This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerazov (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 17 September 2020 (→Postalveolar lateral approximants l allophone: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:19, 17 September 2020 by Gerazov (talk | contribs) (→Postalveolar lateral approximants l allophone: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macedonian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Arguments about the number of speakers of Macedonian should be directed at /Number of speakers. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_North_Macedonia_logo.svg){kind=link}
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macedonian language article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
RfC
There is a clear consensus that option 2 is version of the article that RfC participants prefer.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you all probably already know, there has been a lot of contrasting views on how this article should look like in the past few weeks. I have decided to work on it and give more weight to linguistic rather than historical and political sections in my sandbox. Therefore, I am inviting you to vote on which version of the article is better:
- Option 1: the current version as of 30 March 2020
- Option 2: this one.
Thank you in advance for participating! DD1997DD (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 2. This version has been conscientiously worked on by editors on both sides of the above discussion that triggered the article lockdown in the first place. It is a solid linguistics article now with just enough of the politico-historical controversy to give context, but not so much as to overwhelm the description of the language. User:DD1997DD has done an excellent job of expanding the grammar sections of the article to actually make it useful as an overview of the language itself. There is still some grammar and referencing cleanup to be done, but that should not detract from the very good work that has been done to improve this article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 2. Without any doubt, I vote for option 2. Option 1 is just a mess and unorganized. DD1997DD did an amazing job with the grammar part and condensed the history section, as well, within the standards of a language article on Misplaced Pages. I am glad I had the chance to give minimal input into shaping it :). — Tom 15:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 1 and then working on the different aspects, discussing them and working towards a consensus. Completely replacing an article with another one is very bad idea. First, you can't track the progress and the authors. I'm not sure that such vote for replacing an article with another is even according to the principles of Misplaced Pages. In fact, the article will have 1 single author, an editor registered few months ago, already blocked for edit warring who barely knows the basic principles of Misplaced Pages. Highly unacceptable. Second, because this usually does not solves the problems the article, while creating a new ones and fueling new conflicts. Strongly oppose Option 2. --StanProg (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your fears are easily addressed. Rather than replacing the article wholesale with the fixes that have been made by editors from both sides of the issue in DD1997DD's sandbox, they can be inserted here section by section. Your problem is then solved. This is done all the time on Misplaced Pages and is encouraged--lengthy edits, especially new content, should be made in a Sandbox, crafted, and perfected, and then inserted as a block in existing articles. That's all that happened here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at and read the edited version? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I read it. I even commented part of the content. Voting on "which article is better" is not a common practice at all, in fact as it makes no sense, as we can't just replace an article developed a doesen of years with a one, written mostly by a single editor. That's why I proposed this to be discussed section by section and changes done one by one. In the leading text we have 4 paragraphs, and the only information confirmed by source is a trivial one, such that none objects "Standard Macedonian was codified in 1945 and has developed modern literature since.". --StanProg (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed my previous comment. I'm not surprised since you have done little to improve the article, just fought to preserve the massive Bulgarian POV intact. The Sandbox version was created through discussions by several editors on the Talk Page there. Perhaps you need to read the Talk Page as well. While User:DD1997DD may have done the writing on the Sandbox version, much of it was the result of discussions and suggestions made by others. So do you object to the Grammar enhancement? Nouns? Verbs? Do you object to the superior lead and the reduction of redundancy in the classification section? Perhaps it's the fact that the endless detail of the History and Recognition sections that overtly pushed the Bulgarian agenda was reduced to an appropriate level and made the sections conform to NPOV? As I suggested above, we can move that content here section by section so that you are not offended by others working to improve this article. I don't see that you have done anything whatsoever in that regard other than reverting honest attempts to improve it and make it conform to NPOV. And your comment about "dozens of years" means nothing whatsoever. Some of the worst-written articles, most loaded with POV, nonsense, outdated references, and conflicting sections, are those that have accumulated bits and pieces over "dozens of years". Just because the POV-pushing has been accumulating over time doesn't make it any more acceptable. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're also probably not aware that leads don't need extensive sourcing if it is found in the appropriate sections of the text. Extensive sourcing, if needed at all (which it usually isn't) should be in the appropriate section of the article, not in the lead. And the minute discussion and sourcing of every word of the history and politics sections (which need to be reduced in size by 90%) is a ridiculous level of sourcing. So sourcing does not need to be replicated in the lead. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed my previous comment. I'm not surprised since you have done little to improve the article, just fought to preserve the massive Bulgarian POV intact. The Sandbox version was created through discussions by several editors on the Talk Page there. Perhaps you need to read the Talk Page as well. While User:DD1997DD may have done the writing on the Sandbox version, much of it was the result of discussions and suggestions made by others. So do you object to the Grammar enhancement? Nouns? Verbs? Do you object to the superior lead and the reduction of redundancy in the classification section? Perhaps it's the fact that the endless detail of the History and Recognition sections that overtly pushed the Bulgarian agenda was reduced to an appropriate level and made the sections conform to NPOV? As I suggested above, we can move that content here section by section so that you are not offended by others working to improve this article. I don't see that you have done anything whatsoever in that regard other than reverting honest attempts to improve it and make it conform to NPOV. And your comment about "dozens of years" means nothing whatsoever. Some of the worst-written articles, most loaded with POV, nonsense, outdated references, and conflicting sections, are those that have accumulated bits and pieces over "dozens of years". Just because the POV-pushing has been accumulating over time doesn't make it any more acceptable. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Of course I read it. I even commented part of the content. Voting on "which article is better" is not a common practice at all, in fact as it makes no sense, as we can't just replace an article developed a doesen of years with a one, written mostly by a single editor. That's why I proposed this to be discussed section by section and changes done one by one. In the leading text we have 4 paragraphs, and the only information confirmed by source is a trivial one, such that none objects "Standard Macedonian was codified in 1945 and has developed modern literature since.". --StanProg (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at and read the edited version? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your fears are easily addressed. Rather than replacing the article wholesale with the fixes that have been made by editors from both sides of the issue in DD1997DD's sandbox, they can be inserted here section by section. Your problem is then solved. This is done all the time on Misplaced Pages and is encouraged--lengthy edits, especially new content, should be made in a Sandbox, crafted, and perfected, and then inserted as a block in existing articles. That's all that happened here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 2 looks great, thanks to everyone who contributed to it. --Local hero 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 2 This is a vast improvement in my perspective. Beautifully concise, good job. Beat of the tapan (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Option 2 I perceive it to be an excellent improvement. Idealigic (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consonants section
I am currently more or less satisfied with the length of all sections in this article except for the consonants section. I feel like that section is a bit disordered and does not present a lot of phonological properties of Macedonian. I would like it to look more like the respective section in the English language article but I personally don't have the knowledge to do that. There is a lot of information on pages 11 and 12 here but I just don't see how to present it. I remember @TaivoLinguist: told me that this section in language articles is usually messy on Wiki and tries to present too much info so I really don't know how to approach it. Any help is more than welcome. DD1997DD (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- DD1997DD imo "too much" info is not bad. If it gets too long, we just move it into Macedonian phonology and congrats you will have just helped expand that article, whose consonants section is too small. --Calthinus (talk)
Nationalism among the South Slavic people?
With this passage is made an attempt to change the idea of the author whose article is quoted. Raymond Detrez does not mention the Southern Slavs anywhere in the cited article “Between the Ottoman Legacy and the Temptation of the West: Bulgarians Coming to Terms with the Greeks.” In the source are mentioned explicitly Bulgarians, neither Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, nor Macedonians or other South Slavs. The national revival among them was quite different. The topic there is the Bulgarian-Greek rivalry in the field of religious and culture based on the growing Bulgarian nationalism. Moreover, Detrez has other articles on the subject, where he argues that at least until the middle of the 19th century the Macedonian Slavs were full participants in the Bulgarian National Revival, without any differences between both communities. He claims these groups had common revival and Macedonian Slavs were part from Bulgarian National Revival. For more see: The Bulgarian-Macedonian Divergence: An Attempted Elucidation (pp. 165–193). In: Raymond Detrez and Pieter Plas, eds. Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans. Also see Historical dictionary of Bulgaria by Detrez and especially the article Macedonians on p. 275: Until the 1860s, all Slavs in Macedonia used to call themselves Bulgarians, referring rather to a vague ethnic group than to a national community with a developed awareness of its national identity, etc. Please stop illogical edit-war. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kramer (1999) writes: At the close of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, the rise of South Slavic nationalism led to the codification of the modern South Slavic literary languages. The first half of the nineteenth century saw Macedonian and Bulgarian Slavs united in a fight against Hellenism and joined in a common cause for a literary language.
DD1997DD (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Postalveolar lateral approximants l allophone
When /ɫ/ comes before front vowels it is pronounced as /l/. This should be included in the footnote 1 in the consonants section. Also what about the voiced palatal lateral approximant /ʎ/? Gerazov (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories: