia is part of the history of the region Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And Paeonia as well, since it overlaps Macedonian's territory.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paeonia, Ancient Macedonia, Bulgaria, Rome, Byzantine and Illyria also overlaps Macedonian territory at some point, so there's no point in adding Paeonia. Mactruth (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pathetic. Stop whining" is not constructive neither in debate nor discussion. It is simply your negative attitude towards Macedonians showing through. My "rant", as you may call it, is about allowing Bulgarian and Greek sources to make up most of Macedonia related articles, without contest. On top of that you don't ensure Macedonian or neutral sources that are "pro-Macedonian" (as Bulgarians and Greeks call it) are used in MACEDONIAN articles, so how am I supposed to discuss edits when their is an AGENDA on Wikipedia? Do your job instead of judging, when you consistently question Macedonian edits while ignoring Bulgarian and Greek edits what are we supposed to think? It doesn't help that you are obviously "PhilHellene" as your profile demonstrates. Mactruth (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job? And I'd better not endeavour on what "Phi-Helene" should mean. --Laveol ^T 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not directed to you and as such your comments will not be answered. Mactruth (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to clarify the question, and to reach a consensus, what part of the history of the area of present -day Republic of Macedonia, which gained independence in 1991 for the first time, to be included in this template. Paeonia, Macedon, Dardania, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Bulgarian and Serbian Empires also overlaped Republic Macedonia's territory at some point of the history. Jingiby (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion. Jingiby (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to replace the current template with the last proposal. Jingiby (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated your example to use plainlist, but I am wondering if all the parenthetical sublists make it a bit harder to read. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the presentations of the Ottoman and Yugoslav eras are rather ethnocentric.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 April 2017

This edit request to Template:History of Macedonia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to make a request that the template name is reverted back to "Republic of Macedonia" from the recently changed name "History of Macedonia" as this template is clearly about the Newly founded Slavic country and not about the ancient kingdom or modern province of Macedonia, in Greece. As the Wikipedia naming convention clearly states, "If there is an issue with disambiguation, the country will be referred to as "Republic of Macedonia" ". There is clearly an issue with disambiguation.

I would also like it noted that under Article 2 of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity that guarantees the harmonious interaction of peoples with a diverse identity, the use of simply "Macedonia" to describe the Former Yugoslav Republic is in violation of Greece's equal right to identify simply as "Macedonia" its historical province on the northern Greek peninsula. It is for this reason that the official name of the country internationally is the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and not simply the Republic of "Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia". This is misleading and untrue.

The slow movement towards renaming everything by simply "Macedonia" regarding the Former Yugoslavic Republic in Wikipedia not only destroys the credibility of Wikipedia and violates the interim accord signed under the auspices of the United Nations between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic that standardized the name to be used but it also gives credence to universities and media who do not view Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia but as a den for propaganda, interests and agendas. I am sure this direction is not one of the pillars the founders of Wikipedia intended or envisioned for their encyclopaedia or its reputation.

Thank you for your consideration. Vergiotisa (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the Republic of Macedonia is the Republic of Macedonia. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a name used by the UN to allow Macedonia to join the UN without too many howls of outrage from Greece. Wikipedia cannot "violate" a UN accord because Wikipedia is not a UN member and has never participated in any such accord. I suggest you have a look at Macedonia naming dispute and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia).

Also, I don't see how this template can be creating a disambiguation problem. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Ppp ery 22:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]