Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles

Option "B.1"

B1 was added very shortly before the beginning of the RfC phase and with little discussion. Since it appears to be similarly "non-standard" as the previous Proposal H, do we really want it to be on the RfC page? There's no discussion about its conformance with the rules or its perceived advantages or disadvantages so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur - it should be removed. It was added after the deadline stated by Fritzpoll. Options that have not been discussed should not be put forward in the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we removed H, I agree. However only the B1 option should be removed. Some of the other edits by this user deserve some thought before reverting them. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened to proposal C? BalkanFever 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems they eliminated it when they reduced the number of candidates from 5 to 4. It had no first preference votes, that's probably why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yea, really what? Proposal C was the second choice of more than half the participants here. Hey if I knew that at least one should have placed it first for it to go through I would have placed it first. Macedonia (country) is a perfectly Ok proposal and as seen in the parallel Ireland case. I am going to be direct: removing this proposal has a seriously consequence of inflating the probability of A to pass since it now is the only proposal that uses the name Macedonia for the country without having any of the potential problems of D (which has Macedonia (country) as one of its options).

I request that C is reinstated in the page. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked J.delanoy for clarification. Perhaps he meant to remove proposal G :)BalkanFever 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing G would have made more sense since it could be thought of as the one that would only satisfy the ARBCOM mentioned "faction" more than others ...right? But by removing a perfectly good proposal (C) and keeping a proposal that is unlikely to receive any significant support (G) solely because of a minor voting technicality is strange to say at least. It is not justified by anything that was stated from ARBMAC2 to here. Removing [C] will just force every single supporter of "Macedonia" as a name of the country to accept [A] as the only choice. Why did we tie the common name to the primary topic clause? These two can exist apart from each other.

At the parallel Ireland case almost all proposals are in the form of Ireland (something). Georgia (country) is already used and accepted. This is very peculiar that one of the proposals that were less likely to cause any problems was removed like that. It wasn't against policy nor was it influenced by any "block" effect (quite the opposite). If the voting details were disclosed prior to the selection - especially the clause that every proposal should have been the first choice of at least one user - I am 100% sure it would have passed. I would have placed it first, I only voted B first by a very small margin.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken out B1 since it appears that late addition was overlooked. As far as G vs C, lets wait for J.delanoy - I have to admit I don't know the math behind the voting system used. Shell ^babelfish 09:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as G goes, I'll have to emphasize the point that was made by J.delanoy, it is a proposal that was the first choice of more than one person. Any further refinement of the number of choices should be done by the greater community itself. --Radjenef (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• • We wanted to aim for about 4 proposals or so, and on the preferential system used (STV), the results came through as (in order from the top of my head) BADC, followed by G if we expanded to five proposals. Because G is the "hot potato" of the bunch, I think I agreed with J.delanoy that we bump C and include G instead. We maintain that five proposals or above is an excessive list of options and compromised to four - we can always replace G with C if it is desired. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is four the magic number? If both proposals had significant support they should both go through. We could also include Macedonia (country) as the other WP:NAMEy option under B and call it a day. B is about Macedonia being a dab page. We can emphasize that Macedonia country is also a possibility that is compatible with having a dab page at Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm of course partial here, but if I my nevertheless register my opinion, I believe that the STV counting method reflects something quite sensible here, in honouring the fact that C had a very large number of second-choice votes, being regarded by many a reasonable compromise candidate while not being very sharply distinguished from B; whereas G is the hardline position preferred by a minority but with little to no chance of gaining an overall consensus. Why serve us the "hot potatoes" by preference? I think following the STV method would be more conductive to finding common ground rather than further polarisation in such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, am beyond a doubt convinced that the two who put proposal G as their first choice were not acting in good faith. By allowing this proposal, the referees are basically asking for the canvassing to continue and for the discussion to be derailed by new nationalists. If you're going to discount opinions not grounded in policy anyway, why have a proposal that is only attractive to opinions not grounded in policy? BalkanFever 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did it pretty much for the reasons that Fritzpoll listed, but if you want me to remove G and add C, I have no problems with that. Also, new accounts, cf. accounts that were created after the start of the arbitration case, or after the start of this particular discussion on June 12, will be given the weight that they would be given in any discussion, so I don't think that canvassing will be a big issue. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced G with C. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't we have both? There are really good arguments in support of both proposals. The initial consensus was that we would only be removing Proposals that are supported by one person. I really do not see why we should narrow our choices that much at this stage. If the community truly doesn't support G, then that will show through their comments! It isn't really fair to agree on a method, vote and then backtrack and change the way by which this process works! --Radjenef (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)