From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to Issue: Map[edit]

I've tweaked the colors so that it's easy to see that Greece is all yellow and Bulgaria is all green. There's no more ambiguity. A very simple fix.

Add caption here

--Taivo (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with that, plus it can be better if you color the ancient capitals of Macedonia in neutral color such black. It will be also more neutral if up or down the Republic of Macedonia is included with fade color such grey or orange as the background color "(FYROM)" even with small letters, so can represent all sides and offend no body. With that two more fix simple we don't offend the 35-40% of total population of the state, which are mainly Ethnic Albanians, plus i don't see any problem with Greeks or Bulgarians or rest Albanians to get offended. Because it will cover everyone. Taivo, now you talking on topic, cheers. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:MOSMAC. We will not include "FYROM". --Taivo (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is a neutral map which purpose all sides. [[File:
Neutral Map of Macedonia region
--ГоранМирчевски (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
No, Goran. What don't you understand about WP:MOSMAC? We will not include "FYROM" on the map per Wikipedia policy. Read J.Delanoy's comments above and he explains it very well. This discussion was closed two years ago. I've recolored the capital cities to better match the red on the caption that's already in place. (I've replaced the WikiCommons map so all you need to do is click on the above map to see the more distinctive coloring.) --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed the color of the ancient capitals on my version of the map. For some reason your changes to the other map are not being reflected in the file. This gives us a map that we both agree on--single colors for all Bulgarian and Greek territory and a distinctive color for the ancient capitals. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Good work Taivo. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Check also this one, is sane as your but in SVG edition with more clear colors, --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
You need to properly attribute that WikiCommons file. It's not your original work, so make sure you credit the author. The only problem with it is that you've cut off the last "A" at the end of Bulgaria. --Taivo (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded a copy with cleaner circles for the ancient capitals. It should be sufficient for our purposes. --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
What about including the names of Greece and Bulgaria in the region as mentioned above, so it won't look like a United Macedonia map? Or, why the names of Greece and Bulgaria are not close to the regional boundary as you suggested before? Macedonian (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Any map-reading person looking at that map will not think that Greece and Bulgaria don't extend through the Macedonian region. Since national boundaries are marked on the map by solid lines and this regional line is dashed, there is no confusion. Changing the colors was enough. By simply tweaking the existing map by changing colors we were able to fix it without generating a whole new map. That means that we cannot move text around on it because the original had been saved as a bitmap. But with the same color throughout, moving the text was unnecessary. It also prevents clutter in the region. --Taivo (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Come to think of it, after Athenian's comment, Greece's name is unnecessarily low. It could easily be moved north for more balance and symmetry without cluttering the Macedonian region. Merry Christmas to all. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Moving the text is not possible with the graphic that we used as the base file is a single layer. Only the original author can move it since he/she has the original graphics file. Goran and I used the graphic stored at WikiCommons as the base and the text is no longer separated as a separate manipulable layer. While moving the text a little bit would be nice, it's not physically possible with the file we had the work with. --Taivo (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I can accept that. Thank you for your great efforts Taivo. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I will make such a map for more balance in the next days, i have the original file. Happy New Year! --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too. Thank you Goran. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to move text around on the map, Goran, do not try to make the names cross the Macedonian region boundary. That would simply make a massive clutter in the center of the map. Recoloring is sufficient. If you want to move the text a little closer, that's up to you, but I won't accept needless clutter. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent map Goran. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's up with the map?[edit]

Why are Greece and Bulgaria completely colored? Shouldn't only Blagoevgrad Province and Macedonia (Greece) be shaded instead? Right now it implies that all of Greece and Bulgaria can somehow be associated with the term "Macedonia". --JaGatalk 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The caption probably needs to be adjusted now. This has been an extensive discussion over the last month and the feeling was that the differing colors implied that the "Macedonian" sections of Greece and Bulgaria were somehow not a part of those countries. Using one color for the whole country solved that misinterpretation, but the caption probably needs to be adjusted somehow. --Taivo (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the dotted line and a caption adjustment should take care of the problem. Visually it is pretty clear that the dotted line describes the region of Macedonia. The colours within the dotted line denote clearly which country has jurisdiction over a particular segment of the Macedonian region. It is a marked improvement over the old map. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the unnecessary color notes. Let's keep it simple, clean and nice. Jaga, all countries implies with the region. Some small remarks, north FYR Macedonia was never part of Ancient or even recent history of Macedonia, example is the city of Skopje. Also in recent history, example in Balkan wars, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia put their efforts on the area, many thousands killed just to liberate the area against the Ottoman Empire, which at that time the modern state of macedonia, even was not present on that wars, and believe me, also Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece was under occupation. Also, if we move to Ottoman empire, "macedonia" was never mentioned, but it applies in the Vilayet of Thessaloniki, Monastir and Kosovo, which automatically we should consider as the area, or in the Byzantine times, Macedonia cleared mentioned for 1000 years from Thema of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia (till Andrianople), which then we also have to consider and which was also claims of first Bulgarian BMRO over Macedonia. Or we can take the region of Vardarska Banovina which applies also for many years and not mentioned, because then also can extend the border among Kosovo and Serbia. And who consider also the Albanian population on the area etc.? However first of all Macedonia is the Ancient Kingdom and then all the rest. When we talk about Macedonia we talking about thousands of years, changes and more, not for the recent years. So everything it implies with. For this reason we make it simple, clear and offensive for no one, we must cover all sides. But for sure, i not see that we cover all times, but just few recent decades. At least keep it simple and clear. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I agree with you, Goran, to keep it simple. It would be impossible to draw a line around the region that covers one time period, but ignores other time periods. The line right now is very general and that's how it should remain--very general. And even though all of the modern state of Macedonia may not have been included in the ancient or medieval provinces or kingdoms called "Macedonia", it's included in the label of "Macedonia" today so the broadest interpretation of what is (or has been) included in a region called "Macedonia" is the appropriate one. The map looks fine now. I probably wouldn't have moved "Greece" quite so far north and would have placed it in a more central location (right now it's closer to Thrace than to Crete), but it's not a fatal flaw by any means. --Taivo (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes Taivo, that's why i answer to JaGa to have the info in his mind, and for others who will read. The position of Greece on Map is in right location because we are focus on Macedonia and plus we don't want to offend any side. Visually this looks the best solution. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

TBH, this map by user "Future Perfect at Sunrise" was better. Just change the colour of the Greek region (same as Greece's), and the colour of Bulgaria (different than Greece's). Eldar73 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good map, but I don't think it was ever used in this particular article. If it was it was used a very long time ago. It's a good map, though. --Taivo (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It was used until May 8, 2009. I believe that we could use this as a basis and improve it (see previous comment). Borders between West/Central/East Macedonia could go, ancient capitals could be added. Eldar73 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we need to be very careful with making the map too busy. Future Perfect drew a very well-conceived map, but I'd like to hear more input from other editors who watch this page. The problem with any map showing "ancient boundaries" is that it only represents one of the possible ancient boundaries to choose from and excludes other possible boundaries for Macedonia between 500 BCE and the present. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
This is indeed a much better map, I agree to use it too. As I said again, this is more or less the boundary of the actual kingdom, that is before the expansions. Future Perfect has done a good job. Macedonian (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, Taivo, the map shouldn't be too busy, that's why I proposed to remove borders for West/Central/East Macedonia and put the ancient capitals instead. And I agree with you, Macedonian, indicative borders for the ancient kingdom should stay, in order to provide some context for the "core" territories. I suspect this was Future Perfect's rationale. The linked articles will provide more information, if the reader wants to expand. Eldar73 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So, what about using FP's map? Macedonian (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should show the boundaries of the ancient kingdom, rather than the capital cities, which is kind of weird. However, the question then becomes, the boundaries of the ancient kingdom when? My preference would be 359 BC, prior to the expansion under Philip II. Thus, one problem with FP's map is that it doesn't specify the time period of the ancient kingdom's boundaries. We can do away with the division between West, Central and East Macedonia, as it makes the map too busy, and I agree that countries should be shown in the same color as their "Macedonian" parts. Another issue with the current map is that it includes a bit too much of NW Albania, Kosovo, and southern Serbia. As far as I know, NW Albania and Kosovo do not have any territory in the region of Macedonia, and the Serbian part is tiny, certainly not the entire Presevo Valley as shown. Athenean (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm no Macedonia expert, but I do know a thing or two about disambiguation. To be used on a disambiguation page, the map should serve one purpose, and one purpose only: to help explain the different uses of the term Macedonia. As such, I would expect a map used on this disambig to:

  1. Outline the boundaries of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) at its height (along with the dates for this boundary)
  2. Outline the boundaries of the Republic of Macedonia
  3. Outline the boundaries of Macedonia (Greece)
  4. Outline the boundaries of Macedonia (region)

Since this map should be specific to disambiguating the term Macedonia it should not emphasize ancient capital cities, or color all of Greece and Bulgaria. This only leads to confusion. --JaGatalk 03:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but it should disambiguate that large parts of the region of Macedonia are actually part of neighboring countries as opposed to stand-alone entities. I don't disagree with your post, except that "at its height" the Kingdom of Macedon extended to the Indus River, which is why I proposed 359 BC, the date before the large expansion initiated by Philip II. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and the boundary on FP's map it's more or less the boundary of the actual kingdom, that is before the expansions. Macedonian (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to using FP's map. --Taivo (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, FP's map is better, with or without the proposed adjustments. Eldar73 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Or we can use this map since it already includes the adjustments proposed above. Macedonian (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
No. That map is the whole reason we're here. It is a poor map and poorly executed. FP's map really only requires some minor adjustments (noting what the green of Greek Macedonia represents, for example). --Taivo (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
OK everyone, we agree that FP's map is better. Can we agree about the adjustments? I've proposed some above. Let's take out of the way the common proposals and debate on the rest. Eldar73 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
There are only two adjustments I think are necessary to FP's map: 1) Greek Madeconia should be colored the same as the rest of Greece, 2) The captioning needs to be adjusted to match the disambiguation labels. --Taivo (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
However, JaGa brings up a point above that I'm not sure how to address without turning the map into a complicated mess. How do we mark Greek Macedonia as a defined region without making it look like it's a separate country or part of Macedonia? --Taivo (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's what happens when people started messing with my perfectly fine (and stable) raster map :)
Just kidding. Personally I find the map currently displayed on the page as being closer to the simplest solution and by Okham's razor the best one. My only preference would be a bluish shade for Greece and to use official names Republic of Bulgaria and Hellenic Republic this context 'Hellenic' is somewhat significant. Well you already knew my preference - a vector version of this image.
But I kid you not, at this point the wise choice would be to leave the map as it is. If we start experimenting with ancient borders again we will open a known can of worms. I'm not happy with the indicated "extent" now, but since it is "approximate", I compromise. So please, let's not take steps backward. Let's keep this map provided by those helpful (& relatively new) editors. Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Taivo, the answer to your question about JaGa's concerns is to do the same trick I used on the raster map. Just color Greek Macedonia a tiny darker shade of Greece's colour. It will make it show as both distinct and clearly a part of Greece. Putting the word "Μακεδονία" over the Greek region in large friendly letters will probably help too :) Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The "darker shade" solution was opposed by several editors because they felt it made it look like a separate country (and somehow justified Macedonia's claim to Greek Macedonia). --Taivo (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent for so long, due to increased workload. This is a proposal using FP's good work as a basis, while taking ideas from the current map and this discussion. The Commons upload seems to break text layout. I never done this before, so go easy on me. :) Here's what I tried to address: 1) No confusion about countries. 2) Added kingdom's core territories. 3) Continuous lines for borders, dotted lines for other uses. 4) Each subregion of the wider region of Macedonia, has its respective name. Again, this is just a proposal. The map doesn't seem busy to me. Your thoughts? Eldar73 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good try, Eldar, but there are too many colors on the map and the boundaries of regional Macedonia and ancient Macedonia are simply too hard to see. Having so many colors simply makes more clutter. I think the problem is that the color for Greece is simply too dark. I'd be happier if you copied the colors in use on the map which is currently in the article. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Inspired by the national flags of the countries (red for MK, blue for GR, green for BG), I used standard palette colours and gave them 25% saturation level, leaving brightness at 100%. I believe that colour coding makes it easier to differentiate between them, while soft colours are easier on the eye. Regarding the boundaries, their weight can be adjusted at 3-4 pt (now at 2 pt), if the consensus is to make them more prominent. Colour could be darker too (saturation now at 50%). Eldar73 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that visually the eye tends to always be drawn toward lighter colors, so with Greece being the darkest color on the map, the eye slides away toward the unlabelled, irrelevant boundary countries. Greece should be yellow and the outer countries gray. This will keep the eye focused on the region that we want it to focus on rather than being distracted away by lighter colors on the borders. --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The other problem with your map Eldar73 (and consequently with FP's map) which needs correction, is that the ancient kingdom of Macedon (that is before the expansions and without the dependent territories as said above) was not extended so deep into the territories of the modern RoM. See: [1], [2], [3]. Macedonian (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose Eldar was copying the boundaries from my old map, and I, back at the time, assembled those in mine from some collection of wiki maps and others as best I could, with most of the sources not very exact. If you have corrections about the details, feel free to modify (should be very easy if you have an SVG editor, like Inkscape). I'm also not at all certain about the south-western boundary, towards Thessaly. The two lines look as if they were originally meant to be pretty much the same line, only distorted by copying from different sources with different projections or different degrees of exactness. Fut.Perf. 08:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, practically everything is taken from your old map. Will look at it again when I find some free time, given the comments above. :) Eldar73 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


I see this version of the Macedonia map has been restored again, with its misleadingly colored Greece and Bulgaria. IMO, this one does a far better job of illustrating the various regions referred to as "Macedonia" (and not illustrating regions that are not). Is there a reason to prefer the former to the latter that I'm overlooking? Again, this is a disambiguation page. The only purpose of the image is to clarify what the term "Macedonia" can refer to. --JaGatalk 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no misleading color there at all. All of Bulgaria is the same color as is all of Greece. The map you prefer actually colors Greek Macedonia in a color implying that it's not part of Greece. This version was stable for a very, very long time and is very clear. It was the result of consensus building. The version you prefer is a very confusing mix of lines that takes far too much time to interpret. This present map is simple and clear. --Taivo (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree completely with Taivo. Notice also how, in JaGa's preferred version, the Bulgarian part of modern geographical Macedonia is the same colour as Bulgaria but the Greek part is not the same colour as the rest of Greece. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That's Macedonia (Greece). --JaGatalk 21:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Macedonia (Greece) is not represented on the map. Also, coloring Greece and Bulgaria implies they are somehow referred to as Macedonia, which they are not. It would make just as much sense to color the state of Mississippi on the Mississippi Delta map. --JaGatalk 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
We have been through this several times in the recent past. It was agreed that the Macedonian part of Greece must be colored exactly the same color as Greece and the Macedonian part of Bulgaria colored exactly the same color as the rest of Bulgaria. Under no circumstances must it be implied by color or other means that Macedonian Greece is not fully and completely part of Greece. A WP:CONSENSUS was built on that. The map that you want to use fails in that regard since Greek Macedonia is another color. This map must be clear and simple, this article would be complete without a map at all, so the map doesn't have to convey each and every meaning of "Macedonia" in minute detail, otherwise we'd have to have maps of the US with the towns called "Macedonia" marked and a map with each and every province/region ever labelled "Macedonia". No, the map is just fine the way it is. If you have a problem with the Mississippi delta map then discuss it there. WP:OTHERSTUFF means that it's an irrelevant issue in this discussion. --Taivo (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Taivo here. I was part of the older discussion which led to the current map. I am ok with it still, and I don't see any reason to change the current consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus I see in the discussion above is for FP's map. What consensus are you referring to? Also, please don't refactor my talk page edits; I don't think the word "shenanigans" is anything more than playful. --JaGatalk 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Macedonia/Archive_3#New_map. As far as "shenanigans" being playful or not we have a disagreement. I find it a bit of a WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issue and I am not comfortable participating in a discussion under such a banner. Plus I don't think REFACTOR applies because the section title is the common subject of the discussion and applies to all participants and should not be treated as the comment of a single participant. As such the section title must have the consensus of all the participants and be NPOV and not be insulting to any of the participants, by implying that some participants are up to no good, if a proper discussion is to take place. Don't forget we are here to improve the article not comment on the behaviour of other editors through use of the section title. If you insist on restoring it because you think it belongs to you, I will not participate further in the discussion because you don't have my consent for such a section title. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
For god's sake, how about change this lousy map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why link to Blagoevgrad Province (Bulgarian Macedonia) is completely removed?[edit]

I am making the following edit to the article:

Macedonia may refer to:

But my edits are reverted. How comes? Bulgarian part of Macedonia is already presented in the map's picture, but the link to it's article is missing for no reason... -- (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian Macedonia is not a separate entry in the list because the name is never used with that specific meaning in English. When an English speaker says "Macedonia" (by itself, without a qualifier), they mean either (a) the Republic of Macedonia (by far the most frequent use), (b) the ancient kingdom (about one third as often), (c) the whole geographical region (mostly in discussions of earlier 20th century history), (d) the Greek province. Nobody ever uses the name on its own to refer specifically and exclusively to the Bulgarian part to the exclusion of the others. Bulgarian Macedonia is simply a part of meaning (c), but it is not a separate meaning of its own. Fut.Perf. 02:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realized that. Thought I could include Blagoevgrad province in the list as it is shown already on the map which is used by the article.-- (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It may not belong the the main may refer to section, but it does belong on this disambiguation page, under Other places.
Sowlos (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No, not there, either. Every entry on every disambiguation page "X (disambiguation)" on Wikipedia must be an entity that is called "X", all by itself. Not things that are parts of X, related to X, aspects of X, or perspectives on X, but things that are called X. Pirin Macedonia is a part of Macedonia, but it is not called Macedonia. See WP:DABNOT. Fut.Perf. 12:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Yeah now sounds logical to me why Blagoevgrad isn't included here. Glad to know. By the way, please avoid using the term Pirin Macedonia in talk pages. Use Bulgarian Macedonia or or the official Blagoevgrad Province instead. Pirin Macedonia is a term associated with the irredentist United Macedonia drill and from what I know, the use of this term is promoted by the nationalist VMRO-DPMNE :S -- (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation without illustrations[edit]

@Taivo, I agree with your comments above and the map seems fine to me. My point is that the map is a recent addition to an otherwise busy disambiguation page which has stood the test of time without any visuals for at least 8 years. The map gives undue emphasis on one aspect of the term. Such a map has its place in the article Macedonia (region). Looking around other disambiguation pages I have not seen any illustrations or maps. Therefore, it seems that in keeping with wikipedia practice the map has no place here. Politis (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The page has had a map since 16 April 2009. I wouldn't call that a recent addition. There are overlapping geographical senses of the term, which arguably are the most important uses. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates for guidance relevant to disambiguation pages. I think a map here does help aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question. olderwiser 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the map has been there for years without any objections or problems. Because we are dealing with overlapping geographical regions, it does seem quite helpful, whether other disambiguation pages have one or not. WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Taivo (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Very useful. I'm not going to start suggesting that we include a Macedonian salad, or for the article Congo (disambiguation) an image of the ship :-). Politis (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing Republic of Macedonia to official name "FYROM"[edit]

Changing Republic of Macedonia to official name "FYROM" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

See the yellow box at the very top of this page. Fut.Perf. 09:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, but article Macedonia refers on Fyrom which refers on Self-proclaimed republic of macedonia, so is also correct

You have been blocked; you are not allowed to edit further today. If you continue editing through new IPs, this page will be protected to stop you. Fut.Perf. 09:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Shouldn't this redirect to the Republic of Macedonia article. I mean, there is only one country in the world named 'Macedonia,' and as I am very well aware of the naming dispute, most sources, literature, and news agencies call the country 'Macedonia,' by its constitutional name. Also, I think it has been recognized by this name by most UN countries. And furthermore, we have lost of cases like this on Wikipedia, just look at Kosovo, it's a redirect to the Republic of Kosovo page and not a disambiguation. - Phill24th (talk). 14:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This was the topic of a rather big debate in 2009, with an Arbcom-instigated formal RfC that resulted in the present solution. A proposal roughly equivalent to yours had considerable support back then but lost out by some margin against the present status quo (see WP:NCMAC as well as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles for the preceding discussion). This could certainly be subjected to review at this point, but it would probably require a rather substantial discussion. Fut.Perf. 15:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There is only one country in the world named 'Georgia', as well as a subnational entity (US state) named 'Georgia'. In that case, too, Georgia is a disambiguation page. In the case of 'Macedonia', there are even more well-known referents, including the ancient Kingdom, the modern region, etc. A disambiguation page seems like a reasonable solution. And there are more productive things to do on WP, I think, than to re-open this discussion. --Macrakis (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but when you say 'Georgia' in English, I think, you most probably would think of the US state just because of that impact and influence of Western culture. And when you compare it like that, in other languages and nations I don't think you would have the same problem with 'Georgia' as you would have with 'Macedonia,' if you'll allow me to have a global non-biased approach on the issue. The other thing is, that the American state of Georgia is an autonomous, mostly internally self-governing part of the United States, whereas the Greek province is a centralized region and you can't compare that with a sovereign and independent nation. An NO, I don't think that a disambiguation page is a solution in this case, because it's just confusing, the whole case is confusing.You're just mixing in the discussion ancient kingdoms and geographical regions, which all is fine, but what I know is that when you say 'Macedonia' you mostly mean the country, and only a fraction of times does that turn out differently. In conclusion, I am well aware that this discussion has been discussed before, but the final consensus, as far as I'm considered, was made poorly. Now, if you think there are more productive thing you could do on Wikipedia, go on, nobody's trying to push you into the discussion. But i think, if not many, then some, Wikipedians would agree with me that we need to repeal the discussion and come with a new bold solution to the problem. - Phill24th (talk). 17:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's that clear what 'Macedonia' refers to. Probably depends on the context.
Re Georgia, you seem to be suggesting that Georgia is equivalent to Georgia (U.S. State), which it is not, despite the "impact and influence of Western [? meaning 'American'?] culture".
Enough. --Macrakis (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Macrakis. Also but what I know is that when you say 'Macedonia' you mostly mean the country, and only a fraction of times does that turn out differently This is purely an opinion, and completely unsourced at that, with which I disagree completely. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If you consider that unsourced and biased, than couldn't you find sources claiming your case, and objecting mine. - Phill24th (talk). 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair point but the WP:BURDEN is on you for making it originally. I am not going to relitigate thousands of years of Macedonian history or the use of the term "Macedonia" in modern sources or reinvent the Macedonian wheel. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Phill24th, you are smart enough to know that you're not going to convince any of the Greek editors that the most common meaning of "Macedonia" is the modern Republic, and you're not going to convince a third to a half of the non-Greek editors either. I actually agree with you, but WP:ARBMAC was a long and hard-fought process yielding WP:MOSMAC. None of us who were involved in ARBMAC want to take the time and effort to go through that again because we know exactly what will happen--the resulting compromise/consensus will look almost exactly like MOSMAC. I suggest you spend your Wikipedia time on something that will be more productive. --Taivo (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Dr.K., I don't know what you're talking about with 'reinvent[ing] the Macedonian wheel,' but I'm not talking about the Macedonian history, I'm not talking about 'thousands of years,' or anything that may conflict with historical or rational fact. What I am talking about is, that, per guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME), Wikipedia prefers the name most commonly used by the majority English-language reliable WP:SOURCES, a name that is the 'most recognizable and the most natural,' and for this case 'Macedonia' is the most recognizable and natural name for the Republic of Macedonia. If you want I will provide the sources, but you live on the planet Earth, and I think are well aware that 'Macedonia' is the most used name by English-language sources official and non-official for the country. - Phill24th (talk). 22:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
By "reinventing the Macedonian wheel" I mean reopening the WP:NCMAC debate. All the points you are making have been made before. But you knew that all along because the other two editors here have already told you that. I am not going to go through the arduous steps of an old debate that has been settled. It's just a WP:WASTEOFTIME. And no reason to ping me. I watch the page. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't much of a response to my statement, you probably only read the first sentence. Anyway, I know I'm not going to change your mind Dr.K. so I'm just gonna stop trying. But this isn't about you, i's about Wikipedia guidelines and principles, not just nationalist ideals implemented into the site. - Phill24th (talk). 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
not just nationalist ideals implemented into the site. More cheap AGF-defying Greek bashing. I am not going to give you another reply here. I have already done so in Taivo's page. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Phill24th, you don't seem to understand that WP:CONSENSUS supersedes WP:COMMONNAME, especially when that consensus is the result of a major discussion by many editors on both sides of the issue (links above). No one is interested in waking a sleeping dragon. You're going to get nowhere with pushing this. Find something on Wikipedia where you can actually make a contribution rather than just beating your head against a wall as you will be doing here. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you guys are going to ignore WP:COMMONNAME, can you please fix all the incorrect links to this disambiguation page? Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've been doing that every now and then, ever since 2009. You are right of course that they tend to pop up quite frequently. Are there new ones again? I thought I fixed the latest batch just a few weeks ago. Fut.Perf. 19:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I just mentioned it since I followed a bad link to this article (which I've already fixed). Glad to know you're on top of it :) Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


I have also read very carefully the "Wikipedia's Naming policy for the region of Macedonia". (User Page: Silent Resident). I believe that people throughout the world, know the terms "Republique of Macedonia", and "Greek Macedonia", and these must be mentioned on the map. The term Macedonia(region), is vague, completely hypothetical, and the borders cannot be mentioned, because in fact nobody knows which the borders were. (Unless somebody hopes that all the so-called Macedonians living in diferrent coutries want to form an independent state with this name). The article Macedonia (region) can be mentioned , allthough I don't believe that the article is related with Wikipedia and his policies. The map by Georgiev for the possible spoken languages in the region 3000 ago, reminds me one article of F.Schachermeyr "Grundlagen und Entstehung der Minoischen Hochkultur". Schachermeyr is regarded as a proponent of scientific racism during the Third Reich.Jestmoon(talk) 21:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The current map is the result of discussion and consensus (see here for example as well as the two sections on this page labelled "Map"). Before changing it, you'll have to build a new consensus. I, for one, think the current map is just fine. --Taivo (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Any threads relating to the title of the article will be speedily archived."[edit]

Can the above phrase be reworked so that it complies with the clarification of 2013? Alternatively it may just not be reinstated and any renaming requests can be handled on a case by case basis. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that I did it myself, but

this was pretty clear. I rewrote it above, but the consensus there by the arbiters was pretty open-and-shut. Red Slash 04:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't share your interpretation. The arbs also mentioned that the move requests were not supposed to be frivolous or frequent. This should be reflected in any notice. Please wait until other editors offer their own comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Though I will say this was a good faith proposal and votes simply saying that we decided on a consensus years ago were not of much value – after all, consensus can change. Perhaps if this issue is revisited in the future it should be done as a broader-style RfC that is widely advertised. I can imagine that, considering the ArbCom case of several years ago, a lot of people would not be comfortable with a relatively small number of editors making a call on this in a fairly out of the way RM. Jenks24 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

– Nomination rationale follows. Red Slash 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The primary topic in the English language for the term "Macedonia" is the independent republic thereof, which is frequently referred to as simply "Macedonia" (and occasionally referred to by other names which have been imposed upon it). There is no other use of "Macedonia" that is nearly as noteworthy or notable; a quick Google News search shows nothing but the country, many times not even using the phrase "Republic of Macedonia". You want to know something crazy? Even when excluding the word "republic", news results almost exclusively refer to the country. [4] (I did find a reference to a mayoral scandal in Macedonia, Ohio on the second page there!)

Common name is a big deal at Wikipedia, and we also like looking at page views.

  • Macedonia (disambiguation page) : 52,016 views in the last ninety days. This is enormous for a disambiguation page. This already proves that too many people are getting to this disambiguation page, meaning they're typing in "Macedonia" and expecting to get an article. While it's impossible to know for sure which one, we can certainly look at the pageviews and see...

Pretty clear to me. When our readers are looking for something entitled "Macedonia", they're looking more than 3/4 of the time for the country (barring some scattered minority uses, including, yes, that tiny Ohio town with the sketchy mayor situation).

I can see three large potential problems, and would like to talk about them first. First off, you can argue that "Republic of Macedonia" or even "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the official name of the country. But we don't call countries by their official names on Wikipedia. Seriously. Look. The only other country we currently do that with is the Republic of Ireland, which has lots of unique issues that no other country has. Other than that, man, pick a country (China! North Korea! Haiti! East Timor!) and we literally always prefer the common name. Now, because Greece was a member of the UN before Macedonia got to be, Greece forced Macedonia to enter the UN under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Fortunately, as Greece holds no legal sway here, we're under no obligation to follow their lead.

Second: you might be thinking, hey, isn't there a restriction of requested moves for Macedonia-related articles? I'm glad you asked; no, there isn't. Trust me, I made absolutely sure that a reasoned, respectful proposal would be within the rules.

Third and finally, you might wonder, "okay, I concede that the word Macedonia in the year 2015 clearly usually means the Republic, and so by WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, it should redirect there, but I'm not convinced that we should shorten the name of the republic for precision's sake." That's okay! I politely disagree, but that's okay! We can have that discussion later, if you'd rather, and just focus on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion right now.

But--and I'll close with this--we have five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for this encyclopedia. Titles must be not only precise (within the constrains of primary topic, or else you'd be looking at article titles like Apple (fruit) or Paris (France))... but also concise, consistent (aka resembling literally every other country's article on Wikipedia besides one), natural (ie the way that a vast majority of news articles refer to it), and recognizable (clearly no issue, since most people are able to tell the difference between an ancient kingdom and a modern-day country, and news articles reflect this by using a straight "Macedonia" to refer to the country). I believe that all five criteria point to the name of the country called "Macedonia" being at Macedonia. I am eager to hear your thoughts and get your perspective.

Thank you so much for your time. Red Slash 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My original should have been "Comment", but it was late. And my thanks to Future Perfect for correcting my link. While I agree with his comments, I don't think that anything has changed after six years. The evidence for using "Macedonia" for the Republic was strong then and it's still strong. But I don't see anything that might have changed the strong opposition of Greek editors. I could be pleasantly surprised, however (but I doubt it). --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (reserving further judgment for later): while I would agree with many of the proposer's arguments, one thing is missing. The Google counts cited are from Google News, i.e. they are exclusively from present-day contexts. I think it's a given that in these kinds of contexts the modern state will be far and away the predominant topic, but one important argument in the old debate was that this may not be the case in other (e.g. academic and historical) contexts. It would be instructive to complement the Google News results with Google Books results here: on the first page of search results alone [5], I find 5 titles dealing with ancient Macedon and 5 dealing with the modern republic. If we were an encyclopedia of current events, the decision to have the republic at "Macedonia" would be a no-brainer, but since we have to balance our treatment according to the expectations of many different disciplines and groups of readers, the question of weight is a tricky one that may not be answered easily with pure counting. – To @Taivo: I don't think the proposal is invalid for "violating MOSMAC". We clarified some time ago that the MOSMAC results are open to the principle of "consensus can change", and after 6 years (yes, it's really been that long!), it is certainly legitimate to gauge the possibility of a review. This RM strikes me as a well-presented and well-thought-out proposal that deserves to be judged on its merits. I hope you don't mind me fixing your link to the Arb decisison. Fut.Perf. 06:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. I am glad to see this move disputed on its merits. I would like to mention that some time ago, China referred only to the "ancient culture" and its ongoing impact--a few years back, there was a requested move, which was contentious if I recall correctly, but the article People's Republic of China was duly moved over the original China article, due to the fact that modern countries are more relevant to an encyclopedia. We obviously have to discuss historical stuff, and that's good! But we're not a history book. Red Slash 17:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. We have a clear precedent for why the country's article is at Republic of Macedonia, and I don't feel like being the one to break this precedent. ONR (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If we're discussing, then oppose otherwise as Fut.Perf. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MOSMAC has held up well and is a good compromise, marked by that most typical feature of good compromises: it leaves neither side entirely satisfied. It also addresses the plain fact that, to put it bluntly, the Republic of Macedonia simply isn't the unambiguous primary topic for the term "Macedonia", no matter how hard it tries to make it otherwise. I see no reason to change what isn't broken. Constantine 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It took long debates and a a panel of three admins to determine consensus and develop MOSMAC. This tedious and lengthy process has stood the test of time and achieved widespread consensus which has kept the peace in this contested area of the encyclopedia for many years. MOSMAC achieves a fair balance in this onomatological dispute and should be kept. As Constantine also mentions the Republic of Macedonia is not the unambiguous primary topic for Macedonia. There is also the good point made by Future regarding the balance and weight we have to give to the use of the term "Macedonia" which transcends mere Google searching for news headlines since we are an encyclopedia and not a news organisation. This move proposal looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. MOSMAC has already solved the problem through long discussions and through establishing long-lasting and widely accepted consensus which transcends nationality barriers and should be kept. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The page view data given above demonstrates that the modern country is the primary topic. The large number of views for the disambiguation page shows that the current setup is confusing many readers. CMOS recommends the World Factbook for country names. They give the name of this country as simply "Macedonia."[6] "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," according to WP:COMMONNAME. See here and here. I take it that the current title represents a peace-making compromise between "FYROM" and "Macedonia." I don't see a way to justify in terms of our naming criteria. Fernando Safety (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
We justify it by WP:CONSENSUS. You will never convince the very sincere Greek editors to accept Macedonia as the name of the article. Dr.K. is a very sincere and very good editor, whom I have a great deal of respect for. We usually agree on Wikipedia matters, but in this case we do not--and probably never will. We see the evidence from very different points of view. We could spend our Wikipedia editing time arguing, perhaps edit warring, over the what to call the article about Macedonia. But per WP:MOSMAC we have a working compromise that has proven remarkably stable for six years. If you read MOSMAC carefully, you will notice that "Republic of Macedonia" only applies to the article's title. Otherwise, "Macedonia" is what we call the modern country, virtually without exception. It is also the first selection on the Macedonia disambiguation page. While I would prefer that the article on the modern country be the first destination for anyone searching for "Macedonia", it's simply not going to happen realistically, no matter how many other Wikipedia policies you cite. (I assure you all the policy arguments were made--over and over--during WP:ARBMAC2, to no avail.) You have hit the nail on the head that "Republic of Macedonia" is a compromise. But it is a working compromise and that's more important to Wikipedia than exact, legalistic, and inflexible adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. It allows Dr.K. and myself to remain on very friendly terms as usually allied editors. We get a lot more work done this way. --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you're being held hostage. Fernando Safety (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it sounds like I'm not a rigidly legalistic wikilawyer who doesn't recognize the value of cooperation and compromise when two groups of equally sincere and skilled editors view the issue from different perspectives. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not even close to the what "recentism" is all about, at least not as the term is defined in the WP:RECENTISM essay (which is not about how to select a primary topic). The modern country is already old enough to have listings in various published encyclopedias. In fact, Britannica 1911 has a lengthy "Macedonia" article on this region. If the modern country gets more page views, then it is more notable, at least to our readers. That's who we are writing for. Fernando Safety (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MOSMAC, so as to maintain the status quo. The "long-term significance" clause of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, together with the fact that the ancient kingdom and region have had a far longer history and significance, argues against the county as the primary topic (the phenomenon described at WP:RECENTISM being rlelvant here). Paul August 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The modern Greek region of Macedonia within the borders of Greece is larger by area and apparently more populous than the country Macedonia. Khestwol (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose reopening this can of worms. We've already had ARBCOM rule on this. It took years to get over it last time. -- (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I move that this should procedurally be a request for comments instead of a standard move request, due to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 and years of Macedonia mess, as it involves changing an ARBCOM determination. -- (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have all interested parties been informed of this discussion? (WP-ROM, WP-GREECE, WP:ClassicalGreeceRome, WP:Geography, WP:Politics ? ; the article talk pages for ancient, Greek, and Republican topics ? WPMOSMAC talk page? ) Shouldn't we drop a note to the talk pages of ARBMAC and ARBMAC2? -- (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: With regards to the second requested move about Republic of Macedonia: that article's move to Macedonia (country) is nevertheless possible (per consistency with Georgia (country)). Macedonia (country) already redirects there. It is more WP:CONCISE and still distinguishes the country from the Macedonia (Greece) region. Khestwol (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find Fut.Perf.'s point compelling: that non-news sources give a different weight to the two primary readings of the term, and that the disambiguation page reflects this reality, as well as being a successful compromise for the past six years. I also agree that it is appropriate that we revisit the consensus periodically, and see whether it's shifted significantly. My own sense is that it has not, and that the success in avoiding acrimony re the name is worth preserving for now. Mundart (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I agree with much of what the proponents of the move are writing concerning "commonname", "recentism", etc., they miss the main point and refuse to address it: One of the most important policies, perhaps THE most important policy, of Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is really nothing more than a well-discussed compromise that leads to a "common mind". There is simply no need to continue to wikilawyer this, from either point-of-view. No other policy than WP:CONSENSUS need be referred to here. Consensus on this topic is more firmly established than for the vast majority of other topics. The discussion that led to agreement is enshrined in WP:ARBMAC2. The agreement itself is explicated in WP:MOSMAC. For six years, this agreement has proven to be a good, working consensus. Edit wars over the naming of Macedonia, both in titles and in text, have ceased. It is true that consensus can be and should be revisited now and then, and changed if circumstances warrant, but it is also true that consensus should not be abandoned lightly. In this case, it should be clear that 1) nothing in the real world has changed over the last six years (Greece still adamantly maintains its self-proclaimed copyright claim over the name "Macedonia") and 2) there is overwhelming support for maintaining the existing consensus. In other words, despite all the bandwidth to be expended by the very small minority of editors who want a change here, nothing will change and the existing consensus as described at WP:MOSMAC will stand. --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. But first I'd like to salute Red Slash on the proposal which is evidently in very good faith and certainly with merit reading the opening description. It is a nice thought, of that there is no doubt! Anyhow, I'd like to address issues which have been overlooked, even by others to oppose - and this has nothing to do with any nationalist tendency. First of all, constitutional name/short name. When the country (call it what you will) is reduced to the "common short form", it doesn't quite bring it to the level of those specified, but individual mention of Macedonia tends to be similar to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is pruned down to two syllables, "Britain". Similarly, sources may refer to Congo if referring to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite another country being permanently labelled Congo for short. Additionally, any of four countries (Republic of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Papua New Guinea, Equatorial Guinea) may be called Guinea. If however you do check the sources that speak of Macedonia as a country, I very much doubt there is one to use the term indiscriminately without on first mention specifying RoM or FYRoM. So the "Macedonia" mention would be a case of "from here on". Furthermore, neither FYR nor Republic of can be transformed into a demonym, so Macedonian will stand just as British broadly defines everything from UKGB&NI. But above all, the nation so love the constitutional name that the local term Republika is cemented to Makedonija (in south Slavic languages, we say, the Republic Macedonia as if to mean, the Republic that is Macedonia). The is comparable to Czech Republic, and Dominican Republic, and maybe Central African Republic. In addition, whether for positive or negative reasons, Macedonian citizens proudly boast the Macedonia region lying within Bulgaria and Greece, and this without irredentist conceptions because Bulgaria and Greece also proudly boast their chunks of the zone - suffice it to say that Macedonia per se, truly is a region in every sense of the word. As for search results and views, etc., well this is not surprising, I'm every bit certain that one country will attract more interest than a region of another country, just as more people search for Greece than they do the Pelagonia Statistical Region (in RoM). None of that takes away from the fact that Macedonia is split among various countries, and recognised by all the respective governments as being so. Finally, without qualifiers, the Country cannot export wine or many other products to the EU or other trade blocs because the raw term has been reserved for products of the Greek region, so it is not as simple as Macedonia meaning the Country. --OJ (TALK) 11:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Is the claim that "Republic of" is used as a disambiguator in the real world? If so, I have say, I don't see it. Here is an AP story. It's "Macedonia" all the way through, no "Republic of", not even once. In my !vote, I already gave three actual encyclopedia citations to support the claim that just plain "Macedonia" is the encyclopedic form of the name. Fernando Safety (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am sure there may be some, though there are those that combine such as here[7]. But like I said, the term is cemented (and largely by the choosing of the nation itself) for this state much more than you'll find with Republic of Bulgaria or Republic of Croatia. The acceptance of Macedonia to refer to a region is rife, and nobody can se sure exactly what a lay researcher is interested in when he inserts the word "Macedonia" into Google Search. --OJ (TALK) 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I strongly disagree with the proposer's rationale, and would in fact say that the Greek historical region/kingdom is the primary topic in English. Very few people have heard of Slavic Macedonia, but many have heard of Alexander the Great and ancient Greek Macedonia. Purely from an anglophone perspective, the Greek entity is much more well known, and should be the primary topic. The state is more commonly known as "FYR Macedonia". RGloucester 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
While I completely agree with you in opposing this for (for other reasons, however), you are incorrect to state that the state is more commonly known as "FYR Macedonia". That is simply wrong. Look in most modern atlases, modern media reports, etc. and all you will find is "Macedonia", without even a footnote. The data was accumulated during WP:ARBMAC2, but it was certainly compelling. That's one of the major reasons why this article isn't "FYR Macedonia", but is "Republic of Macedonia"--the evidence of using "Macedonia" for the country is simply overwhelming. The issue of whether "Macedonia" is ambiguous between the modern state and Alexander's empire is a different, and important, issue. But the modern state is far more commonly called simply "Macedonia" than anything else. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose We went over this very thoroughly several years ago, the evidence regarding which topic was primary was scrutinized extremely thoroughly, and we came up with the consensus outlined at WP:NCMAC. I don't see that anything has changed since then. The OP's search is inherently flawed since it relies on news sites, which will of course favor the country as opposed to the ancient kingdom, and page view statistics are notoriously unreliable. Athenean (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The opposition to this proposal is not from fans of ancient history. It’s from Greeks who think that the modern Greek region should be primary –- although few people outside Greece are aware that such a region even exists. Fernando Safety (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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


@TaivoLinguist: I'm glad you said something. I work on lots of dab pages; it never occurred to me that one could be contentious. I was already 45 minutes into the next edit when I saw your revert. Now that my head's out of the sand, I think I'll back off. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


I admit that the term Republic of Macedonia is a reality. However the term Greek Macedonia ( or Macedonia(Greece))is also a reality, and it is not mentioned on the map. I believe that the map emphasizes one particular part of the region Macedonia and it does not comply with the needed neutrality of Wikipedia.Jestmoon(talk) 15:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The map only labels sovereign nations. Greek Macedonia is not a sovereign entity, it is part of Greece. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The map does not include regional names. Just country names. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't aware of this when I edited. I edited the picture because it is using the 19th century definition of the term-- also the one commonly used in the modern period. But the region was defined differently in different eras-- indeed in one it noted a region of Thrace with no overlap at all, see Macedonia (theme) etc. So it should be specified. People familiar with different eras (Ancient, Medieval, Modern) would be inclined to use very different definitions of the term.--Yalens (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The wording in the caption and throughout this page has been worked out through very careful discussion and negotiation and is the result of WP:CONSENSUS. As you are no doubt aware, Macedonia is a sensitive subject for many editors and changing even the caption text without building a new consensus for the change is not going to be successful. This wording has been stable for several years and stability in articles relating to Macedonia is highly prized. --Taivo (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
There are several places where the map has been discussed in the past. I believe that this was the last major one although there are also discussions previously on this page. --Taivo (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, can't we at least specify its the modern usage of the term? While it is true that most who have interest in the term are interested in the modern era, not specifying this can confuse people interested in ancient and medieval periods. Obviously I welcome the opinion of anyone on this matter. That discussion is from six years ago and isn't addressing my concern as far as I can tell.--Yalens (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the issue of time period was mentioned throughout the debate over what map to use. It was felt that the boundary shown on the map was general enough to be useful. It was specifically decided that having multiple lines on the map to cover different time periods was not desirable. I would suggest initiating a RfC to judge the opinion of the community. The line on the map was never intended to be a particular firm, fixed moment in time, but a generalized indication. Therefore any attempt to get detailed I will personally oppose, but will yield to consensus if an RfC convincingly shows that I'm alone in my opinion. As I said earlier, all issues surrounding Macedonia are subject to strong debate and having a stable map and caption here for such a long period of time is a testament to its usefulness and community acceptance. --Taivo (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Yalens, it is obvious that if a map has to display the most commonly referred places today on the Disambiguation page, these should be the country borders, and the region's approximate geographical borders as how they became to be known today and which are quite stable and everlasting. To include the many different past definitions of Macedonia's borders by various scholars doesn't offer the readers anything practical, unless they are looking on Macedonia region's history - and there is already an article dedicated to this. --SILENTRESIDENT 08:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
SilentResident just reminded me of the biggest reason why we don't want to get too specific on this page--it's not the article, it's a disambiguation page. It's here to help quickly guide readers on to the next step in their journey. The map(s) at Macedonia (region) must be precise, of course. But the point of this map is just broad reference, not specific information. --Taivo (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! --SILENTRESIDENT 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
SilentResident TaivoLinguist I never proposed to (as SR seems to think I have) include the many different past definitions of Macedonia's borders. However the fact is that this map portrays modern Macedonia's borders and that should be mentioned. Almost all the people involved in these debates seem primarily interested in the modern region's boundaries, but as a result, on this map at least, it eternalizes the name as applying to a region whose frontiers were only designated in the early modern era. Again, this must be specified for the sake of informativeness. Doing so does not imply mention or enumeration of all the past definitions. It is a mere 23 characters -- "19th century definition". On the other hand, I have better things to do than argue about 23 characters so I respect if you guys disagree with me here. --Yalens (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, btw, please don't use "consensus" as an argument as it's kind of a great way to avoid engaging with what I'm actually saying. Not conducive to actual discussion.--Yalens (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I will always refer to "consensus" because it is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. In Balkans articles, especially those dealing with Macedonia, consensus and stability are things to be cherished. You have to remember that this page is not the primary article page. It is a broad guidance page only. If a reader thinks that this map is definitive of "Macedonia" in any way whatsoever, that is their problem. Adding any kind of picky qualifier simply begs the question for the reader, "But what if I want X and not Y?" (Even though they will find the information at precisely the same place.) You have simply confused the issue. It's a signpost at a crossroads only here. A sign leading to Chicago from Missouri doesn't bother to specify whether the road leads to south Chicago or north Chicago. That is only for signs much closer to the target. This sign is in Missouri--showing the reader to Macedonia (region) is quite sufficient to get the reader to the location he or she wants to be and a map that shows the region of Macedonia as encompassing Macedonia, Greece and a slice of Bulgaria without specifying a particular date is quite sufficient and broad enough to get everyone where they want to be--and that isn't here. --Taivo (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yalens, I understand your point in the original post of yours. Just I don't think the fact that the map or the caption isn't too detailed or specific, can be an issue, as it, in my view at least, is a fine way for the readers to be pointed towards the most commonly sought articles related to Macedonia which is a notorious term for having caused so much severe semiological confusion among readers, especially the Macedonian Republic, the Macedonia region, the Greek Macedonia, and the Ancient Macedonia which all are distinct terms to experienced readers, but confusing to newcomers. The map's purpose is exactly that: to make some basic things clear to the inexperienced readers. To add more specific captions just because it happened that the borders were different in past times or moved (i.e. Theme), are not the Disambiguation page's concern as far as I know. Taivo's example with the signpost nails it exactly. --SILENTRESIDENT 21:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. And indeed, the non-static nature of consensus is also a principle of Wikipedia. But here on second thought the map is really fine.--Yalens (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)