Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Περίεργος (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 16 February 2019 (→Draft RFC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stuff

What is this page supposed to be used for? The "final decision" or whatever? J.delanoygabsadds 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was just what I was thinking.... Fritzpoll (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am eager to know the results. Please, do take as much time as necessary to go through all 5 pages, review and count, etc. Just, pls, let us know where to expect the results (on this page?), and when (2-3 days is absolutely fine, IMHO). Dc76\talk 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the answer myself on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia in the lead. Posting here because others might not notice just like me:

As mandated by the Arbitration Committee, after 00:00 12 July, 2009 (UTC) at the latest, one month after this discussion was opened, no more endorsements will be considered. The referees will then determine consensus on the various facets of this discussion. The results will be posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus before 00:00 19 July 2009 (UTC).

I am just currious who are the referees. Pure curiousity. Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dc76, this wasn't a vote so there's no "counting" involved. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I understand that. I did not chose the correct word. People did not vote, but they did endorse, which means that they have read the arguments of all proposals carefully, and subscribe to those arguments. Sometomes I found something to add personally, sometimes I found the arguments already clear enough. When 10 editors endorse the same version, that is not reason enough to say this is how it will be, but it is reason enough to give an additional thought about that version to understand precisely what is it specifically in that version that 10 editors sought. Perhaps I am wrong somehow, but this is how I understand the process. Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The results will be here before July 19 at the absolute latest. Realistically, I'd expect that a few days at the most will be sufficient; depending on when we can get online, and whether we disagree in our assessments, we may have the results up within 36 hours. J.delanoygabsadds 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much (see also above, i post it nevertheless b/c i already wrote it and got edit conflict with you :) ) Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referee statements

Fritzpoll

Based on the discussions, and Arbcom's requirement that we consider the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, my interpretation of the various discussions is as follows.

  • Main articles: Proposal B has the most support and the better arguments and has been shown to plausibly satisfy the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, specifically at WP:NAME#Be_precise_when_necessary and WP:NCDAB. Proposla A was close-run, but obviously had less support and tellingly has support from editors who also specify a preference for B.
  • Greece articles: Proposal A is the only one that is obviously policy-compliant, and no arguments for the other proposals offered a reason for why it was substantially better, compared to the arguments in favour of proposal A.
  • International organisations: Proposal A, for similar reasons to the Greek articles. Arguments in favour of A acknowledge policy rather than requesting the more arbitrary and complex exemptions of the other proposals.
  • Other articles: Proposal A passes.
  • Other page titles: Proposal C passes.

The final two consensuses here are acceptable because they command the most support, and do not contradict the results of the other areas of discussions. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy

  • Main articles: Proposal B. This one was very close, and either A or B could have gone forward. However, I think that based on the comments people made when endorsing the proposals, B has the most support; most notably, many of those who supported the other proposals at least partially supported B in principle. Also, in my own view, the arguments given in support of Proposal B are marginally more compelling policy-wise than those in favor of Proposal A.
  • Greece-related articles: Consensus is clearly in favor of Proposal A, and in my own opinion, this proposal complies best with applicable policy.
  • International orgs: Proposal A.
  • Other articles: Proposal A.
  • Other page titles: Consensus favors Proposal C. While this proposal is slightly complicated, the benefit of prima facie resolving future disputes is significant.

J.delanoygabsadds 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney

  • Main Articles: Proposal B. As mentioned, this is a much closer call than any of the other discussions. I think John Carter's arguments in particular were compelling and considered the proposals based on a range of existing consensus policy. Proposal B also seemed to be an acceptable compromise for most editors who would have picked another as their first choice - sometimes acceptable is the best we can hope for out of consensus.
  • Greece-related articles: Proposal A. The few endorsements of other proposals did not address reasons of policy that would make them preferential.
  • International organisations:Proposal A. Again, other proposals did not present sound reasoning based in Wikipedia policy.
  • Other articles:Proposal A for both policy and being the only one with significant support.
  • Other page titles:Proposal C. Sound in policy and while more complex than the others, lends to future concerns as well.

Shell babelfish 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

First of all, thank you to the referees. You've done a great job in seeing this process through to a decent conclusion. I think this is a fair decision and I hope we can now settle down on this new solution peacefully.

A few things about implementation:

  • I volunteer to do the necessary disambiguation edits to the existing plain Macedonia links, which need to be piped to a disambiguated title.
    (update: done. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I hope one of you guys will do us the honour and make the necessary moves to the main pages. Please remember that there are a lot of protected redirects that will have to be adapted manually too.
  • Where will this document find its final home as a citeable guideline? Should we leave it here, or move it to somewhere near the old WP:MOSMAC? For now, I am redirecting WP:MOSMAC2 to this page.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're doing some updates here, then we'll notify Arbcom, then we'll get to it! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom have now asked us to hold off until tomorrow evening with implementing the consensus to allow other arb/community input at the noticeboard. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you to the Arbs for their volunteer work in this process and for their patience. Also thanks to Future for his voluntary work. It's summertime so I won't be too helpful to him and will be doing edits of a more casual nature or Macedonia-unrelated but rather summer-related ares like ...solar activity :)
Please note that several policy texts with references to Macedonia-related naming like e.g. WP:NAME, WP:NCGN, WP:NCON should be cleaned up and link to this page so that interested users can find it.
There is still the open Miscellaneous page, there are some issues there too; but we can afford to take our time with that because right now fatigue from all interested parties is evident. Regards and take care. Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand Fut.Perf. hurry to implement the move to Macedonian accession to the European Union, when them country's main article is not yet moved to Republic of Macedonia. Isn't there a proper order here in proceeding to these moves?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem, is the move against the resolution? man with one red shoe 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Yannis, but I looked at the decision and didn't find any mention whatsoever of a "proper order". (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
We (the referees) were going to wait to start implementing the results until sometime later this evening (UTC). When Fritzpoll notified ArbCom that we had completed the discussion, Rlevse asked us to wait 48 hours before we started. I assume this is a "Speak now, or forever hold your peace" sort of thing. J.delanoygabsadds 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem Taivo is that all the procedures should be properly done, and I see no reason for hurry or anxiety. if the referees are advised to wait for 48 hours, I don't see why involved parties should act in such a hurry. I believe that ArbCom and the referees should give the signal for starting the implementation of what is decided. Either we have an organized procedure here; either we are a σκορποχώρι (I am sure Fut.Perf. understands the word). Can I go on my own now and make the move of the Macedonia article, implementing the resolution?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a rather foolish argument to be having. The 48 hours is up in 4 hours, so what's the point of arguing? Just leave FutPerf's move alone, and then if four hours, let the fun begin... J.delanoygabsadds 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it would be best for one of the referees to be the one moving Macedonia. J.delanoygabsadds 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yannis, as far as I'm concerned, I'd have no problem with you doing the honours and moving that page – but only if you then also do the grunt work of changing all the protected redirects ;-) (just like I did the grunt work of emptying whatlinkshere-Macedonia.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) I don't question you hard work Fut. (I never did it, whatever our differences maybe; and I've repeatedly done hard work in the Wikipedia just like you), and this is not my problem here. I neither want to have fun; and I do not care if it is one minure or four hours. Agree or disagree with me, J.delanoy. but I do believe that things should be done in a proper order. A resolution is made; then the ArbCom and the referees should indicate when its implementation starts; and, after that, they should implement it (or give the ok to others to implement it as well). It is your right to regard my argument as foolish, but it is also my right to deem your indefference in proper coordination and proper fulfilment of the resolution as more foolish (although I do respect your work as referee). This is my final comment on the issue: regard it as a minor complaint on the procedures followed--Yannismarou (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, what exactly do you want me to do? FutPerf moved the page eight hours ago. Four hours from now, it would be moved anyways. Do you want me to move it back and then move it again in four hours? Do you want me to block FutPerf? (I won't, by the way)
I am not indifferent to proper process. If I were, I would have moved all the pages the first night after we closed the discussion. I simply fail to see why you are pressing the issue of FutPerf's move so hard. I do not think that what FutPerf did is actionable in any way, other than possibly "You were naughty.", and probably not even that. If you do think it is actionable, you should take it up with Rlevse, since he is the one who asked us to wait. J.delanoygabsadds 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the last sentence of my previous comment, and then calm down. Best.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for yelling. J.delanoygabsadds 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing the moves

I will make the remaining moves at 2100 UTC (around 1hr 23 minutes time) and I'll need to know of any other changes that need to be enacted to achieve minimum disruption. I am happy to leave this latter part to more knowledgable editors though. I will naturally edit the dab and main article page to reflect the new titles. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, the suspense is growing every minute. So, we'll do it all really ceremoniously, right? ;-)
What needs to be done is:
  • Adjust the (many) redirects – has to be done manually by an admin because most are protected.
  • Adjust the hat notes in various articles that are now pointing to Macedonia (disambiguation) (I could do that)
I don't think anything else is immediately necessary, technically speaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine a sudden burst effect followed by a gradual settling down as editors find themsleves landing at the wrong page, then hopefully editing the error away. I will suppress the redirect when moving the disambig page (non-controversial, hopefully), so I'll fix the links to that page immediately to prevent redlinks over Wikipedia. I'll actually go check those first! I wonder if there's a way to batch job the redirects... Fritzpoll (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we turn off our computers like we did at midnight on 31 Dec 1999? Just to be sure there's no irremediable chaos? :p (Taivo (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I do have to admit to a certain sense of foreboding about clicking through the moves, but I'm sure all will be well...(cowers in fear) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should seek shelter somewhere underground, Taivo, but don't forget your bottle of Cardhu. – Fritzpoll, why do you want to omit the redirect from Macedonia (disambiguation)? I'm not sure it's such a good idea – it has quite a few talkpage links, because there was a lot of discussion over it during those days. Keeping the redirect won't hurt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but I'll update the existing hats to point directly to the new page. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The moves are complete and we think we've sorted most of the incoming links. Some embedded in article text are bound to still be wrong, but we're hopeful that these will be cleaned up over time by other editors. Barring any other problems, I consider mine and the other referees roles in this essentially complete. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

former Yugoslav

There are other ways to make the same identification, when necessary, like "once part of Yugoslavia"; they should be mentioned as alternatives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A partial success and a partial failure

I'd like to express my thanks to our referees for their hard work, their successful efforts to bring this to a conclusion and their final decision, which is mostly - but not entirely - a good one. Unfortunately it's the "not entirely" which is the major problem here. It's quite obvious that the decision on the main article name is essentially an attempt at a political compromise between different factions of editors. That much is clear from the comments of the referees, Shell's especially, and from the fact that the mountain of evidence gathered on this issue wasn't even mentioned in their comments; nor was the inconsistency created with other country articles; nor was the blatant contradiction with the explicitly stated requirements of WP:NPOV, a foundational policy that is supposed to be non-negotiable. It shows that developing policy and guidelines, or gathering evidence, is a waste of time, as the results will be ignored if the results are politically inconvenient to a sufficiently large group of editors and the implementation of policy in a particular case is considered "too difficult" by uninvolved editors. The choice was essentially between an evidence-based, precedent-based, policy-based solution that would enrage a nationalist faction, or a "split the baby" approach that would appease the nationalists but would ignore the evidence, break with precedent and violate clearly-stated, long-standing policy criteria. It's disappointing but not surprising that the latter approach has been chosen as the politically easiest option.

This affair, from the start, has been a test of whether Wikipedia is capable of dealing with the intrusion of outside disputes into the task of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia that ignores political dictates. Clearly it isn't. The lesson is obvious: if a sufficiently large number of sufficiently noisy SPAs, sockpuppets and cranks gets together and tries to force their POV onto Wikipedia, the outcome will be an attempt to split the baby, regardless of what policy, evidence and precedent indicates. One thing is for sure - nobody can pretend any more that Wikipedia is a serious effort to create something with real academic integrity. It's a great source for Pokemon articles but you're better off with Britannica for any controversial topics. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a consensus of editors who gave grounding in policy and the naming conventions. I most certainly did not base my evaluation on any political bias, but your choice did not have the reasoned support of the community in this case. I understand your personal frustration, but suggesting that this was a "political compromise" is unfair and unjustified. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "political compromise", Fritzpoll, I don't mean that you were taking sides on the external political question of what the country's name should be - there's no question of political bias here. There is, however, pretty clearly a question of taking the easy way out, which is what this looks like. A very unfortunate precedent has been set here which will undoubtedly be used to justify NPOV being set aside in other cases. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the community would work disputes out on their own, especially these ethnic disputes, we would not need dispute resolution, arbcom, and referees. The community's failure to do what it should on its own makes these procedures necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, that is the ultimate cause of failure. Unfortunately it's a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's approach - the fact that it's "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has made it hugely popular, but the same fact means that we allow people to edit who probably shouldn't, and we have a constant battle - which we're losing - against vandalism and politically motivated distortions which academic encyclopedias don't have to face (or at least not in quite the same way). There's a lot more that could be said on that topic, but this isn't the place for it; I'm jotting down some thoughts on what this affair signifies, which I'll post in due course somewhere as an essay. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Or is there a question of not being happy that your personal preference was not selected, which is what this looks like? We evaluated against consensus and policy as we were meant to - I specifically rejected comments that said things were politically simpler, and yet the consensus still stood in favour of this result. I'm sorry that you're not happy, but that's the bugger of consensus-building for you - I'll disengage now, as my participation in this conversation will probably not assist its resolution. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say I'm happy that the mass of evidence which was gathered wasn't even mentioned in the comments, and I think you can appreciate that I'm especially not happy that the policies I wrote - namely the relevant section of NPOV and the naming conflict guidelines - have been set aside. Please understand, though, that I'm not particularly blaming you and the other referees. You did what the social pressures of Wikipedia were pushing you to do; the failure isn't yours, as I've said to Rlevse above, it's the community's. I don't propose to continue the conversation further, as I don't think there's much else to say at this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, Chris, but I must disagree with you here. Although I, too, would have personally preferred the "A" solution, I must say I would have decided the same way as the referees did, had I been in their situation – if perhaps with a slightly different emphasis in expressing the rationale. The situation we had here was one where both camps had made a reasonable case that their respective solutions were legitimate in light of policy, but neither had made a watertight case that the other was not. Also, the two blocks of RfC !votes were no longer numerically dominated by the national factions. So, we had a genuine case of "no consensus" between reasonable people in a matter of making a legitimate judgment call. In my view, the referees did what they ought to do, go for the more "conservative", less contentious "status quo ante", with the slightly more numerous votes. The positive precedent we have here is that we actually have seen a process where the national noise was ultimately not the decisive or dominating factor. – (To Rlevse: Your tone of blaming "the community" for "not doing what it ought to do" is uncalled-for. This ocnflict was previously not solved because the structural conditions made a solution under the existing framework objectively impossible.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree too, I think this was a great thing that for the first time the matter was decided by somebody not involved, my only question is why honest Wikipedia editors were left to the mercy of POV pushers for years without anybody doing something like this. Yes, the solution is not great for everybody, but I can only respect the process that was used to reach it. man with one red shoe 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chris, I hope this rant helps you get out your frustration that your choice wasn't the final consensus because surely the wiki isn't going to implode and the referees weren't all Macedonian's in disguise :D Shell babelfish 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a chuckle. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can say one serious thing though, I spent a *lot* of time looking through the evidence and I really do appreciate all the hard work that had to have gone into it. In reference to the primary name/solomon's test/who gets the article, what stood out to me, and I thought John Carter put it better, was that in places where a source had to regularly deal with the various incarnations of the word "Macendonia" they often tacked on extra words to make themselves clear; periodicals that frequently used "Macedonia" only to refer to the current republic didn't have that worry. Maybe it is splitting the baby or maybe it was a vain hope that Wikipedia can really be a serious encyclopedia sometimes or maybe years from now we'll decide this was a really dumb idea but none of that belittles all the work that a number of editors put in to present evidence, strong arguments and generally worked their butts off to make this discussion successful. Shell babelfish 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I do appreciate the effort that you put into it, and I'm glad you were able to make use of the evidence that was presented. While I disagree with the outcome (as I might have mentioned...) I have no complaints at all about the process, and you and the other referees did a good job within the existing social and structural constraints. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I suspect "Proposal B" in main articles was selected because how it was framed, if it would have been framed as "Macedonia is the disambiguation page" solution instead of "Republic of Macedonia solution" it would have probably lost because it would have been more evident to people and judges that is not such a great idea to direct most of the people to a dab page, but, oh well... I can live with it. man with one red shoe 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To FP: This conflict was previously not solved, like most ethnic disputes, not because of the framework, but because one or more sides refused to work to a solution because they were only willing to accept their version of what they perceive as the truth. It is people's behavior that gets most all cases to arbcom, not shortcomings of the wiki framework. I am not saying the wiki framework is perfect by any means, as that is also a factor, but all too often people blame wiki for their own failings. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki model requires that people be willing to accept that they could be wrong. Nationalists will not do this under any circumstances. They are completely incapable of seeing the other person's side, and they NEVER compromise. Ever. (not that I really need to tell you this...) It is here that the wiki model breaks down. Either a very small group of trusted users, or one user by themselves, will have to decide what to do, because nationalists are willing to argue until the heat death of the universe. Unless someone has real, tangible authority to issue a binding decision based on policy, and even against all comers (so to speak) if necessary, no administrator will ever be willing to cut through the nonsense and tell it like it is, because they would end up at RFAR, and would almost certainly be desysopped for abusing their admin tools. J.delanoygabsadds 23:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...or at leas thave to walk so close to the line that they'll end up almost feeling obliged to cross it. Not that it makes the action correct, but it dissuades control of such situations by usual means Fritzpoll (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoy has a very precise and accurate appraisal of how the Wiki model breaks down. The Wiki model is designed for the best of all possible worlds--a utopian dream of people who just get along. It's not based on actual reality. Print encyclopedias are based on one or two subject matter experts (who are theoretically neutral) writing each article without interference from "the man on the street". Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it will always be subject to the whims of any joe who has access to an internet connection, a basic knowledge of English, and an axe to grind. There will always be a need for "real, tangible authority" in J.delanoy's words to keep the ill-informed masses at bay. (Taivo (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Re jdelanoy, Precisely my point, it's the behavior of people that is the root, the model doesn't break until there are one or more factions unwilling to compromise. If the various factions that are unwilling to work together would come together and cooperate like rational mature adults we wouldn't have to worry about these things. All too often there is at least one side, often more than one, that will fight to the bitter end because hundreds, if not thousands of years of bitter ethnic strife have convinced them that what they perceive as the truth is being perverted. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be people who have different interests, a reasonable framework should allow for this and enable people to bypass such obstacles. The framework of Wikipedia should allow for calling people who are not involved into discussion in cases where it's clear the process is blocked because of such interests. Continuing to blame people for their interests and for pushing their POV and for their lack of interest in compromise is a failure to understand the real problem that Wikipedia face when it comes to nationalism. To give an example from society is like bitching that there are some people who don't have any principles and they steal when called to enact some rules or to police and enforce the rule of law. Complaining about "some people" will never solve the problem, that's not the real problem, that's a given, the problem is solved only if you have a framework that deals with the nature of the people (unpleasant, but true) man with one red shoe 00:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other venues, some were tried here in this case, people not involved did try to help. It is indeed sad it had to go all the way to arbcom and took so long. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Chris, I've reviewed your arguments, and, while I would like to change to satisfy you, I am not persuaded that this title is any more POV than Democratic Republic of the Congo or People's Republic of China. It might have been better to have a full approval poll, so we could see what everybody could tolerate.

Feel free to make the proposal again in a reasonable time, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious reply is that with the DRC and PRC, there are other countries using the same geographical name - the Republic of the Congo and the Republic of China respectively. Nobody disputes the need for disambiguation in those cases. But Macedonia is a case like Luxembourg or Azerbaijan where it is the only country in the world using that geographical name. One of our Greek editors gave the game away, earlier in the discussion, when he rejected the Luxembourg and Azerbaijan parallels because they were not the subject of political disputes. That is ultimately what this is about. We would not even have had this discussion, or this dispute, if it were not for the national psychosis that afflicts too many Greeks on this issue. You don't see Belgians or, as far as I know, Iranians insisting that the rest of the world should not call a neighbouring state by its chosen name because that name overlaps with one of their own regions. We are only taking a different approach to this particular naming issue because of the trouble that one faction has created for everyone else. It's a sacrifice of encyclopedic integrity to appease a noisy and troublesome faction. Though to paraphrase Churchill, appeasement is merely the hope that by feeding the crocodile it will eat you last. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course, without the political cause (I would not quite say psychosis; every political party is liable to exactly such behavior), we would have settled this long ago.
  • But someone else is using Macedonia, and not just or chiefly the Macedonian Greeks; we are not bound only to consider existing states. If you can achieve consensus to move Macedonia (ancient kingdom) to Macedon, the case for moving this to Macedonia will be simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said by both of the other referees, we did not make the choice to "appease" anyone. We made the choice because we felt that the arguments in favor of Proposal B were more compelling than those in favor of Proposal A. The evidence was largely to help people to decide which proposal to support. We (the referees) were asked to determine consensus, not to unilaterally come to a decision. If I cannot convince of that, I'm sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is what you were supposed to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that Chris forgets something. If the community is to follow the "most common name" approach, then Ireland should not point to the island. Are the "nationalists" in Britain ready to accept such a move? Just be mature and accept the outcome of the community's procedures. What was caused largely by you, was not accepted. Move on. - Patrick, an Irish expat in Crete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.63.248 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is the most common name of the island and of the (Irish) Republic. That's the problem there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Just as a point of clarification: It seems we didn't talk explicitly about category names. Now, we could have gone for treating Macedonia like Azerbaijan, Mongolia and Luxembourg, using the short name in category titles, but there's still Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name the country, which wants "Republic of". It also generally places the emphasis on consistent names throughout, so it wouldn't be good to have mixed usage in category names in the same way as will be allowed in article titles. So, shall we just stick with "Republic of" in categories? (there are a few "FYR"s out there at present, and a fair number of plain "M."s.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: two CFD cases have now concluded with a result of applying our MOSMAC2 pattern to category titles (i.e. allowing plain "Macedonia" where it's not in conflict with another category), rather than the older WP:NCCAT rules. There's still a discussion thread at WT:NCCAT about how to align the two guidelines. Input is welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation log

I think it might be useful if we kept a log of some implementation actions, especially those that involve admin action requests (e.g. requested moves, CFD's, "editprotected" requests etc.) Here's the first batch:

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Republic_of_Macedonia for a discussion of the general issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (Republic)

Macedonia (Republic) seems more suitable than Macedonia (country), it refers unambiguously to the Republic of Macedonia. Politis (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning template

Is there a warning template avalable with all the relevant links to explain the 1RR rule on changing entries to FYROM etc? If not, one would be very helpful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

try {{uw-1rrMac}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage for FYROM discussions

This page should be reserved for discussions of how to implement MOSMAC, not for the fundamental policy itself. Therefore I have created a subpage for those who wish to discuss the use of the name "Macedonia" to refer to the Republic of Macedonia rather than "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This division has worked well at Talk:Kiev, where the main page is used for discussions to improve the article while the subpage Talk:Kiev/Naming is the place for editors who wish to change the name of the article to "Kyiv". It has kept the clutter on the main talk page to a minimum. I am not an expert on the creation or use of templates in Wikipedia, so I just copied the template from Talk:Kiev, pasted it here, and changed the internal text. However, I can see that it's not exactly the right template to use since the header says "move request". If someone could fix that it would be helpful. I have moved the two name discussions to that subpage and restored Clicklander's original points to that page. (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Macedonia term and modern usage - Compose of a neutral map

Macedonia first of all is an ancient kingdom and then everything else. To what you refer as macedonia boundaries in this page, you refer only the last 100 years. I guess we miss some thousands years of definition. This page lack of information, facts, and education. What you call boundaries of Macedonia todays, you refering to the Turkish Vilayet of Thessaloniki, Monastir and Kosovo. However due the Ottoman Empire period, nowhere is reffering to the area as macedonia. However Turks make their vilayets not according to geographic term or ethnic groups areas, but they make vilayets according to the mix of population, because this cause less revolts and plus the local nations fight each other. Also in all Ottoman censuses, nowhere is mentioned any "macedonian" nation. So where was located Macedonia the previous centuries? Macedonia due the Byzantine period referred to the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia (which located in todays East Macedonia and Thrace. Evidence of that we can find into the Bulgarian Nationalism in the first and second wars and in the some previous years. VMRO, an originally Bulgarian organization which claims Macedonia to unite it with rest Bulgaria, was set mainly by Bulgarians, which Greeks and Albanians join in common goals of sending Turks away. Bulgarians refer to Macedonia as it was the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia, plus the Shopluk area. In Byzantine period Macedonia Thema was in the area of Adrianople, which VMRO claims also as Macedonia (See Bulgarian Nationalism and maps related to VMRO). VMRO exist as organization till today with claims over Vardar region due the high Bulgarian population in Shopluk area. Also there is another new VMRO of Skopje origin created the last decade and is the current political party and government in Skopje (FYROM). For the record, Bulgarians and Slavs came in the region of Balkans in the 6th century AD according of what they say and their history. Macedonia thema was relocated in late Byzantine period for strategic reasons and mainly due of the came of Bulgarians and Slavs in the area of Balkans after the 6th century and the wars between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In Roman period Macedonia was a cross road and located mainly from Durres in Albania all across the "Egnatia Odos". Is impotant to mention that Skopje city is all that period, never was part of Macedonia. However the City of Skopje original name was Scupi (Roman), Shkupi(Illyrian) and proof of that is the even latest period of Ottoman Empire which the City of Skopje known as Uskup, the name Skopje is recently invented and name it. Before even the Roman period, was the Hellenistic Era, even in that time Skopje city was not into the Macedonia's borders. There are questions such, why Alexander the Great spread Hellenism and not Macedonian stuffs if he spoke another language? Why he order Athenean Greek ships to explore red sea and find a route to India? What for was the Oath of Alexander in Opis? Why left no evidence of "Macedonism" instead all left are Greek if Macedonia and Greece was two different things? Probably because Macedonia is nothing more than Greece. What about the Kingdoms after Alexander's the Great era? Why Alexander had Greek teacher and not macedonian if it's different language? How they communicate? And for those who believe that Philippos does not like rest Greeks, why he teach Greek to his son and why he had Greek name as he and his son? Let's go to some definition. In ancient Greece there was no single thing called Greece, but there was region cities/states which fought each other and make alliances for glory and power. Notable is the Peloponnesian war which keeps for 50 years between Sparta (Lakaidemonians) and Athena. Each side had other Greek region cities/states as their alliances. For example Macedonia was with Sparta and Thebes with Athena etc. However when the so called Barbarians came in the area, Greeks stop fight each other, they form all together an army and send away the Barbarians, after that they continue their internal wars. Alexander the Great wanted to lead a campaign to Asia against Persians, however the rest states doubt if he can lead that due his very young age. For this reason he had to proof his self against the opposite alliance and did it. Note that areas such Epirus or Sparta was not set foot because they came from same alliance. After he prove his self to the opposite alliance he recruit army, which not include Spartans as respect of their legend in their epis battles of Thermopulai against Persians. The main reason of Alexander the Great of his campaign to Asia, was to take revenge for all Greeks about the wars of the previous centuries and of course as dreamed a free world. Greeks are all those which came from same nation and share same language, gods, tradition and civilization. A state or kingdom does not make the nation. Nation is people of same origin, and doesn't matter if they have one or more states. Example is the Albanians, are spread in Albania, Kosovo and FYROM, they have two states, they mainly are spread to another one, but they are from one nation. About the Vergina Sun, the sun of Vergina has been found to various Greek locations and is a symbol that represents the Olympian Gods mainly, the four elements etc. Actually is a Greek symbol and have found centuries prior Alexander's era in various locations within the Ancient Greece regions cities/states. About the language, Makedonia, Alexandros and Filippos has a meaning in Greek language. What it means in Skopski language? In Skopski language all those words has no meaning and is some plain words. And if all is different with Macedonia and Greece, how can those words has meaning in Greek language but not in Skopski language? What about the Skopski names and traditions, language? How can be related with Macedonia? And if you tell me that all change from time to time. Still how can be everything completly change? And if we speak about the Slav-Macedonian. Slavs came after 6th AD in the region of Balkans, they came 1000 years after Alexander's the Great death. Bible reffers also to the Macedonia. There are more problem to consider about the new State of Macedonija, the 35% of the total population are Ethnic Albanians which Skopski republic want to name them "macedonians" by force. Is important to know that all those Albanians who makes the 35% of the total population of FYROM, they didn't migrate there recently, but this place was their natural home before even the slavs came to the region. We mention about the city of Skopje for it's original name etc. earlier. Also there are more minorities groups in FYROM who are not refer to their selfs as "macedonians" Another issue is the Shopluk area and the Bulgarian population. More notes, into the FYROM parliament there are two official languages, Albanian and Skopski, anyone can speak whatever want, also Bulgaria issue passports to Skopski people because it decides that Skopski people are Bulgarians, passport issued to them just by fill up one form in the Bulgarian embassy. Is very known that FYROM people can understand better the Bulgarian subtitles than the Serbian one. Other remarks, the VMRO never claimed the Greek name of Macedonia or Alexander the Great, but they claim territory as due the centuries they lived and spread to that territories as outcome of the wars between Greeks and Bulgarians and they call the region Macedonia, as they learned from Greeks when they appear in Balkans in the 6th century. Today Bulgarians has no intentions to the historic Macedonia, but they have to Vardarska region (FYROM) which Shopluk located and many Bulgarians live. After VMRO failed to accomplish it claims, Yugoslavia turn that propaganda into it's own favour by renain the regions to sosialistic internal republics with extension views against Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. This change happened due the communist changes, as same happened to Communist Russia at that time. After the second world war, a civil war comes in Greece between the communists and democratics. Communist take their supplies from Yugoslavia which aims to expend to Macedonia by using the communism as an excuse. Yugoslavians of the Vardarska commited genocide against Greeks and they mess into internal matters. Prior that it had followed the plan of Yugoslavias extension to Bulgaria, Greece and Albania, and for this reason happened the renames of the regions to socialistic republics, to fullfill that plans and to create claims from nowhere. However and this propaganda failed. After the break up of the Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonija (FYROM) born. The only way to survive while is landlocked, is to take from others and to invent history if wants to survive. The first part, of adopt Bulgarian language and tradition it was already there as also the name, as given to the communist era. Now that communism in Yugoslavia collapse and the break, the area was landlocked and with no major population. However the first President of Republic of Macedonija (FYROM), make it clear that they are Slavs and they have no connection with Alexander the Great and his Macedonia (check videos). We can continue very much more further. Mention also that in the Ottoman Empire, even in 18th century was newpapers in Greek language, with names "Pharos" and "Makedonia" ... based in Thessaloniki.

I moved the above paragraph from the project page to this talk page. I am notifying the author: User talk:ГоранМирчевски. Jd2718 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMPOSE OF A NEUTRAL MAP

Now let's back to wiki, a neutral map must not lay only to one side, but to show all sides. A neutral map must write in english or local language the name of the area according to what each state call the area. Then the map must write the names of the countries as it's nation wall it self and as others call the other nations. This will represent all sides and names in one and is very enough fair. Also the boundaries of Macedonia must be dotted, and within the dots and rest area to mention the name of the country, inside dots must be written all countries related to Macedonia region. Colors must be the main national colors, blue, red and green. Map must present also the ancient Macedonian kingdom and it's capital cities. Also additional can be a light line of the expand of Macedonia during Alexander's the Great time but remember that was a time of few years only according to the whole Macedonia's Kingdom period. This will be a very neutral map which will respect everyone.

I moved the above paragraph from the project page to this talk page. I am notifying the author: ГоранМирчевски. Jd2718 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Macedonia "Skopje"

I just reverted and chided someone who had changed the Eastern Orthodox Church article to refer to the Republic of Macedonia as "Skopje" (see here for my revert). I realize some people may think it's sufficient to say that we should call the country "Macedonia" (or, if formality is required, the "Republic of Macedonia") — but I'm wondering if we should add a specific comment to this naming conventions guideline page advising people not to use "Skopje" as a substitute name for the country, but to say "Skopje" only when talking specifically about the city itself. And if we do add such an advisory, should we also add something telling people not to use expressions like "the government in Skopje" as a way of refusing to call the Republic of Macedonia by its correct name? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an unnecessary step. The convention is clear about how the country should be called. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

It's high time, I think, to move past a four-year-old case and assess the evidence; the primary topic in our language for the word "Macedonia" is the present-day sovereign republic. I would like to put in a requested move where such evidence could be presented and analyzed in depth, but I've been told that that is not allowed as per the ArbCom case. How would you suggest that we get the ball rolling on a requested move? Red Slash 22:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about referring to Macedonian immigrants in the period after the Balkan wars

I've read over the project page, and I'm wondering if someone can assist me with an interpretation. I've been editing Cincinnati chili, which was a dish developed by Macedonian immigrants ~1920ish. There were a couple of edits by a couple of different IPs who kept changing 'Greek' to 'Macedonian, which I tried to address with a compromise. A comment on the talk page indicated this project might affect how they should be referred to. I read over the project page and didn't see anything that seemed to explain how these folks should be referred to, and I was wondering if someone who understood the project better could give the article a quick review to let me know if there's anything that needs to be changed. Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your sources are saying, but people emigrating from Macedonia (region) during that time might have been anything in terms of ethnic identity: Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavic-speakers who espoused a separate "Macedonian" national identity, or Slavic-speakers who considered themselves Greeks – and sometimes they or their descendants today might disagree about what exactly they were even between members of the same family. Loring Danforth (The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton University Press, 1995) is an informative read on the sociology of those emigrant communities. However, their cuisines would have been pretty much identical, so whether a dish is "Macedonian [Slavic]"-inspired or "Macedonian [Greek]"-inspired or simply "Greek-inspired" is probably quite irrelevant. Personally, I'd probably just say the dish is "inspired by Balkanian cuisine" and was developed by immigrants "from Macedonia" (linking to "Macedonia (region)"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating placename article titles

A stub created at Cer (Republic of Macedonia) was recently moved to Cer, Macedonia. Looking at Category:Republic of Macedonia geography stubs there is a wide range of disambiguations: "(Prilep)", ", Krivogaštani" and ((Resen Municipality) (ie by municipalities), and then "(Macedonia)", ", Macedonia", "(Republic of Macedonia)" and ", Republic of Macedonia".

This article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) doesn't appear to specify how place-names should be disambiguated: whether the country or the municipality name should be used, and whether comma or bracketed disambiguation is used. As far as I can see it does mandate use of "Macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia" where there is no ambiguity, so that element of the "Cer" move was certainly correct.

It would be helpful if this Naming convention specified clearly how places in Macedonia should be disambiguated. The general rules at WP:PLACEDAB specify several times Any specific national convention takes precedence .... There is a section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Macedonia consisting of the instruction "see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)", so the conscientious editor wondering how to disambiguate a Macedonian place comes here ... and gets little guidance. I think the favoured version is probably what the "Cer" mover did: to use "Macedonia", separated by a comma. But it would be very helpful if there was a simple section added to the article to say so. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Place_names_in_New_Zealand as a helpful example. Even a one-para section would be a help, something on the lines of Article titles on places in Macedonia use the place name alone if this is unambiguous, eg Popovjani. Where there is ambiguity, article titles for populated places are disambiguated using the country name, eg Cer, Macedonia. Where there is ambiguity within Macedonia, the municipality name is used, eg (give example of a pair). More could be said about disambiguation for geographical features, but populated places are the more common issue. PamD 11:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on Macedonia, just someone who regularly sorts stubs on Wikipedia and often checks a disambiguated stub title to ensure that there's a link from the non-disambiguated main term (I added it to Cer). In this case I'd spent a bit of time sorting out a chaotic first version into something looking more like a Wikipedia stub, and added it to my watchlist to see what happened next. PamD 11:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I don't think this page should duplicate instructions about the fine naming of location articles, that are already explained on more general pages, such as WP:PLACEDAB and WP:PRECISION. It would just be unnecessary instruction creep without many people interested in maintaining it. As you quote "Any specific national convention takes precedence ..." — but given the lack of national conventions, the general conventions are in effect. -- intgr [talk] 11:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Intgr: In that case there should be no link from the Geographic name convention page to this page, as it doesn't help. When I'm looking for information about naming placename articles in a particular country, I look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and scan the ToC under "region-specific guidance"; if a country is listed there, I go to that section ... and in the case of Macedonia I'm led to a page which doesn't help. I had to read through this page carefully to convince myself that it said nothing relevant. That's a waste of my, and other editors', time. PamD 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pam. The contents of this guideline were determined back in 2009 through a big RfC process, and it seems we didn't foresee this particular issue about disambiguation then. I wouldn't agree the link from WP:NCGN is exactly "useless" – it still provides answers to many questions people would come to WP:NCGN for, just not this particular one, although we could reword the link to clarify that it deals only with the name of the country, not with article titles for locations within it. About the disambiguation question itself, my personal advice would be to go for plain "Macedonia", as that seems to have been done in a larger number of cases before and those appear to have been largely free of controversy so far. As far as I can see, location articles in Greece don't use "Macedonia" as a disambiguator (they either use "Greece" or the name of the prefecture), so there's not much danger of confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and Future Perfect at Sunrise: I think the solution to both problems would be to simply introduce links from this country-specific article back to general naming conventions. -- intgr [talk] 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek agreement

According to the agreement which greece and fyrom made in 1995 its illegal for fyrom to be called with other names such us macedonia or republic of macedonia. You can read the pdf of the agreement here http://www.mfa.gr/en/fyrom-name-issue/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.86.122 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the native English language community of the world nor Wikipedia is a signatory to that agreement, so it is completely and totally irrelevant to what we call Macedonia. --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPP

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_.28Macedonia.29 for a discussion related to this page. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia 2: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia 2: Motion

Decision over name use

Ποιος αποφάσισε οτι παντου θα χρησιμοποιείται το Republic of Macedonia και τίποτα άλλο; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagr7 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vagr7: Please use English in English Wikipedia. As to your question (about who has decided the use of "Republic of Macedonia"), the answer is that the Wikipedia community has decided it through thorough discussions, described in this very project page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia): This guideline is a result of a centralised discussion process instigated by the Arbitration Committee following the "Macedonia 2" case.... So please accept Wikipedia rules and stop your disruptions to Balkans Campaign (World War II). --T*U (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official end of Macedonian name dispute

The Greek parliament voted today to approve the name "Republic of North Macedonia", which had already been conditionally accepted by the Macedonian parliament. This means the Republic of Macedonia is now officially the Republic of North Macedonia, with the short form North Macedonia. Macedonia and Greece: Vote settles 27-year name dispute - BBC News Does this change what we should be doing on Wikipedia? Robminchin (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people are just about to start a renaming proposal for the main article on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and probably we'll also have a larger RfC about what to do with references elsewhere, but the consensus the other day when these developments began was that we shouldn't hurry too much and rather take our time deciding and observing how common usage in English reacts to the change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a renaming proposal for the main article has now been filed at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Given that this part of the process is likely to be fairly uncontroversial, I'd like to think that this doesn't contravene the Arbcom injunction of last June, which said that the naming conventions as a whole should only be changed via a larger RfC (30 days and 3 closers and everything). We will still need such a comprehensive RfC to deal with all the likely follow-up issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update the guidelines

Given that the Prespa Agreement has been ratified by both countries and most probably will come into force in just a week's time ([1], [2]), I propose that is time to open the discussion about how the naming guidelines should be updated according to the provisions agreed upon in the agreement. My personal opinion is that we should do that in time to prevent the edit warring chaos that I expect to take place when the agreement comes officially into force.

The discussion in Talk:Republic of Macedonia has already highlighted 2 issues that seem to be subject to be challenged immediately from the day that the agreement comes into force (and maybe more issues will eventually appear):

  1. Renaming of Republic of Macedonia to either "Republic of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia". There seems to be a majority consensus for "North Macedonia", but we should make that clear.
  2. Use of demonyms to describe the people from "North Macedonia". The discussion involves the terms "North Macedonians" and "Macedonians" and I don't think that there is a consensus on that issue. I expect this to become highly problematic, because it will eventually involve a large number of articles that use the term Macedonian as an ethnic or national designation related to the "Republic of Macedonia".

The talk page has already become a mess with many people (including myself) posting the same things again and again in different sections of the page that appear every second day to discuss over the exact same issues that I described previously. I believe that we immediately need an organized RfC to solve these issues before the agreement comes into full force on February the 8th, as expected. Argean (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.
I went back to the discussion from last time to see what questions were asked, but it appears to me that those questions were asked in a particular context and with 10 years of history behind us several of them simply do not need to be reopened. In particular, I see no value in creating a split between different contexts now when we did not create one before.
So, assuming the Prespa agreement comes into effect as planned, some questions I would suggest - as a means of sparking discussion - would be:
  1. What title should be used for the article currently at Republic of Macedonia?
  2. If the article is renamed, how should other articles refer to the Republic of Macedonia,
    1. in contexts where other countries would be called by their full official names (currently "Republic of Macedonia")?
    2. in contexts where other countries would be called by short or common names (currently "Macedonia")?
    3. in contexts where the normal name may be considered ambiguous (currently "Republic of Macedonia")?
    4. in contexts specific to the period before the Prespa agreement came into effect (i.e. 1991-2019)?
  3. What word or phrase should be used to refer to what we now call the Macedonian ethnic or national group?
  4. What word or phrase should be used to refer to what we now call the Macedonian language?
  5. What adjective should be used to refer to other things or concepts pertaining to the Republic of Macedonia?
To me, the answers to some of these questions are obvious or follow on naturally from other questions, but others are not. Kahastok talk 12:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in this discussion that ended the Macedonians (ethnic group) after years of edit wars. That was back in 2005 (!) and this policy was called Wikipedia: Naming conflict. I'm very interested in the progression of this debate. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My answers to Kahastok's questions would be:
  1. Country article: North Macedonia
  2. Other articles:
    1. Full name: Republic of North Macedonia
    2. Common name: North Macedonia
    3. Disambiguation: North Macedonia, with Republic of North Macedonia where the first is not enough.
    4. Before 2019: current guideline
  3. Ethnic group: Macedonian
  4. Language: Macedonian
  5. Adjective: North Macedonian, except people, who are Macedonian
I would say Macedonian is and always will be an ethnicity and language, it is detached from politics, however the name of the country is North Macedonia Danski454 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Macedonia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Northern Macedonia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RFC

As many have said, the time is ripe for the renewal of these guidelines in view of the recent political developments. Let's get the ball rolling. Below is a first draft of guidelines as I would personally like to propose them. Some of these points I believe will be fairly uncontroversial, for others I can imagine counterproposals to be added. Let's collect ideas so we can then present a proper RfC with all serious options to be !voted on.

  1. Main article:
    1. The main article Republic of Macedonia should be moved to North Macedonia, this being the new official and self-appointed name. As of 8 February, this renaming proposal is already being voted on in a regular RM on the article talkpage; this should be allowed to go ahead and be closed as a regular RM after a week, i.e. around 15 February, by which time the name change is expected to have become effective.
    2. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
  2. Disambiguation page:
    1. The structure of the main disambiguation page Macedonia should remain unchanged for the time being, with a dab link to the country as its first entry, with an updated definition line saying "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe…" (or: "Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe"), or similar
    2. The disambiguation page Macedonia should be reordered, so that it lists Macedonia (region) first, followed by "North Macedonia, formerly the Republic of Macedonia", followed by Macedonia (Greece) (and it's subdivisions), followed by Macedonia (ancient kingdom), in the manner of Korea (disambiguation).
    3. Northern Macedonia and Southern Macedonia should both redirect to Macedonia (region). A note at the top should specify that "Northern Macedonia" redirects here. For the republic, see North Macedonia and "Southern Macedonia" redirects here. For the Greek region, see Macedonia (Greece).
    4. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
  3. Nationality (as used for instance in the lead of bio articles)
    1. The nationality of citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia should, for the time being, continue to be called "Macedonian". According to the Prespa Agreement, the official term for the nationality is stipulated to be "Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" (the agreement is vague as to whether this double phrase should always be used together or whether the two are to be used as alternatives). Of course, the full double phrase with the slash is too unwieldy to be used in Wikipedia, so as an adjectival form, only "Macedonian" is suitable. This means no change to the status quo. It remains to be seen whether the natural English adjectival form "North Macedonian" may come into informal use internationally in this sense; if and when that happens, we can follow suit.
    2. Macedonian should be used when referring to ethnicity or nationality, but not as the adjectival form of the name of the country. The agreement specifies that adjectival form is "of North Macedonia" and so North Macedonian is a suitable adjectival form and has already began to be used by media sources and organisations. Where MRT 1 was previously a Macedonian television channel (Macedonian links to Republic of Macedonia), it should now be a television channel of North Macedonia or a North Macedonian television channel. Examples of adjectival use of North Macedonian in mainstream sources include [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
    3. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
  4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc
    1. The naming of the Macedonian language, the Macedonians (ethnic group) and other topics related to their culture etc. will remain unchanged. A change is neither stipulated by the Prespa Agreement, nor likely to happen in English usage for the time being.
    2. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
  5. References to the country in other articles, sub-article titles etc.
    1. Present-day contexts
      1. Like with other countries, the country can be referred to by its short informal name "North Macedonia" in most contexts, or by "Republic of North Macedonia" in contexts where other states would also be referred to by their full formal titles, or with the adjectival form "North Macedonian" where applicable. Since there will be no more disambiguity, no special rules for disambiguating additions will be necessary. But there's no rush. Since the old term "Macedonia" will still be encountered in practice, and may very well continue even to be the dominant form in informal English, there should be no rush changing all references at once.
      2. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
    2. Historical pre-2019 contexts
      1. In historical contexts referring to events or situations between 1992 and 2019, it may be appropriate to continue to refer to the country by its then-valid name "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia", as before, possibly with an addition of "now North Macedonia" or similar, where contextually significant.
      2. [Alternative proposals to be added?]

Please comment about additions/modifications/corrections to be made to this draft before we open the real RfC; don't start !voting yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 5.2 (is that the correct numbering?), there could be a optional guideline where an editor may write something like “North Macedonia (known at the time as the Republic of Macedonia)”… you know, connecting between the old and new names? In 2.1, Republic of North Macedonia is the new official name, and North Macedonia is the new common name. I understand that some people are excited about the move because they hope that the naming dispute can be finally put to rest. --Marianian(talk) 20:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that 2.2 should be Republic of North Macedonia, previously the Republic of Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe, not Republic of Macedonia, now Republic of North Macedonia, a country in Southeast Europe. Why would the old name go first? --Michail (blah) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the adjectival form of North Macedonia is specified as 'of North Macedonia'. I would assume that per this, the demonym in reference to the state would be North Macedonian. For example, the North Macedonian capital, Skopje. There seems to be some confusion over on the move discussion about that because the nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia", then the demonym should always be Macedonian. "North Macedonian" has been used, for example, by Euronews (the North Macedonian constitution) and the draft statement to be presented to the US Senate (North Macedonian Prime Minister). --Michail (blah) 20:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, in my proposal above I've included "North Macedonian" as the adjectival form referring to the state. It is, indeed, the natural derivative in English and as such almost certain to be used. Whether it will also be used for the nationality, where according to the Prespa agreement it shouldn't be, remains to be seen (English usage in practice can't be dictated by the treaty, of course.) As for "of North Macedonia" being an "adjectival form", well, the problem is, it just isn't, grammatically. The Prespa agreement may be a wonderful thing, but of course it can't redefine the laws of English grammar, so it it really does specify that, it's just plain wrong. Also, I'd personally strongly advise avoiding throwing around the technical linguistic term "demonym" as long as most people here don't know what it really means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Philly boy92 I think that we should distinguish the meaning of "demonym" from the "adjectival terms" used to describe things or people from or related to a country. The only common use of the demonym in wikipedia, is in the infoboxes and in all cases it links to the ethnic/national groups of each country. After all the demonym as a term is not widely used outside wikipedia and the definition is somewhat vague and therefore confusing. Otherwise I agree with all your comments. --Argean (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good and comprehensive work. I'm wondering if we should be more detailed on 5.1 concerning where the use of the adjectival form "of North Macedonia", or its natural language equivalent "North Macedonian", is applicable as stipulated by the agreement itself. --Argean (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said above, calling "of North Macedonia" an "adjectival reference" is a contradiction in terms, and if we were to understand the agreement as stipulating that truly adjectival forms such as "the North Macedonian capital" should always be avoided in favour of "the capital of North Macedonia", then of course Wikipedia is under no obligation at all to follow such a nonsensical rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this is the exact wording of the agreement. No, I'm not suggesting to use the terminology of the agreement, "North Macedonian" is perfectly fine. What I meant is that maybe we should be more precise on which cases the term "North Macedonian" should apply according to the agreement (State, official organs, etc). --Argean (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious alternative demonym at 3.2 would be "North Macedonian", for consistency with the adjectival form at 5.1.1 and as a fairly natural English extension of "North Macedonia". I'm not advocating or proposing it or suggesting that I would necessarily support it - I have no strong opinion here - it would seem appropriate to offer it as an option.
Could I perhaps suggest that if we're keeping the RM at Talk:Republic of Macedonia and accepting that it might result in a move, that we adopt some interim text on the current that says something like:

This text is currently subject to a binding RFC, that will continue until [DATE]. You are invited to contribute [here]. The article previously at "Republic of Macedonia" has been moved to "North Macedonia" in anticipation that this guideline will be changed, but other articles should continue to adhere to this guideline until the RFC is complete and consensus has been judged.

This is to make it clear what is going on, so that the change in name at Republic of Macedonia sparks the least disruption possible. Kahastok talk 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea, but I'm not quite sure I understood exactly what you mean; where exactly do you propose posting that text? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I'd said that. On this page - WP:MOSMAC, somewhere near the top. Kahastok talk 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Kahastok's suggestion is good. That disclaimer text at least places a moratorium on things until this gets sorted out here.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a notice to the top of the page, although with different text, as the RFC has not started and the move has not occurred. Feel free to amend this text, which I have copied below for convenience.

Due to the recent name change, a binding RFC will occur in the next month to amend this page. In the meantime, articles should still adhere to this guideline, excluding the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia.

Danski454 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This makes perfect sense to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmmmm. Fut.Perf.'s draft is perfectly balanced. There is nothing I would modify/remove from it. I think the Prespa Deal isn't really THAT big of a deal after all, and this is becoming clearier now that the dust starts settling down. But, we missed something: having the Demonym as a distinct entry on its own, to help everyone clearly see how Demonym is treated separately from Ethnicity and Nationality. This is very important I believe, as it helps refer to it much faster if disputes ever arise on various articles in the future. (I can see this happening). So, I propose the addition of the following as a separate entry for obvious reasons:
  1. Demonym:
    1. The Demonym is used only for state institutions, official and diplomatic ranks, state representatives, state documents and state missions, the country's territories and state properties, and the national media, etc, should be North Macedonian, (i.e. North Macedonian media, North Macedonian passports, North Macedonian President, North Macedonian towns and cities). This demonym should not be confused with the Nationality and Ethnicity which may still be used to refer to ethnic-based organizations, or movements (aka Albanian parties, Macedonian parties, etc).
    2. [Alternative proposals to be added?]
If we add something like that, as a separate entry, it will help alot for future references! Edit: sorry for my bad english. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the use of the term "demonym" is appropriate for that purpose (demonym by definition should refer to people, not institutions, public organizations, etc) . I think that 5.1 should include all the proposed uses of adjectival references, i.e. Macedonian and North Macedonian, depending on context. Or we can add 5.2 to include what the agreement considers obligatory to be defined by the use of the adjectival reference "North Macedonian", i.e. the State, its official organs, and other public entities. --Argean (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Demonym refers to the people, and that remains Macedonian, according to the Prespa agreement, and also according to the vast majority of international media, so far. The adjectival references remain a point of debate. IMHO, the point of the Prespa Agreement in Article 1 was not to make an obligation to use the adjectival reference "North Macedonian", i.e. the State, its official organs, and other public entities, but precisely the opposite, to avoid its usage. They would have simply formulated that the adjectival reference is "North Macedonian" instead of going to the trouble to add “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. I think that we should be expecting clarifications from the government(s) about that particular article. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Demonym can also refer to the country, so the new NCMAC needs to consider this. according to the Prespa agreement – the Prespa agreement specified Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, not Macedonian. If you are that interested in a literal interpretation of the agreement, you should be fighting for the demonym to be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. My personal position is that it should be both in different contexts. Sources are already using North Macedonian as a demonym to denote a relationship with the state (as opposed to someone's ethnic identity). For example Balkan Insight (the North Macedonian government [13]), Euronews (the North Macedonian constitution [14]), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (North Macedonian membership [15]), Al Jazeera (next North Macedonian generation [16]), Bloomberg News (North Macedonian name deal [17]), the Greens–European Free Alliance (Greek and North Macedonian governments [18] (this file downloads)), the Toronto Star (North Macedonian name deal [19]), The Athens-Macedonian News Agency (Greek and North Macedonian counterparts [20]), and others. For lolsies here is also the Hungarian government using the term Republic of North Macedonian [21]. --Michail (blah) 13:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word you are describing is actually ethnonym: "a name applied to a given ethnic group". --Michail (blah) 13:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Philly boy92 I had a lengthy discussion the other day on a user's page about the origin of the various terms (demonym, ethnonym, endonym, exonym, toponym, etc), how they are related to eachother and what they represent. The common use of the term demonym refers only to people, as single individuals or as a group [22], [23], [24]. All the other uses of an adjective can be defined just as "adjectival reference". This is not the place to do etymology. We should adopt definitions that are clear and straightforward, not ambiguous and potentially confusing. --Argean (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argean sure, but pages like South Korea and South Sudan use both. I think both Macedonian and North Macedonian should be listed. --Michail (blah) 14:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well South Sudan only lists "South Sudanese" and e.g. in American Samoa the listed demonyms are distinguished to "official" for American Samoan and "colloquial" for Samoan. In the present case there is no officially defined demonym, but if we follow the common practice to mirror the term used to describe the nationality, we should list "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" as official and leave the door open to "North Macedonian" if in the future a colloquial use of the term has been established. I think that the proposed guideline for nationality covers all needs. All the other uses of adjectival references are covered at 5.1. We just have to establish a consensus on the use of that adjectival references. --Argean (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have time right now to get into it, but as I stated in this edit in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Requested move 8 February 2019 discussion that is currently ongoing, the initiation of this RFC needs to be expedited. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems pretty good apart from 2. Firstly, I think the geographical region should be the first entry. After all, the person search wrote "Macedonia", not "North Macedonia". In the "Korea" disambiguation page, first there is the region, and then its constituent parts, and I think it makes more sense like that. I don't see much reason to include the former name. In the Congo disabmiguation name, we don't say "formerly Zaire" for the DRC. If we do temorarily until the dust settles, for how long will it be there until we remove it? If it is decided to include it I think we should decide from now how long it will be there, because it will be harder to settle it later. I also want to comment on 5.2. It is maybe the post difficult part of the process, but isn't there a precedent? Haven't we decided similarly for DRC/Zaire, or, more recently, where the change happened after Wikipedia was a thing, Swaziland/Eswatini? Antondimak (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to add a second option for the disambiguation page to the draft above. Or, we could just agree to drop that point from the RfC and separately hack it out on the dab talkpage later, since that detail is currently not regulated by this guideline either. As to the argument itself, I'd personally defend having the entry on top. The issue is just that we need to meet readers' expectations. People will continue seeing plain "Macedonia" in reference to the country all over the place, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, in all older sources if not also in ongoing usage, so it's to be expected we will keep getting lots of people typing "Macedonia" into the search box when looking for the country. Back when we last discussed the ordering, we had quite solid data that those were far and away the majority of all people using the disambiguation page, so that's why the entry ended up on top; how long it might take for that to change is a matter we can only guess now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's probably better to drop the point about it being on top from the RfC for now in order to reach a consensus more easily and discuss it in the talk page. Antondimak (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • About 5.2, thinking about it, it seems better to use the new name in most places. A person who knows about the topic won't have trouble with understanding the context, but for most readers using two names could be very confusing, especially because it's already quite confusing. You have Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia (Ancient kingdom) and the Republic of Macedonia. Now with the new name it will be more clear, but if we use "Macedonia" for 1991-2019 most people would probably just confuse it with the other "Macedonias". Antondimak (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to stress out that when you click on demonym it brings you to the ethnicity page, hence there is no North Macedonian ethnicity or nation, only Macedonian. It is only logical to keep the denonym Macedonian. Demonym is closer to Nationality (which remains Macedonian with slash Citizen of North Macedonia). North Macedonian is not to be used as per the agreement but 'of North Macedonia' instead. The government institutions will follow this rule and when they change their official names, Wikipedia will need to reflect those translations for example Radio Television of North Macedonia instead of North Macedonian Radio Television. Macedonicus (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think continuing to use "Macedonian" as synonymous with "of North Macedonia" is going to get really confusing, really fast. I'm willing to wait and see what English-language secondary sources end up doing to guide our usage here on English-language Wikipedia. But I'd personally suggest limiting those usages where possible, some of which will happen naturally, as Macedonicus notes. For the country infobox, I think we should list both demonyms ("Macedonian" and "North Macedonian"), and in fact, I think that should be done right away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For matters relating to the multi-ethnic state, I suggest using North Macedonian/of North Macedonia, while keeping the ethnicity as is, maybe by adding a parenthesis for differenciation from Greek Macedonians where necessary (so we have Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (Slavs)). Antondimak (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, I feel we actually have 8 topics for discussion, and the RFC should probably go on a separate page. The topics and proposals I see are, with proposals in brackets separated by semicolons:

  1. Main article (Macedonia)
  2. Disambiguation (country link at top; move link to country down)
  3. Nationality of people (Macedonian; North Macedonian or Macedonian)
  4. Government organisations (Macedonian; North Macedonian; both; only "of North Macedonia")
  5. Adjective (Macedonian; North Macedonian; both)
  6. Language, ethnicity, culture etc. (Macedonian)
  7. Present day references (North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia)
  8. Historical names (Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia; North Macedonia)

I will clarify if this is confusing. Danski454 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC) -- changed 21:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"9. Redirects" - Redirects that have now become newly ambiguous should be added to this topic list. See Northern Macedonia, for which discussions have already begun. (Examples of others are; Republic Macedonia, Macedonians (regional group), Macedonian (disambiguation), Republic of Macedonia (disambiguation), Macedonia (country), South Macedonia, and Macedonia, Republic) - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how any of these is now "newly ambiguous" or why any of them would need to be changed. Maybe this problem, if it is one, is so obscure we can leave it out of the main RfC and just leave it to the normal decision channels? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This map File:Macedonia 1913 map.png sort of shows what I mean. Northern Macedonia could now refer to the state of "North Macedonia", or to the Bulgarian parts as well as North Macedonia, or it could refer to the northern half of the Greek portion of Macedonia alone. All this depends on your interpretation. Republic Macedonia could now refer to the three republics inside of Greece or to "North Macedonia" now that the term "Republic of Macedonia" is being retired. Macedonian (disambiguation) could easily refer to the Greeks in Greek Macedonia, or the people in North Macedonia, but this basically depends on the outcome of point # 3. South Macedonia could refer to the southern half of the Greek portion of Macedonia, or it could refer to the the portion south of the Bulgarian portion and North Macedonia, meaning the entire Greek portion. However Greeks particularly revile at this latter notion (just ask @Argean: about his feelings towards that term). I could go on, but the point I am trying to make is it would be better to address these redirects as a part of this RFC than to leave them to interpretation thereafter and see them be constantly fought over back and fourth. I'm not saying this is the most important point of potential contention, but I am saying it IS a potential point of contention. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Wiz9999, as i recently dig out, "Northern Macedonia" was a term for a very long time. Redirect should reflect modern usage, thus i am not sure recent (2000-2010) publication of historical book would use the term "Northern Macedonia" as a geopolitical term for history of that region until 1918, or other sort of publication referring to Northern portion of the country and "autonomous republic" formerly known as Republic of Macedonia. Matthew hk (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiz9999 Northern Macedonia should redirect to Macedonia (region) since it is the northern part of Macedonia (region), with note at the top pointing to North Macedonia as an alternative meaning. All geographic qualifier Macedonia should be treated like this, with a statement at the top of the page saying, for example Northern Macedonia links here, for the republic see North Macedonia and Southern Macedonia links here, for the Greek region see Macedonia (Greece). Republic of Macedonia is not ambiguous as there are no three "republics" in Greece, just three regions (one of which is part of a larger region). --Michail (blah) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the mention Wiz9999. I know that I'm being very vocal on the issue of the use of "adjectives", but I'm more concerned about their use to refer to people, rather than to geographic regions. On the other hand I know very well that my fellow compatriots will not be very happy to find out that South Macedonia redirects to Macedonia (Greece). Just look what happened (apologies, article in Greek) to this poor reporter that made the mistake to say on live TV Hello from the borders between North and South Macedonia and now he is facing disciplinary proceedings. Anyway, the use of geographic attributes in a region like the Balkans, troubled with nationalistic and irredentist ideas for many decades now, is always a sensitive issue. The fact is further complicated by linguistic issues, such the ones described here, explaining that both words "North" and "Northern" usually translate to the same Greek word (βόρειος/βόρεια). I know that someone that is not so familiar with the complicated history and politics of Balkans, cannot see what's the issue on calling the people from North Macedonia, simply as "North Macedonians", and using the attribute "South" for their counterparts from their south, but this will make people from both sides completely enraged. For the Greeks they themselves will always be the "Real" Macedonians and the others, the "North" ones, will be the "fakes" that want to steal their history, and for ethnic Macedonians, putting the attribute "North" before their name is like stealing their identity and trying to erase them from the map. The deal handled everything in a gentle compromising fashion, giving to each side something that they really wanted (history for the Greeks, identity for the ethnic Macedonians), but the various issues that have emerged during the long lasting dispute between the two peoples will not be resolved so easily. --Argean (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argean I follow your train of thought up to a point, but I lose you when you start to say that North Macedonians implies South Macedonians. Surely by that logic "Macedonians" by itself implies that Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (Greeks) are the same thing because they both live in Macedonia (region). Greeks just need to accept that Macedonia is larger than Greek Macedonia, and other people live there and are just as entitled to call themselves Macedonian in the geographic sense. I would also like to point out that the simeological confusion arises from the fact that people can't see the difference between "north Macedonians" (i.e. Macedonians who live north) and "North Macedonians" (people of North Macedonia). --Michail (blah) 14:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a proposal regarding the adjective use and the demonym.
  1. Nationality of people: Macedonian (Citizens of North Macedonia) or Macedonian (North Macedonia)
  2. Government organizations: Following official translation i.e Government of North Macedonia but also Macedonian passport (North Macedonia) or Macedonian Parliament (North Macedonia). Explanation: The agreement has a paragraph regarding non-exclusivity of the usage of the term Macedonian so both countries can use it it accordingly, North Macedonia shouldn't use it in its official institution names but it can use the term as an informal adjective, hence adding (North Macedonia) to the adjective fills the non-exclusivity agreement, it is used by the northern state.
  3. Demonym: Macedonian (North Macedonia)
  4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian

Macedonicus (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament does not fall under nationality; it is not a citizen. The agreement states that The adjectival reference to the State, its official organs, and other public entities shall be in line with the official name of the Second Party or its short name, that is, “of the Republic of North Macedonia” or “of North Macedonia”. It's either the Parliament of North Macedonia or the North Macedonian Parliament. --Michail (blah) 11:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal:
  1. Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian (short)
  2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian X (more natural)
  3. Demonym: North Macedonian
  4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian

Antondimak (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. --Michail (blah) 11:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we started to make alternative proposals this is mine:
  1. Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short)
  2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian (general use)
  3. Demonym: Macedonian or Macedonian (North Macedonia) (potential to introduce North Macedonian in the future, if colloquial use has been established)
  4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc.: Macedonian

Argean (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal 3.2 by Michail on the official proposal is based on interpretation of the Article 1. That article is probably serves the purpose to avoid the term 'North Macedonian', not to embrace it. And no, MRT 1 will not be called North Macedonian Radio Televison, it will probably be called 'Radio Televison of North Macedonia', because of that article. People jokingly referred that if it was called North Macedonian Radio Television, the Macedonian translation would be Severno Makedonska Radio Televizija, with SMRT being an acronym. (SMRT means DEATH in Macedonian). :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlavrSavr I did not say MRT will be called "North Macedonian Radio Television". I said "MRT1 is a North Macedonian television channel". If you want it in a larger sentence, "MRT1 is a North Macedonian television channel, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia" to use your example. Alternatively, "MRT is a television channel of North Macedonia, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia", but not "MRT is a Macedonian television channel, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia". Make sense? Sorry for the confusion --Michail (blah) 12:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Philly boy92 Yeah, I know, it was just funny. "MRT is a television channel of North Macedonia, part of Radio Television of North Macedonia" seems perfectly reasonable, btw. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why we can't have two adjectival references, "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonian", used interchangeably. Especially since North Macedonian is already entering usage in mainstream sources. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. --Michail (blah) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The usage is correct but redundant. RTHK radio 3 is a radio station of Radio Television Hong Kong is enough for example, presumably if the organisation is not a multinational organisation, it can omit foo TV channel from the sentence if the organisation already have the demonym. Also, seem good to me to avoid -ian just like BiH article (at least in football cat) , avoided Bosnian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 2019-02-11T13:18:47 (UTC)
That was just an example of using "North Macedonian" as an adjectival reference alternative to "of North Macedonia", and to illustrate how the use of "Macedonian" in that sentence would be incorrect as it is an adjectival reference to the state, not a statement of nationality or ethnicity. There are probably much better examples out there to illustrate this than the one I clumsily made. --Michail (blah) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a problem with calling it "Macedonian" for short, because that clashes with the equivalent Greek identity and creates confusion (which all the mess was about). We already use "Macedonians (Greeks)", so I think we could do the same for at least the citizenship by including "North". About the demonym, as it again is about the state, if we wait until "North Macedonian" becomes common, we should use "of North Macedonia", as that's how institutions will actually be name, to again avoid confusion with Greece (e.g. University of Macedonia). Antondimak (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my proposes:

1. Nationality of the people: Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia (official), North Macedonian (short). Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agim_Ibraimi is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia professional foorballer, or the much practice short variant, Agim Ibraimi is a North Macedonian professional footballer. He's of Albanian ethnicity btw, but that doesn't matter in these kind of cases.

2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia or North Macedonian X, for example Parliament of North Macedonia or North Macedonian Parliament.

3. Demonym: North Macedonian/s, because the demonym refers to the all residents of one state, and not just to the dominant ethnic group. If the demonym be just Macedonian/s that will imply only to the ethnic Macedonians. Btw, the redirect for the North Macedonians should go the country North Macedonia, because we don't have an article with the name North Macedonians.

4. Ethnicity, language, culture etc.: Macedonian Sashko1999 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to support @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short). The formula is in line with the Prespa agreement of all parties concerned, even the third party, i.e Albanian politicians who got a concession out of Zaev that for their parliamentary vote on the name change, the term "Macedonian" is to be without any geographic qualifiers and also referring to citizenship. I think once the matter is decided on MOSMAC it should not be up for renegotiation unless the Prespa agreement itself is renegotiated in future. The Prespa agreement itself was the grand bargain struck by both countries that agreed to these things and as we are updating MOSMAC based on the agreement, leaving open questions like if so and so thing in the future happens (outside the agreement) then we change it to "North Macedonian" etc. That goes against the spirit of the agreement which compromised on things with this aspect of nationality/citizenship being one of them.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the Albanian politicians opposed about this until the last day of the voting, beside that they knew that this term applies only to the citizenhip, but how the readers here will distinct the nationality from ethnicity?, for example if for this player writes that he's a Macedonian footballer, how they will know that we think on his nationality and not ethnicity?, will be confusing. Btw, many foreign media already started to use the adjective North Macedonian, for example, North Macedonian Prime Minister, North Macedonian Government etc. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True they did oppose because they wanted reassurances that the term "Macedonian" wont just connote ethnicity as there are other factors like citizenship involved as well. Currently Wikipedia has no issues about differentiating nationality and ethnicity. Macedonian is the term used for both. The Prespa agreement just confirmed such usages as being the agreed formula recongised by both sides. The same can apply here, with the small tweak that @Argean proposes with the Citizen of North Macedonia addition.Resnjari (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari Wikipedia should not be here to enforce the Prespa Agreement, like it did not enforce the Interim Accord. If you are suggesting that "Macedonian" should be used as an adjective in all instances (for example Macedonian Government instead of North Macedonian Government) then that is a hard no from me personally. In the agreement it is just the nationality that is specified as "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia", and adjectival references are in the style of "of North Macedonia" (North Macedonian for short, as has already began to be used). Should North Macedonian enter English, as it has began to do, then Wikipedia should use this even if it is not technically written as "North Macedonian" in the Prespa Agreement. When the current MOSMAC was adopted, we did not take into consideration the fact that Greeks find the usage of the terms Macedonia and Macedonian offensive, because they are the terms that are used in English. Why would we not use North Macedonian because some Macedonians find it offensive even if it is used in English? This is a bit of a double standard. We should use whatever is used commonly, and North Macedonian (as an adjective) has already began to be used and excluding it on grounds of "some people find it offensive" is not a sufficient argument in my personal opinion. Please correct me if I misunderstand your position. --Michail (blah) 17:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia in the past did not take into account what some Greeks found 'offensive' (i.e the existence of a unique modern Macedonian ethnic, language and nationality) because the encyclopedia project is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If people are making suggestions here based on that then are they not here to build an encyclopedia. On other things I would agree with you that Wikipedia should not be here to enforce the Prespa Agreement if there was no pagemove of the current Republic of Macedonia article to "North Macedonia" or MOSMAC staying the way it is without updates. The Prespa agreement is being enforced in Wikipedia as the pagemove shows and this discussion here on updating MOSMAC as being a result of that. Hence if the Prespa agreement has opened up those areas for change, other areas which were agreed to should also be applied. It can't be selective due to a individual's personal POV. The use of the term "north" for nationality/ethnicity was not officially agreed to by any party, neither Greek, Macedonian or even Albanian. On the issue of semantics, there has been no problem in how the term Macedonian has been used so far in Wikipedia, as per MOSMAC and really no issue why to change it when the official agreement made no stipulations for such a thing. @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) is neutral and does the job of making an important update.Resnjari (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari I think you misunderstand what is happening here. We are not implementing the Prespa Agreement; we are implementing what is commonly used in English. Refusing to accept that North Macedonian is entering English as an adjectival form of North Macedonia is in itself a POV. The use of the term "north" for nationality/ethnicity was not officially agreed to by any party this is irrelevant if it becomes common in English. And like I said before, a lot of reputable sources are already using "North Macedonian" as an adjective instead of "of North Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 18:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then there should not be a pagemove of the Republic of Macedonia article for some time until usage becomes common place. Yet the reason given for moving the page at this very moment is because of the Prespa agreement. If anything that is the main reason that editors in favour of change are citing over and over again. As i said before @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) is neutral and does the job of making an important update to MOSMAC in line with the Prespa agreement.Resnjari (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari RoM is being moved to North Macedonia because according to the current NCMAC the title of the article for the country is it's constitutional name. Its constitutional name is no longer "Republic of Macedonia" so it is being moved. We are not doing it to follow the Prespa Agreement, we are doing it to follow NCMAC. NCMAC uses the most common English name (Macedonia, Macedonians, etc) but because the title is ambiguous, it was decided to name it after the constitutional name. You will notice that other articles are not being moved - because they follow NCMAC. If we followed the Interim Accord as closely as you seem to be implying we implement the Prespa on Wikipedia, the title should have been "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". --Michail (blah) 19:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michail is right, the Prespa agreement is not a codex written by God and we must respect it 100%. Tell me, did we respect what is written in the South Korean constitution where writes that the nationality of the country is KOREAN, NO, because the term KOREAN can imply and to the citizens of North Korea and also to the ethnic Koreans. The same is and with the term Macedonian, this term can imply and to the ethnic Macedonians, and because of that it can't be a nationality or demonym to a country which is not called Macedonia. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The constitutional change is based on the Prespa agreement and that agreement does not state that "north" is the terminology for ethnicity/nationality. If we go by common name principles, what happens in future if news organisations etc refer to the ethnic group as "North Macedonians" because fine detail of the sort is not a priority for them and that expression becomes the commonname. Do we then move the page on the Macedonian ethnic group to "North Macedonians" because of common name? Having that as an open question to be addressed in future subject to changes is ripe for POV pushing, edit wars and disaster in future. One of the main reasons that there is a binding international treaty was to sort out how both countries would refer to Macedonia, its peoples and to set out guidelines for others on how to do so. Regarding other articles not being moved its because MOSMAC is still in force. Once again @Argean's proposal on "Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short) if included in the updates of MOSMAC should not be subject to change thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we save debating the proposals for the actual RFC, this is just cluttering the thread for deciding what should be debated. Danski454 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Danski454 but for the record Resnjari, if North Macedonians becomes the most commonly used English name for the ethnic group, then yes it should be moved there. There is a policy called WP:COMMONNAME. Prespa is binding between Greece and North Macedonia. It is not binding to Wikipedia, which uses the precedent of most commonly used name. North Macedonian is being used as we speak as an adjectival reference to North Macedonia despite not being referenced in Prespa as such. That doesn't mean that it should be erased from Wikipedia. That is POV. Let's save the rest for the actual RfC. --Michail (blah) 20:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term North Macedonians isn't an ethnic term, it's a political term (demonym) who refers to all citizens of North Macedonia, so, the redirect can't go to the ethnic group of Macedonians. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Antondimak Not all citizens of North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. 25% are Albanians. --Michail (blah) 18:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the RFC looks good, but I do suggest prioritizing implementation of 1.1 (moving Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia.) It seems no accident that there appears to be overwhelming consensus for renaming the main article as suggested, while most other issues (disambiguation, demonym, etc.) generate more varied proposals, because the issue really is less clear. Bottom line: Can we uncouple the quick renaming of the main article (which, I agree, should happen on or very soon after 15 February) from discussing the trickier issues? —ThorstenNY (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary Comment I read the whole discussion again patiently and carefully and I'm realizing that we are just going around in circles and not doing any real progress to finalize a draft for RfC. I will try to go through the points that were set earlier by Danski454 and summarize a few things.
  1. Main article: I guess we are referring to this one right? If yes, I can see that there are 2 views: we either agree that the article should be moved to North Macedonia by the current RM, or we don't make any changes and wait for MOSMAC to be updated first. In the latter case I've seen also people suggesting to use "Republic of North Macedonia" alternatively.
  2. Disambiguation page: we either keep the current order and change the name of the entry of "Republic of Macedonia" accordingly, adding a short explanatory text (there are 2 options listed at the proposed RfC) or we change the order and put Macedonia (region) first.
  3. Nationality of people: I have a major issue here because I'm not sure if we are even supposed to debate on that. I mean, the nationality is defined by law, we can't impose a term that is not defined by law. The agreement stipulates that the official term for nationality is "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of Macedonia" and does not define a short form. Do we need a short form? My guess is that we need one, at least for the lead paragraphs of biographies (WP:MOSBIO). Are we entitled to decide for a short form or this constitutes WP:OR? I have no clue. If we are clear from these procedural issues there are 2 proposals on the table for the short form of the nationality: "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian"
  4. Government organisations and other associated entities: This is also defined by the agreement as "of North Macedonia". We have mainly 2 options: either to use only the proposed format, or introduce another one that will be easier to use, such as the proposed "North Macedonian". Another option is to keep the currently used "Macedonian" as alternative. We have to make clear that this point refers ONLY to public organs and other official entities, including governmental and other official ranks (e.g. the Prime Minister, the President, etc)
  5. Adjective: This refers to all adjectival forms, including the demonyms and apparently applies to people, as single individuals and as a population, and entities that are not included on the above list. There are many proposals here and I think that this will become the most complicated issue, because it is not addressed by the agreement. The proposals include to use only the term "Macedonian", use only "North Macedonian", use both, or use alternatives such as "Macedonian (North Macedonia)". Apparently this choice on adjectives applies to: titles of any such articles (if any), links within various articles and the infobox of Republic of Macedonia
  6. Language, ethnicity, culture etc This is straightforward since all agree on keeping the term "Macedonian"
  7. Present day references I don't think that there is a lot of debate here too, and it seems that most of us agree on replacing "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia", with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" respectively
  8. Historical names This is another issue that we barely touched and I expect to become problematic at some point. The obvious choice is to keep "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" for all the articles that refer to the 1991-2019 period, but there is an alternative proposal to replace it with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia"
  9. Redirects I'm not sure that we should include that point, but I certainly acknowledge the need to have the issue reviewed.

I think that everyone that has made their mind up on these issues, can actually list their suggestions clearly stated on the guideline above, so we can move forward. I don't know if there are any other issues that anyone would like to propose, or if anyone disagrees with including any of the above points into the RfC. --Argean (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For number 3, I would say there are enough secondary sources around that it is not WP:OR, so we can determine the WP:COMMONNAME. Danski454 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a subpage of the guideline for the RFC: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. Please make any necessary changes before opening the discussion. Danski454 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to notice that there has been a lot of confusion over the definition of the word "nationality" in both countries: [35], [36], [37], [38]. In Greek the same word is used to describe both "nationality" and "ethnicity", and my understanding is that the same occurs also in Albanian language. That was one of the issues that led to this complex definition of nationality as "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia". Nationality is not always the same as the demonym (that stupid term that we've been discussing endlessly for the last couple of weeks), e.g. People from Northern Ireland have either British or Irish nationality, but the demonym "Northern Irish" is sometimes used. I'm not sure if we should list nationality and demonym as being the same thing (because both refer to people), list demonym as an adjectival reference to the people and include it under section 5 (as I did previously), list demonym separately (as SilentResident suggested earlier), or skip it completely? Opinions anyone? --Argean (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argean either British or Irish nationality – some people have Northern Irish nationality, neither British nor Irish. I don't think Ireland is a good example, it's super complicated. The nationality in this case is Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonian, which is fine. We can also shorten it to Macedonian when refering to nationality, I'm personally OK with that. But like I said previously it should not be used in lieu of the adjectival reference "of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian". There needs to be a clearly-defined set of parameters as to when Macedonian is applicable and when "of North Macedonia"/"North Macedonian" is applicable. In some cases it is obvious, in others not so much. For example Gruevski is both a Macedonian politician (a politician who is Macedonian) and a North Macedonian politician (a politician of North Macedonia). A rule of thumb to determine this is "if you had to link the adjective, would you link to Macedonians (ethnic group) or North Macedonia"? The current Gruevski article links the word "Macedonian" to "Republic of Macedonia", therefore Macedonian is not an ethnicity but an adjectival form of the name. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate this clearly apart from the "would you link the adjective to the ethnic group or the country?". I think perhaps the best thing to do is to list all possible terminology (1. Macedonian, 2. Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia (North Macedonian Citizen is a possible variant I guess), 3. of North Macedonia 4. North Macedonian), all possible uses, and ask people to vote where each term should be assigned based on how they are being used in reliable sources. --Michail (blah) 23:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michail Well, I suggest it's better to leave people of Northern Ireland to their peace. There is no such thing as "Northern Irish nationality" or "Northern Irish citizenship" - people born in Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both, as explained in the official governmental website (apologies I forgot about the dual citizenship). And they use nationality and citizenship interchangeably. By the way, I rather like the "North Macedonian Citizen" as an alternative, but should we list it under the options for nationality? --Argean (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Main article. I think the only open question is when to rename to North Macedonia. With such overwhelming consensus in the current RM for N.M., does anybody really think any other name is feasible/would be able to command consensus? So the remaining question appears to be: Can we (I) rename as soon as the RM has formally reached consensus — or do we (II) have to wait for a more complex ARBCOM process to work out? I’ve been arguing for (I), because I believe that ARBCOM is only needed for highly controversial issues, which North Macedonia isn’t after Prespa. The RM seems to show that the name North Macedonia isn’t controversial at all.
2. Disambiguation. Clearly the least important issue. I maybe have a slight preference for N.M. now, with the understanding that this would almost certainly have to be changed to M. (region).
3. Nationality. It seems like a foregone conclusion to me that English speakers without strong ties to the Macedonian ethnic group will use North Macedonian as soon as they us North Macedonia. Presumably also ethnic Albanians will identify themselves as North Macedonian (citizens.) Many/most ethnic Macedonians will probably give their citizenship as Macedonian for a while, but should this really be the deciding factor for the English-language WP? I would be comfortable with something along the lines of “Nationality: Macedonian or North Macedonian (but long form always citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia).
4., 5. and 6. I think that we can safely ignore the awkward phrasing of Prespa and simply follow its spirit: North Macedonian for anything related to the state (which includes citizenship); Macedonian for anything related to language, ethnicity, etc.
7. Present-day reference. Yes, North Macedonia.
8. Historical names. Republic of Macedonia (esp. if first reference) or Macedonia (if unambiguous) for country between 1991 and 2018. North Macedonia makes no sense for that period.
9. Redirects. Republic of Macedonia→North Macedonia and Republic of North Macedonia→North Macedonia seem obvious. Macedonian (already a disambiguation page) can stay as is. North Macedonian should probably become a new disambiguation page? What else do we need? —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a potentially crazy notion! (Feel free to shoot down this idea, or call it completely nuts as you may see fit). It is partly based on a notion brought up by Macedonicus and Argean earlier (credit where credit is due). Why don't we propose;
    "Macedonian (North)" for the demonym, nationality, adjective, and/or government institutions as well? After all, we already have an article about the geographical Greek region as "Macedonia (Greece)" This kind of goes along the same lines as that concept, being as fair and neutral to the northerners and greeks as possible. "Macedonia (North)" (no "n") can then be a redirect to the country's future label "North Macedonia" to maintain this consistency. Of course, it doesn't apply to the ethnic group "Macedonian" which is still a bit of a sticking point, but is officially addressed in the Prespa agreement as referring to northerners (not that we need to apply the agreement's terms definitively, but it helps to follow it a bit). The more I think about this, the more I come to feel I should add it to the draft RFC, unless there is huge opposition to my mentioning the very idea of this concept here, naturally. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Credit goes to Macedonicus, I just copied it. Wiz9999, honestly it doesn't look bad at all to me but I could only see it being used as a demonym and listed in the infobox, as a consensus solution. I can't really see it as a nationality, adjectival, or governmental reference. But we can still list it, maybe under the adjectives? --Argean (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the first and foremost criterion is of course that the term needs to be naturally useable in English. An adjective with an arbitrary non-syntactical addition in parentheses stuck in the middle of the phrase is not natural English. Plus, per policy, we cannot invent our own terms here; we have to go by what reliable sources do (or at least, what reliable sources are likely to do in the future). This "(North)" thing is right out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world we would make decisions based on the simplicity and natural usability of the terms, but the Prespa Agreement put an end to a 30 year old painful dispute, its wording has been carefully chosen not to cause any conflict, and saying that Wikipedia shouldn't abide it it's a bit insensitive to both Greeks and Macedonians especially when we have Greek politicians from the hard-core opposition not once daring to use the term 'North Macedonian'. Like it or not, the solution needs to be based on the agreement's grounds at least for now. Article 1(f) of the agreement is clear that state organs/gov funded institutions will have the 'of North Macedonia' adjective, the agreement (Article 7) suggests that in other cases the adjective Macedonian can be used by both parties with non-exclusivity. So, a Macedonian Football Team (North Macedonia) will never be confused with Macedonian Football Team (Greece) because of the country name in (). I strongly object using North Macedonian because it is not meant to be used, simple as that. I suggest other 'creative' solutions such as the one I proposed. Cheers.

PS. Here are some other examples/proposals that we could take into account: - Government of North Macedonia or Macedonian Government (North Macedonia) or North Macedonia Government (using the name of the country as an adjective). Macedonicus (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments:

  • Nationality: it depends. If we just have a place to list country of citizenship, "North Macedonia" will be the only acceptable alternative, unless by some bizarre circumstance the country doesn't end up getting moved. If "North Macedonian" is rejected as the adjective, I'd prefer avoiding the adjective altogether, e.g. "So and so is a politician from North Macedonia", because the absence of a state called "Macedonia" will prompt someone to consider this a regional matter ("is he from North Macedonia, or northern Greece, or southwestern Bulgaria?"), and it could also be interpreted as an ethnic statement. Ethnicity: I don't really know what to think, so I'll offer no opinion.
  • Historical contexts: we have to continue referring to the country as "Macedonia" not just 1991-2019, but 1945-1991 as well. It wouldn't be at all helpful to use today's term for the country under a former name. You wouldn't speak of someone visiting the DR Congo in 1985, and saying that Chulalongkorn was King of Thailand in the 1860s would be nonsensical; calling the country "North Macedonia" in a 1980s or 2000s context would be equally silly.
  • Who will use "Macedonian (North)"? I can't envision this term, or its translation, becoming common anywhere or in any significant-sized group of people.

Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Who will use "Macedonian (North)"? I can't envision this term, or its translation, becoming common anywhere or in any significant-sized group of people." - That is kind of the point @Nyttend it is an arbitrary instance of the term, it is not being used by anyone to describe anything in particular. As such, it is more neutral than a lot of other proposals "Macedonian", "North Macedonian", etc. I don't expect it to be adopted widely outside of wikipedia, but that is kind of the point. Outside sources can have their bias towards one perspective or another as they wish, be we be using an arbitrary description like this that is as neutral as possible. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Main article: North Macedonia, obviously.
  2. Disambiguation page: Keep the current order, I think. Most Wikipedia readers will still research for the modern country. Despite the constant suggestions that 'North Macedonia' or even 'North Macedonian' will become commonplace, The Economist speculates that the old name will stick around for a while. It would be a good idea to educate them that it has since changed its name.
  3. Nationality of people: Macedonian / citizens of North Macedonia (official) or Macedonian (short). This is as defined by the Prespa Agreement. While Wikipedia is by no means obligated by the Prespa Agreement, it is (a) very unlikely that official entities will refer to the nationality as somewhat other than that and (b) debatable whether "North Macedonian" will catch on in international media, especially when using it to refer to a people. Usually most media don't refer to a nationality with a term that the same nationality has specifically requested and agreed not to be called.
  4. Government organisations and other associated entities: Defined by the agreement as "of North Macedonia", so in a way to deliberately avoid the adjective 'North Macedonian'. I'm expecting to see an official government interpretation of the Article 1 that defines its usage. I think that 'North Macedonian' is unlikely to be used in any official context, and those who have already used it (ALDE, Green-EFA) will probably start using the "of North Macedonia" form. International media is an entirely different matter. Despite few "North Macedonian" references, "Macedonian" remains the most widely used term to refer to gov. organizations and public entities. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and unless there is sufficient evidence that indeed "North Macedonian" vastly surpassed "Macedonian" insome point in the future, I'd think the best option is to try to avoid using the adjectival form altogether when referring to govt. entities.
  5. Adjective: This will probably become the most complicated issue. People (meaning collectively and individually), ethnicity, cultural references should remain "Macedonian" unless there is a potential to confuse with Greek Macedonian identity and heritage and with Ancient Macedon. I think "Macedonian (North Macedonia)" should suffice to distinguish in the former, while "(modern) Macedonian" will be sufficent to make a difference in the latter case.
  6. Language, ethnicity, culture etc "Macedonian"
  7. Present day references Replace "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia", with "North Macedonia" and "Republic of North Macedonia" respectively
  8. Historical names Keep "Republic of Macedonia" for all the articles that refer to the 1991-2019 period. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the time ripe to start the thing now? I'm posting a new draft below incorporating a few of the alternatives vented above (others can still be added). Should we open it for voting? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant draft removed Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't split the drafts. This location is good enough to be creating a draft in, also I am making this a sub-section of the main discussion as it is just a part of it. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't seen somebody already opened that subpage, my apologies. Removing this draft then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we have to accept that it is very clear that the ethnicity of the slavic speaking residents of North Macedonian is Macedonian (it is in the Prespa Agreement and is generalized use). But that is only one of the ethnicities in North Macedonia. Therefore the denonym for the whole country cannot be Macedonian. There is a very strong precedent in the Balkans with Bosniak / Bosnian and another with Kosovar / Kosovan. Also North Macedonian is a very natural way of referring to things relative to North Macedonia (South Sudanese, South Korean, South African). — Preceding unsigned comment added by APG1984 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nationality of people: Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian (short)
2. Government organizations: X of North Macedonia (official) or North Macedonian X (more natural)
3. Demonym for the country: North Macedonian
4. Language, ethnicity, culture etc. of that ethnic group: Macedonian--APG1984 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@APG1984: Hi, we have been continuing this conversation on the following page; WT:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC, after the draft RfC was generated here. Please post any suggestions there instead (End of the draft period is now at 18:00 UTC on 15 Feb.). - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lining up with Prespa Agreement:

  • Country: North Macedonia Agreement is clear, country cannot be referenced by any name other than North Macedonia.
  • People: Citizents of North Macedonia, agreement is clear also here. The phrase should accompany any person when an attempt to describe their nationality is made.
  • Languange: (South) Slavic Macedonian, agreement is clear, when refering to the language, it should be noted that it is a south slavic language.
  • Ancient Macedonian refences should be removed from North Macedonia articles. Prespa agreement clearly states that Ancient Macedonia has no relation to modern day North Macedonia.

Article moved

Just to note that I have closed the requested move and moved the article to North Macedonia. Whatever happens with this RfC, the consensus over there was overwhelming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBURO and all that, but it would have been better to wait for this to go the normal seven-day discussion period. Dekimasuよ! 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: I sort of agree with you there, but I know we also would have had an uprising on our hands. Ultimately, I reluctantly support MSG's decision. There was an enormous amount of requests coming in to change the page, the move request was all but certain at that point for the new name. It was getting hard for experienced editors available at the time to keep up with all the IPs and new users constantly making requests. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can/should we still ask people to hold off making changes?

Is the warning box added the other day ("articles should still adhere to this guideline") still worth keeping there? At this point, well-meaning and often not very experienced people are moving and rewording articles left, right and center, and it seems hardly feasible to ask them to stop. Should we just accept that we can't stem the tide (and leave the necessary tidying-up of over-eager changes for later)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the RM - and I acknowledge that the text was my proposal originally - I have come to the conclusion that the position articulated by the text is untenable.
But we should perhaps say something to acknowledge the change and link to the RFC. Maybe asking that people use discretion when dealing with changes from Macedonia to North Macedonia, for example. And we only want to open the door to the changes that we're likely to endorse anyway - given that the RFC almost certainly won't endorse, it would still be a problem for people to try to mass-replace Macedonia with FYROM. Kahastok talk 19:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest maybe:
Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
👍 I like it... Hmmm, maybe inside the notice we should wikilink to the RFC page when it goes live? That way we will advertise to get more editors, who are interested in the subject, providing a relevant vote. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have implemented the change. Danski454 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please don't split off yet more RfCs. This is going to be handled by the main RfC that's being drafted on the subpage. If the questions there aren't clear enough for your taste, please improve that draft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be useful to separate out this discussion, as some people in the Draft RFC also proposed, to distinguish it from other issues discussed there and to make things a bit less confused. The question here concerns the demonym of the country of North Macedonia, namely:

  1. What should be listed under Demonym(s) in the article 'North Macedonia'
  2. How to refer to people from North Macedonia in articles e.g. 'Zoran Zaev is a XXX politician', 'Ali Ahmeti is an XXX politician', 'Goran Popov is a XXX football player', 'many XXX residents', 'many prominent XXX musicians' etc.

Ideally (IMO) the answer to the above two should be the same. Demonym is NOT the same thing as adjectival reference (i.e. North Macedonian Parliament, North Macedonian cuisine etc.), nor ethnicity (which, as far as I can tell, remains unchanged as Macedonian/ethnic Macedonian) and I would recommend setting up separate RFCs for those issues. Demonym is also not necessarily the same thing as nationality, as illustrated by the example of North Korea, where the nationality is Korean, listed demonyms are North Korean and Korean, and the demonym used in articles is North Korean.

Based on my reading of the discussion in the Draft RFC, four main views have emerged:

  • North Macedonian only - Match demonym to name of country for minimum confusion and to be able to refer to everyone and everything from the country in the same way, including, for example, people who may be from North Macedonia but may or may not hold Macedonian nationality (e.g. Albanians, residents who aren't citizens)
  • North Korea model: 'Demonym(s): North Macedonian, Macedonian', 'North Macedonian politician', 'North Korean football player' etc. - Minimises confusion and also closely matches double-barreled nationality under Prespa Agreement 'Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia'
  • Macedonian only - Match self-identified nationality of most citizens of North Macedonian while staying true to the fact that the Prespa Agreement never mentions the term 'North Macedonian'
  • Macedonian for now, wait for consensus - Keep Macedonian for now as it was the demonym under the previous name and wait to see what language sources use going forward

My own quick review of news sources since the name change (12th February) has revealed:

'North Macedonian prime minister' [1], 'North Macedonian premier' [2], 'North Macedonian Defense Minister' [3] [4][5], 'North Macedonian official' [6][7], 'North Macedonian authorities' [8], 'North Macedonian residents', 'North Macedonian nationals' [9], 'North Macedonian fake-news creators' [10], 'North Macedonian counterpart' [11], 'North Macedonian lawyers' [12]

'Macedonian Prime Minister' [13], 'Macedonian Foreign Minister' [14], 'Macedonian workers' [15], 'Macedonian soldiers' [16], 'many Macedonians feel humiliated' [17], 'Macedonians, who speak a Slavic language' [18], 'Macedonian prosecutor' [19], 'Macedonian official', 'Macedonian counterpart' [20], 'Macedonian church leaders', 'Macedonian Christians' [21]

  • North Korea model: My personal vote if for Demonym(s): North Macedonian, Macedonian and North Macedonian everywhere else. No other country with a double name (North Korea, South Africa etc.) has a demonym that doesn't match its name. I believe Macedonian as a demonym for someone from North Macedonia is unnecessarily confusing, particularly since there is an ethnicity and three overlapping regions with the same name. Further, Macedonian is not that country's nationality (the nationality is Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) and it appears that for Albanian citizens of North Macedonia it will only be 'citizens of North Macedonia' [22], meaning 'Macedonian' will be an inaccurate designation for them. Finally, it looks like the adjectival reference for the country will most likely be North Macedonian, in which case you will create an enormous number of confusing grey areas and inconsistencies if the demonym is different (North Macedonian government but Macedonian government officials, North Macedonian film but Macedonian filmmakers, North Macedonian population but population of Macedonians etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) 2019-02-14T02:01:43 (UTC) — Kkyriakop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Matthew hk (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macedonian for now, wait for consensus: The Prespa Agreement is against the usage of "North Macedonian" as an adjective, besides North Macedonia's Government Spokesperson in an interview for CNN stated that the citizens should be called Macedonians, not North Macedonians (CNN Article), so there is no confusion there. As for the concern the Albanians, they will also have Nationality: Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, they will not have special treatment. --Macedonicus (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/north-macedonia-s-birth-hailed-as-boost-for-balkans-and-nato-1.3792882
  2. ^ https://www.gulf-times.com/story/622084/North-Macedonia-puts-up-new-name-on-border-with-Gr
  3. ^ https://www.euronews.com/2019/02/11/we-re-ready-to-contribute-to-nato-north-macedonia-defence-minister-tells-euronews
  4. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkeys-defense-minister-us-counterpart-discuss-syria/1391760
  5. ^ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkeys-defense-minister-us-counterpart-discuss-syria/1391760
  6. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20190214-13-killed-bus-accident-north-macedonia-minister
  7. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/north-macedonia-s-birth-hailed-as-boost-for-balkans-and-nato-1.3792882
  8. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/road-signs-replaced-to-reflect-north-macedonia-name-change
  9. ^ https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/02/12/gains-and-losses-for-greece-after-the-birth-of-north-macedonia/
  10. ^ https://www.techcentral.ie/how-fake-news-is-changing-the-internet/
  11. ^ http://www.bta.bg/en/c/ES/id/1957269
  12. ^ https://www.acerislaw.com/north-macedonia-arbitration-lawyers-desk/
  13. ^ http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/world-news/20190212/country-prepares-name-change-removing-signs
  14. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-macedonia-namechange/welcome-to-north-macedonia-new-road-signs-go-up-on-border-with-greece-idUSKCN1Q21LM
  15. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-macedonia-namechange/welcome-to-north-macedonia-new-road-signs-go-up-on-border-with-greece-idUSKCN1Q21LM
  16. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/world/macedonia-raises-nato-flag-ahead-of-name-change
  17. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/12/nato-flag-raised-ahead-of-north-macedonias-prospective-accession>
  18. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/macedonia-north-name-change-greece-nato-controversy-eu-accession-a8776806.html
  19. ^ https://www.occrp.org/en/investigations/macedonian-prosecutor-implicates-former-political-leaders-in-money-laundering-extortion-illicit-land-deals
  20. ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/north-macedonia-puts-itself-on-the-map-officially/29766440.html
  21. ^ https://www.brnow.org/News/February-2019/Macedonian-Baptists-awaken-to-church-planting
  22. ^ https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Macedonia/North-Macedonia-the-new-name-comes-with-hopes-and-high-costs-192098
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)&oldid=883617192"