Talk:Gošince attack

Name

Attack, incident, hostage taking; what is the most proper term for this event? I moved the article to "hostage taking".--Zoupan 10:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Greater Albania

It is totally inaccurate to call Ilirida Greater Albania. The term Greater Albania much like all other Greater proposed states is an ideology based on unifying unredeemed territory into one single state. Just as it is wrong to call the Serbian breakaway republics in wartime Bosnia and Croatia incarnations of Greater Serbia, the same applies with this campaign and the more successful Kosovo venture. The idea that Albania, a functioning Ilirida and Kosovo may one day open borders to be one state remains a suspicion, and would in any case be a fresh can of worms on the day since there would be certain opposition from within as people would wish to maintain independence. Many countries form the Arab world but that does not make it Greater Arabia, and the independence of Cyprus doesn't usher into existence Greater Greece. Ilirida and Kosovo (much like the Serbian states of the 1990s in Bosnia and Croatia) are subjects of Albanian nationalism, very different from the avowed state many wish for. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Gosince attack → Gošince attack – As per official name. Гошинце (Gošince). "s" and "š" are two different letters and sounds. Zoupan 03:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg:, @Bgwhite:, @Phill24th:, @Anonimski: (involved in move-warring).--Zoupan 04:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zoupan: As I said on your talk page, I don't care. Go by what reliable sources are saying and wp:Common name. But please, keep it internally consistent on the page! 220 of ^Borg 04:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move warring? I only moved it once, when I saw the missing diacritic for transcribing the letter Ш in Macedonian. But anyway, support, but as 2015 Gošince attack for clarity. - Anonimski (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Anonimski, its been moved multiple times by multiple people. It got very confusing.
  • When you all decide what to do, ping me and I can delete/move what is needed. Also, does any of the redirects need deleting? Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anonimski:, I meant a collective "move war", which we all were participating in, and in no way implied only you. Comment In this case, I don't think the date is necessary, as it (not yet?) is part of a fuller-scale conflict, nor has there been previous attacks in Gošince.--Zoupan 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. For Macedonian settlements, there is total consistency across Wikipedia in their names being the romanised versions of the names as in Macedonian, even where Macedonian is not the majority language. If this were to be different it would be the only one of its kind, that is what editors need to think of. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Гошинце—Gošince.--Zoupan 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:, there seems to be no problem in using Gošince attack.--Zoupan 05:55, 18 May 2015 (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.

Gošince hostage taking

Zoupan, should the Gošince hostage taking redirect be deleted? Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The police officers were taken hostage, but the event is not widely known as "hostage taking", so you may delete it.--Zoupan 06:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I haven't deleted Gosince and Goshince spelling redirects as sources use those spellings. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the infobox template!

As far as I can see, this wasn't a military conflict, but an attack. The Template:Infobox civilian attack is the right one. It needs to be changed. - Phill24th (talk). 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This was an intended attack on a police post, without victims. Not a "civilian" attack.--Zoupan 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Result

I don't understand why the result doesn't mention that the NLA veterans left the scene, one of the biggest reasons why the hostages were released and the Macedonian police are in control of the post. No reason was ever given for the removal of this part of the result. 178.175.84.49 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That information was never removed. It was actually also present in the shorter form of the infobox result, just worded differently. What I've been trying to do is present the infobox result in a more concise and shorter form per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as I've explained before. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)