Talk:North Macedonia

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (polls on move and intro par), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Two subpages for the naming conflict have also been created: Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position

Article move

I have moved this article to Macedonia to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy and to achieve consistency with other Wikipedia articles and external sources. The issue of the article's name has been discussed and disputed for seven years. Unfortunately, it is clear that Wikipedia's normal processes of consensus have broken down in this instance; a lengthy discussion to find a compromise failed some time ago, a number of Greek editors has consistently sought to promote a nationalist POV on the issue, and pro-Greek nationalist vandalism on this topic is endemic across Wikipedia. Patterns of usage in English-language sources have shifted markedly during the last seven years but the breakdown of consensus-seeking on this issue has prevented us from keeping up with the state of play off-wiki. I've therefore decided, very exceptionally, to intervene to resolve this issue once and for all.

Here's a summary of the rationale behind this change:

• Naming policy. Names are governed by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which requires that we "use common names of persons and things".
• Common names prioritised. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) prioritises "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more."
• Self-identifying names prioritised. Where names are disputed, as in this instance, Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires us to prioritise the "self-identifying name" of an entity without reference to the political or moral merits of that name.
• How Macedonia self-identifies. Macedonia self-identifies formally as the "Republic of Macedonia" in its constitution and its government affairs [1], and uses "Macedonia" as the common short form of this formal name. Approximately two-thirds of UN member states, including all but two of the English-speaking countries, use this name.
• Daily usage by English media. In daily use by the English-language media, "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the preferred term ([2] vs [3]).
• Usage by other reference works. Almost all of the reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, gazetteers etc) available via Credo Reference and Oxford Reference Online use the term "Macedonia" as the conventional short form of the country; most also use "Macedonia" by itself as the name of their articles on the country.

Macedonia

Britannica

Philip's World Factbook 2008-2009

Chambers Dictionary of World History

The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Penguin Encyclopedia of Places

The Encyclopedia of World History

The Harvard Dictionary of Music

The Hutchinson Chronology of World History

A Guide to Countries of the World

Collins English Dictionary

Macedonia, Republic of or Macedonia (republic)

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Macedonia, [The] Former Yugoslav Republic of

(article title, however articles all use "Macedonia" almost exclusively within the body text)

Philip's Encyclopedia 2008

The Macmillan Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of World History

World Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of Contemporary World History

• Primary topic. Wikipedia:Disambiguation states that "When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title". It recommends that when determining which article constitutes a primary topic for a particular term, we should take into account the number of incoming wikilinks and article traffic statistics. Figures from http://stats.grok.se show what our readers are actually reading. All figures from March 2009:

article	hits
"Macedonia" entries
Republic of Macedonia	119,905
Macedon	22,845
Macedonia (region)	12,827
Macedonia (Greece)	11,660
Socialist Republic of Macedonia	1,972
Macedonia (Roman province)	1,873
Blagoevgrad Province	1,707
Diocese of Macedonia	296
Macedonia (theme)	603
Macedonia, Alabama	365
Macedonia, Georgia	317

The usage of Republic of Macedonia is more than twice the combined usage of all of the other listed articles.

With regard to the four top entries, the approximate number of incoming wikilinks is as follows:

article	wikilinks
Republic of Macedonia	~8,000
Macedonia (region)	~1,000
Macedonia (Greece)	~800
Macedon	~100

This equates to approximately four times more wikilinks pointing to Republic of Macedonia than to the other listed articles combined.

To conclude, the key points are:

• • "Macedonia" is the common form of the formal self-identifying name "Republic of Macedonia".
  • "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the predominant term for the country in English-language encyclopedias, dictionaries and everyday usage by the media.
  • The primary topic for the term "Macedonia", as determined by the number of web hits and incoming links, is the article on the country of that name.

I am aware that this will be a controversial move for some of our editors. However, Wikipedia's policies take precedence above national sentiments. Wikipedia is not subordinate to the views of external agencies and organisations, so the fact that certain international organisations and states may choose to use alternative terminology does not determine how we approach this issue. I suggest that if editors disagree with my actions, they should save their comments for the arbitration case due to start next week. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely endorse your move. Good work!--Patton^t/c 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a good move as well, in the two languages I know and can speak Macedonia is always the primary usage.I s there suppose to be changes for lets say Republic of Macedonia national football team, Flag of Republic of Macedonia and templates like Country data etc, and what about links? chandler ··· 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will need to be a general renaming of "Republic of Macedonia" articles. But I suggest waiting a day or two to see how this pans out first. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of marshalling the evidence and making the arguments clear, concise, and well-documented. (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Good move, I fully endorse it. I find your reasoning persuasive. While I'm sure some people will object, this is a global encyclopedia and opposition to the obvious naming mostly originates from a limited region. henrik•talk 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, this was an excellent decision, and I commend you for being willing to finally put an end to this nonsense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was too obvious ChrisO. See you at ArbCom where I will personally propose you will be desysopped for abusing the admin tools.--Avg (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was too obvious that following what ChrisO has posted Macedonia was the clear primary topic, and therefore should be treated as the primary topic chandler ··· 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to post your opinion at the ArbCom. The diffs are here for everyone to see what happened. --Avg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do object to the move?--Patton^t/c 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations List of Member Countries, the European Union, and Germany refer to the country as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. (Germany sometimes abbreviates the name to "Macedonia", after the full name has been used.) The United States apparently use "Macedonia". --Cs32en (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And as ChrisO has so clearly stated, Wikipedia is bound by no international organization's compromises. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Of course it's not bound by them. They are just an indication of prevailing consensus. Because most people would look for the article under the name of "Macedonia", just as they look for "Beatles", and not "The Beatles", I would suggest to use "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in bold letters at the beginning of the first sentence of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing that "Beatles" actually redirects to "The Beatles", so this is probably a possibility in this case, too. --Cs32en (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way is the number of wikilinks calculated exactly ? Doing a search for Macedon here for example results in more than a thousand articles, am i missing something here ?--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Intervention

I just noticed that Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia and the previous content of the page, which was basically a longer dab, seems to have disappeared. The person who did the move, User:ChrisO, cites policy as being the basis for the move, as per the Talk:Macedonia page. I don't know that anyone was given any prior notice of his intention to move the page, however. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion on the Boards regarding the proper name, mostly about Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (or similar?) being preferred by no-one except Greek Nationalists. I don't know the outcome of the discussion, but the move may have been the result of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I very definitely agree with the "Bold" part. I was in fact a regular part of the discussion on the Talk:Greece page for some time now, but the discussion there was about whether "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was the preferable name to use in that article. I do not remember there having ever been any discussion of even using in that article, let alone rename the central article itself, to the simpler name "Macedonia". In fact, I seem to remember that in the discussion there was virtually unanimous agreement that the article on the country would stay at Republic of Macedonia. I wonder whether such a destabilization of what was an at least reluctantly acceptable situation by both sides of the discussion, particularly without any sort of prior approval or agreement that I can see, is really the wisest move here. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the likes of Republic of Ireland who self identify as Ireland.? It may have a slightly different argument but if as you say it's standard practice to use the self identifying name then it's not standard practice across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think The Republic of Ireland is a very common name in English (especially in Britain), and I dont know about the hit counts, but from what's been shown on the talk page, ROM for Macedonia was a clear, clear primary topic, but some, what was it 10x hits than Macedonia (Greece) and 5 times the hits of the second choice chandler ··· 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been *seven years* of discussion. The article was the subject of edit wars and disputes within days of its creation way back in 2002. There is in fact no stability on this issue; nationalist vandalism relating to the naming issue is continuous and endemic across Wikipedia, as this abuse filter demonstrates. When President of the Republic of Macedonia was on the "In the news" section of the Main Page last week, it was twice vandalised by someone editing from the Greek Parliament. Leave aside the procedural niceties: I've set out the policy rationale on Talk:Macedonia. The issue at hand is whether this move is validated by policy. I'd say it's clear-cut. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was time for a third option. If there was a stalemate between the advocates of the different "Republic" titles then the new one should suffice until there is an agreement - this may be a stimulus, given that if neither side like the most recent rename then there is at least one thing they agree on, toward arriving at a consensus. In that light, I suggest that there is no undoing of the move until such a consensus is arrived at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specific part of the policy was used to make the change. Jack forbes (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all outlined on Talk:Macedonia chandler ··· 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the same logic, People's Republic of China should take the China (3fold hits, incoming links, common usages etc). I smell more dramas coming from the too bold move.--Caspian blue 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC vs Taiwan is a territorial dispute - two states disputing ownership of the same territory. So is Ireland, to an historical extent, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. Neither side disputes the other's right over the name of its part of the territory - the dispute is over who governs that territory. Neither Greece nor Macedonia disputes any territorial matters; it's purely an issue of one side (Greece) claiming exclusive rights to the name, which isn't a situation replicated in either China or Ireland. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @ChrisO, no, not just territorial dispute, but the ownership of the name "China" and its long "history" too. We already had a move suggestion/discussion last year (heated one). If the move was carried by a Macedonian, I wonder how good the user would get? Not too sweet one.--Caspian blue 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For UN member states, the United Nations List of Member States does probably indicate the prevailing consensus. --Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case: the UN uses a different terminology from two thirds of its member states, which use "Macedonia" instead. The situation is that the state self-identifies as Macedonia but participates in certain international organisations under a provisional reference (not a name!) due to Greek objections. But as I've noted on Talk:Macedonia, that's really a side issue, since Wikipedia's approach isn't determined by state policies towards an issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea versus Republic of Korea may also be a relevant comparison here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea is another dissimilar example, more akin to China or Ireland - it's one territory disputed by two states, whereas Macedonia is not a territorial dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Ireland (rep) no longer dispute any territory. It is purely a wikipedia debate on the naming of the country, which is why I say the policy is not used across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why it was given the sole name "Macedonia". Isn't the usual convention for that to only happen when the target is what most people are looking for? I would suggest the page be at "Macedonia (country)" as we have done with articles such as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical.--Caspian blue 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe both Georgias were found to have roughly the same level of prominence (hits, incoming links etc). That clearly isn't the case in this instance. Macedonia the country has five times the usage and eight times the number of incoming links to the next most prominent item on the list (which isn't Greek Macedonia). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia the country got 150k views last month, the state 100k (from stats.grok.se). According to the same view numbers above, Macedonia the country gets 5 times more hits than the next article that could conceivably use the Macedonia name. henrik•talk 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Georgia (country) be such a clear primary topic? I would guess not, just because Georgia (US state) is the common usage in the USA chandler ··· 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget that most English speakers live outside the USA and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think because there are many US users it is what heights the US state up to "block" the country as primary usage. Plus from what I can see about the country it doesnt seem to be called "Republic of Georgia" or something like that, so (country) is the only possible disambig for it i guess chandler ··· 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as Henrik indicates there isn't a huge gap between the prominence of each name. The situation with Macedonia is very different, as the stats show. As a matter of fact, it generally isn't necessary to include the form of government in an article's title; we don't, for instance, refer to Libya as the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (thank goodness). The only situation I can think of where you absolutely need to have a disambiguation-by-prefix is if two states use very similar names and govern a common, potentially disputed, territory. We get around the problem of Republic of Korea versus Democratic People's Republic of Korea because the two states are commonly referred to by geographical disambiguators - North Korea and South Korea. The only examples I can think of where we do need to disambiguate-by-prefix are People's Republic of China versus Republic of China and Republic of the Congo versus Democratic Republic of the Congo (the latter is particularly problematic, as there don't seem to be common terms for those states). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The timing on this was very bad indeed, as an arbitration request over the name of the country in the Greece article was going to be initiated next week, after the conclusion of the Orthodox Easter holiday. This really borders on reckless, Chris; you are aware of the planned arbitration request, and this move smacks of trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute, which reflects badly on you and (by extension) those who have supported you over a series of attacks on the content guideline you authored which covers this debate. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other view on the timing is, doing this now when we are going to have an Arbcom case anyway gives us the opportunity of having his action checked (and, if necessary, confirmed or reversed) in a controlled atmosphere and under the auspices of that body. Which may actually save us some drama, which would otherwise have been unavoidable. As for the issue itself, I'd say the case for applying the "primary use" rule to this article is indeed extremely strong. At the same time, experience with the other related disputes has shown that a regular consensus-seeking process would never have led to any policy-conformant outcome in this field. This is clearly the right result, and it is just as clear that it would never have been reached without this slighly irregular bold coup. I'm looking for a "gordian knot barnstar", but there doesn't seem to be one yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. There's actually no better time to put the policy issues on the table, as it gives Arbcom a clear target to aim at. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ChrisO, you're a liar who used deceipt to make this move. And this is no personal attack, it is the simple fact, no matter how bluntly I put it. And you lied when you made the move from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) yesterday when you labelled it "minor". It was paving the ground for this move today. When I flagged it to you and specifically asked you to comment, you failed to.--Avg (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves are automatically marked minor by the software. Secondly, calling people liars is not how we conduct discussions here. Saying it is no personal attack doesn't make it so either. Please discuss this matter civilly. henrik•talk 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I will not retract, per WP:SPADE. This is exactly what happened. I'm not talking about software, I'm talking about ChrisO's own words. Check Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation) yourself.--Avg (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I said I'd made a minor change to the page naming, and if you look at the diff this is exactly what I did. Adding "(disambiguation)" to the name of a disambiguation page is not an earth-shattering event. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole episode exactly as it happened will be put in front of ArbCom and I would let them opine.--Avg (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I now see which use of 'minor' you referred to. I will however still suggest you spend more time arguing your case and less time calling people liars. ChrisO has made a very compelling case above why this title is the proper naming for the country according to Wikipedia guidelines; if you wish to change that I suggest you put together an equally compelling case that some other article should use the 'Macedonia' title. henrik•talk 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no such compelling case as is referred to by Henrik. As I understand it, the highest policy we have is WP:CONSENSUS, and this unilateral move seems to be to fly in the face of that policy. I very much hope that ChrisO has an answer ready by the time Arbitration opens, and after this it may not wait until next week. Speaking strictly for myself, I have to say that my confidence in his ability to reasonably use the tools of adminship has been very shaken by this action. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about the Arbcom case is that the history of the past years has shown us that the normal consensus-seeking mechanisms just don't work when dealing with strong and extremely determined national groups like here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here. One article has been renamed. The many related articles which use "Republic of Macedonia" in their titles are still at the same locations. As Fut. Perf. has said, the Arbcom will have an opportunity to review the policy issues in a controlled fashion. If it decides that the policy rationale is insufficient, then this article can be moved back to its old name. As for WP:CONSENSUS, there are sometimes situations in which consensus cannot be reached because of certain factors - in this case a number of Greek editors who have consistently filibustered and wikilawyered every discussion on the subject.Ultimately it's a question of whether or not we follow basic policies; you can't have a consensus to violate policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you telling people not to get carried away is somewhat amusing, as the one rash action which took place was your own. And I agree there was no agreement or consensus for the move, despite the page regarding such matters which you developed. There is a very real question here as to whether you followed basic policies in your deceit and unilateral actions. And I do not personally think that any attempt to try to blame the existing situation for your own individual actions is likely to succeed. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work with faits accomplis, but with consensus. It is clear for me ChrisO abused the admin tools to win a content dispute and as far as I'm concerned, there is a very concrete case against him.--Avg (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The move function is locked, so Avg can not do the same thing that ChrisO did. However, any admin who disagrees with ChrisO can move it first anyway and then explain his motivation here. Then, he/she may get same responses from the supporters like: "Good move! Wikipedia is based on consensus and talk" etc.--Caspian blue 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's wheel warring, and very much frowned upon (as in a desysopping offence) by Arbcom. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's be fair, Chris. You can't very well claim wheel-warring protection for your move here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to reverting admins, I think people need to step carefully, that's all. Something that someone considers not wheel-warring could be interpreted differently by someone else, or by Arbcom. Better not to risk it, I'd say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth change it just before an Arbcom case is put forward on the naming dispute? Doesn't this stir things up further? Jack forbes (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it allows the Arbcom to review a clear policy issue in a controlled fashion and issue a binding recommendation. A move after an Arbcom case would just be a mess. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting you abused the admin tools to present to the ArbCom the facts the way it suits your POV.--Avg (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The policy rationale is at the top of this page. The rationale stays the same whatever the timing may be. In this case we have a perfect opportunity to discuss the policy issues in a controlled fashion and go forward - renaming all the other "Republic of Macedonia" articles in the same fashion - or go back to the old name, depending on the Arbcom's recommendations. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In which way having moved the article to Macedonia helps to discuss the issue in a "controlled fashion" if not by creating a new status quo and then asking the Arbs to uphold it? The discussion would be exactly the same amount of "controlled" if you simply laid out your arguments in the talk page without having made the move.--Avg (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD aside, the timing for this move doesn't appear to have been the most adequate. We should rather wait for the arbitration. Everybody will feast on drama then, no need for appetizers. I would recommend Chris to move the article back and wait for the arbitration. Húsönd 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For so many years, and despite any disputes and political discussions, there was a balance in Wikipedia regarding this issue. Now, defying any logic, this man has singlehandedly and without any discussion or warning managed to turn everything upside down. He managed to provoke unnecessary tension which will undoubtedly explode all over Wikipedia. He managed to again pour fanaticism into both sides, since one will furiously oppose and the other frantically defend this move. I also clearly oppose this action and will support any action against ChrisO for, in a totally unadministrative manner, bringing on blind fanaticism where a self-imposed peace was achieved. GK1973 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" was the stable, consensus version of the name of this article for years, so claims that "consensus in this issue is not possible because of Greek nationalists" is simply not true. The move by ChrisO unilaterally flies in the face of this consensus, and moreover does so using his admin powers. I am gratified to see numerous other community members speak out against this. As for the timing, it smells very strongly of trying to present a fait accompli to Arbcom. Moreover, the move is a completely separate issue from the ArbCom debate, which is how to refer to the country in the article on Greece. Will ChrisO now argue that this country be referred to as simply "Macedonia" in the article on Greece, where previously he insisted on "Republic of Macedonia"? --Athenean (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Things should be moved back

First, a disclaimer: my only connection to the whole Macedonia naming dispute is that my grandmother once visited the region as part of a tour of Europe.

Things should be moved back, and Macedonia should be a disambiguation page. As ChrisO's numbers show, while the article on the country gets the majority of the traffic and links, it's not an overwhelming majority: almost a third of users are looking for something else, and the proportion of links is similar. --Carnildo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That would mean MORE than two thirds look for the country? isn't that what's called a supermajority in same places? I do think two thirds is a clear sign of primary topic chandler ··· 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the figures, Macedonia the country gets more than twice the traffic of all the other listed articles combined, and around four times as many links as the other articles combined. That's an overwhelming majority by any description. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I said above, this proves that you want to use these arguments to ask from ArbCom to uphold the name Macedonia. This would not be the easy if you asked them to move the article to Macedonia though, would it? So it is obvious you're gaming the system to win a content dispute.--Avg (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Supermajority, yes, but my rule of thumb is that in order to pick one article for primary topic disambiguation, it needs to be the most common by at least an order of magnitude. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO's actions

Chris, I notice you made a slight change to your opening sentence here. Does this mean you did not change the name in your capacity as an admin but rather as a run of the mill user? Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There was no clear and present administrative need for the page to be moved. As such, he was acting on his own perception of policies and guidelines, like any other user would. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's principally an editorial action to implement standard naming policies and guidelines. If you look at the changes I made to the page at the same time, I made numerous editorial changes to eliminate the dozens of unneeded repetitions of "Republic of Macedonia", fix awkward wording, remove peacock terms and deleted images, and so on. Think of it as essentially an overhaul (much needed, IMO) to a fairly stagnant article. Having said that, there was a minor use of the sysop bit to expedite the move (since move permissions are locked due to previous move warring and vandalism), which is why I expressed caution earlier about the suggestion that another admin could undo the action unilaterally. It's possible that some could interpret that as wheel-warring, which wouldn't be helpful for anyone. I advise against doing that for obvious reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted to take the same editorial action I couldn't. You abused the admin tools to gain the upper hand on a content issue.--Avg (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had admin tools, would you move it back? If yes, would you call that wheel-warring? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You have the tools, so same question right back at you. If you decided to revert, would it be wheel-warring? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(like 47 edit conflicts...) No, I do not think so. Wheel-warring is defined as repeatedly undoing administrative actions. A page move is not an administrative action; it is a content issue. If there was an edit-war between administrators on an edit-protected page, we would not call it a wheel war. It is simply an edit war. I suppose the parties would be dealt with more harshly than usual because admins are supposed to maintain a high decorum, but I do not think they be sanctioned specifically for abusing their administrative tools. The same applies here. The page is fully move-protected because of heavy edit-warring (move-warring?). Someone disagreed with the status quo, and believes that he has a firm base in policy to back up his views, so he was bold and took action.

It is very easy to say that you would move the page back if you had the tools. It is far different when you look at the issue while you hold the technical ability to do so. Chris clearly believes that discussing the name issue more is pointless, and I am inclined to agree with him. In any case, he made his move, and he laid out the reasons for his action, and I assume that he would be willing to undo his move if someone were able to convince him that his rationale is faulty. The same can be said for other administrators. There are approximately 900-950 active administrators on this site. Before any of them (us?) will undo Chris's action, they/we would have to be convinced that his action was very wrong/incorrect/illogical/etc. Chris's page-move can be viewed as a perfectly acceptable WP:BOLD move ("move" meaning an action in general, not the physical page-move). Moving the page back would be edit-warring, and thus even if I did in principle disagree with Chris (For the record, I do not), I do not think I would undo his move. As I said, administrators are expected to maintain high personal standards for their behavior. Considering that this page is still at this title, I assume that other administrators hold similar views as I do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should you two get to decide that the wider community cannot take part in the consensus-building process, just because you have the administrator bit?

Why should reversion of ChrisO's edit be perceived as wheel-warring/edit-warring because he is an administrator, whereas reversion of a non-administrator's edit is seen as a natural part of the WP:BRD and consensus-building process?

Admin status in no big thing, and not for use in content disputes in which one is involved. In content disputes, there should be no two-tier system. Why can't I have any impact on the title of this article just because I haven't gone through WP:RFA? Knepflerle (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This person lied. When he was challenged yesterday he referred to his move as "minor" and not "bold". He refused to acknowledge his ultimate goal. He used deceit to advance his POV. And he abused the tools.--Avg (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

@Knepflerle > The initial action falls under WP:BOLD. The first reversion is what starts an edit war.

@Avg > If you once more attack ChrisO for marking the move as a minor edit, without first showing me the diff of a test page-move that you made that is not marked as minor, I will block you for harassment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy I'm referring to his move yesterday of Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation). He explicitly referred to the move as minor in the talk page and he was specifically challenged to answer if this was paving the way for today's move. As you see, this was clearly part of a pre-meditated plan.--Avg (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't reply to the more crucial question - why can't a non-administrator user have any say in what the title of this article is? Knepflerle (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel really sad when some people use their power to achieve their own goals and then trying to say that they don't :-( --xvvx (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that bold action was needed because consensus (and even compromise) was being actively blocked by a dedicated group of edit(or) warriors who were pushing a POV that was not (or only loosely) based on Wikipedia policy. After all these years of blockage, ChrisO made a bold move to break the deadlock. Leave the article where it is. Let ARBCOM do their magic. If they revert it, then ChrisO has already said he will accept their ruling. But if ARBCOM lets it stand and firmly establishes Wikipedia policy, I have heard no such commitment from the edit(or) warriors to abide by ARBCOM's decision. (Taivo (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

How was it needed in say the Greece article where most of this discussion was located at? We certainly cannot have the country named Macedonia there, because of Macedonia. This is totally counter-productive.--Avg (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" was the stable consensus name of this article for years. It is a completely different issue from what is going on in Talk:Greece. --Athenean (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion at Talk:Greece, I have to agree with Athenean. I do not remember a single instance at that page of anyone requesting that this page be moved to its current location. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I point out below, is that it is ChrisO's appeals to his status as administrator, thereby characterising reversion of his edit as wheel-warring, that is stopping any other editors using their judgement. Labelling his edit as effectively irreversible is not compatible with a consensus-building project.

WP:ADMIN is unambiguous and utterly crystal-clear - the tools and status of an administrator aren't to be used in content disputes to impose their own interpretation of evidence and policy, and aren't to be used by in disputes in which they are already significantly involved (except in the case of blatant vandalism of course).

"With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

"In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action."

ChrisO would have displayed far better judgement had he either proposed this move here first, or asked an administrator uninvolved with the Macedonia naming dispute to perform the move. The best course of action would be for him to revert his action himself and pursue one of these options now. Should he not, this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. Knepflerle (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when the RfC is filed. I definitely have things to say there. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's already an arbitration case scheduled for next week. I suggest presenting your "things to say" there. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of your judgement in preventing the community contributing to decision-making, and not the question of the naming of Macedonia-related articles - that is why it should be dealt with separately at WP:RFC/U. Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The community has tried and failed for seven years to reach any solution that is consistent with policy - specifically, because editors like Avg have consistently fought against any solution that offends a Greek nationalist POV. Consensus has definitively failed to resolve this issue. I think it's interesting that the people who are objecting to this are focusing exclusively on procedural issues and ignoring the policy rationale at the top of this page. Perhaps we could have some explanation of why the policy rationale is wrong? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But the name of this article has been stable for years, since 2003 to be precise. So invoking the "consensus is impossible because of Greek nationalists" simply doesn't cut it. The only disagreement/debate/instability was what to call this country in the article on Greece. The move does not make this article any more stable (in fact whole lot less), nor does it have anything to do with the dispute in Talk:Greece. All it does is it negates the long-stable consensus that existed in this article, and incidentally creates a whole lot more unecessary drama in the process.

What prevented you from presenting the above arguments to ArbCom which is, for God's sake, next week? --Avg (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that there can only be one rational answer to that, and others have said it multiple times already. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not for you to enforce your interpretation of the evidence using appeals to your administrator status in a conflict in which you were heavily involved. You don't get to pick when I and the rest of the non-administrator community can have a say on content issues. You don't get to pick when this is a consensus-built project and when it is not. Knepflerle (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And edit warring is going on..

The edit warring on the page and dab seems like provoked by the move, obviously. --Caspian blue 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, it seems to be about the ancient history of the country, [4] so I don't see any direct connection with the naming issue. Obviously edit warring of any sort is bad and shouldn't be condoned, though as an involved admin I'm not in a position to take action on it. I'd suggest raising the matter on WP:AN3 if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, the reverts on the dab page were completely unrelated to this, and seem now to have led to a relatively stable version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek monopolization of ancient Macedonia has nothing to do with the move. Greek nationalists on this website are denying modern Macedonia any right to ancient Macedonia, despite the fact the modern Macedonia covers the ancient Macedonian regions of Lyncestis and Pelagonia. Apart from covering parts of ancient Macedonia, the country's name originates from ancient Macedonia, ancient Macedonian ruins like Heraclea are located in the country. Why should this article monopolize topics from ancient Macedonia? The region is divided, therefore the history is shared between the two countries. Polibiush (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) The article title is changed (very big and controversial one), then supporters seem to need "consequent cleaning"/improvements on the article; The opposite side reverts such changes. The active edit war on the insertion of the Alexander the Great statue image reflects one of the naming/history disputes between the two states? So it is hard to say that the naming change is irrelevant of triggering effects. --Caspian blue 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Caspian, it would really help if you at least tried to get a basic grip of a situation before you post comments with accusations and insinuations. It is pretty clear you have not the foggiest clue what is going on here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... well, no. Where are "accusations"? That is a mere observation of mine. I can not say that I know Macedonian history as much as you or related editors do, but I disagree with anything out of orders on Wiki without prior discussion. The only reason I'm getting interested in this dispute is because whatever resolution from the dispute seems like similarly be adapted to other naming disputes. --Caspian blue 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he has a very good clue. Yes, renaming the country article Macedonia gave carte blanche to some people of claiming ancient Macedonian heritage.--Avg (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, Avg, you're just proving how uncompromising and unwilling to reach consensus you really are by that last statement. Just because a place is named "Paris" doesn't give its residents carte blanche to claim French descent. That's the fundamental issue which Chris O's bold and well-justified move was meant to sidetrack--the years of obstructionism by those who don't want to ever see the Macedonia naming dispute resolved with "Macedonia" in the result. (Taivo (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

He didn't even propose it. Okay, you might want to support your wiki-friend here, but there are serious issues that cannot be overlooked. And I assure you, they won't.--Avg (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pelagonia and Lyncestis

Lyncestis and Pelagonia were independent kingdoms and were not a part of the kingdom of Macedonia until they were subdued. The kingdom of Macedonia was the kingdom ruled by the Argead tribe only. Of course you can say that these regions were later incorporated in the kingdom of Macedonia, as did many other regions, yet your thinking that Macedonia back then was what it was in the 4th century BC is clearly wrong (you are welcome to research it).GK1973 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyncestis and Pelagonia were reunited with the rest of Macedon during Phillip's reign. They were occupied by Illyria but they originally belonged to Macedon. Polibiush (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They did not Polybiush. The kingdom of Macedonia's first recorded king was Caranus. His line were the kings of Macedonia and not those of Pelagonia nor those of Lyncestis. The kingdom of Macedonia was ONLY the land of the Argeads. And of that Lyncestis and Pelagonia were not a part until much much later. Yet, they were independent kingdoms and you can understandably use them in your history section as some of the first recorded kingdoms in FYRoMacedonian soil.GK1973 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL at "re-united" and "occupied" by Illyria. All of what Polibiush is saying is pure, unsourced, nationalist OR. Come back when you have sources, OK? Up until 336 BC or so (i.e. most of its history), Macedon was located exclusively in Greek Macedonia. --Athenean (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, there is a reason why that section is brief and mostly focusing on the history of the region, not any group of people or ancient states. That image was of zero value apart from being misleading. Of course Alexander is a prominent historical figure associated with the region, but that's not the place to depict him as a national symbol, it would be a clear mistreatment of that fact (yes i know it's true, Alexander mania and stuff, but we're not talking about ethnic imaginaries here, it's five lines of basic historical facts). This article is not a tourist guide nor are we dealing with a tourism section, so monopolisation has nothing to do with it. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What you just described as what should not happen IS happening on the Macedonia(Gr) article. The modern Greek province is presented with Alexander the Great as its national symbol, with modern statues, map of great empires, etc. How on earth does the provicne of Macedonia have a 3000 year old direct continuity link to Macedon? Well anyway, thats how it is presented. That's why it is not fair for only one part of the region to represent all of ancient Macedon. Polibiush (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is "fair", because your country has no association whatsoever with Macedon, other than maybe 1 or 2% of Macedon's territory after 336BC may have occupied the geographical area encompassed within your country's borders. --Athenean (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't use WP:BOLD and administrator status to replace community input

Normally I would expect a non-trivial move to follow one of two paths:

proposal - establishment of consensus - move (RM style)

move - revert - establishment of consensus (BRD style)

Here there was no consensus-building process beforehand (so not RM style) and the second avenue has been blocked by ChrisO appealing to his admin status ("I think you'll find [reverting]'s wheel warring, and very much frowned upon" "When it comes to reverting admins, I think people need to step carefully, that's all ... Better not to risk it I'd say").

Invoking WP:BOLD and then blocking the rest of the WP:BRD cycle isn't really on - it has meant there has been no effective community input to the decision-making process. WP:BOLD is an editing guideline, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and cornerstone of the project - yet we've subverted the second with the first.

Furthermore, this is certainly not compatible with administrator status being "no big thing" - it gives them a much more powerful status in content disputes, giving them the possibility to enact their interpretation of policy and evidence without any wider input.

If this move stands, there needs to be a rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ADMIN because their current wording will not reflect how they are being implemented in practice. Knepflerle (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're disputing that the country is the primary topic or what? chandler ··· 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am. But I will not dispute it here, since this would sidetrack from the real issue which is the behavior of ChrisO. Starting the content dispute implicitly legitimizes the action.--Avg (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This move was not made to facilitate the ends of Wikipedia. It was made by an admin who clearly aimed to create all this fuzz...He knew what would happen and yet decided to act in a way that has caused and tomorrow will cause even more trouble in the Wikipedia community. He is not a newbie and he certainly knew the repercussions of such a "bold" or "provocative" action (according to each side). Thus, he is solely responsible for any situation that will arise in the following days. Were he a simple user, he would be treated otherwise, but being an admin carries a responsibility and demands an approval he has certainly lost now. GK1973 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Avg but he's shown very convincingly that the country is by FAR the primary topic. #Article move points it all out. chandler ··· 23:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insist Chandler. I will not legitimize this. At another setting, we can discuss. --Avg (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that this is not the point I was discussing. Knepflerle (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

..So... if people here start being bold and start reverting ChrisO's changes, I guess that every thing is allright? Does it have to be an edit war to understand that we have a problem BECAUSE of this change? GK1973 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing, dear GK1973, is that even if you wanted, you cannot be bold and revert him. The page is locked for moves by non-adminsand ChrisO has already played the wheel-warring card to prevent any admin reverting him.--Avg (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course let us not forget the fact that he chose to proceed to this move at the Friday before the Orthodox Easter, when most Greeks will probably be unavailable for several days... GK1973 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe though that J. delanoy has stated his opinion that it would not be wheel-warring. Therefore, if there is an admin out there willing to revert he/she could do so without worrying about that. Jack forbes (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this article was already protected, it was not in danger of getting moved anywhere else. An admin to abuse his privilege of having access to the move function and move a stable article to his favorite POV version, by simultaneously denying any right of discussion, is a disgrace.--Avg (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget it might be done exactly to prove a point. The retaliation of the users that don't like this decision might as well be used in the ArbCom. Nationalism would be a great card to play there and especially if there is an actual reaction to this move. I'm really surprised such a thing is happening here - sort of unexpected on a encyclopedia which everyone is free to edit etc...I'm not done reading all the comments and going though the whole scale of this case but it looks like something planned and perfectly executed. A masterpiece at its own right.--Laveol ^T 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, I already agree with you. The point I'm making is that ChrisO has more than once stated it could be looked on as wheel warring which would put any admin off from reverting. The fact is, even though he had to use his admin tools he was not acting in his capacity as admin, which is why he changed the wording of his first sentence [5]. J.delanoy stated it would not be wheel-warring, so as I said, an admin could revert him. Jack forbes (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle is still in place. The upcoming arbitraction case just means that it's going to happen in a slightly different way, as BOLD-discuss-(maybe)revert (call it BD(m)R for short). The BOLD stage has already happened. The substantive part of the discussion will take place in the controlled setting of an arbitration case, with a binding outcome in terms of policy rulings from the Arbcom. I'll state for the record that if the Arbcom decides that the policy rationale is wrong, I'll willingly do the revert myself, at which point we'll go back to the previous name. Why do it this way? The key reason is that all the discussion to date has plainly failed to resolve the naming issue. BRD in this context is a recipe for continued inaction, no decisive outcome and the indefinite continuation of the dispute. BD(m)R, by contrast, offers a clear outcome that has a good chance of resolving this problem once and for all. Being bold is, as others have said, sometimes a necessary step towards breaking a long-standing deadlock. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee ChrisO, I want to follow the BRD cycle. Why don't you unprotect the article so I can revert you? I will then write an extensive email in the talk page, just like you did. First act, then explain.--Avg (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Revert and edit wars are not the way to deal with this. Let the Arbcom sort out the policy issues first, then revert if a revert is required. If the policy rationale for the move is fine, then no revert is required. There's no point in reflexively reverting while people are disagreeing on the policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This has fait accompli written all over it. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond belief. "Let the Arbcom sort out the policy issues first, then revert if a revert is required." This is what you have so blatantly violated and you are actually using it as an argument?--Avg (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Faits accomplis do not come with commitments to voluntarily revert. The bottom line here is that the community has been unable to agree on the policy issues, necessitating the bold move in the first place. (Though I should add that discussions on the subject have typically resulted in an overwhelmingly Greek lineup on one side and a disparate lineup of non-Greek editors - very few of whom are Macedonians - on the other side. That rather gives the game away about this being a nationalist dispute, not one of policy.) As it is, the article's name is now consistent with the rest of our European country articles, the policy rationale is clear, and somehow the world hasn't ended as a result of the renaming. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you revert now Chris? We've seen your arguments and you can certainly post the diff to the ArbCom.--Avg (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not a cycle - you do not have the right to install your preferred version, and install yourself as the one editor who has to be convinced in order for it to be reverted. You cannot use WP:BOLD to subvert WP:CONSENSUS by installing yourself as judge, jury and executioner. Knepflerle (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that some of the very people who call the loudest for "consensus" here (yes, Avg, you are one of them) are the very people who have done absolutely nothing to promoted compromise and consensus every place that this issue has been discussed. Not a single step has been taken to reach a middle ground. Not one inch has been yielded to the "other side". No, their nationalistic pride is intact and they have defended the motherland valiantly. (Taivo (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't mean to sound insulting here. ChrisO, do you realise how childish this has become? Why don't you revert yourself and avoid all this drama. If Arbcom decide your right then fine but you won't convince anyone if you continually ignore the vast majority of editors here and stubbornly stick to your guns. I can only see this ending badly and I don't think I want to hang around and watch the train crash. Jack forbes (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it a bit sad that very little of the discussion is directed at refuting the arguments ChrisO put forward for making the move. If this is not the proper name for the country according to our guidelines, it should be easy to refute the arguments about primary usage according to page views, incoming links, media mentions, etc. The fact is that using the word 'Macedonia' to refer to the country is common usage in English, as well as in many other languages - roughly half the interwiki links for this article that has languages that I can understand use a version of plain 'Macedonia' as the name for the country article. henrik•talk 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Being bold here

I am being bold here (pun intended). I feel I won't be heard here. Just like with my edits, I feel like my contributions to this Wikipedia, you call, will be "lost in time". Shadowmorph (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is plainly because this appears not to be a wiki. There I was discussing with Future Perfect about the layout of the dab pages and even though we had our different views we were making progress. Then this administrator you say ChrisO came and has been bold and have changed the very "main usage" of the main topic. But he didn't just redirect Macedonia rather renamed the Republic article to Macedonia. That move by ChrisO was like stabbing me in the heart. Did he perceive this would be a cutting of a Gordian Knot when even the UN and administrations of whole countries haven't soled the dispute? I feel utterly saddened that I spent my time as a new editor to make the dab pages NPOV in my own way. If Wikipedia is showing the door to all other editors that weren't here for ages and ages on (like Avg or Fut.Perf). I ask again, what is the WP:Purpose of calling this thing here, a wiki? Bold administrators can do as they like, and we sit back and watch? It's funny, but also bad enough that the Macedonia pages are semi-protected to the end of time, scaring of any of the possible third party editors. I don't know all the WP:"bla-bla" but in my small little mind this is what I though I knew:

• It's one thing to redirect Macedonia to Republic of Macedonia

making it thus a main article, you know like that for Micronesia but the other way around

• It's a completely different thing to rename the article
• And do that controversial move solely on the grounds of a technicality like main usage statistics? Are those hits or unique visits we're talking about anyway?

Can you apply statistics to the Americans and at that dab page?

What are they like? 1,000,000 to 10 in favor of US?

Does Wikipedia put statistics over consensus?

• Republic of Macedonia was a consensus for years even among editors from the country
• Republic of Macedonia is the official name and also F.Y.R.O.M. is official in the UN

"Republic of" is used in Wikipedia when there are many meanings e.g. Republic of Ireland. Do the Irish object?

Even "Federated States of Micronesia" is not against the WP:"bla-bla"

• How in the world of your stats will you handle the adjective Macedonian?

e.g. How would Macedonian army[6] will be more commonly referred to Ancient Macedonia but the actual name Macedonia to FYROM?

I'm seriously considering deleting my own account after this It seems to me the admins and the ancient editors with a 10-second revert speed own the Macedonia pages now Too bad, I though this was a wiki Shadowmorph (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"like stabbing me in the heart", over do it a bit won't you. It's been been pointed out already, Macedonia is the clear primary usage, and the common name in English. And the UN might not be able to solve it because they have the same problem, greek nationalists who think they own the name Macedonia. But you'll see if we'd remove all Greeks and all Macedonians nationalistic povers this would be the out come. It might not be the common name in Greek, but it is in English chandler ··· 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why I will make a case for the de-sysoping of ChrisO before the ArbCom

Dear friends (sysops [warned by ChrisO of losing your status if going against him] and non-sysops [who cannot anyway undo his move]), I would like to bring before you my input regarding what happened here. These are my remarks:

1. A major procedural issue: ChrisO decided to act in the way he acted on Thursday of the Orthodox Holy Week, definitely knowing that most Greek editors will be absent because of Orthodox Easter. I am tempted to characterize in the worst way such tactics, but I will not do it, wanting my intervention to be fruitful and constructive and not as provocative as the above editor's actions. Just one phrase: well done Chris! From today, I will also be completely absent from Wikipedia (you may have already seen my wikibreak declaration); you will thus be more free to continue your work.
2. ChrisO acted against consensus, which was built here after copious efforts during this poll (as you will see at the top of the talk page, it is called "a poll on move and intro par").
3. The above consensus concerning the title of title&madsh;as far as I remember—was never questioned, put under doubt etc. Therefore, no "consensus issue" was raised here before ChrisO acted in the way he acted.
4. As it is correctly mentioned by another user (Knepflere) BOLD's prerequisite is the existence (at least the initiation) of a consensus-building process. Such a process never took place; neither was it initiated. I am tempted to ask Chandler and other users I respect (e.g. Fut. [Α, ρε Fut. [[8υμάσαι στην talk page μου ... ]] Α, ρε Fut. τι είναι αυτά?!! Τέτοια πράγματα και από εσένα;!!!) supporting ChrisO's ridiculing of wikipedia's policies to tell me when was consensus on the article's title put under doubt. In any case, BOLD's invocation in this case is null and void.
5. Even if we make the hypothesis that ChrisO wanted to act per WP:BRD (which is, by the way, an essay, and not yet an official policy; you know Chris and Fut, like MOSMAC?), Chris blocked this procedure, by invoking his adm status and the wheel-warring sanctions. Thus he obviously did not want to act, and did not eventually acted per BRD. Therefore, the latter does not cover his actions. Quite the opposite indeed! He acted in violation of WP:BRD as well.
6. Even if we accept that consensus was put under doubt and scrutiny, as far as I remember, controversial moves should go through WP:REQUESTED MOVES. I don't believe that there is anybody here questioning that the move in question is non-controversial (even if we take the term "non-controversial" lato sensu [as lato sensu as we can!]). Thus, ChrisO, acting in the way he acted, violated the concrete WP policies concerning the move of articles.
7. ChrisO did not implement the move as a non-involved administrator or, at least, as an involved administrator who implements a consensual decision. He implemented the move as an involved editor, overrunning the sysop's protection of the page. In this way he used administrative powers to impose his will as an involved editor (without seeking consensus, without initiating the consensus-seeking procedure, without going to WP:REQUESTED MOVES etc. etc.). He thus abused his sysop status beyond any doubt.
8. Consequently, ChrisO did not implement an adm action, but committed an involved user's action abusing adm powers. As such, his move is not within the scope of sysop actions, and, if another adm undoes him, there is no wheel-warring. His warnings (aka threats) are null and void, because the sysop who will revert him, he will just restore wikipedia policies, which were violated by the actions of an involved editor (in any case, for me ChrisO no more deserves the "sysop" title). Personally, I will not revert him, not because I take seriously his warnings, but because I refuse to follow his path, which is in violation of Wikipedia's spirit and principles. I do not intend to be involved in tactics, methods, and procedures I disgust. I believe that, in the end, it will be Wikipedia community which will isolate and condemn ChrisO's practices.
9. In any case, if ChrisO firmly believes in what he does and in the correct application by him of BOLD (or BRD? or both? or I don't know anymore!), why doesn't he change RoM to Macedonia everywhere in the project? Instead, he declares that he did that only here and nowhere else. Why not, if he believes in his policy-adherence? By (non-)acting like that, ChrisO is inconsistent with himself. ChrisO, if you believe that you act in accordance with WP policies, change RoM to Macedonia everywhere.
10. ChrisO acted like that just a few days before ArbCom's dealing with the whole case (having first cleared the way with the renaming of the disambiguation page), and after his proposal of "prosecuting" himself the "Greek nationalists" before ArbCom (he doesn't think that the case should be introduced by a more objective user!) was met with disapproval (at least!). By acting like that, ChrisO attempted, in the most controversial way, to take "the upper hand" in this case, and create some precedents, trying to influence the arbitrators' first impression, when they start to deal with the case. Once again, I'll avoid the temptation to characterize such practices.

Dear co-Wikipedians, all the above convince me that ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything.

I hope that ChrisO will revert himself, as he has been kindly asked to do. But, even if he does it, I am not sure, if respect and confidence in him will be ever restored by the Wikipedia community. I hope that the harm he did to the project (edit-wars are already on the way because of him) will be undone at some point. Unfortunately, as I said, I'll be absent from the project during the next days.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously who the fuck cares that some religion is celebrating some holiday? If wikipedia stops on every religious date we won't get anything done. chandler ··· 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO himself cares [7]. He very well understands what "allowing everyone to participate" in contentious issues means and this is why he chose this timing. --Avg (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not celebrate but ChrisO knows perfectly well that most of the people who would object to his "boldness" (sic) would be absent for the next 3-5 days... This is why he chose this day, this is why it matters. Because it clearly shows planning and NOT spontaneity... And planning negates any arguments about "good faith".GK1973 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to make a change like this on the eve of an arbitration case. I've not been able to make it earlier because I've been in Spain for some days, with minimal web access. But I'm curious as to why Yannis assumes that the presence of Greek editors is essential for dealing with an issue that is, after all, about a foreign country. It's an interesting assumption considering the insistence of a number of editors that this isn't about Greek nationalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What you make us wonder is why YOU think that the presence of the Greek editors is of no importance. And of course it is really funny how you say that you are not going to make "a change like this on the eve of an arbitration case", when it was on the same day that you provoked everybody BY MAKING this change that you do not want to revert... As for your arguments about how Greeks should not have interest in the word "Macedonia" (... a foreign country...), this alone shows a huge disrespect to an active Wikipedian community. No...this is NOT about Greek or ethnic Macedonian nationalism. It is about you, the disrespect you show the editors and the institutions of Wikipedia. GK1973 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chandler is correct. Holidays or not, after what happened, no time should be lost. ARBCOM notified.--Yannismarou (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well, Yannismarou. Now you have managed to sidetrack the real issue (which is the naming of the country of Macedonia in Greece and following one consistent Wikipedia policy) and interfering in the article of another country for what you, yourself, admit are completely Greek motives fostered by a Greek audience. Congratulations for proving that nationalistic groups that are completely unwilling to reach consensus and compromise are a problem for Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

I am happy to see that the initial comments at arbitration are leaning toward deciding the whole issue and not just the moving issue. We will see. (Taivo (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, do not hurry to judge my motives and actions. An read carefully the phrasing of my filing. Watch a bit how I am acting.--Yannismarou (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your filing carefully and I am happy that ARBCOM's comments so far seem to be willing to broaden the issue to solve the whole naming dispute. We will see as more of ARBCOM weighs in. It's the naming dispute within Wikipedia that is the fundamental problem here. And, in the end, it won't have mattered whether the issue was sent to ARBCOM today or next week. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

It is expected to broaden the issue, Taivo.--Yannismarou (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the amount of disrespect ChrisO has shown against:

1. Me (User:Shadowmorph), by ignoring the discussion started in Macedonia (disambiguation, now said) and bordering with the definition of lying [talk page] (other editors too were ridiculed, one even said too us we were "seeing ghosts" to anticipate your move)
2. All other editors in an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" [WP:Purpose] (we can't move it back)
3. All Orthodox [Good Friday] editors, using warlike tactics [Yom Kippur War] to begin an edit war (especially to Greek and Bulgarians that might object to your move) Shadowmorph

(reply to ChrisO from my talk page) Shadowmorph (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't feel disrespected at all by ChrisO's move, so speak only for yourself, Shadowmorph. (Taivo (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Ulterior Motives?

ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Macedonians, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Macedonia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Greek position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue...GK1973 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a clearcut case of a premeditated "Act now, regret later" plan. ChrisO will present a fait accompli to ArbCom and propose them to maintain peace by upholding the current status quo. He will then apologize for being too blunt and ignoring the consensus, mentioning he felt he was doing the right thing. He will then hope he'll just be admonished to respect consensus, while he would have won his content dispute. All these are too obvious.--Avg (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at your "outrage", Avg. You, of all people, have no concept of compromise or consensus, which you claim is a foundation of Wikipedia action. But you have refused to budge one inch when it comes to the name of "Macedonia" at Greece. You have offered not one compromise in the whole time I have been reading your comments. You have moved not one inch toward the other position. I guess that the words "compromise" and "consensus" don't mean the same things in Greek that they mean in English. (Taivo (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Back to the naming issue...

I hope I'm getting this straight, I have no personal stake in the nationalistic dispute as an American. The original dispute was between Republic of Macedonia and FYROM. Greeks support the latter because they consider the name Macedonia to be "theirs". Moving the page here from ROM doesn't resolve the issue, quite the opposite. At least "Republic of Macedonia" indicates that the country is one Macedonia among others (the region, the Greek province). Just plain "Macedonia" suggests that the country is the Macedonia--exactly what Greeks object to. "FYROM" only has support on the Greek side, so "Republic of Macedonia" is the most neutral title. No opinion on whether the country should be the primary topic. 140.247.4.244 (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The naming of articles for the English wikipedia naming should reflect primary usage in, primarily, the English speaking world. Whether or not an outside group from a limited regional area objects to that matter is not particularly relevant unless they can show the naming to be incorrect according to our guidelines about primary usage. henrik•talk 05:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but when I (and most English speakers) say Taiwan I mean the de facto independent country known officially as the Republic of China. When I say China I mean the People's Republic of China. Just try to move those pages to the "correct" titles. And what about Palestine? 140.247.4.244 (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinas are a bit different (it's already been discussed above) in that they both claim to be rightful government of the same territorial extent. I'm not sure what your point is about Palestine, it seems fine. What other article should be located there? Besides, we all know Wikipedia is riddled with errors - it is not inconceivable that there could be improvements in the naming of those article too. henrik•talk 06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Wikipedia has NOT a consistent policy on these issues and this is the REASON of its success. Because it makes people find a solution. The whole world says England and means the UK. According to your rationale, we should rename UK to England and there clearly state that although people use it, it is not the correct word. The constitutional name of this country is REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA and as such was accepted by all editors Greek or not, nationalists or not. What ChrisO did was to force on wikipedians the name most users refer to this country with (IT IS WHAT WE DO IN OTHER ARTICLES AS FOR EXAMPLE "GREECE" (Hellenic Republic)) but we avoid doing it where it might stir trouble. There is no clearer policy of wikipedia, despite any guidelines, other than the sincere will of most editors to contribute to this great project and maintin a consensus. There was absolutely NO REASON for ChrisO to be that "bold", for it served no purpose. No nationalist Greek's opinion was heard, their opinion being that the name of the country be reverted to FYROM instead of ROM and no ethnic Macedonian had any trouble with the constitutional name of his country. This was a blant attack against the Greek community of wikipedia and tyhose who support them as well as against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Arguments that are heard about the Greeks POVing are ludicrous, since RoM is clearly 100% in favor of the ethnic Macedonians' wishes. There was NO compromise there. Who could possibly claim that naming this country Republic of Macedonia was a violation of ANY rights, wishes etc except those of the Greeks? So, although Wikipedia was 100% behind RoM in this, ChrisO took this dispute to a new level, actually PROVING THE GREEK NATIONALISTS RIGHT!!! His action had nothing to do with order, it had everything to do with provocation. GK1973 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should highly extreme nationalistic views be taken into account? They will always be biased and push their POV, just as in the Muhammed cartoons the extreme editors don't get to push their worldview on the rest of us. As its already been explained, Macedonia is the common name in English, it is the primary topic. I am guessing its only in the greek language where Macedonia isn't the common name for Macedonia the country. And while I have heard Americans say "England" and mean "Great Britain" or "the UK", no the whole world doesn't confuse the two. And there's a difference between a confusion and a real common name chandler ··· 11:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the "highly nationalistic" views? As I explained so is the the case for so many other countries in Wikipedia, yet we DO NOT act like this. As for the world not confusing England with UK, I fail to understand your point.. Following the same rationale, that wants wikipedia to refer to a country by the exact way most people refer to it we are equally obliged to rename UK to England and there state that the name is not the official name of the country, yet most use it instead of the official name, EXACTLY as we now do in the RoM article...!!! Why don't you admit that there was absolutely NO REASON for this change? Every Greek had accepted wikipedia calling this country RoM. So did every ethnic Macedonian. So, now, we just choose to provoke nationalism and for what? What possible reason can you give me for this? When somebody entered "Macedonia", didn't this someone have the option to visit this country's site? Weren't the ethnic Macedonians happy that Wikipedia chose to refer to them as RoM? Wasn't this a great "victory" for them? What "nationalism" are you talking about? We provoke these people, we disrespect them and we instill fanaticism to the other side too, so what does Wikipedia gain from all this? Fanaticism? Edit wars? Loss of credence? We HAD achieved a compromise and everybody was content (apart from very few cases). The naming dispute has nothing to do with this. We didn't call RoM FYRoM! We didn't call them "Vardarska", we accepted the name they chose. So, there was NO NAMING DISPUTE here... This was a direct attack against the Greeks and nothing more. GK1973 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot?

While Fut. Perf. is right in observing that no consensus has been reached over the use of the two names (“Republic of etc.” and “Former Yugoslav etc.”) in Wikipedia, both his explanation of the reasons for that failure (‘nationalism’, which explains nothing) and his conclusion that one of the names should be imposed by other means, are quite wrong.

No consensus has been reached because that would mean a compromise on the usage of the two names, while certain editors feel that no such compromise is needed as they believe that the name “Republic of etc.” would eventually prevail in real life.

However, it is already certain that the latter won't happen. Even Skopje has already decided officially that Republic of Macedonia will not be the pending final solution. (President Branko Crvenkovski before the Parliament: “Од меѓународната заедница нема веќе разбирање за двојната формула, а и ние ја напуштивме непосредно пред Букурешт, со прифаќањето на предлогот Република Македонија (Скопје).” (Alpha TV Skopje) Translation: The internarional community has no longer any understanding for the double formula, while we have abandoned it on the eve of Bucharest with the acceptance of the proposal Republic of Macedonia (Skopje).)

The present ‘bold move’ only illustrates one more time the fact that “Republic of” cannot serve as a disambiguation means, that Republic of Macedonia = Macedonia, entailing a monopolization of the name ‘Macedonia’ by an entity that owns barely 30-odd percent of the geography and much, much less of the history of that region. Nice try, but a failed one (see the preceding paragraph).

So this ‘bold move’ is not the proverbial cutting of the Gordian Knot but rather shooting one’s foot (and shooting some more Wiki feet along that too :-). Apcbg (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The uncertainty of the formal name to be agreed on out there only strengthens the case for this renaming, IMO. The formal names, including our previous article title Republic of Macedonia, might soon be a thing of the past. However, in common usage in the international English language community, simple "Macedonia" will most likely remain the only stable thing. Do you really think everyday usage internationally would switch to something like "Republic of Macedonia (Skopje)" from one day to the next? If and when it does, we will follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. in the Past (apologies, I couldn't resist it :-)), you cannot presume that a future compromise name wouldn't affect common usage. If for example the formal name is 'Republic of North Macedonia' (which is not unlikely), then most certainly the common usage would be North Macedonia — not Macedonia. The right thing (now unfortunately aborted) would have been to keep the status quo here, and when the new situation arises then, as you rightly say, we follow. Apcbg (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When that will have happened (fut.perf.), we will react (fut.) accordingly, but only after the change will have been being felt (fut.perf.progr.pass.) in actual reality. References in article text will then have to be changed anyway, and the change of the article title will be trivial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The present surge was totally unprovoked and unnecessary. Apcbg (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, any change to the formal name wouldn't be relevant for our purposes. Wikipedia:Naming conventions requires us to use the common name, not the formal name, for a thing, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) explicitly prioritises the use of "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more." When Yugoslavia changed its name from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it didn't change the common name - people just continued using "Yugoslavia". Likewise with Macedonia in its various name changes over the years. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Common usage, yes — but not only; we don't find the USA article under the title America. Apcbg (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apcbg, the self identification of the Republic of Macedonia will be decided by its citizens. The "Republic of Macedonia" is a formal name, which in the past has been used only for the purposes of disambiguation. Quite right ChrisO, the common name for the country has always been Macedonia. Even from 1944-1992 when it was known as the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and since 1992 as the Republic of Macedonia. PMK1 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure it will be decided by the people of that country, and supposedly confirmed by a referendum; as for the basis of that decision see the Alpha TV parliamentary report quoted above. Apcbg (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia arbitration case

Yannismarou has filed an arbitration request on this issue at WP:RFAR#Macedonia naming dispute (so much for the Orthodox Easter, it seems!). Editors are invited to leave comments there. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New essay

People here might be interested in this new essay of mine. Comments and suggestions are welcome, if they are constructive and/or contain something new. (Which means: the usual suspects are cordially invited to not comment on it. I know what you think.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing MOSMAC. :) It is an interesting topic, and well done for commiting so much time and effort towards this topic. One question however, what about refering to the Ethnic Macedonian population in Greece. Is "Aegean Macedonian" an appropriate appelation, i noticed that in WP:MOSMAC, it is labelled as "deprecated term". Would this deprecation be repealed, considering its frequent use over the past 2 years, since the publication of the first MOSMAC. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First, please let's be clear that this text is a personal essay and does not aim to become a binding new MoS document. Personally, I don't think "Aegean Macedonian" is very useful as a term. For one part of the readership it will have strong political connotations (for half of them negative ones), and for most of the rest it won't mean anything. Both is bad. A simple, easily comprehensible circumlocution, such as "ethnic Macedonians from Greece", is probably better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting essay. Using Wikipedia and the CIA factbook, I've looked up organsations, sporting and medical organisation- that the country is part of or has links to see whether they use FYROM or RoM/Macedonia. I've aimed to do this using NPOV and here are my findings:

Organisations that use the name FYROM

• FIFA[8]
• UN[9]
• EU[10]
• NATO[11]
• European Bank for Reconstruction and Development[12]
• International Monetary Fund[13]
• WTO[14]
• SECI[15]
• Francophonie[16]
• Red Cross[17]
• OPCW[18]
• Interpol[19]
• WIPO[20]

Organisations that use the name RoM/Macedonia

• CIA[21]
• WCO[22]
• ATP[23]]

Fixing double redirects

In response to a request at Tizio's talkpage, I altered the double-redirects created by this move at Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM and Fyrom to point to this article's new location. Seeing that there is controversy and this move may not be permanent, I wanted to note those alterations so that these redirects can be repaired if this page is moved again. I've watchlisted the article so I can do the changes to those redirects myself if necessary, but obviously they won't need to wait on me. Any administrator can redirect them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Macedonia → Republic of Macedonia — It very much seems to me that the move of this article to this location may have been at best poorly thought through. It has certainly created a great deal of unnecessary controversy and heat. I believe we might all be better served if the article were restored to its previous location, thus giving those editors who see this move as being one accomplished by way of "special admin powers" or possibly excessive boldness to become calm again and better able to engage in reasonable discussion. — John Carter (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments: