Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 11

RfC

 * 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.

Should a new article be created about the dialect continuum of Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia or should the detailed linguistic description of the varieties be included in this article? --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * New Article. There is much interesting, but very detailed information about the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that can be productively included and referenced in a separate article.  But it is too much information for this article and is off-topic.  This article is about an ethnic group, a group of people, and only peripherally about the language that they speak.  The linguistic details of the language varieties they speak is inappropriate for inclusion here.  --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article we are at is not about an ethnic group. It is about Macedonians, Bulgarians and Greeks, defined by a common language. IE linguist (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether you think this group of people is a single ethnic group or multiple ethnic groups, they share a common history of oppression within Greece. (Greeks don't actually speak a Slavic language unless you are talking about "nationality", citizenship, not ethnicity.)  Details of the inner workings of Slavic languages are irrelevant in this context.  --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are probably uninformed and refusing to investigate in a row. A great part of the Slavophones identify as ethnic Greeks, check the demographics of the prefectures. IE linguist(talk) 15:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please cease and desist with the personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks? IE linguist (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "You are probably uninformed and refusing to investigate in a row" --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Everybody is uninformed of something and not all-knowing. IE linguist (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * and "refusing to investigate in a row". You don't know what I investigate.  We may investigate the same material and come to different conclusions based on other research.  --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would apology If I didn't say probably. IE linguist (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ethnic self-identification in situations where a linguistic minority is oppressed to some extent or another is often not driven by historic reality, but by contemporary political expediency. In a census, where self-identification is used to mark ethnicity, I'm not one bit surprised to find a number of people of a minority ethnicity who identify as part of the majority ethnicity.  People who are, in fact, ethnic Slavs might unsurprisingly self-identify as ethnic Greeks for political and social purposes.  But whether there are actual Greeks who speak the local Slavic language natively or not is actually immaterial, this article ("Speakers") is still about the people and the history of the people who speak that Slavic language in Greece.  It's not about the nuts and bolts of a Slavic language, but about the people who speak it.  That's why two articles are recommended.  --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it. lol YES Support proposal.Resnjari (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Yes" to a new article or "yes" to adding detailed linguistics here? (The question is either/or, not yes/no.  I think I know which you'd like--a new article, but just to clarify.  Correct me if my assumption is wrong.)  --Taivo (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 *  In this article . This RfC is a consistent application of previous moving discussions to illustrate a WP:POINT.  This article is about ethnic groups, as well as dialect groups. Currently, there is a consensus (“The discussion was closed on 22 August 2011 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia.”) to merge here Slavic dialects of Greece and move its content to this article. Other articles redirecting here are Bulgarians in Greece and Macedonians in Greece. Because Slavophone Greeks redirects here, this article is called Slavic speakers, not Slavs of Greek Macedonia. The intro should describe which ethnic groups and dialects redirect here. The article is indeed about a people, but the proposer misunderstands, that the subject involves only ethnicities and not dialects. Sometimes the locals identify only by their language(as Slavophones) or as locals(dopia) without ethnicities involved. It is about a linguistic minority, people of several ethnic groups and several dialects. It is a complicated subject, but the previous discussions agreed to consolidate the information about the dialects into this article. The proposed title of the new article is not a notable subject, the trends show, that there are zero searches for "Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia" and "Slavic dialects in Greece" in a year. The article is fully protected and conditioned on the time of this RfC, which slows down the development of this article. Please, finish it faster as possible. IE linguist (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I will object to "finishing faster" because the point of this RfC is to gauge a broader range of opinion than just the three of us.  The three of us disagree on how to proceed.  A WP:CONSENSUS can change over time, but in order to determine whether or not consensus has changed we must get a wider range of opinions than just you, me, and User:Resnjari.  Without a broader range of opinion, you will continue to try to insert too much linguistic detail into the article and I will continue to oppose it.  In that case, the status quo usually wins or we have to go through this whole process again at some point in the future.  So it's actually to your advantage to get a wider range of opinion--whether it is to insert linguistic details here ("Speakers") or insert them into a new article ("Dialects").  --Taivo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you on where to state the linguistic information. It doesn't matter to me where this information wil be stated. It can pass as relevent in this article and in a new or another article. The problem is, that you don't want this information to be stated anyhwere, except for in a probable new article to be created in the next year. You can not create the proposed new article, because Slavic dialects of Greece has been deleted by consensus. I advice Resnjari to quickly reject this proposal, because your proposal is too long to wait and this article is not going to be restored. I have already shown that the trends in Google is zero searches for your proposed title "Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia". So, out of nothing, you create the problems of waiting for the same discussion to restore such an article a second time, which has been deleted as not a notable trend. You are prolonging in the hardest complicated way only to make a point. It could have been much easier to obtain consensus between me, you and Resnjari in the discussion above. I advice Taivo and Resnjari to return to the discussion in the section above and leave alone these already failed RfCs. IE linguist (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit on Wikipedia unless you will disappear in two months, but even that is not a reason to rush. As I said previously, it might be to your advantage to wait because right now there are two editors who support a new article and only you who doesn't.  There is no problem with being patient and waiting to see what the community decides.  And we can call a new article whatever is appropriate.  And just because "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia" was deleted once does not mean that the name cannot be resurrected and used again if a consensus of people here think a new article is appropriate.  All of these arguments that you are giving are red herrings.  --Taivo (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And if no other editors show up to voice their thoughts, then we can still return to the previous discussion and try to reach a compromise on wording and content between the three of us. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am actually in favour of creating such an article. But the proposed title it is not popular. The hopeful waiting would be a waste of time. Unless you can offer a more popular title from the trends. IE linguist (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In Greece, these dialects are actually called "Slavic", thus the title "Slavic speakers..." ~ "Slavic dialects...". Greek editors have often objected to the use of "Macedonian" in reference to anything Slavic in Greece for purely political reasons.  The RfD 7 years ago (here) was actually not really a consensus, but a forced merge by a single editor apparently.  The numbers of the RdD were 3 to Keep the article and only 2 to delete it and merge it with this one.  How it passed is a mystery to me.  Given that very poor participation in the 2nd nomination and the overwhelming desire to Keep the article in its first nomination (here), I think that we can recreate "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia".  In fact, besides the three of us, only User:Jingiby has made a contribution here and he voted to Keep the article during the second RfD.  The worst thing that happens is that some overwhelming number of uninvolved editors show up and ask us to change the name.  The other alternative is something like, "Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum in Greek Macedonia".  By using "dialect continuum" we make it clear that this is actually a definable linguistic unit despite crossing the boundary between two languages.  --Taivo (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally kind of torn here as while I agree with you that indepth linguistic info, especially with jargon, is not appropriate for this page, I am not sure about restricting a new page to Greek Macedonia. Why, when Slavic dialects are also spoken in West Thrace, and historically other regions such as Epirus. Afaik the "Aegean" dialects of Slavic speech in Macedonia do not form a distinct clade based on linguistic characteristics? There is little reason to separate them from their relatives elsewhere in Greece. Indeed Slavic was once spoken in Epirus (and left behind a hefty number of placenames there), and this historical fact is relevant to the article but cannot be included in its present proposed form. What would you think of Slavic dialects in Greece or Slavic dialects of Greece? --Calthinus (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections to making this new article on the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum in Greece if that is linguistically justified. --Taivo (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support a revival of the article Slavic dialects of Greece. is right about scope and coverage of such an article. Apart from Greek Macedonia, covering Greek Epirus (in a historic sense) when there is scholarship, or Greek Thrace would do well to treat the full scope of Slavonic speech in Greece. The previous RFC did not take into account that the topic is wide ranging in scope and coverage. This article is about the people and as @IE linguist brought much content on language is is more then enough to revive the article with information suited to it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * your thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * : Your ping to did not work. You need to save the ping in the same edit as you sign. If you later add a (corrected) ping, you will need to re-sign the post. They are hereby pinged. --T*U (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * New article. I did never quite understand why the former language article was merged in 2011. Any further info about the language should go to a resurrected "Slavic dialects..." article. I am, however, not quite sure it should be called "Slavic dialects of Greece", since that would indicate inclusion of Pomak language, which I understand is quite distinct from the dialects we talk about here (and already has a separate article). Perhaps "Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia", which would be precise and also link it neatly to this article. But I will leave that decision to the linguists. --T*U (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the title issue. The Pomaks and Russian emigrés in Athens must be excluded.  --Taivo (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok that sounds good too. I agree. So the article on dialects gets revived?Resnjari (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * re the speech of relatively isolated mountainous Muslim Slavs of the Rhodopes is often an idiom that preserves many divergent features (similar in Golloborda in Albania, where Muslim Slavs preserved many of the features of medieval MacedonianBulgarian speech that can be seen in attested Old Bulgarian -- I am not saying this is hte same language, just that it had those characteristics). What is or isn't a "different language" in this context is going to be a matter of POV and Bulgarians (Bulgarian), Turks (separate language), Greeks ("Slavic") etc are not going to agree on it, while there are differences among the Pomaks themselves. It isn't a question that has an objective answer and Wiki shouldn't be taking an objective stance.--Calthinus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of a "separate language", but about a well-defined set of dialects in the Greek provinces of Macedonia that are a dialect continuum between Macedonian and Bulgarian. The dialect of the Pomaks in Thrace is identifiably distinct and the Pomaks do not share an ethnic history with the Macedonian groups.  The Pomak dialect has its own article.  This new article will be just for the dialects of Greek Macedonia.  --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell me then, without going into irrelevant discussions of ethnic identity or history (I can be Zulu and speak Chinese, including an obscure dialect of Gan or Hakka if I so choose and invest effort, no I am not Zulu), what are the defining characteristics shared by these (Greek) Macedonian dialects that clearly separate them from other Slavic dialects in the region? --Calthinus (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, I object to the creation of an article Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia, but I don't object to the revival of the deleted article Slavic dialects of Greece. The proposed title is innovative and without trends in Google, but some users still try to impose this nonsense after I had told them multiple times. The issue with the Russian immigrants in Athens is meaningless as they are also in Salonica. The Drama dialect is no different than the Pomak dialect and the Pomaks do share most of their history with so called Macedonian groups. The people of Drama and Serres did not call themselves Macedonians, but Marvatsi as the Pomaks did, they also share the same dialects with the Pomaks, not the Macedonians. That the existence of an article about Pomak language should exclude it from other articles is meaningless, as there are separate articles about the Kostur dialect and others. The fringes of Epirus are also concerned., , do you agree? IE linguist (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On this, yes.--Calthinus (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys swayed me. I agree.Resnjari (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I agree too with IE linguist's proposal. Jingiby (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the consensus, that the new article should include all the Slavic dialects of northern Greece, then I'll go along with it. The whole point of this RfC was to get a separate article where the detailed linguistic description of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum of northern Greece that User:IE linguist has put together would have a proper home.  --Taivo (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Count me in, too. The "missing link" of Marvatsi makes my former arguments valueless. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2018 (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.

RfC #2

 * 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.

The proposal above leads to another one here. If a linguistic article about Slavic dialects of Greece is resumed, to me there would be no sense in the existence of this article, which is not an ethnic group article, but about a linguistic minority of multiple ethnic groups. There are still no articles about Bulgarians in Greece and Macedonians in Greece, which are only redirecting links to the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". Which makes the topic of this article synthesized. If the article "Slavic dialects of Greece" is created again, should the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" be turned into a disambiguation page containing the following new articles?: 1. Macedonians in Greece 2. Bulgarians in Greece 3. Slavophone Greeks. IE linguist (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. This article (Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is clear and focused on the people who speak a variety of the Macedonian/Bulgarian dialect continuum in the Macedonian provinces of modern Greece.  It's clear, it's focused, and it's not about language other than to define the group.  The new article ("Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia" or "Macedonian/Bulgarian dialects of Greek Macedonia" or something like that) which might be created above would be about the linguistic details of the Slavic dialect continuum in Greek Macedonia, not about the people.  This article ("Speakers") would remain as it is.  The new article would be more like Torlakian dialect.  It would include information such as the table and detailed dialect discussion here.  The new article on language would not include the history of oppression and educational matters because that would remain in this article.  The new article would include theories of nasal retention with Polish et al. that some linguists have proposed, isoglosses between the standard languages and between the varieties here, a history of linguistic study and description, the relation to Old Church Slavonic, and other purely linguistic matters.  It would be an article that is longer than some of the articles that exist on specific Bulgarian dialects, such as Samokov dialect, even without the ethnographic detail that is in this ("Speakers") article.  Deleting the "Speakers" article is not appropriate since it includes ethnographic and historical information that would not be appropriate in a new "Dialects" article.  They are distinct topics about a single group of people.  Dividing the "Speakers" article into separate Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek articles would be a serious, unacceptable, and completely unnecessary case of content forking.  --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Taivo here and it would be a no on my part too. It would open the door to edit warring and counter edit warring and POV. It would be a return to the bad old days. In many of these families there are people who identify as Macedonian or Greek heritage (i live in an area in the diaspora where this is the case.) and others as Bulgarian. They have come from a group of people whose identity became fragmented due to nationalism, politics and the border for over the past hundred years. Kyril Drezov in an excellent chapter on the matter titled Macedonian identity: An overview of the major claims (1999) outlines this. Any new article on language would be strictly about the language of the speakers. Only a small paragraph of a few sentences would refer to the people with a link to this article. The article about the speakers themselves would be this one.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" are not an identifiable group referred to by many people outside of Wikipedia editors. Greek sources tend to say Slavophones or Slavophone Greeks. Ditto "Macedonians" and "Bulgarians" for respective political entities plus arguably sympathetic academics. The actual people in question also exhibit a range of divergent identities -- including "local" ones that don't align to any of the three nationalisms in question -- but aside from Slavophone Greeks none of these really approaches the title of this page. We are not in the business of inventing new ethnic groups. States (controversially) do that. Not free encyclopediae. That being said, I would like to see a concrete plan for how these new pages will play out-- such that they do not become POV messes worse than the status quo that admins will have to clean up. That's your cue, . --Calthinus (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree that wikipedia should not be in the business of creating new identities. In much of the litreture these communities are referred to as Slavophone speakers etc etc with at times other qualifiers. At risk of not making new articles become forks for this article etc, a case for a strictly language based article is there, but having more splinters would lead to POV and edits wars of the bad old days. I would not be in favour of further fragmentation beyond the additional creation of a strictly language based article.Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposal may be WP:POINT. I am ignorant of any merging discussions taking place about the articles proposed. May somebody provide this information? IE linguist (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No way. That would really be unacceptable content forking. "Slavic speakers..." may be an awkward title, but it is definitely about one specific group of people. "Slavophone Greeks" is just another way of expressing the same; "Macedonians in Greece" would be the rather small subgroup of them identifying as "ethnic Macedonians", already covered in the article; and "Bulgarians in Greece"...?? Well, there were 75,915 Bulgarian citizens in the 2011 census, but they do hardly form an ethnic group of Greece. Very few (I would guess zero) of the "Slavic speakers..." have a Bulgarian identity. This idea should be put to rest asap. --T*U (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. This article is OK. Jingiby (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as per reasons outlined by multiple editors.Resnjari (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (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.

Requested move 28 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia → Slavic-language speakers in Greek Macedonia – (1) Using "in" is a matter of basic English grammar. The article's talking about residents of Greek Macedonia who speak Slavic languages, plus the diasporas of such peoples; "of" sounds more like they belong to the region, which doesn't make sense. If there's some objection that this changes the meaning of the title, see Slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia; "in" is already being used in an article that basically covers the ancestors of the subjects of this article. (2) "Slavic" most commonly means your ancestry, with the linguistic use being less common. "Slavic speaker" primarily sounds like a Slav who engages in public speaking, not a person of any ancestry who speaks a Slavic language. (3) It's confusing. See garden path sentence; the brain sees "Slavic speakers of Greek", naturally assumes that it covers Slavs who speak Greek, gets confused upon hitting another noun, and then is tempted to think "Greek Macedonia" is something that can be spoken, before realising that it's merely a reference to people from Greek Macedonia who speak Slavic languages. Alternately, we could use "Speakers of Slavic languages in Greek Macedonia"; it's longer (and thus it's an alternate to my main proposal), but it still avoids the problems I've noted. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it isn't clear what problem this is solving. You yourself wrote: "The article's talking about residents of Greek Macedonia". The meaning of "Slavic speakers" is clear. Srnec (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: why not Slavs of Greek Macedonia? Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unnecessary pedanticism. The existing title is clear since "Slavic" can refer to nothing else but the language family ("Macedonian speakers" automatically means "Macedonian language speakers", for example; one cannot "speak" an ethnicity or nationality, but only a language).  The convoluted reasoning of the proposer may be technically accurate, but would apply to a vanishingly small number of readers who were searching for some sort of "public speakers in Greek Macedonia who are Slavs".  There comes a point where being too specific is a joke.  English is full of ambiguities and it is impossible to completely eliminate every single drop of ambiguity from article titles without approaching the ridiculous level of specificity implied with this proposal.  For example, "Macedonian language" is assumed by 99.99% of all English speakers to mean the Slavic language of Macedonia.  But it can also mean the "Language of people who live in Macedonia" without specifying which language those people speak.  It could mean the "Language Situation in Macedonia"--including all the languages spoken in Macedonia.  Wikipedia cannot get into the game of pedantic overspecification without becoming a parody of an encyclopedia.  --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose- as per reasons outlined by @TaivoLinguist.Resnjari (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Partial support The current title is grammatically ambiguous: Without adequate context, it could refer to "Slavic speakers" who live in Greek Macedonia (the correct meaning) or Slavic people who speak "Greek Macedonia" language. But other, better targets than the nominator's proposal may exist. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 19:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no native way that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" can mean that they speak some language named "Greek Macedonia" because there is no such language on the face of the earth. Your "ambiguity" is false.  There are other, very rare ways (as I stated above) that the title is potentially ambiguous for a vanishingly small number of readers (most likely non-native speakers), but there is simply zero chance for the ambiguity that you propose.  --Taivo (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slavic dialects of Greece
Slavic dialects of Greece article re-created, per consensus reached on RfC # 1 on that Talk and the discussion here. Feel free to edit it. Cheers! Jingiby (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Religions

 * 1) not all Orthodox Græco-Slavs are Greek Orthodox
 * 2) many Communists were atheists, also nowadays not only the Communists are atheists  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.152.47 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete move template
Please delete the move template on this article. Move discussion above closed as no consensus. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing move banner
Can someone remove the requested move banner from the top of the page? There was consensus not to move in December but the banner was left there. --Michail (blah) 12:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, per the above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Replacing PNG map of Slavic speakers with SVG map
I have recently made file:Linguistic minorities in Florina and Aridaia.svg as a replacement to the previous PNG map (file:Macedonianslavicinwestmacedonia.png). The two maps show the same information, with the exception that the new map shows all the other groups surveyed in the same study. Additionally the new map shows the correct borders of the various villages according to www.geodata.gov.gr where the previous map guessed them and provided an inaccurate image. The old map does not contain an explanation as to what the various shades of red/orange/yellow mean, whereas the new map has a clearly defined legend in accordance with the study. I would like to request that it supersede the file in the article. --Michail (blah) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * your map is ok but i detected some errors. The colour for Arvanitika is shown in areas where Arvanitika is not spoken (like in Edessa municipality) while some of areas where it is spoken (outlined in the study) are coloured as Pontic Greek or other. In other places like Prespa, the village of Pili has Aromanians. It has not had Arvanitika/Albanian speakers since 1923 when it was known as Vinan and wholly inhabited by Muslim Albanians that were forced to leave due to the exchange of populations on account of their religion. Have a look at a google map of settlements or detailed topographic military maps (https://maps.vlasenko.net/) and see if the data from the study corresponds to them and make corrections to your map prior to placing it up for consideration as an addition to the article. Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific as to which areas you are referring to? The original file uses boundaries which do not correspond with the boundaries that Greece uses for the various villages and communities (you can find those here under 'settlements' and 'boundaries of districts') and some of the confusion might be based solely on this fact. Edessa municipality is not shown on the map; if it was it would be underneath the legend. The only mentions of Arvanitika in the study are Drosopigi (A2), Flambouro (A2), Lechovo (A2), and Tripotamos (A3). You are correct about a few villages I accidentally labelled them with Arvanitika instead of Aromanian. Check the map again and let me know. I think the one you mistook as being labelled Pontic instead of Arvanitika is Agios Vartholomeos (noted P3). --Michail (blah) 16:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment please check the latest version. Note that I have switched the colours for Arvanitika and Aromanian (for easier contrast with Macedonian, red-on-purple looks less clear). --Michail (blah) 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a look, your corrections with the colours are ok. One area to slightly adjust. The study has two main columns on data. One on linguistic minorities (third) and the other for language spoken in a village (forth). Your map reflects the data of the forth but your map name reflects column three. Change it to: Spoken languages in villages of Florina and Aridaia. Also in your note an additional disclaimer. After it says Note:Greek is spoken universally in all areas shown. .... Add In some villages linguistic minorities have knowledge of multiple languages outside the one mainly associated with their community. I say this because the three wholly Arvanite villages Lehovo, Drospiyi and Flambouro are listed as Arvanite (column three) but some people know Aromanian (column four). Though its not covered in the study a small community of Aromanians use to exist within the villages and have many decades ago since intermarried and assimilated into the Arvanite group. Beyond that its good. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the constructive criticism, I have made all corrections suggested. I am reopening the edit request, it was closed because of the ongoing discussion. --Michail (blah) 10:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for preparing the SVG. Just a technical thing, much of the text looks very poorly spaced in the previews, especially the italics passages. This might be because your SVG specifies "Arial" as a typeface. That's a commercial font that our MediaWiki renderer doesn't support properly. Could you consider replacing the font specifications with one of the free fonts available in the renderer, as listed in SVG help? – That said, you might actually also consider removing the large batches of text from the upper left corner; those "notes" are things that might be better left to a textual legend outside the image itself. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I will replace it with DejaVu Sans and will keep this in mind for future files. --Michail (blah) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done but I agree that the text would be better placed in a caption. At the moment you can't read the text unless you enlarge it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * you can try using the version on the right if you find it better. --Michail (blah) 09:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The old Republic of Macedonia changed its name to Republic of North Macedonia. References should change.
As of February 2019, the old Republic of Macedonia was renamed to Republic of North Macedonia. The corresponding page was changed, but there are still references to the old name in this and other pages. I suggest that all of them should change so as to comply with the official name of the country. Vemman (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've lowered the protection. As soon as you have made 10 edits you should be able to change this yourself &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)